Posted on 07/12/2008 6:24:14 AM PDT by Zakeet
As far as the basic thesis is concerned -- that Helms was a man of his time who had virtues and some of the faults of his era, but who can't serve as a perfect model for his party in the future if it wants to make a comeback -- it's not really that controversial. The title will get people going, and so will some of Williams's language, but the basic message isn't as inflammatory as some people are making it.
This is one of those glass-half-empty glass-half-full triangulation things where how people position themselves and the language that they use in doing so become more important than what they actually say.
What’s your opinion on the Helms anti-affirmative action TV ad?
One thing people objected to was that it was so obviously targeted at one group as against another "You wanted that job ... and they gave it to a minority" or words to that effect. If you were a minority you'd find it hard to support the ad, even if you agreed with Helms about quotas. There were other ways to make the same point that wouldn't have been subject to the same criticism.
But I don't think it was more offensive or distorting than a lot of other ads you see on television, though I doubt Democrat politicians who put dubious ads on the tube will ever be called to account the way Helms was.
Re: Helms & the swimmer, Ann Coulter said it perfectly:
"When I worked in the Senate in the '90s, the two senators famous for being absolute princes to work for were Sen. Helms and -- it pains me to tell you this, so you know it has to be true -- Sen. Teddy Kennedy. (He was so nice to his staffers, he frequently offered them rides home in his car after parties.)"
I think it’s great! Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk
Google is your friend. I’m not ...necessarily.
Who created that image? The enemedia did. Senator Helms was more susceptible to it than the “sunny optimist” Reagan, but that was not the image that HE created. Once again the media mistakes their own perception or desired propaganda aims for truth.
LOL....Well there are posters here that think yer female if ya reference Martha Stewart or Oprah, there are posters here that think your black if ya reference the NAACP and there are posters here that think if ya reference the PLO your a terrorist. And such posters are idgits when they do such.
You just happened too find one.......:o)
You and I both know that it is off limits. Any candidate who runs an ad opposing affirmative action will be accused of "racism", so only a rare courageous politician like Helms ever does so. Even though opposition to affirmative action is popular, conservative candidates flee from the issue because they don't have the guts to fight the bogus racism charge. This is also why so few GOP candidates are running anti-same-sex "marriage" ads, even though voters in state after state have voted lopsidedly on the conservative side on this issue. Candidates know that if they run an ad on this issue the media will sweep down on them with accusations of "homophobia", and only a few Helms-type candidates have the courage to stand up to it.
One thing people objected to was that it was so obviously targeted at one group as against another "You wanted that job ... and they gave it to a minority" or words to that effect. If you were a minority you'd find it hard to support the ad, even if you agreed with Helms about quotas.
But that's what affirmative action does. It deprives members of one group of achievements they have earned on merit in order to advance members of another group that didn't perform as well. The reason people were so furious about the Helms ad was that it was accurate. No one could possibly challenge the ad in terms of honesty. Instead, the argument was that we should all pretend that affirmative action doesn't discriminate against whites because if we tell the truth about it, it might anger the groups unfairly benefiting from those policies. And since those groups are in the upper PC hierarchy, while white males are at the very bottom, we were all expected to adopt a taboo against telling the truth on this issue. Helms violated the taboo so he became a heretic.
There were other ways to make the same point that wouldn't have been subject to the same criticism.
Okay, give us an example of an anti-affirmative action ad that the media would approve of.
But I don't think it was more offensive or distorting than a lot of other ads you see on television, though I doubt Democrat politicians who put dubious ads on the tube will ever be called to account the way Helms was.
But Helms' ad wasn't distorting at all, and it was only offensive to someone who objects to an accurate depiction of affirmative action programs. Do affirmative action plans discriminate against whites and males on behalf of other groups? Yes, they do. How could they be opposed on any other grounds?
One of the best campaign ads of the past quarter century. The reaction it drew from the left proves it.
For those who really want to know what is transpiring, as you so aptly describe, I suggest searching for Communists Goals and the Frankfort School. In a nutshell they tell the What and then the How. The Why is to achieve raw power.
Jesse Helms ping!
so?
is that a bad thing?
whites like myself in high black population areas understand very well racial politics as does Juan the psuedo Panamanian.
I'm for the right to vote and and the other specifically delineated rights in the US Constitution unencumbered for black Americans.
Nothing beyond that. That's where it all went South...pun intended. What a veritable mess it's been since then.....
I'm ambivalent about King. I think he was a socialist at best. He was a poor character representative for a preacherman...not much different than Swaggert in his personal morality. He sure did not deserve his own holiday. It was pure pandering to black Americans by the usual white leftist contingent at first and then the rest of mushy crackerdom. His holiday gives the ignorant something to feel good about that they support.
However King does look better by compariosn to the Hate America and Whites in General first crowd but that is hardly enough to qualify for dietyhood in our culture. Had he not been murdered King would be a medium footnote to a tumultuous decade.
That King's holiday is celebrated more than Washington or any of the major founders is a travesty. he gets 10 times the coverage in elementary history to my chagrin by the politically correct.
You asked, you got my answer. I don't care what the perennially PC here think.
Very well done...you should send that to WSJ
Please don’t ever link again to those pointy-hooders.
This happens repeatedly. On the relatively rare occasion that someone rises to oppose affirmative action, they give some tangential reason for doing so. A common one is the claim that blacks will be hurt by it in the long run because they'll become dependent on it and not work hard to get good grades. It's as if there's a psychological block in white people's brains that prevents them from recognizing that whites have any rights at all. That's why an ad like the one Helms produced is considered so “shocking”. How dare he suggest that whites actually have rights, or even interests that our leaders should take into consideration.
And Swastika-wavers. I think the Stormfronters are the neo-Nazi goons who hate Israel and support the 9/11 "truthers".
Williams is lying. The ad said, "But they had to give it to somebody else."
In any event, it was a truthful, terrific ad which set out in stark, easily understandable language the effect that Democrat pandering to blacks by guaranteeing them special preferences would have on regular white families. You can always tell which ads are the most truthful by how long liberals like Williams denounce them. That ad was what, eighteen freaking years ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.