The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
GOP: Response to Reid remark shows double standardWASHINGTON
©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
Login to comment
Correction: The title should read - GOP's response to Reid remark shows double standard
Duh, thats kind of what happens when you have a two party system.
The republicans were glad when Trent Lott retired from the senate. They were tired of Lott a lot.
Democrats want Reid to stay.
Big difference. < :-)
Harry Reid's racist remarks contain (1) the admission that there is a double standard and (2) the understanding that Democrats (including black ones) exploit it all the time:
(Obama has) "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
The real question is why are the democrats so soft on Reid? Lott apologized too and yet the republicans didn't feel that was enough. And the democrats agreed since they screamed for his resignation every second of every day--they weren't about to accept his apology.
So, the republicans have been consistent on this issue--whether it be Lott or Reid. Why have the democrats been such complete and total hypocrites? Because they're democrats.
Unlike the Christmas Day attack on America, notice it took Obama considerably less than 100 hours to publically console Reid.
Saw Feinstein on CBS saying no democrat ever pilloried Sen Lott and Reid apologized so it should be ignored basically.
Harry Reid in 2002 on Trent Lott's Resignation:
"He had no alternative," "If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play."
Barack 0bama on Dec. 12th, 2002 on Trent Lott calling for Lott to resign
"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do ...
"The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
Dianne seems to have a case of DNC-Alzheimers
"Correction: The title should read - GOP's response to Reid remark shows double standard"
Correction: No, it shouldn't. It should read exactly as it reads.
RomeoRamenII just reread your post. You answered everything in it.
Everybody knew that Strom Thurman was a segregationist and that was a portion of his platform. And when he said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Harry Reid said nothing to the level of Trent Lott's level. Trent Lott was saying that keeping blacks suppressed like was done decades ago, would have made a better today. Harry Reid said that some of his attributes would help him become president. < :-)
Heh, good thing for Reid he did not call Obama a liar. He would have been branded a racist for all eternity.
USAFdude: "Correction: The title should read - GOP's response to Reid remark shows double standard"
First comment on this site hits the nail on the head. Bang on, my man. What a party of losers.
Actually, you're wrong too. It should read
"Democrats response to Reid demonstrates obvious double standard."
Molenir - I stand corrected.
smith: "First comment on this site hits the nail on the head"
It's thread, and more like it's another swing and a miss.
sarge: "It's thread, and more like it's another swing and a miss."
Talk about swings and misses, boy did you ever get that idiom wrong. Hit the nail on it's THREAD? Whatever does that mean, my friend? A nail does have a very obvious head, amigo, which you hit when you want to... let's say... drive it home.
Not surprising you are wrong on not only the idiom, but the 'thread' at hand. How's that shoe taste?
sarge: And anyway, USAFdude is still bang on.... or is it 'bang thong'? :)
Molenir: ""Democrats response to Reid demonstrates obvious double standard."
You were crying about this yesterday, and you're still wrong today... or rather than wrong, I should say it's still an off the wall and foolish comparison.
Imagine the howls of outrage from the double standard democrats if Reid had an (R) behind his name.
adaydream: "Harry Reid said nothing to the level of Trent Lott's level. Trent Lott was saying that keeping blacks suppressed like was done decades ago, would have made a better today. Harry Reid said that some of his attributes would help him become president. < :-)"
A very good point, and something most of us said yesterday -- well, most people with common sense. The few others went on and on about how it was the same thing -- much like Molenir and RomeoRamen (one third of the posts on this thread!) ranted and railed about.
The comparisons are ludicrous. I think they're still just upset about Guiliani's idiotic remarks and are misdirecting, as usual.
Who was it that brought up the issue of race in reference to Obama? Can we say it all together, kiddies? "Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada"
If Reid did not support Obama very very early; if Reid did not go to the wall for Obama on health care; if Reid did not apologize immediately; and, if Obama did not accept the apology and consider the case closed, then, maybe a case can be made against Reid.
As it is, the GOP over-react (again) in order to gain political advantage. I used to respect conservatives because they used to bring something to the table. But that was too long ago to matter anymore.
RomeoRamenII: "Who was it that brought up the issue of race in reference to Obama?"
In this article? The GOP, in relation to Reid's inappropriate comment.
I know you're upset about the issue, but the contents of your comment are just plain silly; who is it that's debating who brought up Reid's comment? Who didn't say it was inappropriate? It's the GOP, however, that are making the ludicrous allegories to Trent, and people like yourself that are supporting it with deflection.
Hehehohohaha: "As it is, the GOP over-react (again) in order to gain political advantage. "
Fortunately, it just shows them more for the tools they are.
smith: "Talk about swings and misses, boy did you ever get that idiom wrong. Hit the nail on its THREAD? Whatever does that mean, my friend?"
I meant you should have said "First comment on this THREAD hits the nail on the head. You said "First comment on this SITE hits the nail on the head." Is that clear now? And I'm not your friend.
I think Senator Reid by saying what he said "acted stupidly" when it comes to race issues...Myself.
Well, my many friends, I know what Reid said but it has been taken out of contextualization, by the few remaining supporters here of bush, who was the worst president ever, from the get-go.
Hehehohohaha: "As it is, the GOP over-react (again) in order to gain political advantage."
Bangingly bang-on, bud.I think we ALL know that said over-reaction,in order to gain political advantage, is something only a party of losers would do.Democrats would NEVER,NEVER do such a thing.
What's next is what I wonder. I suppose they will take a fine-toothed nail file to Reid's past utterances and TRY to come here spinning quotes like this
as elitist, or some such over-reaction.Disgusting!
Well, anyways, Barack, who is too wonderful for words, has accepted the apology Reid was FORCED to make and this is just a hurricane in a tea kettle, as we say back in Kingston.
sarge: "I meant you should have said "First comment on this THREAD hits the nail on the head."
Always say what you mean, my friend. And technically this is a site, no? The main page is a homepage, and the others are sites.
"And I'm not your friend."
Oops! Don't pout, amigo. :)
smith... I always say what I mean. I can't help it if you don't get what everyone else gets. And I'm not your amigo either.
There is no double standard. I will explain it as simply as it can be explained. Reid was pointing to the racism of the nation, and he judged the nation and the outcome correctly. Lott was pointing to his own racism. And he was as completely wrong about the outcome as his racism is utterly reprehensible.
