Before I get to Howard Dean, I have to get this off my mind. I cringe every time I see and hear “African American.” There is no such nationality or race as “African American,” OK? If blacks don’t like the word “black” or whites feel funny saying it, pick a new word. I resent being referred to as “African American,” but if other folks want to be called that, there’s nothing I can do about it. Please, please, please stop using that term.
We are Americans. Most of us are descended from Africans, but we are not Africans. Most were born and raised right here in the good old USA. Do not assume that all blacks want to be called “African American.” Do not make me a lesser American by adding a reference to another continent, one I’ve never even been to, for crying out loud, to my nationality.
On to Howard Dean. A group of black Republicans is calling for his head after his remarks about black hotel staff a couple of weeks ago. Screaming Dean said, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”
Harty-har-har. Funny guy. I blogged about it, and the post was even mentioned on MSNBC. Anyway, so some black Republicans in Mississippi want Dean to resign as head of the DNC.
I disagree with them on this. I say let Dean stay. The more he puts his foot in his mouth, the more facts we conservatives have to support our opinion that Howard Dean is good for the Republican party. Howard Dean as chair of the DNC will provide me with all the fodder I need to blog about the bigoted tendencies of the Democratic party. Yes, Howard Dean as chair of the DNC spewing forth racially insensitive remarks will illuminate just how patronizingly ineffectual liberals are.
I hope Howard Dean reigns over the inept, two-elections-in-a-row-losing “party of the people” for years to come.
Myopic Zeal has more on Dean’s foot-in-mouth disease.
Update (3/3): About the Democrats and their election-losing proclivities, do you realize they’ve lost five of the last seven elections? Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 95 comments }
LaShawn, you’re ruining my ethno-heritage-sensitive plans. Now I have to stop billing myself as a Euro-German-American. And I just bought several pairs of lederhosen in order to make sure everyone knows “what” I am; do I now have to return them?
Sheesh. Now how will government bureaucrats know which ethnic pigeonhole to stuff me into?
Yup, I like Dean right where he is:-) In fact I hope he gets more and more media exposure everyday.
I’ve never much liked “African American”, but I think many white people (like myself) are a bit uncomfortable with “black” as a group descriptor; it’s gained some of the negative odor that “Negro” has. The problem with “African American” as a descriptor is that it’s flat-out wrong in many cases: many black Americans are of Caribbean descent, not African; and there are many white Americans who hail from Africa (South Africa mainly, but also Zimbabwe and Rhodesia) either ancestrally or first-generation.
Ultimately I guess you just call people what they want to be called.
I’m amazed that The Screamer can have a foot in his mouth when his head is perpetually up his arse…;)
Monty, my thinking is that the descriptors themselves, no matter how they are spelled, are terribly overused and misused. What possible reason is there to refer to people by race or ancestral origin during the normal course of a day? With the possible exception of the need to identify people in police reports (be on the lookout for a white, fat, bald man who just robbed the Dunkin Donuts), why can’t people just be people?
Y’know, this Dean statement has bothered me from day one. The problem that I am now facing is the fact that he was probably factually correct. The more I think about it, the more I recognize that many hotel housekeeping staffs are either Brown or Yellow people. In fact, every one that I’ve seen has been this way in the majority. (Not that I’ve seen every staff in the U.S. of course.)
I really don’t know what to think of this now. Racially insensitive? Maybe not. Besides, I don’t subscribe to each color of people being a different race. IF you accept the term “Human Race” as valid, then any other distinction that includes the term “race” becomes a sub-division, and I am not sub-human.
I prefer ethnicity. It seems to fit better logically and factually.
The only time African-American is useful, Redbeard is when Blacks scream racism because they don’t get their own way. I’m glad, though that Republicans are beginning to stand up and decry being called racists all the time while it’s the Dems. who routinely reflect that mentality. Even a black councilwoman(oh yeah, she’s a dem.) in a city near where I live publicly called her fellow Repub. councilpeople racist. Good for them that they publicly stood up and demanded an apology from her. Of course, that didn’t happen since she was right(of course). Nevermind that this woman was also elected President of the council under duress. It took them, I believe, close to 24 hours to elect her, and only because 1 Republican finally cast his vote for her in order to get out of there. It’s a crying shame, because then they have to deal with that nonsense.
P.S. Is it publicly or publickly? Sorry, brain fart.
Thank you Lashawn, for voicing your objection to the term “African American”. I think many share your contempt for the hyphen! In my experience those who cry the loudest about being referred to as Black do so as a form of manipulation. Whether a conscious effort to claim superiority, or simply a conditioned reflex, these same “offended” are perplexed if a Caucaission objected to being called “White”.
As for Dr. Dean………. This is gonna be Great!
What’s wrong with Black American? I’m a White American…Frankly, they have the UNCF (United Negro College Fund) and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). I never saw those as bad…I wasn’t taught to. Personally I think people get too (MUCH Too) sensitive. Learn that life isn’t always going to be what you want. And roll with it. I won’t speak the way you want? Too bad. Either don’t talk to me, or learn to ‘tolerate’ it. Wait. I’m white. Minorities don’t have to ‘tolerate’ me. I can be relegated to the racist bin.
The worst offenders in the racial categorization game are self-flagellating guilt-ridden limousine liberals. They are fiercely intent upon demonstrating how sensitive they are, but in fact are demonstrating an insidious form of racism.
Do not make me a lesser American by adding a reference to another country, one I’ve never even been to, for crying out loud, to my nationality.
You think that’s bad? All through February, when I visited a certain mall in this city, they played announcements over the PA celebrating Black History Month and the many contributions of “African-American” to our society.
Only problem: This is Ottawa. 99% of the people in earshot are neither African nor American.
20 years down the road, will they be using the term in Nigeria or Uganda?
It occurs to me that if you subscribe to the “out of Africa” theory of human evolution, then we’re all African-Americans!
RedBeard:
I agree that “group labeling” is ripe for misuse, but I also think that it’s entirely valid if meant in the neutral “mathematical group” sense. Example, I am of the group of “middle-aged males of Caucasian descent”. This is a true demographic and is a useful description of the group to which I belong. But it does not describe me, at least not entirely. I belong to many other groups: those who like to read, those who love movies, those who own cats…. And so on.
Ultimately we’re all a minority of one, a group of only our own selves.
I think La Shawn simply wants to revert back to a normalized usage of “black”, but I’m not sure that is possible in this PC age.
The top paragraph in the above is La Shawn’s own, not mine. (That’s what I get for not reading the HTML tagging instructions closely enough.)
I agree with you there, Monty. As purely neutral demographic information, fine. It’s when race or ancestral homeland is used to segregate that I get a bit exercised. And with the exception of a handful of unwashed hatemongers, that misuse is perpetrated most often by the left these days.
Even though a lot of his work was offensive, I still got a good laugh from Redd Foxx on occasion, as with this quip: “I ain’t from Africa. I’m from St. Louis.”
How about Blond and Non-blond?
It also confuses an issue. There are some folks who are from Africa and have relocated to America recently. I have many friends from Ghana, and Ethopia who moved here as infants, or their parents moved here not too long before their birth. They still speak their respective African languages in addition to English - both fluently. They still retain many of their respective African customs and are intimately familiar with and comfortable with American customs. In my opinion, these folks can rightly be called African-American, or more accurately Ethopian-American or Ghanean-American. Africa is not a monolothic culture.
Not so with myself. I am about as familiar with the language and customs of my African ancestors (heck, I don’t even know what part of Africa they came from , much less what language they spoke or their regional customs) as I am with the language and culture of my Native American ancestors. I would love to learn more about the language and customs of both, but it would always be in a context removed from the native environment. In fact those specific languages/dialects and customs that belonged to my direct ancestors may not even be in practice anymore.
