Anti-Torture Racism?

Yesterday at TAPped, Sam Rosenfeld noticed a bizzaro hypothetical deployment of the race card against critics of Condi Rice, when Fred Barnes pulled out a weird line to the effect of: I'm not going to explicitly say they're racists, but I bet Dems would call it racist if we did this to one of their black appointees. Rosenfeld finished: "One winces to anticipate what some of the 'color-blind' crowd will have to say when the Democrats actually put up a fight against Alberto Gonzales' confirmation tomorrow." Good call,Sam:

"Every Hispanic in America is watching how this man is being treated," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, at Wednesday's Judiciary committee hearing, in what sounded like a warning to Democrats.

Man, does that mean I'm supposed to be pro-Gonzales now? But wait, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero has a Spanish-sounding last name too. I'm so confused. Which knee-jerk ethnically-based position should I take, Orrin?

Comments

[joe]

Orrin Hatch thinks Hispanics are offended by seeing someone questioned about the quality of his work?

New stereotype: Latinos give bad advice to presidents. "Go back to Mexico, you purveyor of legal theories of questionable merit!"

[fyodor]

This is what makes politics so stupid and obnoxious.

Y'know, Rosenfeld may possibly be correct that some Democrats and leftists might cry racism if a Democratic black appointee were criticized in like fashion. But--so what? How does it help the current debate to bring that possibility up?

Another observation. There's some Hispanic pundit who gets published in The Denver Post (though I think he's based elsewhere, maybe L.A.) who sees everything in terms of Hispanic issues who has pretty much said that any Democratic opposition to Gonzales could only be explained by Democrats being jealous that a Republican beat them to appointing a Hispanic AG. Those torture memos? Oh, he was only a cog in the wheel or something and shouldn't be scapegoated or some such.

Makes ya hate politics.

Ah, just reloaded and saw Joe's post. Yes, Joe, shocking as this may be to you, there are some who see all criticism of their own as reflections of bias, whatever group it is. I'll try and google the guy I'm referencing....

[sage]

I like the quote from John Stuart's book on how they find a secretary of transportation: "Ever ridden in a car? Watched a plane land? Hispanic? Put on a tie, you've got the job!"

[R C Dean]

Y'know, Rosenfeld may possibly be correct that some Democrats and leftists might cry racism if a Democratic black appointee were criticized in like fashion.

Might cry racism? I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Its all about the hypocrisy. Its hypocritical of both the Dems and the Reps to play the race card when one of theirs takes a hit on the merits.

Of course, when Condi Rice is the target of racially putrid cartoons, and is grilled by a former recruiter for the Klan who has never been able to bring himself to vote for a high-profile black nominee to anything, you have to wonder. . . .

Racially motivated hatred is by no means absent from American public life, but most of the examples I have seen lately come from the race hustler establishment and their Dem allies.

[[e-mail]]

julian - i can help you with the knee jerk "dissent" comments if you'd like...

carrying what fyodor notes: this is yet another example of how evil the aftereffects of racial politics (AA, the Greening of America, 60s, etc) has become. a liberal acquaintence of mine actually would fall into the camp fred describes: his comment is about Clarence Thomas and that he wouldn't have "gotten so far if it weren't for AA".

still, it should be possible to discuss the merits of the candidate without people race-baiting.

[rst]

How does it help the current debate to bring that possibility up?

I think it helps put some of the criticism in perspective. Democrats are often incorrectly perceived as being the "people's party," immune to the prejudices that are allegedly unique to the Republicans. If the roles were reversed, Democratic Senators would indeed be dropping "R" bombs like Hiroshima, and people would buy it because as we all know the Democrats are the Protectors of All That Is Good And Decent, while the Republicans lay on the axis of evil between Cobra and the Sith.

[fyodor]

Hmm, tough to google someone when you don't know his name, and I can't find the fellow at the Denver Post's site....

[Mo]

RC,
Quick question that I don't honestly know the answer to. Did he vote to confirm Powell? There's someone whose politics he could at least tolerate (as far as Bush appointments go) and is a high-profile black nominee.

[mtntm]

Bush should have played it smart and nominated some feckless nobody like Janet Reno, farmed out the torture to professionals like Clinton and settled for self gratification in the OO. But would the newsies have let him do a repeat? Well, there was the impeachment. Never mind.