Reid has made a mistake for apologizing for this, more so than for saying it. The Republicans think they smell blood, and act accordingly, the same as any shark would. But face it, what he said has truth. Why do think Jesse Jackson did not get the presidential election nomination? He was too "black", and its not Reid's fault it was so, it was the Democratic Party's judgement of America at the time, and I believe they were correct. Don't put Reid on a cross for the sins of America. Don't turn your back on the truth just because its ugly.
Pretty mindless thing to say IMO.
And beides, one more post in bold from ramen will probably be the end of the Democrats for ever.
"one more post in bold from ramen will probably be the end of the Democrats for ever"
Bein' as how Ramen's last 5 posts contained nothing in bold, it seems he's giving the Democrats a little slack, heh heh.
The U.S. democrat leadership are hypocrites. There's Biden calling Obama the "first 'clean' African-American candidate" and now Reid making racist "negro" remarks.
Remember their outrage at Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) who made the remark about Obama as being part of an “elitist-class ... that thinks that they’re uppity"? They were shrieking in a hysterical outrage then, but when one of their own's racism is exposed, they circle the wagons and try to spin it as though it were just an honest mistake. They even go out of their way to treat a KKK grand wizard in their party as a saint.
Howls of laughter perhaps.
Nope. And I live in Georgia.
Did Westmorland resign?
David Duke was never treated as a saint. He was elected as a Republican. (Byrd was never a grand wizard.)
Oh Romeo it must hurt just something terrible, doesn't it. Biden and Reid, both famous for lack of language control, are not political enemies of the President. As one pundit has said, they both have carried water for the President and his policies. So it is hard to imagine them being racist rather than being careless in their speech. Had President Obama been offended, then heads would have rolled, but the only people who are gasping and turning purple are the GOPers - who are overwhelmingly white.
The African-American linguist and conservative commentator, John McWhorter, has written an excellent piece in The New Republic which gives at least five good reasons why Reid said nothing worth apoligizing for. (McWhorter is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank.)
And it isn't over the alleged racism either. Hard to play a race card when all you're holding is jokers.
Gee, maybe both parties have double standards.
An obvious "Uncle Tom"...sheesh Yabits a black Conservative? Don't you hate those people?
"Oh Romeo it must hurt just something terrible"
Oh, Hehehohohaha, it must hurt something terrible to have these Democrats make fools of themselves.
maybe both parties have double standards
Not in this case. When Lott was the republican's problem they dealt with it by dumping him. The truth is the republicans don't put up with racism. The U.S. democrat leadership's response to Reid however proves that racism is their stock and trade.
Unless it's used to justify voting against Obama
"Unless it's used to justify voting against Obama"
More I think about it, the more I see no controversy here. What Harry Reid said in private is what most white Democrats believe, i.e. black people can't compete or be successful unless Democrats help them get a step up.
That is not remotely what he was saying. What he was saying is that the American voter will not elect a black president unless he exudes a certain amount of "whiteness". He is criticizing the American voter. Naturally, the American voter takes offense and seeks to deflect though.
Last I checked David Duke and most KKKers are Republican. So was David Curtiss Stephenson after changing his colors. Any more jokes?
Last I checked ... most KKKers are Republican
You might want to Google the creation of the KKK in 1865 and which political party the organization it supported (hint: it was not the GOP).
But thanks for playing.
So you voted for Obama then, ramen?
Ramen, with your, republicans don't tolerate racism remark....roflmao.
That is the first time I have ever typed that. Ever. That is how profoundly ridiculous that statement was.
Is 'contextualization' even a word?? And why has calling people 'my friend' become apropos here? I digress. For some odd reason liberals seem to think that they are never hypocritical nor racist, which is of course total rubbish. They try to cover it up with self-rightiousness, but the clever can see through this quite clearly. What's right for the goose is right for the gander. Reid is a racist bozo - toss him out. If he wasn't racist he wouldn't have used the term 'negro' nor would he have likely brought it up in conversation - except behind closed doors where most of the population (white, black or brown) hides their racism so that they might hypocritically declare themselves 'open-minded'. Cynical? The truth is harsh sometimes.
I don't think it's really fair to classify the KKK as Republican. True, most likely all have voted for a republican ticket when some local nut-job wasn't perhaps running on some sort of fringe independent ticket, but in a real sense they aren't for a democracy so sticking them in a party is not quite correct. They vote Republican simply becuase given the choice it more closely represents their views, in a twisted sort of way. But I would say that a desire for racial extermination - or at least total exclusion - puts them in a spectrum outside of democracy. If you call what we have really a democracy these days.
Sure, racist whites at the time didn't want anything to do with the young party that freed the African slaves. And so they joined with the Democrats, but formed their own regional party. That held until the end of WWII, when the racist southern whites saw -- as Reagan put it -- "their party leaving them" via forced integration of the armed forces.
Then they started crossing over to the Republican Party faster than you could say "musical chairs." So if you want to beat on the Democratic Party for overt racism between 1865-1945, you're probably safe. From then on, it's the Republican Party of good old Strom Thurmond and the "southern strategy."
Those democrats that vote republican are Dixiecrats. My brother is one of those characters. He professes to be a democrat. He votes in the democratic primaries. But what he does is he votes for the biggest loser as a way to throw a vote against the better candidate. Then come the General election he votes for his republican candidate.
You know now that I think of it didn't Congressman Wilson call Barack Obama a liar, out loud while Obama was giving a speech in a joint meeting of the congress? He didn't lose his job.
Whine some more republicans. < :-)
Of course, what is total rubbish is your claim that liberals "seem to think they are never hypocritical nor racist." The fact is we know that we sometimes are. Feel free to copy and print that.
It's when we, who know the faults and imperfections of human beings, are greeted with statements claiming the Republicans are totally innocent of ever harboring a racist thought, that we really have to hold our noses or laugh ourselves silly.
What part of politics isn't a double standard? About the only thing consistant in politics is that you can't trust any of them. Change you can believe in? It's just more of the same old lies.
Huh? You actually believe that there isn't such a thing as "black Engish?" If not, then let me AKS you this: What be y'alls point?