I am Black and I am an American.
I am with you. From the first time I heard the term African American I cringed. I just love how everyone “assumes” that all Black people want to be called that. I make a point of correcting white people who work with me the minute it comes out their mouth.
As you said, their are those who want to be called that … more power to them, however, it is not all of us (not by a long shot).
It’s like Martin Luther King said in one of his speeches…. it makes us lower than American, it labels us “less” than others (and what is amazing, it is US that is striving to be considered less and then complaining when it happens :)…go figure).
I once tried a thought experiment and tried to come up with an accurate ethnic label for myself. I concluded that I am a “Scots-Irish-Welsh-German-Jewish-Protestant-Atheist-Cherokee-Libertarian American”. It just seems simpler to use my first name….
I’d rather be known as what kind of guy I am, so just call me an Old-Grouchy-American. At least that’s accurate.
LaShawn dittos from a proud black women in Alabama.These Elites in our community need to busy themselves on more important matters concerning our communities.these dimwits are nothing but symbol and no substance.Black folks better focus on more important stuff than useless labels.
“Yes, Howard Dean as chair of the DNC spewing forth racially insensitive remarks will illuminate just how patronizingly ineffectual liberals are.”
I welcome a discussion between democrats and republicans about the socioeconomic status of african americans.
I am a White American? What ever does that mean? Do I feel a part of the White whatever? No. The only thing I have in common with the great mass of pale skinned folks, I guess, is our european roots, roots we all ran away from I might add. I am walking along in a shopping surrounded by white people. Do I think “my people?” Nnnoooooo! I sure hope not.
My people are the ones living in this country who support, at least generally, the Constitution. Who else is there? My people dress all sorts of different ways, listen to all sorts of different music (I am partial to jazz), and eat all sorts of different foods. Our architecture, literature, and art cannot be defined except by geography. My people are politically and geographically defined.
I don’t see how Howard Dean’s remark was “racially insensitive.” He was stating a fairly obvious fact (or series of facts).
A) There are very few black Republicans with any sort of leadership in the party.
B) The majority of hotel’s are staffed by people of color.
And he used those two facts to make an “ironic” statement.
One that was true for the most part.
I agree with you that the term “black americans” ought not be used. However, being a notorious “bleeding heart liberal” thats about all I agree with you on. *smiles* Go third party!!!
I’m a ‘white’ guy and have to admit that I am sometimes worried about describing someone in a group as the “the black person” even if it is a valid description and a quick way to point out who you are describing. The same apprehension sometimes applies to describing someone as a woman. However, I’ll take this thought one step further.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear people complain about ‘foreigners’ moving in and taking all of ‘our’ jobs. Weren’t we all ‘foreigners’ at one time? Even the best theory on ‘aboriginal’ Americans points to the fact that they probably migrated here from what is now Russia across a land bridge through the Bering Straights. Isn’t the whole point of being an ‘American’ is that you leave the worst parts of your homeland behind and join a new group of fellow citizens that did not wish to be defined by their borders?
LaShawn,
(Showing my age), I grew up and went to school with good friends who called themselves Negro, which then was changed to Black, which then was changed to African-American. Whenever race was referenced, it was done using the term we were told (by Black folk in general) represented respect. Thus, please understand, it can become confusing for White folk acting in good faith. (fortunately, all I have to do with my beautiful “olive” wife is call her “honey”).
I think that the Democrats should leave him be.
I can think of nothing that will guarantee the defeat of the looney left Liberal Hippocrats more than Dean as party head and Hillary, The Countess of Chappaqua, as the party’s standard bearer in ‘08.
Long-live Screaming Howard.
The issue of Black or African-American or American or whatever is silly, IMO.
From a Black Republican who is the California state GOP Secretary:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820110/posts
When I travel to speak at Republican conferences and events around the country, wandering through hotels, convention centers and social clubs, as I approach the rooms where I’m scheduled to speak, I am often told by Republicans that I must be in the wrong place. While boarding a shuttle bus to a national convention a few years ago, an attendee who was already on the bus introduced himself to another white guest who was boarding, took one look at me and, in an attempt to be helpful, told me I was on the wrong bus. As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate’s badge and RNC lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me to fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage.
In the end, I still didn’t like Dean’s comment.
Actus wrote, “I welcome a discussion between democrats and republicans about the socioeconomic status of african americans. ”
How Actus can you believe that you are welcoming the discussion when later in your sentence you were insensitive to how La Shawn would like to be referred to? You can’t even refer to the group you want a discussion on sensitively enough to have a discussion.
Again, read Ward Connerly’s book “Creating Equal”. He addresses that he believes that if there are to be hand ups to those who are economically disadvantaged that it shouldn’t be a hand up to one race but to all who meet the definition “economically disadvantaged”. Giving opportunities to families to have thier children attend college cannot just go to one race who is economically disadvantaged, the opportunity should be race neutral.
There. Now that’s a discussion. Equal opportunity. But I know you’ll steer the discussion away from equal opportunity. Who has the racist attitude then Actus?
Bob Gilley,
Yes ! Go Green party !
Woo Hooo ! Get those votes !
DarkStar,
It works both ways. Liberals are caught by La Shawn to be saying the meanest things all because they assume she’s “one of them” (a liberal) and then what? Feel freer to speak? Hatefully? How is that positive?
It is sad that people assume someone is aligned politically a certain way because they are black, but Democrats have gotten away with much unwarranted support for far too long. The new media will undermine the Democrat’s stranglehold on the message to blacks and we will see that stereotype be considered an old stereotype that no longer applies.
I agree that support of Dems by Blacks needs to be investigated by individual Blacks, but as Michael Steele said, it was wrong of the Republican party to pursue the Southern Strategy.
I will say again, and it’s something that some Black Republicans concede it is a good point, it makes little sense to blame Blacks for the success of the Southern Strategy.
The new word I pick to describe people formally known as “African-American” formally known as “Black” is ‘Thatguy’ (masculine) or ‘thatgirl’ (Feminine)
DS wrote, “it makes little sense to blame Blacks for the success of the Southern Strategy.”
I have no idea what you are talking about DS? I’m not politically naive either. I’ve been heavily into politics for over 14 years, live in CA now but grew up in VA and was there until 1994.
Nor do I know why you say, “blame Blacks”. From my angle as a white conservative I see the conservative message of judging people based on merit and Ward Connerly’s message of giving a hand up (if done) to all who are economically disadvantaged and Proposition 209 which CA voted into existence banning preferential treatment or discrimination (same thing) based on race or ethnicity to be great ideas and messages. Unfortunately for far too long (about 3 decades) there was a stranglehold on the medium and conservative messages did not get out.
The conservative message is no longer stifled. It started in 1989 with you no who. Talk radio exploded. In 1994 the House and Senate turned Republican for the first time in 40 years and actually 54 years if you exclude the 2 years that Republicans had a breif say.
It used to be a majority of state governorships and legislatures and the Congress was Democrat for over 4 decades. During those 4 decades there were plenty of times where there was a Democrat president. Now it’s the reverse. I don’t BLAME the country for being so duped for so long. I blame the fact that there was a mislabeling, mischaracterizing, lying, cheating, accusational press and liberal leadership in this country who had a monopolizing media on thier side.
Those days are over and instead of the debate of ideas getting better, the liberals are getting worse and they can’t stand the fact that conservatives actually have a voice now. But who cares. Because the sillier the Democrat leaders get with their accusations and non-debate in the playing field of ideas the MORE AND MORE people will realize they are a conservative. Nope the people can’t be blamed no matter what race they are or age they were/are.