[Brian]

I saw Fred "Bush Bend Over Buddy" Barnes on Fox last night making this weird meta twice-removed racism argument. So the argument is no longer about Rice or Gonzo, but rather speculation about what democrats might do and what republicans might do in a hypothetical scenario. (Good misdirection technique and example of why republicans are so much better in the contemporary media environment than dems).

Anyway I guess now democrats can't criticise any Bush appointee provided that that appointee is other than a white guy? That would be racism? How about the soft bigotry of low expectations contained in the subtext: you can't critique the performance or competence of an "other than white guy" because you just can't expect them to stand up to that sort of thing.

[drf]

"some feckless nobody like Janet Reno"

that part wookie she-male?

she and madeline would have a home in this administration, too!

[Rick Barton]

"...they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Words to live by. And reason to have rejected Rice, to reject Gonzales, and to oppose all race based policy.

[Marie]

Julian, for the nth time, you are *not* "Hispanic."

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

still, it should be possible to discuss the merits of the candidate without people race-baiting.

Difficult and slightly hypocritical when one of the members doing the questioning is Klan through and through, no?

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

And reason to have rejected Rice, to reject Gonzales, and to oppose all race based policy.

For Rice, at least, this is disheartening. I really did expect great things from her at the beginning of term one. She was very well-rounded and pragmatic in her past lives.

Who would have expected her AND Powell to play doormat?

[fyodor]

rst,

No, unless you really think the Dems' criticism is racially motivated, hinting that Repubs could claim that does not put the Dems' criticism "in perspective"! To the contrary it only confuses the issue, which should be the appointees' qualifications to fill their respective offices, and only serves to play politics.

Now, if & when Dems cry racism when the tables are turned, it would make perfect sense for Repubs to say, well you wouldn't have wanted us to say that when Condi was being criticized, WOULD YOU? But now that they have indeed said that, I guess they can't say that if & when. So much for staking out the high moral ground. But of that never happens in politics. Or in rst's world! 🙂

[joe]

I'm trying to think of an example of when Democrats accused Senate Republicans of racism for opposing a nominee. The only one I can come up with is Lani Guinier, when Democrats objected to the appellation "Quota Queen" attached to a black woman, during the period in history when the term "Welfare Queen" was often applied to black women. To my knowledge, none of the Democrats criticizing Rice or Gonzales have made reference to any racial stereotypes in their characterizations of them.

[D Anghelone]

I'm so confused. Which knee-jerk ethnically-based position should I take, Orrin?

Having a hiss-panic attack?

[joe]

Senator Byrd and strongly and repeatedly denounced his prior association with the Klan, and the racist beliefs that they endorsed. I wonder if Goiter's ignorance of this widely reported, unquestioned fact is studied, or if it just comes naturally.

[drf]

how is that desire of mine "slightly hypocritical"?

you're quite right about how disgusting byrd is. i think he is, too. i think mel carnahan dressing up in blackface doing that lampoon act was terrible. i think trent lott's comments were out of line, too. sure. but still: deflecting the issue through race baiting is not the best way to ensure that the AD or the SoS would protect and defend the constitution, follow its path, and ensure our liberties. not do the opposite.

or something. maybe they should have to chow on marge schott's (rapidly decaying) box to show that they're all on the level.

*** disgusting image warning above ***

[Huck]

I think you're wrong Joe. The Senate Democrats screamed racism for the GOP's refusal to confirm a black judge from Missouri, if memory serves me correctly. But even if I'm incorrect on that, you're kind of being disengenuous Joe.

Even if no specific Democratic senator has called Republicans racists, you know that Democrats and their allies in the press routinely imply or outright call conservatives and Republicans racists all the time. Rep. Charlie Rangel called tax cuts racists, for example.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

I'm trying to think of an example of when Democrats accused Senate Republicans of racism for opposing a nominee.

Your memory is always shallow when it comes to criticism of democrats Joe.

What about Moreno? What about Ronnie White?

I think the key to your statement was the "trying to think" part. You need to try harder. Much harder.

[Denny H]

I'm not saying they're racists, I'm saying I don't know.

[mtntm]

If all the minorities that the Repubs have or want to have in top positions are the porch lackeys that they are portayed to be by the Dems and the Dems don't put any minorities in top positions like AG, SoS when they have the chance, minorities in this country must be pretty confused.

