http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html
Posted on 07/12/2008 6:24:14 AM PDT by Zakeet
The only other brazen lie I saw from Williams was this:
To be sure, for Helms the essence of North Carolina values was keeping taxes low, and fighting against big government. That is a great message. It won him a base of support.
Now why would a big-government, socialist Democrat like Williams call Helms' message "great"?
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html
Wasn’t talking about finding things out for myself. Just saying that dubious sources such as white supremacists don’t exactly lend an air of credibility to an opinion. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong on an given issue, but if an opinion is as well-founded as you claim, then you’re hurting your own case by using a source with such baggage. The first thing people are going to see is “white supremacists bashing MLK” and they will thus be much less inclined to take you seriously.
Well if I’ve made such an implication, please feel free to point it out.
Even the moderator has advised Hiredhand on linking to such sources.
I didn’t check the source before I posted and I appologize. Sorry!
AG! See?! Now you’re attracting them too! :-)
What the hell are you on about? Slander? Get a grip. If you post something associated with a supremacist website, don’t cry about it when others point it out. Just be a bit more careful next time.
And I never said I “don’t care about finding out things” for myself. I said that wasn’t my point. Understand?
See what I mean? :-)
The ad is on youtube. There may have been different versions but until you can come up with one, Williams got it right. But if he had got it wrong, would that mean he was lying or just that he didn't do his homework?
Juan is a racist. It’s that simple.
As I said, one of the objections to the ad was that it wasn't inclusive enough. It would have been hard for a Black person to think that the ad was directed at him or her rather than against him or her. So accurate or not, that may be the reason Williams objects. It certainly qualifies as one reason people may have objected to the spot.
Okay, give us an example of an anti-affirmative action ad that the media would approve of.
That ad turned affirmative action and race into the centerpiece of the campaign. A better strategy wouldn't have let that happen.
The media might still object to any reference to affirmative action, but Helms could have said, "We're about more than that." As it was, the ad made that hard for him to do.
But Helms' ad wasn't distorting at all ...
Point taken. I was referring to other ads that were distorting or offensive.
Thanks for that link!
I thought I remembered a different version, but Helms obviously used the one that referred to “a minority”, as Juan wrote. I stand corrected.
But yeah, Juan would have been “lying” the same way Bush “lied” when he said that British intelligence had reported that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
If the scumbag Democrats prefer an obtuse and flexible definition of “lying”, then I’m happy to oblige.
FRegards,
LH
Here's where you and I are going to have a very clear disagreement! :-)
When the other side is using race as a tactic, there's absolutely nothing wrong with one's own side responding in kind. Black liberal candidates do this all the time. They run ads on black radio stations whipping up "fear" that whites are going to go on a church-burning rampage if the GOP candidate wins. You don't think Harvey Gantt didn't run ads on black radio and distribute literature in black areas promising to support race preferences for blacks?
We need to get over this idea that there's something morally wrong, even depraved, in seeking white votes. If a candidate bragged about his ability to win black votes, or announced that he was targeting black voters and hoping for a big black turnout, no one would think that was wrong. But substitute white for black and people would be screaming "racist" at the top of their lungs. But why? Do whites not count? Do they not have interests?
Look at what happened to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. Two liberal icons, yet they got accused of racism just for noting the obvious. Namely, that Obama would have gotten about as many votes as Biden or Dodd if he'd been white, and that Hillary would be more likely to win white, working class votes. The reason the latter statement upset the media so much was that in their mind, whites aren't allowed to have any interests which are worthy of consideration. To even suggest that they might is "racism".
Meanwhile, Obama got away with twenty years' membership in a racist church. A white candidate with ties to a comparable white church would have been run out of the campaign, and even forced to resign his Senate seat. That would have been after he was obligated to appear on Al Sharpton's radio show to apologize, grovel, and beg forgiveness.
Blacks are a voting block in North Carolina and Harvey Gantt had every right to go after them. He did so with enthusiasm and no one said a negative thing about it. Whites are also a voting block in NC and Helms went after them, and everyone freaked out, insisting that any effort to court the white vote is inherently racist against blacks. But no one ever says that courting the black vote is anti-white, even if the courting process involves promising them racial preferences over whites.