You’ll come around. I did in 1991.
Ugh! Not the “Southern Strategy” again.
What exactly is that accusation La Shawn?
BTW, I just “listened” to the video on Political Teen’s site. You did very well.
Southern strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states. It is also used in a more general sense, in which cultural (especially racial) themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. The use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed.
After reading this assinine definition, I’ve got to say that liberals are a big city/coastal party. It has nothing to do with the “south” exactly. There are big cities in the south that go Democrat every time.
Many big cities have had liberal/Democrat mayor’s for decades. How has it helped that city politically or economically?
Why do people in big cities whether white OR black tend to vote Democrat? Why do people in more expensive areas (who have to earn higher wages to support themselves in those areas) vote Democrat and basically gaurantee that they’ll pay higher taxes as a higher income earner?
It’s all whack and I’ve never heard one Republican candidate whether in VA or CA talk about a stupid “southern strategy”. It sounds like another liberal “accusation”.
As I said, liberals will get wackier and wackier with their accusations (instead of debating on the playing field of ideas) until more and more americans align themselves with conservatives.
So…. keep it up liberals. I love it.
And oh yeah ! Go Green party !
Nor do I know why you say, “blame Blacks”.
Because many Black Republicans seem to “blame Blacks” who vote Democrat for voting Democrat instead of putting some of the blame on the Republican party for not seeking Black votes, until recently.
If Republicans willfully ignored the Black vote, why should Blacks give them the vote?
Jewish voters vote Democrat 80-85% of the time, yet there is no public commentary about Jewish people voting for Democrats as it is for Black people.
Again, Tony Snow:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow080200.asp
Yes LaShawn, the Southern Strategy again. The truth is the truth.
Darkstar wrote, “putting some of the blame on the Republican party….”.
DS, conservatives have a message. While liberals/Democrats divide this country into groups and cater to those groups, I think what you fail to recognize is that conservatives stand on prinicple (generally) and are not going to pander/cater/tailor a message (because that would be the opposite of standing on principle) to one group or another.
People (I don’t care about the race) can find the message appealing or not. But one thing is certain and that is the liberals don’t have a monopoly on messaging anymore and they look sillier and sillier as time passes and therefore each year that passes (with conservatives having a voice) a half more percentage of voters vote conservatively.
Yes. DS. The truth is the truth. And what you speak of is false allegations. To what? Make you feel good? It’s effect is to convert more people to conservatism and for that I thank you.
I agree, Dean can be a powerful person for us Republicans. Dean is so great, he’s almost as effective as having a subversive in the enemies camp.
LaShawn, as for your comments regarding race, I am always amazed at people’s stupidity on this subject. Acts 17:26 says, “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth…” So from this we know that we are all of ‘one blood’ and that there is only one race, the ‘human race’. To make a character or moral judgement based on the amount of melonin in one’s skin is nothing short of proposterous.
Keep up the good work!
I have a small little question?
Do you not see it as a dense population area vs. suburban/rural area at all? Or in your eyes is it just the “south”?
Have you seen the voting patterns by county (blue/red maps)?
Do you think that Bush should’ve dumped tons of money into CA, NY and MA even though history and polling shows double digit leads by Dem’s in those states? Shouldn’t the smart strategy by Republicans be to get as many electoral votes as possible by at least putting efforts into states that have a chance of voting Republican?
And… Which states would Republicans have to win before you quit with the false allegation?
And… did you know that there was only 2 (I believe) states that had less of a percentage for Bush this time (VT and another one) than last time? Do Republicans have to gain percentage points in all 50 states before you recognize something?
You’ll come around. I did in 1991.
I’m actually past you. I don’t support party, I support individual politicians.
If you care to take a peek at what I’ve written about Democrats over the years (this includes the wasteland of Usenet), see this:
http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/002924.html
On that web site you wrote, “Start with the March 1998 issue of Emerge that has the picture of Ward Connerly as a puppet. Read the article on the money strings behind Prop. 209.”
Why the accusations about Ward Connerly? Why not a debate on the ideas he presents. Should his message be shot down based on money supporting Prop 209 or can’t the message be looked at on merit? Are you afraid of the message?
A liberals pattern is to avoid the debate on the playing field of ideas with accusations. I saw that on your web site.
You also wrote, “Republicans try and ignore us”. Again. Conservatives have a message. We aren’t trying to divide and cater a message to one group or another to garner votes. We have a message based on principle.
So far I can see that you don’t like the message. How do I know? Because you make false allegations to avoid the debate…
Good night.
DS, conservatives have a message. While liberals/Democrats divide this country into groups and cater to those groups,
All politicans divide into groups. Listen to the current “blue vs. green” silliness. Look at Republicans dividing the “left” and “right” coasts vs. “fly over country”. Look at Republicans, within their own party, talking about RINOs.
And what you speak of is false allegations. To what? Make you feel good? It’s effect is to convert more people to conservatism and for that I thank you.
Tony Snow wrote about the same “false allegations.” Michael Steele, the Lt. Gov. of Maryland, who is a Republican and who is Black, who headed the GOP outreach effort for Bush’s re-election, said the same thing I did.
I provided a link from a statement by Shannon Reeves, a Black Republican in California.
And some how I’m spreading false allegations?
From Michael Steele:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_44_17/ai_80500095
In 1964, for instance, with Barry Goldwater and the Southern strategy. But Goldwater was not a racist; the problem was the nature of the strategy. To pursue the Southern strategy the party of Lincoln abandoned the very people who had embraced the GOP to assure abolition and who had helped to build it into a profound moral force.
Now, are you willing to say Steele is spreading false allegations? Or are you going to call him a RINO?
Why the accusations about Ward Connerly? Why not a debate on the ideas he presents.
1. What accusations? I wrote about the Emerge article with referenced funding of his campaign. The article discuss how heavily backed, with money, Connerlly was. It also discussed how funding was not given the side against Connerly.
Whoops.
2. During this past election, a big deal was made about the funding done by the person who backed moveon.org. If funding is not an issue, why were Republicans and conservatives concerned about the funding?
A liberals pattern is to avoid the debate on the playing field of ideas with accusations. I saw that on your web site.
I will write that you saw no such thing on my web site. I supported things that I wrote with information.
You also wrote, “Republicans try and ignore us”. Again. Conservatives have a message. We aren’t trying to divide and cater a message to one group or another to garner votes. We have a message based on principle.
From Michael Steele, Lt. Gov. of Maryland, a Republican, and Black:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_44_17/ai_80500095
In 1964, for instance, with Barry Goldwater and the Southern strategy. But Goldwater was not a racist; the problem was the nature of the strategy. To pursue the Southern strategy the party of Lincoln abandoned the very people who had embraced the GOP to assure abolition and who had helped to build it into a profound moral force.
Because you make false allegations to avoid the debate…
Providing a link to Tony Snow, a white conservative and Republican who used to guest host for Rush Limbaugh, who supported what I wrote is avoiding debate?
Providing a link to Michael Steele, a Black Republican, is avoiding debate?
Providing a link to Shannon Reeves, a Black Republican, is avoiding debate?
I understand.
Nope. I like Steele. I also like Reeves who I’ve heard on talk radio interviews in CA.
As defined by Wikipedia “Southern Strategy” (first day in my life that I’ve heard it) is illogical as an explanation. A more accurate description, I hope you can find the common sense to agree, is that Republicans would probably try to put money where it was the most effective in switching a state from electoral votes for a Democrat to Republican. Do I hear an OH that sounds logical from anyone?
People mentioning “southern strategy” doesn’t make them:
1) correct
2) informed
3) right on
4) a RINO
5) a spreader of false allegations
To find information on the Internet, and a paragraph here or there that somebody may have mentioned about “southern strategy” is easy.