[drf]

"Even if no specific Democratic senator has called Republicans racists, you know that Democrats and their allies in the press routinely imply or outright call conservatives and Republicans racists all the time"

again, underscoring how government meddling in race is evil.

to see the exact flipside (not discounting your main point, just pointing out, obviously, an example of the other side), look at how many reacted here in illinois to alan keyes. a commentary on WTMJ (620, Milwaukee) noted gleefully that the dems weren't the only ones who could parade out a black candidate, and oh gosh, alan keyes was picked for his qualifications...

the subtle, "pleasant disguise of an illusion" racism due, in part, to government's attempt to legislate based on race is wrong. bad. evil. terrible.

go back to Rick's quote. THERE'S where we should be going.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

how is that desire of mine "slightly hypocritical"?

Not your desire - I think the questioning itself is so.

you're quite right about how disgusting byrd is. i think he is, too.

It's amazing to me that he is reelected every time.

i think mel carnahan dressing up in blackface doing that lampoon act was terrible.

I thought that was funny.

i think trent lott's comments were out of line, too. sure.

Eh, not really. No one knows what he really meant by them except him. It was a bad choice of wording when it comes down to it. And the apology was simply a way to say "I still want votes", not to say "I'm sorry".

but still: deflecting the issue through race baiting is not the best way to ensure that the AD or the SoS would protect and defend the constitution, follow its path, and ensure our liberties. not do the opposite.

I'm in total agreement with you there. What I'm saying is that the entire process has become hypocritical. You have an affirmed racist on the panel questioning a person of a different race.

Most other times, the questioning doesn't have anything to do with the "interview" process, rather it's just a dog and pony show for each person on the panel. A way to do a Bart Simpson "Look at me I'm doing cool stuff" spiel.

I actually think the process should be overhauled. Let everyday people ask the questions, unabridged. Make the hypocrites go home and sit on it.

[VoiceOver]

It's par for the course that Dems play the race card when discussing people or policies that deal with race.

Do you disagree with affirmative action? "OMGWTF U RACIST BASTARD SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!!!"

Call Al Sharpton a lying sonofabitch? "KKK BASTARD DAVIDDUKE DIE WHITEY BITCH!!!!"

Criticize the media for (assumed) favorable treatment of a black football player? "OMG HE NEEDS TO GO LEAVE NOW BOYKOT CBS!!!!"

Try to convict a black man accused of murder? "OMG THE PO-PO ARE RACIST!!! MY MAN WAS SETUP!!" (despite lack of any evidence of conspiracy) "THIS COP SAID THE N WORD YEARS AGO!!!!!! PROOF! PROOF!"

The entire PERCEPTION of conservatives/Reps is assumed to be racist, just because they: do not agree with all of Democrat policies, nor do they want to sign a blank check for those policies.

Ask any liberal:
"Are conservatives racist?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"Uh. . . because . . . because . . . they're not FOR us, so they must be against us."
"How are they against you?"
"Uh. . . because . . . Hey, what is this? an interrogation? I'm allowed to speak my mind with harm or harrassment! HATE CRIMES!! STOP WITH YOUR HATE CRIMES!!!"

[drf]

"What I'm saying is that the entire process has become hypocritical. You have an affirmed racist on the panel questioning a person of a different race."

to quote/paraphrase PJ O'Rourke: "from this we built a great nation..."

and anytime the hypocrites to home and "sit on it" is a good day.

cheers

[rst]

unless you really think the Dems' criticism is racially motivated, hinting that Repubs could claim that does not put the Dems' criticism "in perspective"!

I merely pointed out that it could be...all too often the attitude we call racism is popularly viewed as a unique attribute of the right. I don't think it's "racially" motivated at all. I don't know why I typed "Democratic Senators" in the hypothetical role reversal...I meant it to say that Democrats (as in peeps) would be dropping those R bombs.

To the contrary it only confuses the issue...and only serves to play politics.

Two of the primary functions of politicians. The individual lawmakers are each steaming piles of shit in their own rights, but the greater problem is systemic.

should be the appointees' qualifications to fill their respective offices

Those are the qualifications presumably necessary to get a real job. This OTOH is pageantry. Anybody here could do Condi's or Gonzales' "job," all that's missing is the cred.

I don't imagine the Democrats are very concerned about having the most qualified person for the job anyway. The Democrats' most qualified person for the job would never be a Republican nominee (cf. the "torture memo"); the conflict is by definition comprised of political, not practical, interests.