And is the word, "Negro" truly racist? So when the Spellman College glee club presents a program featuring "negro spirituals," you gonna send the race police in after them? (Spellman is an all-black school, btw.)
Not when they try to talk sense to fellow conservatives. Then I feel pity for them.
If by exclusion you mean total segregation, the 1948 platform of Strom Thurmond was based on precisely that. You know, the one that Trent Lott praised to the stars and said the nation would have been better off had it been elected...
And some people want to get down on Harry Reid for praising Obama for his ability to switch between black English and mainstream English? The Republicans are making total fools out of themselves -- par for the course -- and I can sit here and play the dozens with them all day long.
When I was a child I was raised in a home that didn't say G-D, or the "N" word or any of that. My Grandmother was an RN who worked at the Country Health Dept and my mother was a nurse.
I was taught that the words colored and negro were very proper. Then as time went on there have been different words or descriptions for Black Americans. There were times when it was challenging to figure out what the right word was.
I don't think the context of Harry Reid's comment qualified as a disparaging remark. Writing that, I have to say that some folks who used the same word/s last year were definitely using a negative tone and were disparaging to Obama. < :-)
"Huh? You actually believe that there isn't such a thing as "black Engish?" If not, then let me AKS you this: What be y'alls point?
And is the word, "Negro" truly racist? So when the Spellman College glee club presents a program featuring "negro spirituals," you gonna send the race police in after them? (Spellman is an all-black school, btw.)"
Oh no, I'm from the south my friend (getting the 'my friend' part in just so I'm up to snuff) and am well aware of 'black english', ebonics or whatever moniker you choose. As a matter of point my wife typically gets very tired of hearing my diatribe on that while I can understand the reasons behind it, as a lover of language I think that African Americans have done more harm to themselves and the quest for racial equality through the purposeful morphing of the Queen's English than any other factors combined. But that's another argument. I also am well aware of 'negro spirituals'. But terminology is important and delicate in today's overly PC society, and I don't think the term 'negro' is seen as particularly positive these days.
Your argument that Reid's remarks are not racist because they are based on a 'truth' is no better than me saying that Lott was correct in supporting Strom's campaign as most 'negroes' - as seems to be your preference - woud admit to a preference of schooling within their own racial spectrum (i.e. perhaps one of the reasons places like Spellman exist - aside from the obvious descrimination of all white institutions). In all actuality - and I shouldn't speak without proof of research to quote - I think that enforced desegregation wasn't always preferred in the black community because of both the racial descrimination black school children had to endure, as well as the almost non-existent teachings of their own particular culture.
Yabits - go into the Bronx or Harlem and ask 'can one of you negroes give me directions to Manhattan?'. You will soon discover how well received the term 'negro' actually is! Wear good shoes, take a GPS.
tigermoth - Your point about Bronx or Harlem is invalid.
In Reid's remarks, when referring to Obama, said that he was a light-skinned African-American. So he knows the preferred term when referring to the group. It would be like a person asking in the Bronx or Harlem what percentage of African-Americans make up the population.
It was when referring to the dialect that Reid stumbled. Everyone who has ever spent time in the U.S. knows that there is a black dialect, sometimes so laced with slang as to be incomprehensible to those not of that community. (The original Airplane movie got a tremendous laugh out of the scene where Mrs. Cleaver demonstrated how she could speak "jive.")
So is it really racist to refer to the distinct dialect as "negro" in the same way as we'd refer to the "negro spiritual?" At the time Reid was in the prime of his life, "Negro" was the accepted word for African-Americans -- unlike the "n-word" which never was acceptable in the memory of any living person.
If you believe that the term is my preference when referring to the people, you may continue to bask in your own foolishness.
The songs will still be "Negro spirituals" to me, however.
Yabits I see no reason to call me a fool just because we are discussing whether or not the term 'negro' is racist. Or whether or not using it in the terms of turning on and off "negro dialect" is racist.
But as you wish to call me a fool I shall call you a hypocrit. I'm sure that if you ask the President (out of the media spotlight, and if speaking to him in terms of the way friends do) he wouldn't care for the comment either. He must say it's okay now as he needs Harry Reid. I would have to hear the entire exerpt of what he was saying for context before passing complete judgement. But most agree that he was referring to the marketability of Barrack Obama for the presidency, and while perhaps he was stating what he beleives the American people may or may not accept, his comment was racist, essentially implying that is 'white enough' for the job. But racism is okay to left wing hypocrits like you who vascillate on appropriateness based on the determination of whether or not it was your side doing the offending.
Who's basking in their own foolishness - the one who can question both sides or the one that only sees the views of their own? Continue to bask in your denial.
Go back and reread. You made the claim that "negro" appeared to be my "preferred term" for African-Americans. That is foolish in the extreme. Here it is again:
Harry Reid knew better than that. He simply stumbled on what to call the dialect. As would most white-men of his age, be they Republican or Democrat.
Very few, unless they are total racists, would claim that the United States would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Republicans have stretched to the point of no going back when they pretend there's anything resembling a moral equivalence between Reid and Lott.
Okay, but how do you know that when Lott made his comment he wasn't (a) meaning that it would have been better that he (Thurmond) won rather than Democrat Truman? The two party's hatreds of one another seems to know no bounds; and not necessarily meaning he support Thurmonds racist beliefs, and/or that (b) he was just trying to placate an old man on his 100th birthday? Old racist or not, folks tend to schmooze when it comes to the 100 year mark. Both parties threw Lott to the wolves. So why should your boy get a break? As you say, it could simply be a case of not knowing which term might be correct to use. Or he could have been saying in effect 'yep, Obama is 'white enough acting' to make it politically in America. I think in today's overly sensitive PC world just about all would label that as racism.
And again, my earlier point was that you seem to question whether the term 'negro' is indeed racist, and want to pretend that it is not. It is not I decrying it as such, but rather the Civil Rights movement as a whole who deemed it as such back in the latter 1950's and 60's. Yes, it is still used for things like 'negro spirituals' and 'United Negro College Fund' but that's more a case of historical context rather than contemporary practice.
There is nothing wrong with schmoozing or paying compliments. But the field on what kinds of things to say to guy who reaches his 100th birthday in the year 2002 is pretty wide open, and should not require going back as far as 1948 for the right words. Especially when Thurmond's final point of break with the Democrats and the basis of his Dixiecrat party was the objection over the Democrats inclusion of civil rights proposals in their party platform. Lott was lending praise to a man, if he truly repented of his views later, who was at the lowest part of his life on his road to repentence.