To think for yourself and realize the whole idea of southern strategy in the year 2005 is completely illogical on the face of it.
Again. Have you seen the red/blue county vote maps? Does it look like a southern strategy or does it look like metropolitan vs. everyone else? I only need look at that map to see there is no there there. No merit in your compiled list of accusations.
But I welcome the debate. Do you know why? Because 90% of the people who have seen those county maps will probably see what I’m saying has more merit.
And that is why I’m glad conservatives have a voice today….. Because the accusations and information a decade ago would’ve gone UNCHECKED.
“blue vs. greenâ€
Make that “blue vs. red”.
LaShawn,
SSSOOOOO glad you posted those remarks in the opening paragraph. Whenever I was asked my nationality, I would always say “American”. I was born here, I never left here….what else would I be?
It’s as if just being “American” isn’t good enough; white people have to call themselves Irish, Italian, etc.
The whole black/white thing is dumb, anyway. The only time it’s useful is if you’re setting somebody up on a date, or you’re giving somebody directions to the rest room.
“See where that white guy is? Turn right down that hall…”
DS, whatever the Southern Strategy (SS) may have been 40 years ago, it is totally irrelevant today.
This country is so mobile that a significant portion have transplanted themselves from some other State once or twice removed. How is SS going to appeal to a transplanted Yank in Dixie Land? For that matter, the SS should also appeal to some Cajun that transplanted himself to Minnesota.
SO WHAT? Seeing how the demographics began their interstate migration in ernest in the early 70s, whatever racial advantage the SS had for Goldwater, quickly evaporated. Truly an anomoly rather than the conspiracy you believe to be lurking under the sheeted robes.
What counts these days is the message. Why should I vote for one over another? For me, I’m going with the guy that promises more self-determination rather than more nanny state-ism. That’s my bottomline and pretty much so for most conservatives.
So go ahead and talk about SS until you’re blue in the face, it don’t matter to me cause I don’t give a rip if nowadays some see a subliminal message to disenfanchise the plantation-bound by emphasizing self-reliance. Especially since the Dems have their own Southern Strategy — buying votes with the promise of the public dole and PC Affimative Action.
Figurtively speaking, in this day and age, you’re as free as you want to be. If some would rather have the nanny state hold their hands, so be it. However, even if I have to tear their clenching bleeding fingers away from their cherished programs, I will w/ nary a qualm. To me, I view it along the lines of tough love or hardcore detox.
IOW, I’m not caring too much if the social-engineering-dependant get tossed on the street with their belongings stuffed in garbage bags. It’ll be worth it, if it means they’ll look around and see help ain’t rushing in to insulate them from their stupidity and realize that they’re gonna have to start scratchng out a living. Hopefully having to really suffer & toil, they’ll gain wisdom which they can pass on to their offspring: “get educated and depend on no man for a handout and you’ll avoid my tragic fate”.
If that’s the new SS, then count me 110% for it.
OK, so now you might be saying I’m hyperbolic, but really, every few weeks you have to dredge SS up again. Why? Because you have nothing critical to say to the substance of whatever topic de jour. Like the old ad, “this ain’t your daddy’s oldsmobile”. Today’s GOP is nothing like that of the 60’s.
OTOH, the DNC is blantantly worse now and Dean is going to help drive a stake in it with his ill-advised Southern Strategy.
Yes Virginia, there really is a Southern Strategy and the DNC owns it with Dean as its evangelist. So next time you bring up SS, instead of talking about the 60’s version, let’s talk about the 21st century type.
LaShawn opined:
“I hope Howard Dean reigns over the inept, two-elections-in-a-row-losing “party of the people” for years to come.”
I’m getting a bit tired of the triumphalism of the
Republicans… the GOP won two of the closest election is history… though the GOP now controls the House and Senate, both are still fairly close… when Clinton won two elections in a row, I don’t recall a single Democrat declaring the GOP was history. The pendulum swings one way, but will most assuredly swing back…
For the sake of the nation, Jab, I hope you’re wrong about that pendulum.
The Republican Party is not any sort of perfect solution, but the current Dems are most certainly the major problem. As led by politicians like Dean, Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer and Clinton, and as manipulated by people like Michael Moore and George Soros, the Dems are grouping on the far left end of the chart.
As for me, I’ll continue to vote with the Republicans, for now. Perfect? Hardly. But I’ll happily align myself with those who are right more often than not, as opposed to those who make a habit of being wrong almost all of the time.
“SO WHAT? Seeing how the demographics began their interstate migration in ernest in the early 70s, whatever racial advantage the SS had for Goldwater, quickly evaporated.”
Thus we see Ronald Reagan, kicking off his campaign for the 80 election by talking about states rights in a little town called philadelphia, mississippi.
A town you may remember from the movie “mississippi burning.” Why he went there, to that out of the way place, to praise “states rights” is up to you to figure out.
Does Dean fantasize he’s doing “outreach?” Is there an antonym for outreach?
The right of states to run their own affairs is not a pejorative. It’s the law of the land, clearly spelled out in the Constitution. It’s also widely disregarded by the left, and considered an impediment to their plans to involve the federal government in every detail of our lives.
Racists have used states’ rights as a ruse to cover up their segregation plans, but abuse of a solid principle does not lessen its validity; it only points up the need to stop the abuse.
Acus: Thus we see Ronald Reagan, kicking off his campaign for the 80 election by talking about states rights in a little town called philadelphia, mississippi Cue Twilight Zone Soundtrack.
Why on earth would I want to see/use some leftist hollywood flick as my history textbook? Hollywood=Revisionism<>Historical Fact(s)
Seems to me like kicking off his run there is better than most anywhere else. Reagan was an uniter, not a divider. Too bad the dems like dropping a # 2 in everyone’s kitchen.
Lashawn,
I’d say that the dems have lost 7 of the last 7. First, Bill Clinton never won a majority of votes and two, it was Bill Clinton who brought the dems into the spotlight that gave the Republicans the opportunity to win back the house for the first time in over 40 year. In my heart of hearts I do not believe the “Gingrich Revolution” could have happened w/out the “Clinton Catalyst.”
So in my mind, Bill Clintons electoral victory was really a win for us Republicans even if I had to grit my teeth for eight years.;)
“Why on earth would I want to see/use some leftist hollywood flick as my history textbook? Hollywood=RevisionismHistorical Fact(s)”
Well, you don’t have to take as fact everything in the movie. I was just referencing the events that the movie depicts: the murder of 3 civil rights workers and the unability of the local authorities to do anything to punish the guilty (including themselves).
Maybe that was the states rights that ronnie is was talking about. Very uniting.
Actus, would you be so good as to show how Ronald Reagan promoted segregation or supported the killing of civil rights workers? I don’t believe I recall reading that in any of his biographies.
Ronnie was uniting for us, seeing how our family & friends voted for Carter earlier, based on his “christianity”, unfortunately, Jimmy’s divisive actions didn’t jib with being a pro-american.
“Actus, would you be so good as to show how Ronald Reagan promoted segregation or supported the killing of civil rights workers?”
Oh I wouldn’t say he did that. I would just say he went to the podunk town in mississippi famous for impunity in the killing of civil rights workers and kicked off his campaign by talking about “States rights” there.
And then i’d call him a “uniter.”
Redbeard, Actus is a case study of why conservatives will continue to win
Darkstar,
It seems we are talking past each other. On the one hand I don’t know why the conservative message can’t be talked about or addressed by you and you throw up how Republicans bashed moveon.org’s funding. The only reason why moveon.org’s funding was in question Darkstar was because of the hypocrasy of liberals/Democrats wanting to get rid of big money in politics and then when they realized that that was most of the money they had they found a way to get that money back into politics.