[Rick Santorum's Gentle Alter E]

um, voice - i tell you this because i care: there are a lot of decaffeinated brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing...

(nice rush rehabilitation, not)

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Senator Byrd and strongly and repeatedly denounced his prior association with the Klan, and the racist beliefs that they endorsed.

Actually Mr. Shabadoo, Byrd has never never said that at all. He's always used some mealy-mouthed excuse for joining, but he's never denounced them. He joined to fight facism. He joined to fight for state's rights. He's said things that amount to getting bored with the Klan as his reason for leaving. Maybe it's that they weren't racist enough for his tastes.

Besides that, look at his voting record! Against Civil rights legislation accross the board for the last 50 years. Against Marshall. Against Thomas. Against anything not white. He's blatantly racist even if you personally absolve him of his Klan days, which is patently ridiculous.

Police horses with blinders have better vision that you.

I wonder if Goiter's ignorance of this widely reported, unquestioned fact is studied, or if it just comes naturally.

Think harder Joe, think harder.

[drf]

"Police horses with blinders..."

wow. they sure have big units... oh whoops.

racial discussions like this serve nothing. we're all talking past each other. we all hate racism. it's not a zero-sum situation: your side is, ergo mine is not. voice's examples have conservative analogues - look at the anger directed at those who dare to criticize the likhud government's policies in recent years. look at how (who was it again?) would use his stage whisper whenever "neoconservative politicians and methods" were discussed.

look at the nasty jingoistic reactions you get when you dare say that flag burning might be a (albeit probably way too strong statement, and those people might want to live elsewhere) legit form of protest or expression.

or look at the pro- and anti-christian bigotry out there. or against muslims. or. or. or.

it's all out there. it's easy to find mass media examples of each.

this still doesn't change the fact that as long as the government is in the business of race, you'll get those absurd comments by Barnes to deflect the issue.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

this still doesn't change the fact that as long as the government is in the business of race

I'd like to get into the business of race. What are the barriers to entry?

[drf]

assume perfect competition:

price takers
barrierless entry and exit.

and just for fun: apply local non-satiation and strong monotonicity...

🙂

[mtntm]

At least Barnes has a place to say it now where he isn't shouted out five to one by liberals. Information access has changed and is changing. I look forward to the day when prime time channels have debates on global warming, race, the current war, socio/govt strategy, where they bring the best and brightest from all sides and whittle it down to the undeniable for all to see live.

[thoreau]

it's not a zero-sum situation: your side is, ergo mine is not

Exactly! I'm perfectly content to say that each side has plenty of racial hypocrisy. One side may very well be more hypocritical than the other, but since I have nothing invested in either side I have no real motivation to figure out who the worst hypocrites are.

But those who actually give a crap about one of the two sides are free to continue arguing that the other side has more hypocrites.

[fyodor]

rst,

Your rebuttal about why it Rosenfeld's and Hatch's comments provide perspective would make some sense IF they were using the current situation to refute specific examples of Democratic race-baiting by making clear that that that is not what they are trying to do themselves. But to the contrary, they're trying to have it both ways.

You then go on to say that this is normal for politics, which is what I've been saying all along myself. But that hardly places it above criticism.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

FWIW, I certainly wouldn't interpret Julian's original post to be saying that Repubiclans are worse than the Democrats, only that what they're doing in this regard sux.

[rst]

I look forward to the day when prime time channels have debates...

Intellectual masturbation doesn't sell, mtntm. That's why blogs are free.

I look forward to a day when there's no profit margin in airing American Idol and Wife Swap. Those shows make my teeth hurt.

[Dave Weigel]

Thomas Paine's Goiter - Byrd voted for every minority member of the Clinton and Bush administrations until Rice. In his very long, very ponderous (very Byrd) speech on the subject, he clearly didn't give a shit about Rice's color.

This is the phoniest of phoney issues. If you're against affirmative action, as libertarians and conservatives should be, you can not hem and haw about black or hispanic political hacks being the victims of "racism" when they're criticized.

[mtntm]

rst
I think the appetite for the resolution of real issues is underestimated. Rollerball for the mind would sell, I think, if someone had the chutzpa to do it. I dislike watching politicians work. They think they're fucking rock stars. They stand between those who know the reality and us, at least before the net came to fruition. They remind me of preachers standing, well paid, between man and god. I think a combination of television and blogging could be the wave of the future. It would be great to educate the masses real time and bypass the blowhards in congress.

