Posted on 07/09/2004 10:17:41 AM PDT by BushisTheMan
"Not language I'd use, . . ."
Me either, which is pretty much why I hadn't thought of it for awhile.
Granted, sponsorship of the bills was all well and good. The filibusters conducted by that same democRAT party, though, could have easily prevented their passage.
"Not really. Many black leaders -- mainly black pastors -- took offense to this comparison, and were very vocal."
Eventually, a couple of days after that comparision was being bandied about, they did raise hell. I was suggesting the black community was shocked, and baffled by the Democrats use of the comparision.
You are correct how it ended up, and I did catch that comment about riding with the KKK. What African Americans seem to be realizing is a Liberal can't change his or her mind, because their ego won't allow the admission of a mistake.
Have a great weekend.
Right now there are no black republicans in the House or Senate. Since reconstruction there have been two black senators: Ed Brooke (R-MASS) and Carol Mosley Brown (D-ILL). There have been very few black republicans in the House with JC Watts being a notable one. Currently there are 39 members of the Black caucus--all Dems.
You've nailed the Liberal mindset. A liberal's inability to change his/her/its mind because their ego won't allow the admission of a mistake is a description of bondage.
Got my facts all mixed up. Been a busy week.
BTW, have you seen this thread? It posts a news report with this info:
Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, D-Los Angeles, canceled a news conference today with civil rights groups after learning that the girl subjected to Riordan's joke was white, not African-American.
Hilarious — and oh, so typical of the race-baiting crowd.
And these are blacks who I wouldn't invite to my dinner table.
$710.96... The price of freedom.
I tried that once. I ended up being burned really bad.
$710.96... The price of freedom.
Slight correction. Her name is Carol Mosley Braun, not Brown.
To think that dimwit shares my last name makes my 'fro hurt.
$710.96... The price of freedom.
Sorry, I should know better. After all she was a 2004 Presidential candidate and former Ambassador to New Zealand. In German, Braun is Brown. I am confusing the two languages. LOL.
It's interesting...When Riordan made his comment, these champions of civil rights immediate thought his comments applied to a black child. They're racists, even to their own.
No offense. I knew it was mostly misunderstanding.
When Rush had a caller from E. St. Louis yesterday asking why Bush didn't speak to the NAACP Convention, as I listened, I thought about what I would do if I were Bush.
Obviously, staying away would look like he has nothing to say to them. But going there, as Rush believes, also means the potential of being booed and catcalled.
It dawned on me that the right thing to do is to accept the invitation, show up at the convention and tell them why they are wrong instead of trying to kiss their asses.
Of course, they won't want to hear it. They'll act incensed and use the "R" word and exaggerate what Bush says but...let 'em.
Because, in a bizarre sort of way, Bush has little to lose. Bush has a good record on race relations, even better if one overlooks his opposition to the Affirmative Action case at the University of Michigan. He has brought blacks into the inner circle of his administration more than any other president in our history.
And if I were Bush, I'd bring up the James Byrd ad they ran in 2000 and tell them that such attacks are false, hurtful and divisive.
The news media will go crazy. Some blacks will listen and decide Bush has a point. Others will become further polarized but they weren't going to vote for Bush anyway. And some non-blacks are going to admire the fact that he went to their convention and spoke his mind.
It would be a bold statement. It would be the best venue possible to state exactly where you stand on race and politics. And you can let some of the partisan bigots take all the potshots they want but they will have to acknowledge what Bush said and I think that would be an overall plus. It would illustrate the extremism of some of his opponents in contrast to a sensible position held by the president.
Your thoughts?
Absolutely, and haters — a deep, visceral, mindless hatred that has no basis in today's reality.
My thoughts? If it would happen exactly how you describe it, that would be the improvement on sheer perfection!
I was just glad that he didn't accept the offer. I could only imagine what would be the result of your scenario. Here you would have the President of the United States tactfully laying the wood to the NAACP (that's Certain People). Mfume, Jack$on, Bond, $harpton, et al., deserve a good Scroller whipping anyway.
And he'd be more than right with what he would have to say. He'd talk up his administration by demonstrating the stellar accomplishments and qualifications of Rice, Powell, and Paige. How no blacks had ever attained such high levels of responsiblity under any other administration in our history. And they got these positions not just because they are black, but they are more than qualified. He could then segue into vouchers, how his push for tax cuts helped the entire American economy by showing how the number of black investors has increased exponentially and how they've benefitted from these cuts; traditional family values and his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, how the effort to defeat terrorism protects all Americans by saying that black people died in those planes and in the WTC on 9/11 just like white people did, and on and on.
If he were to do this, the NAACP would lose their minds. But he'd be right. And the things he could say could not be considered pandering. It's just truth telling for what it is.
The cherry on top of this sundae would be that he'd be doing this right in their faces. With a smile, of course.
$710.96... The price of freedom.
Not to mention his nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. Man, it would create a sh*tstorm, but it would be so beautiful to watch and it would make the NAACP look as irrelevant as they truly are.
This would shove the John-Johns back onto Page 3 for a week. Not to mention, even Clinton said we needed a "dialogue on race" and this would surely create one far better than Clinton's photo-op committee did.
Those are not only beautiful words, but also they represent beautiful achievements, real achievements.
I would take it even further. President Bush's faith-based charity proposals benefit the inner-city far more than anything that the Democrats are currently touting. His raises for our military, arguably the most integrated, least racist institution in America, likewise greatly benefits the entire Black community.
And then there is Social Security.
Now, if you are White and male, you are statistically likely to live to be 72 years old. You therefore get to collect about a decade of your Social Security payments (it's your money, that's what is being deducted from each of your regular paychecks, after all - unless you use Senator Edwards' dummy corp tax loophole to avoid such payments) back before you pass away. OK, so far so good.
But if you are a Black male, statistically, you are dead before you ever get to collect any of your Social Security payments back. Nor do you get to pass any of that money on to your heirs. When you die, under current law, Social Security ends...read: your SS money goes back to Uncle Sam, not your own family.
ENTER PRESIDENT BUSH: his plan to privatize Social Security means that even if you die before you can collect your Social Security, you can at least pass the privatized portion of your SS money on to your heirs.
This puts Black families on a more level playing field with White families.
With President Bush's SS plan, both Black and White families get to pass their SS payments/earnings/etc. on to their heirs (well, at least whatever portion gets privatized).
In contrast, under existing law, the White family statistically gets ten years of SS payments that can go into their estate for their children...whereas the Black familiy, statistically, will have no SS payments to add into their estate for their children.
So under existing law, Black children are starting over from scratch each generation, whereas White children will have some of their parents' SS payments passed on to them.
Clearly, the current policy is racist, statistically...and even more clearly, President Bush's SS privatization plan not only levels the generational playing field between races, but moreover, his plan benefits *all* races because more SS assets will be available to be passed on to our heirs.
Naturally, the Democrats are against this sort of racial reform. They can't stand the idea of privatizing Social Security, even in part. Heaven forbid that a Black family gets to pass on part of their Social Security contributions to their heirs...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.