To throw that back at me as a way of justifying your bashing Ward Connerly’s Prop 209 funding isn’t acceptable. The moveon.org people had a message. Their message most people couldn’t agree with. Their funding was pointed out to be hypocratical because of liberals/Dem’s message concerning taking the big money out of politics.
If you disagree or agree with Ward then talk about what you disagree with or agree with him about. I agree with Ward Connerly 100%. I voted for Prop 209 because I read the entire text of the proposition and I was excited and happy to vote for it. TO TRY TO DISCREDIT a proposition not on the text or message but by the people who fund it is a touch of McCarthyism (do you or have you ever associated with…..).
Then you keep throwing up Michael Steele’s statement about 1964 as if that completely explains that today in 2005 there is some sort of southern strategy that makes you incapable of voting for Republicans (or whatever your message about SS is).
Well 3 big fat things:
1) Barry Goldwater LOST
2) In 1964 the Republicans in Congress voted in a higher percentage for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats
3) Democrats controlled the House and Senate for basically 5 decades (from 1930-1994) and you are picking a year (1964) that is in the heart of those years.
As for the SS, I agree with Andy. It is completely irrelevant today. I’ve addressed it over 3 times and we are talking past each other because you seem to think that the CLEARLY metropolitan vs. rural and suburban (red vs. blue) is a Southern thing.
And let’s clear something up.
Both parties have a strategy. To label Republicans today as having a southern strategy (something I never heard until yesterday) and Democrats as having what? No strategy? Their strategy is to pander/cater/scare/accuse/allege to certain groups to garner support from their certain groups.
Yes. Certain Republicans believe that we should message to certain groups, but I’m not one of them.
I’m a centrist/conservative who believes that the Republicans are to the left of me on many issues.
1) They spend more than I’d like to see spent
2) They pander to illegal immigrants as if that would help them (but it’ll only hurt them
3) They try to split the middle too much on what is the right thing to do vs. what the liberals want and that doesn’t appease liberals. It only seems to make them madder (examples - the NCLB that Kennedy wrote and the Prescription Drug that was worked out with liberals.)
I hope you can see for me anyway it’s about the message and not the so called party/politician/funding per se…
Right on Baklava
As a child way back when, the issue of “color” was complicated for me. My Dad was called “Whitey” by all his friends, a nickname they used till the day he died. I never knew where or why he got it, nor did anyone else. And then in second grade, I came to learn that I was completely color-blind, first revealed when my nun teacher told me to fetch her black umbrella from the cloakroom and I returned with a green one. While I cannot distinguish one color from another, I happen to appreciate all of them and to me they all match just fine. I do, however, regularly offend the tastes of my friends who are apparently more sensitive to color.
I’m glad neither my wardrobe nor my friendships are based on color. And I’m especially happy that my Dad’s nickname was not passed on to me. I’m simply a Proud American who prefers to have friends of the same “color”–like LaShawn and probably most of the other readers and posters on her fine site. And trust me, you’ll look just fine to me no matter how you dress!
DS, whatever the Southern Strategy (SS) may have been 40 years ago, it is totally irrelevant today.
2000. That’s when Tony Snow wrote that article.
Why? Because you have nothing critical to say to the substance of whatever topic de jour.
I only mention the Southern Strategy when someone mentions Blacks not voting for the GOP.
Steele mentions it whenever its appropriate. I know he mentions it when whites have asked him why Blacks don’t vote for the GOP.
So, Andy, what about Michael Steele?
To throw that back at me as a way of justifying your bashing Ward Connerly’s Prop 209 funding isn’t acceptable. The moveon.org people had a message. Their message most people couldn’t agree with. Their funding was pointed out to be hypocratical because of liberals/Dem’s message concerning taking the big money out of politics.
I’ll write this again. Maybe you’ll read it this time.
The Emerge article pointed out that Democrats did not fund the effort to go against Connerlly’s effort. The article pointed out that if Democrats are in the corner for Black people, and Democrats are supposed to support affirmative action, then Blacks need to ask why Democrats didn’t fund the anti-Connerlly efforts.
Then you keep throwing up Michael Steele’s statement
When a current Black GOP office holder says that Republican strategy that appears to have endedin 2000 has hampered his efforts to reach out to Blacks, it’s important to bring it up to demonstrate that it’s something a non-Republican Black person is saying.
that the CLEARLY metropolitan vs. rural and suburban (red vs. blue) is a Southern thing.
The idea that the Southern Strategy only applied there is your misconception.
When Republican Ellen Sauerbry was runing for Gov. of Maryland, she had a chance to talk to suburban Blacks. She accepted and invitation to talk to a Black group and then recinded her acceptance because her campaign manager said that her talking to a Black group would offend her GOP base.
Until that point, she had my vote. She lost it right there.
To label Republicans today as having a southern strategy (something I never heard until yesterday)
So, your ignorance means I’m throwing around unsubstantiated allegations?
Let me show you exactly how wrong you and most of the people who respond negatively here to me are:
1) They spend more than I’d like to see spent
Agreed. In fact I think it would be best for the long term health of the country if most agencies in the federal gov’t were defunded in the next 10 years. I give it that long to allow gov’t workers that much time to get a new gig.
2) They pander to illegal immigrants as if that would help them (but it’ll only hurt them
Agreed. In fact the National Guard should be on the borders. All companies knowingly hiring illegal workers should face severe punishment.
(examples - the NCLB that Kennedy wrote and the Prescription Drug that was worked out with liberals.)
I didn’t support either one. The latter was known to be a budget buster, the former was known by people who examined it that it would be a bust in the long run.
I hope you can see for me anyway it’s about the message and not the so called party/politician/funding per se…
Here’s a mirror for you and others. I address what is written. You, and Andy, have treated me for what you think I am vs. what I’ve written.
Lastly, I bet the main problem you have is that I have the nerve to blast Republicans. But I’ve also blasted Democrats. I’ve pointed it out and in her blog, Baldilocks has pointed to it as well.
I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican.
Both parties treat the U.S. public as chumps.
Another allegation - DS wrote, “Lastly, I bet the main problem……”
False.
And there is the pattern of a liberal. Allege.
Who loses when YOU do that? You…
La Shawn and I have repeatedly taken on Republicans when their message was wrong. And we have taken on you when your message (allevations) was wrong.
And all you do is keep it up.
I didn’t see you address ONE thing about Prop 209’s text or Ward Connerly’s message that you agreed with or disagreed with.
Sad.
Just keep on alleging (liberal pattern). It’ll win you votes towards your side of the spectrum (not).
And oh yeah !
Go Green Party !
La Shawn and I have repeatedly taken on Republicans when their message was wrong.
And I have agreed with her from time to time.
And we have taken on you when your message (allevations) was wrong.
You keep saying “my allegations” but I’ve demonstrated that Republicans are also echoing “my allegations” but you have yet to address that.
Why?
Because, as I now stateFOR THE 3RD TIME , the point of the Emerge piece was to highlight what Democrats, who were suppossed to have backed Black concerns, didn’t do about Prop 209, yet a majority of Blacks in Cali didn’t support it.
Here is the context of what I wrote:
Look, Black people need to stop the “Democrats are our friends” garbage, and start looking at what they are doing and what they are not doing.
Start with the March 1998 issue of Emerge that has the picture of Ward Connerly as a puppet. Read the article on the money strings behind Prop. 209.
Then ask the same question I was posting: Where were the Democrats at
during the anti-Prop. 209 campaign?
Now, do you wish to continue to practice intellectual dishonesty by mischaracterizing what I wrote?