[thoreau]

fyodor-

I was referring to the debate that followed, not the original post.

[joe]

Tom Paine's Asshat, this took me less that 10 seconds:

"But Byrd, unlike Thurmond, renounced his youthful participation in a racist cause. See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:

Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan."

[joe]

Of course, you won't need to read it in his obituary, because it will be brought up by people who are unable to argue their cause on the merits, whenever Senator Byrd happens to be on the opposite side.

[Brett]

See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:

And 8 years later he's in another interview, using the word "nigger" (albeit in the context of "white nigger") multiple times.

Sure, he's been contrite when it suits him, but actions speak louder than words. I'm really surprised you're defending this guy so strenuously, joe.

[Kevin Carson]

Goiter,

While we're on the subject of hypocrisy, how about avowed racists switching from Democratic to GOP under Nixon's "southern strategy," and then taking credit for the old-line establishment Republicans who voted for civil rights? You look at virtually the entire Congressional leadership of the GOP, and they're former Dixiecrats with white sheets tucked away in their closets.

[thoreau]

Kevin, didn't you know that the Dixiecrats were only interested in federalism, not racism?

That's a standard H&R dogma!

[joe]

Yes, brett, actions speak louder than words. His decades of voting for black nominees and a complete absence of racist actions for the past several decades speaks a lot louder to me than his stupid use of the term "white nigger" in an interview.

He's spent the better part of the last three decades actively working to eliminate the consequences of this country's racist history, but I'm supposed to assume he's a racist because 1) he makes substantive arguments against the performance of a black National Security Advisor and 2) he put his foot in his mouth in an interview? And I'm supposed to do this on the grounds that "actions speack louder than words?"

Look, show me some evidence that Byrd treats black people unfairly, or has sponsored racist legislation, and I'll be happy to consider it. But the fact that he joined the Klan a generation before I was born doesn't convince me that he's a racist today, espcially since he has repeatedly denounced it and acted in opposition to its principles.

[thoreau]

joe, aren't there any other Democrats more worthy of your defense than Robert Byrd? I mean, the guy makes some of the most boring speeches in the world, his ego makes even a theoretical physicist's self esteem look like that of an anorexic teenager, and he votes for pork on a scale that would make even Ted Stevens blush.

(Ted Stevens, a solid conservative Republican who brings home lots of federal money for the benefit of Alaska's rugged individualists!)

Really, there must be some Democrats who are more worthy of defense than Byrd. Is there anybody who gets high ratings from the ACLU and votes for fairly little spending (by Democrat standards)?

[Brett]

I guess we've branched into two different issues here. First is the double standard whereby Republicans are typically assumed to be racists and must prove otherwise, versus basically the complete opposite for a Democrat. Your party has the use of the "r" word down to a fine art. I agree with others above in that if Byrd were a Republican and had the history that he has, he would not nearly be as unscathed today. I am by no means claiming that one party has a monopoly on hypocrisy, there's plenty of that to go around.

The second issue is whether he's a racist today. Who knows how he really feels. I'm not even bringing up his vote on Rice, I have no problem with that. I guess you could consider repeated use of the word "nigger" in the 21st century "putting your foot in your mouth". Others might argue that it means a bit more than that, that it says something about your character.

As for sponsoring racist legislation, he did filibuster civil rights legislation in the 60s, correct? What were his reason for voting against Marshall (a Dem) for SCOTUS? (I haven't researched this, I truly don't know, but I wonder) How long ago does it have to be for it to no longer have meaning?

[joe]

"joe, aren't there any other Democrats more worthy of your defense than Robert Byrd?"

I'm not defending Byrd, I'm defending the truth. People who take dishonest, name-calling potshots piss me off.

Frankly, I don't really give a hoot about the old fossil - er, distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.

[steve]

Joe, don't waste your time defending someone because he only USED to be a member of the Klan. You're better than that.

[joe]

"I agree with others above in that if Byrd were a Republican and had the history that he has, he would not nearly be as unscathed today."

You mean, if he had been a vocal proponent of "states rights" whenever federal civil rights protection came up? If he had centered his election strategy on telling people hanging rebel flags that he approved of their "traditional values?" If he had roundly denounced affirmative action and run "white hands" ads? Or used imagery of black kids and mugshots and crack pipes in ads about "urban crime" and "the underclass?"