While there is almost no wiggle room for the n-word, the word "negro" has never been a racist epithet. In fact, it was the acceptable and preferred term not so very long ago.
This is interesting.
The difference between Reid's gaff and Lott's gaff are as differnt as night and day. < :-)
Is what Steele claims to "know" really true?
I believe that if McConnell was remarking about the overall attractiveness of candidate Obama and praised his ability to speak without using "negro dialect," I believe that most folks, save the followers of Al Sharpton, would be laughing at his ignorance. (But nobody should take Sharpton seriously.)
In fact, such remarks coming from McConnell would show the progress Republicans have made since Lott.
I asked for a joke and I got one! We are talking about today Mr. Ramen, not ancient history. But today. What next? The Whig party? LOL! Or maybe a claim that the Republicans were the first to think of putting forth a non-white presidential nominee? They just never got around to it right? LOL!
Yeah, pretty much.
Fact is that the republicans has zero blacks in Congress and that has been true now for a decade. The last black to be in Congress as a republican quit in total frustration as he learned by being on the inside how racist the party is. It is funded and empowered by the southern racist class. If not for the racist vote the republican party would be history now, along with the dixiecrat party.
Its a joke for the republicans, who called Obama a terrorist because he is not white, to bring up this matter. As if they are not racist to the core themselves. Just google on Barack the Magic Negro from one of the republican leaders not so long ago. Or the republicans that called Michele a monkey not so long ago. That is racist. That is republican.
This is another fake issue for a party that has nothing to add of substance to the polical process. It is just more hate and spin.
Sorry Zurc, but that was cool. The Magic Negro stereotype comes from movies, not the Republicans. Essentially by bringing that up, you are using the same tactic as the Republicans. You blithely deem any mentioning of race as racist.
As for Michele being called a monkey, I don't know so much about it, but I will have to look into it. I call people monkeys all the time. Nobody seems to pay much attention until somebody turns out to be black. So is it not racist when say GWB looks like a chimp, but it is racist if I call Michele a monkey? Like I say, I need to get the specifics, but on the surface, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. The difference in the comments by Reid and Lott are clear enough without dragging those in. However, those look like much better displays of hypocrisy so I ought to thank you.
At the end of the day Reid ain't going nowhere.
Trent who? < :-)
Oh man Zurc! Nobody called Michelle Obama a monkey as far as I can tell! It was a picture and nobody knows the source! And you come out and blame the Republicans? Even Republicans could have crayoned a better pic than that! If it did not say it was specifically Michelle Obama I would have had no idea it was meant to be her! I can't even tell for sure if it was meant to be racist, same with those chimp pics of W that were much better done and obviously W.
No inherent racism there, with the Magic Negro thing, or with Reid's comments. Lott's words on Strom though, chock full.
I thought Rush was the one who presented the "Barack the Magic Negro" line on his show, but I could be wrong. The Republicans who are showing so much false umbrage over Reid's remark didn't seem to mind the magic negro thing.
Republicans are like chameleons. They'll adopt whatever principle they think will get them votes. They are fishing for two things here: First, to weaken the Senate Majority Leader's chances in the upcoming election, and second, building their own "Get of Racist-Jail Free" card to play the next time one of their own makes a genuinely racist remark.
Their objections over Reid's remarks are totally cynical.
Michael Steele is nothing but a hypocrite. During the campaign last year, as a guest on William Bennett's radio show, Steele chuckled along with a caller when "Barack the Magic Negro" was brought up -- revealing no trace whatsoever of offense or outrage.
And this, from the U.S. Census Bureau: The 2010 census form will be just like previous forms. Question Nine asks about one's race. The second item reads as follows: "Black, African-American, or Negro."
Why? According to the Census Bureau, a sizeable percentage of elderly African-Americans still refer to themselves as "negroes," even though the term is frowned upon by younger generations.
Yeah it is a double standard but the conservatives/republicans have their selves to blame. At my work I know 15 people, one voted Obama and of the other 14 I was the only other to vote.. for McCain, all the others didn't vote although they were rooting for McCain.. I would have prefered Romney or Huckabee but I still voted for McCain, at least I voted..
Zucronium (and others) - you miss the point completey; which isn't unusual. Giving evidence that some Republicans - or even if you want to implicate the whole party - whatever - are racist is beside the point. Was Reid's comment racist is the question, not which party has a higher incidence of overt racism. Defense through deflection is an old tactic of course, but one that deceives only the slow witted.
Earlier Yabits stated that he thought the term 'Negro' is not really, nor has it ever been considered racist. I bet to differ. Research the word and ask some older African Americans their opinion. Negro and even Negress were used widely up to the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Afterwards it was considered more of a slur by the black community.
Cover it however you wish; it's not so much fun when one of your boys shows his true colors now is it? If a Republican had made the same comment you guys would be howling for the 'blood of the racist' and you well know it. That's okay, the mask of self-rightiousness just slipped off a bit, I'm sure you guys can get it back in place just fine. Seems to be slipping off more and more though, doesn't it?
show me one black republican in congress. You cant cause there isn't one. Zero. 12% of the population and not a single republican leader who is black. If you do know your party is racist to the core that is not because it is not, it because you are ignorant of the party history. Look up the southern strategy that nixon started to gain the south from the democrats to the republicans. The racism is right there for even the slow witted to see.
The republicans know they are racist and they cannot deny the racism used in the election that Obama won anyway. The republicans use racism on themselves as bush charged mccain with fathering a black child in south carolina in 2000 when mccain was leading the primaries.
Again, just because you do not understand your own party does not make it any different from what it is, racist to the core.
And Steele, that flop that even the republicans do not follow, is only in his role to counter Obama as leader of the Democratic party. If the president was white now Steele would still be stinking up the talk circuit with no one paying attention.
This is yet another non-issue for the republicans as they are so far removed from reality they can only make up useless spin to confuse themselves.
I've done all the research I need to on this one. Negro league, Negro spiritual, Negro dialect -- none of it is a slur. (Refer to Question 9 of the latest census questionnaire and you'll find "Negro" as pointed out above.) John McWhorter, an African-American linguist (and expert on the creole dialect) calls it archaic, but not a slur.