Why is it you ignore this one:
Clinton *PUNKED* Jesse Jackson. Between ‘92 and ‘96, there
were newspaper accounts of the discord between the two, including
Jackson saying that Clinton was immoral. Jackson complained about
Clinton ignoring issues of importance to Blacks and he complained about
Clinton signing welfare reform. He publically stated he was thinking
about running against Clinton to highlight the political issues. He
decided not to do it. If those issues were that important, as he claimed
they were, he would have run against Clinton ON PRINCIPLE.
Why is it you ignore this one?
Since I first started posting, I’ve said that Democrats take the Black vote for granted and that Blacks need to get the Democrats attention. If that means voting Republican, so be it. If it means that a Black Democrat leaves the party, becomes a Republican, and then runs against a Democrat candidate, then so be it.
But I’m not going to sit and watch Democrats treat the Black voters
like the “old stand-by” that you go to when you can’t get anyone else
better.
Or how about this one?
Or, does the “Black left” think so little of Blacks, in general, that the “Black left” assumes Blacks can’t handle the intellectual debate?
Finally, enough of the discrimination arguments by using proportional statistics. You know it’s a weak argument.
When I graduated from college, I was the only Black person do graduate with a B.S. in Computer Science that year. Since I’ve been working in the field, for the most part, I am one of less than a handful of Blacks on the projects I’ve worked. The proportional representation argument doesn’t hold true because, if my graduating class is typical, less than 12% of Blacks have a computer science degree.
If the “Black left” think they are correct, then argue on the merits, not garbage and name calling. Unless, of course, the “Black left” thinks that Blacks are too stupid to handle intellectual battles.
All of this is my writing. All of this was at the link I provided. Yet you wrote nothing about all of that and then mischaracterized one thing.
You didn’t touch comments by Tony Snow.
You didn’t touch comments by Shannon Reeves.
Now, again, here’s the mirror.
DS, whatever the Southern Strategy (SS) may have been 40 years ago, it is totally irrelevant today.
Andy, I provided quotes from Tony Snow and Michael Steele. Both put it in the context of today not 40 years ago.
So tell me. Why is it you don’t address it?
Is Tony Snow a liberal?
Is Michael Steele a liberal?
Dean made a comment that was wrong. I said it was wrong, and then provided a quote by a Black Republican, Shannon Reeves, who was at the 2000 convention.
I provided a quote from an article by a white Republican Tony Snow.
I provided a quote from another Black Republican, who happened to chair G.W. Bush’s outreach campaign during the last election.
The current RNC chair has said that Republicans can no longer ignore the Black vote and is going after the Black vote. Is the current RNC chair a liberal?
How is it that you ignore Republicans who said the same thing I did?
DS, I’d tell Snow and Steele the same thing I told you. But since you’re here and they’re not, I guess I have to take it out on you instead
Nevertheless, there are different factions that make up the conservative party and currently, it is MY faction that is center stage and not the “SS” groupies, even so, I rail on Bush as I see fit and once in a while, even LB and I disagree. So it’s not like anyone can accuse us conservatives of being lemmings marching in lockstep.
And that’s what makes this party so dynamic as opposed to that whachamacallit.
So here’s what Snow wrote about SS in 2000:
“Party elders seem to have concluded that Bill Clinton was right all along about the GOP — that the party in recent years has harbored at least vestigial taints of racism, chauvinism and misogyny. [SNIP]
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can’t win elections without appealing to hearts and they can’t woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial — filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.
In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the ’70s, but no more — and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.
And I said in 2005:
“SO WHAT? Seeing how the demographics began their interstate migration in ernest in the early 70s, whatever racial advantage the SS had for Goldwater, quickly evaporated. Truly an anomoly rather than the conspiracy you believe to be lurking under the sheeted robes.
What counts these days is the message. Why should I vote for one over another? For me, I’m going with the guy that promises more self-determination rather than more nanny state-ism. That’s my bottomline and pretty much so for most conservatives. [SNIP]
Like the old ad, “this ain’t your daddy’s oldsmobile”. Today’s GOP is nothing like that of the 60’s.
OTOH, the DNC is blantantly worse now and Dean is going to help drive a stake in it with his ill-advised Southern Strategy.
Yes Virginia, there really is a Southern Strategy and the DNC owns it with Dean as its evangelist. So next time you bring up SS, instead of talking about the 60’s version, let’s talk about the 21st century type. ”
So where’s my disconnect?
OTOH, your first comment in response to La Shawn’s mocking Dean’s foot in mouth diseaase is to bring up Steele’s remarks from back in 2000 as a segue to the GOP’s past sins vis a vis SS.
As a SS historian, you could have been useful to us all if you had pointed out that it looks like Dean is determined to recreate history by implementing SS for Donks without regards to how disastrous it was for the GOP.
Instead, you had to drag SS out as if it were the conservatives who were still being haunted by the ghost of SS past. And that is the thrust of Baklava and my points that SS is irrelevant to the 21st century conservatives and as far as I’m concerned this trend found its start with Reagan and the new conservatives which rightfully began to take control away from the “old-boys”. It just took a while for the “party elders” to die off and lose control a la Trent Lott.
In that sense, Baklava and I refuse to wear that millstone around our necks, no matter how often you try to hang it there.
One more thing, in spite of Steele’s gripings, I see he’s still a Republican. I guess life ain’t so bad in the GOP as to cause him to scurry back to his Donk masters.
Maybe he was just having a PMS moment when he wrote what he did. Did you ever think to ask him how he now feels about what he wrote back then?
DS wrote, “You keep saying “my allegations” but I’ve demonstrated that Republicans are also echoing “my allegations” but you have yet to address that. Why?”
So what if .01% of Republicans are echoing your allegation. I’ve been heavily into politics for 14 years. Never have I heard any Republican talking about SS (doesn’t even deserve the full spelling out). The only time I’ve heard it discussed at such great lengths if from you. You are making the allegations and pulling quotes from this person and that person and trying to make a thesis and buttress it with many paragraphs in THIS THREAD. That’s you.
And guess what? Your other allegation in your question is that I’ve yet to address it. But I HAVE.
NOT ONLY HAVE I but I’ve totally discredited any possibility of any widespread Republican SS. There is less of a Republican SS than there is a strategy of Democrats to accuse/lie/mischaracterize…. Democrats spent more in advertising that black churches will burn if Republicans are elected to office than Republicans had on any SS because for all of the 14 years that I’ve stayed in pretty good tune to politics I’ve never heard one message by any Republican about SS. I’ve only heard it from YOU the alligator (HA! Alleger or whatever)
I’ve so totally discredited the theory/thesis/assinine Wikipedia definition and your allegations that you are having to act like a broken record repeating people’s quotes and articles as if today in 2005 Republicans in general have some SS when IT ISN’T TRUE.
It’d be best served if you stop while you were ahead because I actually would read future quotes of yours if you had the intellectual honesty to figure out that there is no Republican SS and admit to everyone here that you are overstating the case with no care in the world about how you look.
I’ll wait for that statement.
OTOH, your first comment in response to La Shawn’s mocking Dean’s foot in mouth diseaase is to bring up Steele’s remarks from back in 2000 as a segue to the GOP’s past sins vis a vis SS.
1. I wasn’t mocking.
2. It wasn’t Steele, it was Shannon Reeves.
3. It wasn’t a seque. It was something that a Black Republican said.
Instead, you had to drag SS out as if it were the conservatives who were still being haunted by the ghost of SS past.
No, I bring up SS to demonstrate that Blacks may be voting overwhelmingly Democrat but it isn’t only because Blacks are being hard headed.