Yes, if somebody with a racist past had adopted politics like these, he probably would be denounced as a racist. When you've been in the freaking KKK, you are presumed guilty of racism unless proven innocent. The difference between my judgement and that of the Goiter is that I actually bothered to look at the evidence and see if he had demonstrated a rejection of racism, while Goiter made sure not to expose himself to any of the information available.

[joe]

Brett, to answer your question, it doesn't matter how old racist acts were, they still relect on you.

It isn't that he hasn't been openly racist in 30 years that eases my concerns, it's that he has denounced racism and worked in opposition to it, and its consequences, during that period.

[thePeaNutGallery]

VoiceOver at January 27, 2005 12:13 PM
got some issue's huh!!!

Brett at January 27, 2005 01:31 PM
"...And 8 years later he's in another interview, using the word "nigger" (albeit in the context of "white nigger") multiple times"
?was he refering to Eminem?

Brett at January 27, 2005 02:05 PM
...How long ago does it have to be for it to no longer have meaning?
people generally never forget, and definitely never forgive!!!

[R C Dean]

joe, what on earth has Byrd done to work in opposition to racism and its effects?

Oh, and I don't much care if he voted for mid-level black flunkies in anybody's administration. He voted against both Thomas and Marshall (Marshall!), the only black Supreme Court Justices he ever had the opportunity to vote on. He voted against Rice.

I can't track down how he voted on Powell, but I think he must have voted for him.

And Byrd is clearly lying about his time in the Klan. He was a freaking recruiter, people! That's what a Kleagle was. Byrd was a true believer then, and I for one am skeptical that he has changed much.

[Gary Gunnels]

This is not the first time that Republicans have made arguments like this; arguments that strike as bordering on endorsements of "tokenism," "affrimative action," etc.

Note how R.C. Dean turns this story to his benefit by attacking Democrats with a tu quoque. I just don't get Republicans.

TPG,

I don't see why anyone would have had high hopes for Rice.

[Gary Gunnels]

Of course I don't get Democrats either.

[rst]

Rosenfeld's and Hatch's comments provide perspective

I wasn't being so specific. The perspective is on the process. The exercise is not intended to ensure the candidate is the right person for the job, but rather to provide a forum for partisan bickering and favormongering precisely because partisanship is not as reliable a backstop in these hearings as it is for regular legislation. The "R" word is a favorite piece of bickering between Democrats and Republicans, and I thought it worthwhile to note the discrepancy.

I also thought it worthwhile to note that 21 of 67 (31%) Democrat Senators (including Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr.) and 96 of 248 (39%) Democrat Reps voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, following a 74-day Democrat filibuster designed to defeat it. This contrasts with 6 of 27 (18%) Republican senators and 34 of 172 (20%) Republican reps.

[Gary Gunnels]

rst,

Those statistics are well known. What they basically demostrate is that the law would not have been passed with the efforts of both parties. Also, I don't believe that Gore or Goldwater's opposition were based on racism.

That many of those who voted against the Act later became Republicans is also interesting to note.

Neither party has a history clean of racism.

[joe]

rst,

Doesn't the fact that you have to go back 40+ years to justify your "curse on both their houses" viewpoint suggest anything to you?

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have changed their positions on racial issuess considerably since that vote. One party chose to become the civil rights party, and spent decades in the wilderness because of it. The other decided to pursue a "Southern Strategy" designed to pick up the votes of those offended by the Democrats' embrace of racial equality.

[rst]

Doesn't the fact that you have to go back 40+ years to justify your "curse on both their houses" viewpoint suggest anything to you?

I don't have to go back anywhere. I can turn on C-SPAN and justify my "curse on both their houses" viewpoint right now. I'll justify it based on shit that won't happen 'til tomorrow.

It doesn't suggest anything to me. It doesn't matter what side of the fence they were on yesterday, they were full of shit then, and they're full of shit now. Senate confirmations are exercises in Returning The Favor, either way. Don't go looking for deeper meaning in the rhetoric that arises from the steaming pile, especially when it concerns an overloaded term like "Racism". Hatch is not trying to create a real debate with his soundbite, all he wants to do is put democrats on the spot with the recently republican-leaning hispanics. Democrats are so taken with their enlightenment that they often forget that they are just as "racist" as the Republican good ol' boys they despise. This is the perspective on the criticism: It is presumed by too many that only republicans are motivated towards policy by racism. I think Democrats have successfully woven the Noble Savage into the fabric of their people's party routine so well that the Democrats turn their noses up at such notions publicly, knowing that nobody would be foolish enough to think a democrat a racist. Racism -- whatever it really is, I hate that bullshit word -- may not enter into these hearings at all. But simply because it is a candidate to whom democrats are opposed, you cannot assume that it will not.