Michael Steele sure seemed to think it was funny when it was used to call Barack a "magic Negro." So his protestation at Harry Reid using the term is sheer hypocrisy, done for political reasons.
Wow, really? Thats going to be news to every single republican I know. Thanks for letting me know that we're all racist. I would have never realized it if you hadn't told me. My next door neighbors are black Republicans, I'll be sure and go let them know that they're racist as well.
Moderator: All readers, please stay on topic. The subject is Reid's remarks.
Yes Yes keep distracted talking about lame duck Harry Reid, ignore the comment in the same book by Bill Clinton, that a few years ago Barrak would be fetching us coffee ! Boy !
Dear Idiots, The infamous "Barack the Magic Negro" first appeared in an LA Times opinion article written by David Ehrenstein. Rush Limbaugh parodied the column in song to get a rise out of liberals and it worked as planned. It is also fair to note that Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen he is not a politician rather he is a political commentator with a radio show on the AM band. He does not shape policy and has no power to influence or effect the lives of American citizens through policy. He is a private citizen. Again morons.....private citizen. zurcronium please tell me who the republican leader is that you speak of that made this comment? why not actually research where that came from? Ehrenstein is a liberal!!!!
I also find it funny to see people bring up political party history to try and prove the republicans are racist. Somebody needs to crack open an American history book for a much needed refresher course.
for the uninitiated heres the original magical negro column. Next time be a little but hinest in yoru debates and actually educate yoruself on the very topic you are trying to argue.
I think you would enjoy viewing Spike Lee's movie " Bamboozaled". The liberal white man only wants the ignorant, disadvantaged, negro succeed in the world of television.
Conservative's would tell a young African American that the sky is the limit and almost anything in America can be achieved if you are willing to invest the hard work necessary to get where you want to go. Liberals are obsessed with race. It is all they talk about then they go ahead and end school vouchers which gives predominantly underprivileged kids a chance at a better education and buses them to other schools. These programs are also mostly merit based. Liberals who have made it also love to tell you that you can't. Take Michelle Obama for instance telling African Americans in a speech that the "system is stacked against them"
The argument that there aren't currently any black republican senators is a silly one. Are you familiar with the local senate races? in which instance was a black republican overlooked in favor of a white one? Or were there none to run in the first place? if the latter is true in your eyes then this leads us to a bigger problem and that is what is it about the democratic message that is appealing to most blacks in America today? All I hear is negativity and telling people they can't do something not building them up. Places like Detroit keep electing democratic leadership and the peoples lives never improve. Its is almost like they enjoy being lied to. When somebody comes in and says look you need to educate yourself, live within your means, and work hard that is understandably a more bitter pill to take when democrats offer Obama money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGLB8LO1aM
If Senator McConnell had said the exact same thing that Senator Reid did, the Dems and the media would brank him a racist and would be out for his head. However, for Reid it's no big deal. It is so obviously a double standard there really is not much of a debate about that.
Harry Reid chose the wrong words to express something that is completely true. Black people know it, white people know it, everyone knows it. Obama is black enough that white people can feel good and "progressive" for voting for him, but not black enough to scare them. It's the same reason everyone was so big on Colin Powell a few years ago. This faux Republican outrage would be laughable, if it were not so nakedly cynical. Reid's voting record over the years with regards to expanding and protecting civil rights speaks for itself. Trent Lott was rightly brought down for voicing support for a segregationist. Reid was speaking in support of a black candidate. The GOP have used race as an electoral weapon for decades now. While the words and images they use keep changing ("Welfare Queens", "Willie Horton", "Socialists", "Real Americans") there is never any doubt behind the intent. Nixon's southern strategy is alive and well in 2010. How do Michael Steele or any of the rest of them sleep at night?
Lots of stuff in here to argue about.
Faux Republican outrage is of course correct. They know as well as the rest of us, that Reids comments while inappropriate were not ill intentioned. However the disparity in treatment, the double standard, between how Lott and Reid were treated is so blatant, that they can't help but be a little outraged. And regardless of what you say, it has been Democrats who wield race as a weapon. Always making charges of racism, for even the smallest infraction. It helps discourage blacks from breaking ranks with Dems. On top of their constant class warfare attacks, it makes for a difficult combination to beat. Which of course is why they use it.
The Republicans are outraged because they are goofballs without a memory. After Lott made his remarks and apologized for them, it was not the Democrats who kept the pressure on for Lott to resign from his leadership position. It was members of Lott's own party who thought the remarks gave the party a black eye -- no pun intended -- and forced him out.
Republicans without a memory want to blame Democrats for Lott's treatment. I recall Representative John Lewis (GA) accepting the man's apology.
In your mind.
No black person of note has come out against Reid. Only the angry white republicans who hide from their own racist policies by projecting it on others.
This phony outrage by the white republicans just insures that another decade will go by without their being a single black member of Congress that is black. Zero. None.
So the party is supposed to go out of its way to get blacks elected so they won't look racist? I can see that backfiring in a spectacular manner.
It's a bit more perverse than that: Republicans beat each other up and then declare a double-standard when the Democrats refrain from doing so.
Black republicans prefer to succeed in the business world where they do not need to deal with public ridicule and the Uncle Tom label. Like Jessy Hastings Republican congressman from Oklahoma.
Elcee Hastings is an African-American Democratic congressman from Florida. J.C. Watts is an African American from Oklahoma and former Republican congressman.
Yeah, I know... They all look and sound alike to some folks.
Liberals just can't help themselves... They prefer to pit whites against blacks, it makes them feel morally superior.
I can assure readers that any superiority I might feel is simply a by-product of what occurs when those of average intelligence are pitted against ignorant and narrow-minded bigots.
They are just stating the obvious. One could not ask for a clearer demonstration of liberal hypocrisy.
Of course those who refuse to see it, wont´.
Atlantic blogger Ta-Neshi Coates,
"I think you can grant that, in this era, the term "Negro dialect" is racially insensitive and embarrassing. That said, the fair-mind listener understands the argument--Barack Obama's complexion and his ability to code-switch is an asset. You can quibble about the "light skin" part, but forget running for president, code-switching is the standard M.O. for any African American with middle class aspirations.
