to higher expectation of decency than liberals
Excellent short article by Walter Williams ! 
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy. 
Posted on 12/18/2002 1:00:40 AM PST by JohnHuang2
During World War II, ex-Ku Klux Klansman, now U.S. senator, Robert Byrd vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Just a couple of years ago, Byrd lectured us on the floor of the Senate that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." I wonder whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.
San Francisco's esteemed mayor Willie Brown once described a successful legislative battle this way: "We beat those old white boys fair and square."
Spike Lee said in disapproval of interracial marriages: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."
The National Association of Black Social Workers drafted a position paper calling white adoptions of black children "cultural genocide." They warned against "transculturation ... when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence."
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager, called Republicans "white boys" who seek to "exclude, denigrate and leave behind."
At a celebration for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said that Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in his 1948 presidential campaign "and, if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."
Which among the above statements are the most racist, which have received the most media coverage and which caused the most angst? Clearly, Lott's statement received the most media coverage and created the most angst, but it doesn't begin to qualify as the most racist.
You say: "Williams, that's different. High officials shouldn't honor and praise racists or ex-racists." Then what about Bill Clinton's acknowledged political mentors – former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright and former Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus – who were both rabid segregationists? Yet the former president highly praises Fulbright and bestowed upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award.
By the way, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled, "The Southern Manifesto," condemning the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education and defending segregation. That's a bit more recent than Thurmond's run for the White House. Does Clinton's praise of Fulbright mean that he supported "The Southern Manifesto," just as the assertion that Lott's praise of Thurmond means he supported Thurmond's segregationist stand in 1948? If so, why not also condemn Clinton?
I have several possible theories on the responses to Lott's rather stupid remarks – stupid in the context of our politically correct world.
My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals. In other words, it's like behavior that's tolerated in the case of children but ostracized when adults do the same thing. That theory might also explain why racist statements made by blacks are excused.
Another theory is that since 9-11 and President Bush's public popularity, both appointed and unappointed black leaders have had no platform and been paid no attention. Lott's gaffe gives them platform, voice and mission.
Finally, the Democrats, having lost all branches of national government in the recent elections, are desperate to get something on Bush and the Republicans, and Trent Lott's statement is the answer to their prayers.
And exactly what is the problem with that? The Dems immolated themselves with their defense of the Clintons, and now stand for nothing but power. So of course you cannot shame them. Having higher standards means we might occassionally lose a seat in the short term, but we make large-scale gains in the long term.
Excellent short article by Walter Williams !
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Conservatives and Republicans must stand up to these double standards and race baiting tactics. They've been employed by the liberal establishment forever and in many cases have unfairly characterized and labeled folks on the rightwing, as bigots and racists. It's got to stop.
I have no interest in going to DU. I avoid that like the plague.
AFA me being "racist," I don't think i have to defend myself on this one. The R-word is the last refuge for those who can't argue the issues on their merits.
Mein Schwein Kann Fleigen! 'Pod
Your are correct, partially. An oxymoron is a term that contradicts itself like Jumbo shrimp.
I think you wanted to accuse me of using a redundancy sort of like saying Sahara Desert (Sahara is a word that means desert). I would have to plead guilty. Facism is by its very nature right wing. Of course all political ideologies tend to blur once you get to the extremes. It ususually invovles mass ostracism leading to mass killing.
Anyway, we are digressing.
Should the Republicans change their policies
of course not, I certainly never made that suggestion
Are there no rank and file americans who vote Dem who are "racists"?
Of course there are, espceially in the reverse racism sort of way. As far as you traditional anit-black bigotry is concerned, however, your likely to find more in the GOP camp, and naturally even more behind Buchannan.
You are 100% right that in our very large nation racists attitudes will always exist. I did not say that people were not entitled to these attitudes. Nor did I wish they would disappear.
My argument is actually almost purely political. I am saying that the Republican party platform and values appeal to most Americans. It is the party that represents what most Americans think. The problem is that it has not been inclusive enough to attract those minorities that are making up an increasingly large percentage of our population.
Thus, purging the party leadership of those individuals who have not moved on from an era long-past (during which racists attitudes were acceptable in the GOP) is a very good thing for the party and for America.
Lott is merely a sacrificial lamb.
I am glad republicans are held to a high standard. It only makes us better, tougher. Democrats have lost their way by failing to punish their racist miscreants (or other miscreants). Lott is not fit to lead us. As long as we hold ourselves to a high standard, we will never be the embarassement to our god, country, families or our own sense of well being the way the democrats are.
During this time period the Republican party was also the party of the left and the Demcracts the right.
How much of this do you simply fabricate? Hopefully you can find others who agree with you to write email... in german. Holiday wishes from all in the political science dept.
Oh really? Do you care to back that up. I don't feel the necessity because you basically already made my point for me. And, since facism had its two main examples in Europe, I would be thrilled to hear where it has been implemented as a left-wing philosophy.
I will, however, repeat what I already wrote which is that at its extremes, political ideologies all start to look the same. Or do you care to disagree on that too?
So, you tell me what extreme right-wing American ideologues think and how it differs from facism. I know what I am talking about and you seem to as well. But, I haven't a clue where you are coming from.
Where did you study history?
Civil Rights legislation came to the floor between "1850's and 1950's". Tell us about it.
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.