Gunnels thinks Al Gore Sr. was not motivated by racism in voting against the C.R.A.'64. I think his participation in the filibuster against it indicates that he was complicit with Byrd. But he's Al Gore...

He voted against both Thomas and Marshall (Marshall!), the only black Supreme Court Justices he ever had the opportunity to vote on.

Was he obliged to vote for them by virtue of their blackness?

[Gary Gunnels]

rst,

The filibuster was lead by Strom Thurmond; who switched to the Republican party. I really don't see how either party comes off "clean" in the end.

Let's note that this Democrat v. Republican sniping on the issue - and the ahistoricism of both sides regarding the act coming into being - ignores my basic point: neither party - either rst's Republican party or joe's Democratic party - is free of racism in its past.

As to Al Gore, sr., he refused (in 1956) to sign the racist Southern Manifesto (one of only two southern Senators to do so). If he really were a racist, he would have presumably signed on the dotted line.

[thoreau]

Earlier I criticized Roberty Byrd. I forgot about my strike, in which I refrain from criticizing Democrats until the White House gives me some payola.

Elsewhere on this forum I criticized Diane Feinstein. Once again, I crossed the picket line.

I apologize for failing to show solidarity with those who have joined me in this strike. No more criticizing Democrats until I get some cash for my efforts!

😉

[wow]

Hotels plus Tours Hotels in London Paris Hotels Rome Hotels Athens Hotels Hotels in Istanbul Barcelona Hotels Munich Hotels Cannes Hotels Madrid Hotels Oslo Hotels Budapest Hotels Lisbon Hotels Amsterdam Hotels Athens Hotels Barcelona Hotels Paris Hotels Istanbul Hotels Madrid Hotels Rome Hotels Milan Hotels Munich Hotels Oslo Hotels Budapest Hotels London Hotels Lisbon Hotels Santorini Hotels Shanghai Hotels Hotels in Thailand Hotels in Bangkok Chiang Mai Hotels Hotels in Pattaya Phuket Hotels Hong Kong Hotels Hong Kong Island Kowloon Hotels New Territories Hotels Outlying Island Hotels China Hotels Beijing Hotels Shanghai Hotels Guangzhou Hotels Guilin Hotels Tianjin Hotels Xian Hotels Japan Hotels Chubu Hotels Chugoku Hotels Hokkaido Hotels Kanto Hotels Okinawa Hotels Shikoku Hotels Tokyo Hotels Singapore Hotels Chinatown Area Hotels Eastcoast Area Hotels Little India Hotels Marina Bay Hotels Orchard Road Hotels Sentosa Island Hotels Malaysia Hotels Northern Region Hotels Eastern Region Hotels Kuala Lumpur Hotels Southern Region Hotels Sarawak Hotels Penang Hotels
Discount Singapore Hotels Singapore Hotels Singapore Hotels Discount Singapore Hotels Online Sentosa Hotels Singapore Thailand Hotels Bangkok Hotels Pattaya Hotels Phuket Hotels Chiang Mai Hotels Japan Hotels Tokyo Hotels Kobe Hotels Osaka Hotels Okinawa Hotels Hong Kong Hotels Discount Hong Kong Hotels Kowloon Hotels Hong Kong Hotels Online Malaysia Hotels Malaysia Hotel Kuala Lumpur Hotels Penang Hotels Taiwan Hotels Taiwan Hotel Taipei Hotels Indonesia Hotels Bali Hotels ?stanbul Hotels Shanghai Hotels Barcelona Hotels Paris Hotels Amsterdam Hotels London Hotels New York Hotels Discount Bangkok Hotels Discount Kuala Lumpur Hotels Discount New Delhi Hotels Discount Barcelona Discount London Hotels Discount Madrid Hotels Discount Paris Hotels Discount Rome Hotels Discount Jakarta Hotels Discount Singapore Hotels Discount Pattaya Hotels Discount Bali Hotels Discount Athens Hotels Discount Hong Kong Hotels Discount Shanghai Hotels Discount Tokyo Hotels Discount Beijing Hotels Discount Istanbul Hotels