But there's no such defense for Trent Lott. Lott celebrated apartheid Mississippi's support of Strom Thurmond, and then said that had Thurmond won, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.'' Strom Thurmond run for president, specifically because he opposed Harry Truman's efforts at integration. This is not mere conjecture--nearly half of Thurmond's platform was dedicated to preserving segregation. The Dixiecrat slogan was "Segregation Forever!" (Exclamation point, theirs.) Trent Lott's wasn't forced to resign because he said something "racially insensitive." He was forced to resign because he offered tacit endorsement of white supremacy--frequently.
Claiming that Harry Reid's comments are the same, is like claiming that referring to Jews as "Hebrews" is the same as endorsing Nazism. Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling "Segregation Forever!" would have cured us of "all these problems."
Leaving aside political cynicism, this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease. Listening to Liz Cheney explain why Harry Reid's comments were racist, was like listening to me give lessons on the finer points of the comma splice. This a party, rightly or wrongly, regarded by significant portions of the country as a haven for racists. They aren't simply having a hard time re-branding, they don't actually understand how and why they got the tag.
These guys are lost."
It's really rather simple with regard to why not only Democrats, but a large cross-section of minorities as well, view this situation with a more forgiving attitude versus how they would react if a Republican like Trent Lott said something similar. At the end of the day, if one were to tally up everything that either party has done to improve the lot for millions of African-Americans (and other minorities), Republicans would be found sorely lacking in both effort and inclination nine times out of ten.
Put even more simply, the reason Reid may enjoy greater leeway now is that minorites just don't like Republicans very much, regardless of what Reid says.
Given grossly racist voting irregularities in the past three presidential elections, not to mention a relentless effort on the part of the Republican Party to eliminate Affirmative Action, cut public welfare funds, and roll back higher education incentives, while applying constant pressure to abandon public education in favor of elite private schools, it's not hard to imagine why the GOP can't seem to catch a break with its worst critics; The GOP has essentially slapped a giant sign on its own back that reads, "Kick Me. I'm an habitual a##hole."
you make a good point. Although he did not seem to be racist himself bush was an incredible a@@hole. He did of course use race to win elections, like against mccain in the 2000 primaries. Or his dad who used willy horton against Dukakis in 88.
The republicans do want to return, as Trent Lot said, to a time when blacks were slaves and were kept in their proper place. Where women stayed at home to clean. Where only landowners voted. That is what they all want to go back to, like climbing back into the womb. The real world is just too confusing for them. Hence their support for idiots who tell them its all right, like Palin is playing now.
No, that's not what's being suggested here at all. What's being said is the Republican Party has provided no incentives whatsoever to bring black voters, and subsequently black candidates, into their fold. Lacking a platform that seeks to overturn the many disadvantages minorities still endure even at the start of the 21st Century, blacks have no reason to support, much less stand as a political candidate for the GOP.
The observation that there has yet to be one black Republican Senator in the modern era -- aside from moderate Massachusetts Senator Edward William Brooke, III, who helped co-author the 1968 Fair Housing Act – merely highlights the fact that the GOP doesn’t court black candidates or voters, and doesn’t care to.
Which leads us back to my earlier point of why minorities -- and yes, many Democrats -- don’t get particularly worked up at comments like Reid's, as opposed to Asshat Extraordinaire, Trent “Racial Segregation Was a Good Thing” Lott.
I agree with you completely. I just wish the Democrat party and Liberals in general would stop showing how ignorant they are by constantly using race as a wedge issue and by getting over their race-centric view of the world. Otherwise, they will continue to be called out as hypocrites when one of their own gets caught saying something politically incorrect. People can't go around branding their political opponents as racist when their own party is obsessed with race.
I am not a Republican myself (I am an independent Conservative) but the truth of the matter is, the Republican party ended slavery. The Democrat party is the home of the KKK, fillibusters against civil rights legislation, and Governors standing in school house doors. Regardless of how blacks align themselves today, you can't change history. Whatever affirmative action Liberals have been able to achieve since the 1960's via a racial spoils system sort of pales in comparision.
Republicans have generally been the color-blind party and the Democrats have been the color-conscious party. Before the 60's, they were the party of Jim Crow; after losing politically they swung completely in the opposite direction to become the party of race-based solutions to all problems. The Demcrat party's obsession with race - which is part of their political power base - is the biggest obstacle to race relations in America today. Race is part of their political playbook and they use it constantly to attack their political opponents. It is shameful but the sad reality of modern times.
Sen Jack Reed: "I think he is mortified by the statement he's made..."
"...And I don't think he should step down."
yabits: "I can assure readers that any superiority I might feel..."
I'm laughing at the superiority, yabits.
OK, are you are trying to say that Republican's want women to stay at home and clean but they also support Sarah Palin's political career? I guess you haven't noticed that your understanding of Republicans is a bit contradictory.
A Republican president ended slavery - and it is one of the party's greatest achievements. One would have to be a hyper-partisan to believe that a party with such a background would want to re-impose slavery - that's just idiotic and nonsensical. My observation has been that Republicans have always wanted a color blind society and not one based on divisive public policy based on racial categorization. It is no surprise that large majorities of blacks support the Democrat party in the years since the Civil Rights era when Democrats have done a 180 and have committed to using race to give them an advantage. It's also no surprise that a white fire fighter might be angered when his race is used to deny him a promotion.
It's only fair that I let you known advance that I will outright dismiss any argument that is precluded by nonsense resembling, "the Republican party ended slavery (therefore, the current Republican Party is a friend to African-Americans)."
This has got to be the most shallow, ignorant argument being floated today by proponents of the GOP, particularly when race is at issue.
If you ever want to be taken seriously in any discussion regarding American politics here, you have to be willing to acknowledge that the current Republican Party IS the Democratic Party of the Reconstruction Era -- more specifically, Southern Democrats. Overlay a Civil War Era map with any one of the ubiquitous Red State/Blue State maps that have dominated Election Night reporting, and this question is settles immediately.
So, Wolfpack, how about you exhibit the barest modicum of intellectual integrity by dropping that lousy (and grossly lazy) red herring, and trying again with a legitimate argument?