And that is the thrust of Baklava and my points that SS is irrelevant to the 21st century conservatives and as far as I’m concerned
He admitted ignorance of SS. I demonstrated it’s relevance util 2000. The head of the RNC mentions that the Black vote will no longer be ignored.
That is 21st century.
In that sense, Baklava and I refuse to wear that millstone around our necks, no matter how often you try to hang it there.
I stated the facts of the Southern Strategy as practiced by Republican politicans.
One more thing, in spite of Steele’s gripings, I see he?s still a Republican. I guess life ain’t so bad in the GOP as to cause him to scurry back to his Donk masters.
He has always been a Republican. I note how much disdain you have for freedom of thought from a Black Republican.
Did you ever think to ask him how he now feels about what he wrote back then?
On WBAL 2 weeks ago, he stated, again, that it was wrong for the GOP to have implemented the Southern Strategy. And he has to deal with the consequences of the actions of white Republican politicians when he speaks with Black groups.
NOT ONLY HAVE I but I’ve totally discredited any possibility of any widespread Republican SS.
That would not be the truth. When Republicans on the national level write and speak about the Southern Strategy, then your point is seen as being false.
IT ISN’T TRUE.
Sure it is. I’ve proven it. J.C. Watts even mentioned the GOP was wrong for using it.
It’d be best served if you stop while you were ahead because I actually would read future quotes of yours if you had the intellectual honesty to figure out that there is no Republican SS and admit to everyone here that you are overstating the case with no care in the world about how you look
Is that a challenge?
Are you calling Tony Snow, Michael Steele, and Shannon Reeves, liars?
As long as people keep asking him questions about it, he’ll keep answering and then people like you who are intellectually dishonest will say see, I have quotes up to the year 2000 about the Republican SS.
Isn’t that slick.
You know, I’m a centrist/conservative. That means on my political scale I believe I’m near the center.
Republicans have a lot of faults to talk about and I sure will be here to try to guide them with words (if they even read this blog).
But you totally are discounting Andy and my points and continuing on as if Republicans today have some big SS and Democrats have no race or location strategy (I would say their strategy is to deceive/lie/accuse - just like you) and it would do you well to try to understand other people’s perspective.
I have delved into SS. I’ve tried to understand your perspective. Honestly. It just doesn’t add up because I’ve personally talked to Republicans, listened to Republicans and Democrats on C-SPAN for hours and hours and hours, and for years have read on the Internet reams of data and discussion. If there was some big SS, you’d think I would’ve run across it from people other than accusing liberals or people answering questions from accusing liberals or one article by Tony Snow that I missed that talked about the long ago past.
Perspective. Perception is key and I’m sorry but it is my perspective that you have a screw loose with this topic.
Read the Republican Platform again.
No SS in there.
As far as I can tell it’s an accusation that exists based on past evidence of past Republicans (not even a high percentage of them).
BTW, EVERYONE I copied and pasted Tony Snow’s article in 2000 so that we can all read his mention of the PAST SS and how Republicans are doing everything to REPUDIATE it.
—————————-
Nice package, what’s inside
PHILADELPHIA — The moment Republicans began piling into the City of Brotherly Love Sunday evening, a wet wind oozed over the banks of the Delaware River and the swamps south of town, transforming what had been a crisp, invigorating breeze into the equivalent of a Divine Belch. Dun-colored clouds swirled and stirred in stagnant loops, pushing the mercury inexorably toward the 90-degree mark. The streets’ very pavement seemed to wilt.
Delegates to the Republican National Convention felt as if they had woken up inside someone’s mouth. And yet they accepted their fates gamely. They gathered outside hotels and on crowded sidewalks, dressed more for April than August. Rivulets of perspiration streamed over their noses and down their backs. In a polite but unspoken compact, folks pretended not to notice shirts pasted to chests and hair bunched in lumps against sweating necks. Instead, they smiled and exchanged handshakes. They squinted at the name tags on old friends’ lapels.
But that was mild compared to gush that accosted delegates the moment they approached the sporadically air-conditioned confines of the First Union Center.
Large billowing posters outside the arena proclaimed the convention’s official theme: “Renewing America’s Purpose: Together.” This is an arresting phrase. Its words trip happily off the tongue. Each feels as cozy as an old sock. Yet, spoken consecutively, they defy interpretation.
What does it mean to “renew” a “purpose”? One renews a vow, a driver’s license or a subscription. But a purpose? How do you renew a purpose?
And when, where and with whom shall this renewal transpire? In a house, with a mouse, in a car — or a hot tub, or Las Vegas altar? The slogan is packed with evocation but devoid of content. It’s the sort of thing that happens when ad men get their teeth into something.
And it is a harbinger. The Party of Lincoln has resolved this week to mount a Smarm Offensive, and it has enlisted every man, woman and child interested in advancing the vision and candidacy of George W. Bush.
On any given evening, delegates entering the arena find on their seats hand-painted slabs of poster board. The placards rest in heaps on the seats, like debris: Teachers for Bush! Californians for Bush! We can! W! Partisans also receive bright tin confetti and streamers to hurl into the air, on cue.
There is an exuberant defensiveness to this years quadrennial Republican conclave. Party elders seem to have concluded that Bill Clinton was right all along about the GOP — that the party in recent years has harbored at least vestigial taints of racism, chauvinism and misogyny. In response, Republicans have declared a pox on grown white males — except the nominees, of course. One looks almost in vain for such people to appear on stage. It’s like racial-profiling in reverse: When Caucasian guys appear, it is almost always under watchful escort from a person of a different sex or hue.
Surprisingly, the white males don’t seem to mind much. They are more desperate for victory than dignity. So when Colin Powell hit them with a bastinado over their traditional opposition to affirmative action, they stood and applauded rapturously. When he recited nominally Democratic slogans about “guaranteed, quality health care” for kids and greater spending on teachers and books, they ululated and waved large rubbery noodles.
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can’t win elections without appealing to hearts and they can’t woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial — filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.
In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the ’70s, but no more — and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.
The next move falls to George W. Bush. He not only must pursue Powell-esque outreach; he also needs to push aside convention-hall cant and translate the smile-button alliteration of “compassionate conservatism” into something not merely concrete — he has developed the policy blueprint — but easy to grasp and understand.
For once the deafening cheers of the convention hall have faded into memory, Republicans will face a simple and recurring question: Nice package, but what’s inside?
©2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
———————–
I was a baby when Nixon was in office. I loved Reagan and I don’t think you can pin SS on him. Sorry. You just can’t.
But go ahead and try. The accusation will win you over lots of readers….
So, exactly what conservative message today would you consider to be part of the SS (effort to turn off black voters to help Republicans in the south)
That is the question. Remember Republicans are to the left of conservatives…. when you answer.
But you totally are discounting Andy and my points and continuing on as if Republicans today have some big SS and Democrats have no race or location strategy (I would say their strategy is to deceive/lie/accuse - just like you) and it would do you well to try to understand other people’s perspective.
Excuse me, but you keep missing that I point out that the SS ended in 2000.
Perception is key and I’m sorry but it is my perspective that you have a screw loose with this topic.
Does Michael Steele have a screw loose? How about Colin Powell when he said that the GOP shouldn’t be a white male country club, or something like that?
DS:
1. I wasn’t mocking.
2. It wasn’t Steele, it was Shannon Reeves.
3. It wasn’t a seque. It was something that a Black Republican said.
1) Sorry I wasn’t clear enough in saying that it was La Shawn that was mocking Dean’s foot in mouth disease
2) Steele/Shannon, whoever.