Zurcronium:"The republicans do want to return, as Trent Lot said, to a time when blacks were slaves and were kept in their proper place. Where women stayed at home to clean. Where only landowners voted. That is what they all want to go back to, like climbing back into the womb. "
Bang On,mon ami.Once again, you prove what I have had to explain ALL TOO OFTEN to people here. Namely, that often it is those of us OUTSIDE of America,in this case, us Canadians, who understand America BETTER than her own citizens do.They can't see the tree line for the undergrowth, and in the case of republicans there is no contest, hahaha hhaah hhaaahhha.
Well, anyways, Reid is doing a bang-up job and will undoubtedly be re-elected.
So tell me Sarge, why should Senator Reid step down? On what grounds?
It's the Republicans that have been pushing Reid's remark as a wedge issue, not the Democrats.
Called out as hypocrites by the real hypocrites. Reid's remarks may be considered politically incorrect by some, but mainly only by those who which to use them as a racial wedge issue. (That would be the über-hypocritical Republicans.)
"So tell me Sarge, why should Senator Reid step down? On what grounds?"
Heck, even before his racist comments came to light, he was for our defeat in Iraq, saying that the war couldn't be won there.
According to The New Republic, with Michael Steele as its Chairman, the Republicans are now fully in touch with their inner Al Sharpton. Quoting from their article, Steele Cage,:
"Last weekend began with Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, clinging to his job primarily via implicit racial blackmail. Steele’s tenure has consisted of a string of gaffes and managerial blunders, but Republicans had concluded that his color made him un-fireable. “You’re not going to dump the first African American chairman,” an influential party strategist told Politico, “That’s the only reason.”
"Steele perfectly embodies modern Republican racialism. Democratic racialism represents a perversion of the civil rights ideal--an opposition to racism taken to excesses of hypersensitivity, occasionally devolving into a mere political tactic. Republican racialism is an attempt to mimic Democratic racialism without first having any grasp of the original sentiment underlying it--a parodic replica of the original thing, like a person who decides to convert to Judaism by studying Madonna."
"The campaign to whip up faux racial outrage at Reid likewise shows a party clumsily attempting to mimic what it considers a devastatingly effective tactic. Republican efforts to explain why Reid’s comments amounted to racism have proven comical. “Some Americans,” huffed The Wall Street Journal, “white and black, might be more insulted by Mr. Reid’s implication that most Americans--45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964--are still so residually racist that they would only vote for a black candidate who isn’t really . . . black.” But, while it may be insulting to white Americans to suggest that they respond more favorably to a politician who looks and sounds more like they do, it’s hardly racist, let alone false."
as usual you are out on a limb. If Lincoln were alive today he would not be a modern republican. He fought agains the racists that are the republicans today.
Well-stated, RomeoRamenII, in your initial post. Democrats want everything their way, or its the highway....ezxcept, this year, thanks to the Democrats ignoring the public, it will be the Democrats who will be on the highway after the November Elections....
zurcronium:"If Lincoln were alive today he would not be a modern republican. He fought against the racists that are the republicans today.If Lincoln were alive today he would not be a modern republican. He fought againt the racists that are the republicans today."
Yahtze! Great postage, mon ami.It's just too funny watching SOME Americans try and argue that Lincoln was a member of the same party as today's repubs,or that Democrats of thirty years ago are the same as those of today.Democrats of 50 years ago OPPOSED civil rights efforts of the proto-Democrat Eisenhauer.
It's just typical repub racism. Said racism is ALSO present in their opposition to the kind of health care you and I are blessed to have in Canada. As Harry Reid proudly said about his party US Democrats have been fighting for A HUNDRED YEARS to get nationalized health care.
Well, I am relieved his party has closed ranks behind him.
Boy, that was certainly some creative word play, Sarge.
Holy mackerel! It makes me wonder which side the New Republic is taking sides.
Not only not quite true, but ancient history. And I have said this before.
First of all, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to save the Union. Lincoln himself would have freed no slave if it would have saved the Union and he said so himself. The Emancipation Proclamation came during the war, not before and not after, and its purpose was not so pure. It was also intended to incite slaves to rebel against the Confederacy and hamper the Confederate war effort. Besides, the whole thing was North vs. South. It is preposterous to try to make an elephant vs. donkey thing.
Now welcome to today, where the well known racist groups are Republican and David Duke gets elected on the Republican ticket and gets voted in on mostly Republican votes. Or, would you rather pin that one on the people of Louisiana rather than the Republican party? I know I would. But you can't have it both ways. You can't pin freeing the slaves on Republicanism if you blame Louisiana for David Duke.
Fact remains though that the racists of today feel they have more common ground with the Republicans. And part of that common ground is the lack of elected non-white officials with an (R) after their name. Welcome to the 21st century.
A very nice cut and paste! But basically the same thing I said here: dontknockit at 07:17 PM JST - 11th January. But I do think it unfair to pin the blame on whites only. I blamed the whole nation, I blamed all races, and I think I have more of the truth in doing so.
Wow, what a simplistic and historically inaccurate argument. Once slavery was ended and major civil rights laws passed due in large part to the Republican party, racist politicians lost their home in any political party. Racists Democrats left the Democrat party because it had swung from the party of Jim Crowe laws to the exact opposite - the party of Jesse Jackson affirmative action laws. Republicans have always and continue to believe that each person should be treated as individuals that are equal in the eyes of the government. Those racist Democrats could either remain Democrats (like Senator Byrd and George Wallace) go to the Dixiecrats (Strom Thurmond), move to the only other party and fight against affirmative action, or just get out of politics altogether.
If the Republican party was just the party of former racist southern Democrats then their would not have been any Republican presidents since the 1960's and no signficant numbers of Republicans in Congress. This of course has not been the case. Republicans maintain significant support outside of the south particularly in the southwest and in the middle part of the country. Surprisingly, the next Senator from Massachusettes may even be a Republican - or will come close to it.
LFRAgain - if YOU ever want to be taken seriously in any discussion about American politics here, you have to be willing to acknowledge that politics isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be and that the Democrat party has been responsible for supporting a great deal of the racist attitudes the have existed in American society. In fact, the Democrat parties support of affirmative action and other policies that refuse to treat people of every color as individuals and not as members of a political interest group to be given preferential treatment are the single most disruptive force in American race relations today.
Republicans are only holding Democrats to the standards in which they themselves set for others. Can anyone seriously doubt that if Senator McConnell had said the same thing that Senator Reid said that Democrats would be likening him to Lott and demanding him to resign? Come on - does anyone doubt that one bit? Of course not, because that is what Democrats always do when an oppoinent makes a politically incorrect statement.
Your argument is irrelevent to the fact that Lincoln did free the slaves. Regardless of the motivation, Lincoln helped blacks immensely by ending the practice of slavery. Lincoln is a Republican and one of the most revered among his party today. If the Republican party were racist, Lincoln wouldn't be held up as a hero by Republicans. This type of argument is simply a way to keep blacks and whites apart and voting for Democrats based on their racial spoils system. Blacks were overwhelmingly Republican following the Civil War. Their ability to gain power as Republicans was exactly what led Democrats to enact what later became known as Jim Crow laws.
That is flat out false. Why would a racist support a party that does not support racist policies against those that they want to discriminate against? No Republican wants to bring back Jim Crow or slavery. Any suggestion that they do is just asanine and based only in partisan conspiracy theories. The only political party that does not universally support the individual right to equal treatment regardless of race is the Democrat party.
The fact that there are few black Republicans elected to office is due to the fact that a black person is much more likely to support a party that supports race conscious policies that favor them over a party that prefers to treat each person as equals under the law. It is a fact of politics that any interest group whether based on race, religion, ideology, or economic interest is more likely gravitate toward a party that is more likely to give them an advantage. This is a built-in disadvantage for Republicans when it comes to recruiting blacks into the party because they are saying that your race shouldn't be used by government as a handicap or advantage. That was MLK's most powerful moral argument against segregation and for civil rights. If MLK had argued for affirmative action instead of equality regardless or race, he would not have been able to make a strong moral argument that sought only to replace one form of discrimination with another.
Another major reason why black conservatives are not as numerous as black liberals is due to the tremendous amount of peer pressure within the black community to be race centric; which is in-line with the philosophy of the Democrat party. Just look at the way any prominent black conservative is treated by the black community and by Liberals in general. Here are some names for you: Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, etc. all are attacked by liberals as either Uncle Toms, traitors to their race, un-intelligent, or are just plain ignored. Even Colin Powell was dumped on while he was under a Republican administration. He has only become "re-habilitated" in the black community when he endorsed Obama (a man who presumably does not support his own political beliefs).
No the reason that there are not more black republicans and the reason Trent Lott's statements should not be seen as the same as Harry Reid's is because the GOP has for the last 30 years played on racial fears of whites in the South to form a base. This is beyond doubt and openly called the "Southern Strategy" and is why the GOP is now the party of religious extremist, also a southern byproduct, and neo-confederate apologist, whom hide behind the thin vale of being a traditional social conservative.
To me, this sounds more like the policies under Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration.
Well, you're right in saying that Lincoln did free the slaves, though not ended its system entirely until the 13th Amendment was enacted in 1865. But, dontknockit also has a point in suggesting that Lincoln's prime motive was to save the Union, rather than free the slaves. Here's an excerpt from the Letter to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862:
I agree that Lincoln was leaning toward the abolition of the slavery system, because he saw it "as a threat to republicanism" when he engaged in the Lincoln–Douglas debates(1858). But is this “republicanism” what the Republican party holds today??? Does the current Democrats still reflect on the shadow of “Democrats” in pre-Civil War and Reconstruction era???? I don’t see any point in merely putting Rep. v. Dem dichotomy to debate which is racist without looking into historical and political contexts that impacted the platforms of both parties for 150 years.
Moderator: Readers, no further discussion of Lincoln, please.
Okay, so I guess the Mod would prefer a kinder, gentle rebuttal then.
On, you mean any more simplistic than "Republicans ended slavery" or “Regardless of the motivation, Lincoln helped . . . by ending . . . slavery. Lincoln is a Republican”?
By claiming racist Democrats left the Democratic Party because it had (and I quote), "swung from the party of Jim Crowe laws to the exact opposite - the party of Jesse Jackson affirmative action laws," you engage in a pretty hefty amount of simplistic distortion and inaccuracy in trying to cram the square peg of political dynamics from nearly a century ago into the round hole of civil rights terminology and political voices that hadn't even existed before the late 20th Century. The role reversals made by the Republic Party and the Democratic Party occurred long before Affirmative Action was ever even a social or political possibility.
Suffice to say there isn’t a historian or political scientist alive today worth their salt who would characterize the modern GOP as having anything in common with Reconstruction Era Republicans, and even fewer who would go so far as to say Lincoln espoused modern Republican dogma, so I’m begging you, please drop that nonsense and form a more coherent argument as to why the Republican Party has so effectively alienated blacks as to garner nary a hint of forgiveness when it makes racially charged statements.
With that, do I think the modern Republican Party is wholly racist? Of course not. Do I think it methodically latches on to race issues to further its goals of political dominance? Absolutely. One doesn’t have to look any further than former GOP Chair Ken Mehlman very own words in a 2005 speech to the NAACP, in which he pointedly admits,
Doesn’t get much more convincing than that, despite your insistence to the contrary, although Mehlman managed to incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh and his asinine peanut gallery with his honesty -- no revealing Party Secrets, and all that.
What we should be looking more closely at, however, is the point made by Mehlman that is probably closer to the truth than the position many Republican standard-bearers are taking in knee-jerk response to Reid’s comments:
He’s got a point. Both sides have used race to further their Party’s goals. The Democratic Party woos the minority vote, the Republican Party doesn’t. In either instance, the issue of race is in play and it’d be impossible to deny it. The key distinction, however, is that the Democratic Party has a long-standing record of taking the mandate gained from victories owed to minority voters and using it to promote positive change for that aspect of the electorate, as well as promote the general welfare of all citizens (well, okay, wealthy Americans might not be too thrilled, but hey, that’s the price of playing in the very political system that allows one to generate that sort of wealth in the first place).
The most obvious elephant in the living room in the present-day, here and now, is that most blacks and indeed many minorities across the American political and social spectrum are left wondering, “Okay, so Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. But what has the Republican Party done for this constituency lately?”
The answer for the past 50 years at least has been a resounding, “Not much.” And you can’t beat that kind of consistency when it comes to alienating the People.