3) Right it was something that “A” rep said. Meanwhile other Reps discount it. This is about par in associating whatever Lieberman says as being representative of the DNC at large and in lockstep with whatever Dean, the current DNC driver, might say. Different factions within the same party doesn’t mean a party in unison. On the flipside, the GOP spectrum ranges from McCain to Buchannon — a party in unison? Hardly. What Baklava and I are saying is don’t hang what Goldwater, Nixon, McCain nor Buchannon say/do on us, especially since they’re not in the driver seat.
If that were the case, people would rail aginst current efforts to undo things that Nixon had implemented, as if whatever he did is set in stone. As if conservatives are only wishfully dreaming when they say they want a smaller govt when Nixon was instrumental in enlarging the govt via regulatory powers.
You mistake my comment about Steele as disdain for him. If disdain is being aimed anywhere, it is aimed at those who would believe that Steele’s comment is an indictment of the entire GOP. My disdain is also aimed at those who think I should be in lockstep with other black republicans.
Personally, I feel it is the GOP’s loss that Steele and Watts experienced what they did and their reaction to that disappointment. However it is a validation of the overarching GOP goals that they have remained GOP in spite of personal setbacks. The way you spin it, it is as if blacks should forget about being republicans because the GOP is still up to its “evil” ways.
Furthermore, you’re preaching to the LB Corner choir in that it is equally wrong to hang all our hopes on the GOP. If we indeed were hanging everything on the GOP, why would anyone here criticize what Bush or any other GOP’er does — all hail the party?
It seems pretty clear to me that most everyone here are not die-hard republicans, rather we’re of an independent conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist bent. We mostly vote GOP because that’s where we find the most common ground. If it were a democrat espousing our values, we’d line up behind him as well.
And don’t let me get pedantic on your lack of “Most/Some/Few” when generalizing
To wit: “I stated the facts of the Southern Strategy as practiced by Republican politicans.“
I was a baby when Nixon was in office. I loved Reagan and I don’t think you can pin SS on him. Sorry. You just can’t.
I never pinned SS on him, I pinned it on the Republican party as a whole. In fact, Jack Kemp said that he was treated as an outcast in the Republican party because he told the GOP to go for the Black vote. He said this after, by his own words, Bob Dole picked him out of the wilderness when Dole chose Kemp as a running mate.
So, exactly what conservative message today would you consider to be part of the SS (effort to turn off black voters to help Republicans in the south)
Any Republican who refuses to speak to a Black group, because they are a Black group, fits that description.
Can I name any? Since 2000, no.
Then why are you so infatuated with it?
From my perspective the Democrats have a bigger racism problem.
From my perspective the 2000 commercials aired against Bush by the NAACP spoke volumes about how they have no respect and didn’t deserve the respect given to them to have a visit to their annual meeting.
Baklava, don’t you get it?
The Donks co-opted the SS with Bubba and the NAACP ad was just an extension of the plantation boys reelin’ em in for for the Kleagle Massah. Remember, if you can’t beat the KKK, join em.
Then why are you so infatuated with it?
I use SS when:
1. Republicans say or strongly suggest or imply that Blacks are stupid for voting for Republicans.
2. People bring up the history of the Republican party but always stop at the Civil Rights Act.
From my perspective the Democrats have a bigger racism problem.
They both have their problems.
From my perspective the 2000 commercials aired against Bush by the NAACP spoke volumes about how they have no respect and didn’t deserve the respect given to them to have a visit to their annual meeting. Then why are you so infatuated with it?
I didn’t write anything about Bush not visiting the NAACP. I don’t care one way or the other.
Jack Kemp:
Kemp has the greater burden, but not because he and Dole may be buried in a landslide. In actively courting minority voters–a sideshow wholly separate from Dole’s effort–Kemp has set himself against recent Republican history. “All too often in the past,” Kemp said not long ago, Republicans have “had that Southern strategy that said we want to go after the white vote and had better not try to get black votes because it might lose those white votes. That is shameful.”
“All too often in the past“.
What time frame is Kemp talking about with “past” and “not too long ago”?
Arguing over what party did what wrong to whom in the past is great, in history class. It’s fun, too, like playing a game of Who-Hit-John, or trying to figure out whether the first shot came from the McCoys or the Hatfields. But the more important point here should be what is happening right now, today, that we can still control.
Both major political parties are overstocked with self-serving hacks, and far too many outright crooks. Because of that, I’ve never joined either one. But the fact is that we have to pick the best candidate out of those available. Sometimes that means voting for someone imperfect in order to avoid the one who is far worse. That’s just a fact of life.
Now, that said, which candidates are usually more in tune with freedom, opportunity, a strong nation, and a good moral foundation? Not the present day Dems, that’s for sure. In recent years, it has become clear to me that the Democrat party has become a rudderless and negative organization, having been thoroughly co-opted by the loony left wing.
A picture is worth a thousand words. The picture of our failure of an ex-President, Jimmy Carter, sitting in the presidential box at the Dem convention with the bloated America-hater extraordinaire Michael Moore, is enough to convince me that the Dems have officially and willfully aligned themselves with the loony left.
The ascension of Howard Dean to the position of party leader, the vicious ramblings of Robert Byrd, the nastiness of Nancy Pelosi, the obstructionist left-wing rhetoric of Harry Reed, and the out-of-control stagecraft of Barbara Boxer all serve to point me in one direction, away from the Democrat party. What’s remaining, except to vote for Republicans, warts and all?
RedBeard, I can’t disagree with what you wrote and I don’t want to disagree with it.
Here’s my take.
Here are points I agree with the hostess on:
1. Abortion ends a life.
2. The borders need protection and the administration isn’t doing enough.
3. Dems have a racist past.
4. School vouchers, home schooling, and school choice mean freedom for parents and should be priority.
5. In general, the culture is corse and getting worse.
6. Racism is not a primary factor in what ills the Black community as a whole.
7. I don’t like the term African American.
8. The NAACP is irrelevant.
Now, if I left things off at there, most people here would have no “issues” with my [ supported ] “allegations.”
But, because I have the “nerve” to continue on by saying…
3. The Republicans also have a nasty past and it’s the Southern Strategy.
7. Anyone who claims that calling oneself African-Americdan is being anti-American or not American first is foolish. Colin Powell and Condi Rice have called themselves African-American. Are they claiming that they are Americans 2nd?
8. The NAACP is not worthy of discussion since most Blacks in the community say the NAACP doesn’t matter. However there are instances where some “Black leaders” have done or said things that critics say “Black leaders” don’t do.
I’m labeled a liberal. Meanwhile, liberals call me conservative. And to add to it, seemingly, points of agreement that I say there is agreement on, get ignored.
I find this interesting.
i find it more support for my belief that most people are intellectually lazy and use labels to quickly pigeonhole people so they really don’t have to deal with intellectual disagreement.
Or is that too “pendantic”?
DS, I’d certainly say we have far more in common than not.
Among the things we’re agreeing upon, I think, is the foolishness of blind loyalty to any political party. There hasn’t been a party in history without serious problems. All we can do is pick the person and the position, hold on, and hope for the best. And if he or she turns out to be a dud, throw the bum out.
I don’t think the term “African-American” is normally used to place America second in importance, nor do I think it’s deliberately used offensively. It is, though, one of those polarizing pigeon hole deals that I think we both dislike. Labeling like that is superfluous and largely meaningless, too. My mother’s side of the family had roots in Ireland and Scotland, so I suppose I could call myself Irish-American or Scotch-Irish, but that’s neither relevant nor accurate. Since I’d have to add on the German, French, and Swiss stuff from my father’s side, the whole thing would become really silly. I was born in Nebraska, so I think I’ll be just a plain ol’ American.
DS, no, that’s not pedantic the way you just framed it now
What Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice calling themselves African American has to do with me is mystery.
Comments on this entry are closed.