The media might still object to any reference to affirmative action, but Helms could have said, "We're about more than that." As it was, the ad made that hard for him to do.
I recall that race because I live close the NC line. I remember seeing Helms ads dealing with foreign policy, with support for Israel, with taxes and spending, with abortion, with family values, with gun rights, and with a variety of other issues. The affirmative action ad was one ad among many. Helms ran on a variety of issues. Likewise, Gantt courted feminists on the abortion issue, he flew out to California to raise money from homosexuals, he courted white liberals around Chapel Hill, in addition to his open courting of blacks. No one said that Gantt was being wicked by trying to drum up a big black vote, or that that was the entirety of his campaign.
Maybe. But maybe he didn't need to, since everybody knew where he stood.
If a candidate bragged about his ability to win black votes, or announced that he was targeting black voters and hoping for a big black turnout, no one would think that was wrong. But substitute white for black and people would be screaming "racist" at the top of their lungs.
Case in point this year. When Clinton talked about her ability to win White votes, the outrage was more than a little artificial and contrived, but it didn't fit your scenario, since Obama wasn't actually boasting about winning Black votes. He just won them.
Over time, racial polarization campaigns create more trouble and don't work. There's inevitably a backlash.
People can argue about the morality of the ad if they want. Arguably it wasn't worse than other controversial political ad campaigns.
But to get back to what Williams was saying: is this a strategy that's going to work for Republicans? Will it get us where we want to go? I don't think so.
Actually, it went beyond my scenario. Obama won the vast majority of the black vote against Hillary Clinton! Think about that for a moment. She's the wife of the so-called "first black president". She's the liberal who's never deviated from the liberal black agenda in the past forty years. Yet black voters tossed her aside almost immediately. Obama didn't NEED to go out of his way to win the black vote. He didn't have to seek it out, or boast about it. All he had to do was stand there and be black and he won it, despite his rival having a virtual 100% record of supporting anything and everything left-wing black activists had ever asked for.
Remember back at the beginning of the primary season when a lot of people were talking about Obama being a post-racial candidate for a post-racial America? What a joke that was. Not only because he turned out to be a member of a black supremacist church, but because the entire media definition of post-racial is flawed. Post-racial should mean that people of all colors no longer care about the race of the candidates. But that's not what it means to the media punditry. To them, post-racial means that whites, and only whites, don't care about the race of the candidates. All other races are to be allowed to operate as a racial pack, deliberately seeking to put members of their own race in office.
Have you noticed how both Obama and McCain are pandering to the NAACP and La Raza? And how readily they accept the idea that anyone objecting to the agendas of those groups is a bigot?
Over time, racial polarization campaigns create more trouble and don't work. There's inevitably a backlash.
You should take that up with Harvey Gantt. He's the one who demanded that his race be given preferential treatment at the expense of whites. Helms merely responded. The only thing unique was that most Republicans would have meekly conceded to Gantt on the issue. But Helms fought back on Gantt's terms, and he was accused of being the one to racially polarize the campaign. This is like when pro-lifers are accused of making abortion a federal issue, when all they did was respond to Roe vs. Wade (which made abortion a federal issue). Or when opponents of same-sex "marriage" are accused of launching a culture war, when all they're doing is responding to the culture war launched by those seeking to overturn the entire history of Western Civilization on this issue.
People can argue about the morality of the ad if they want. Arguably it wasn't worse than other controversial political ad campaigns.
A better description would be that there was nothing wrong with the ad at all. To say otherwise is to say that whites have no choice but to accept that they'll be discriminated against by affirmative action programs in perpetuity, because any opposition to it is racist and divisive.
But to get back to what Williams was saying: is this a strategy that's going to work for Republicans? Will it get us where we want to go? I don't think so.
Well, conservatism is probably doomed in America thanks to demographics. The Juan Williams argument is that the GOP should basically dump white, male, Christian voters and go full speed ahead into the Brave New World of multiculturalism, Animal Farm style race preferences, abortion, cloning, open borders, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.. And let's face it, that's probably what they'll do. And they'll still lose.
You want to see the future of America? Imagine a nationwide California, only worse.
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.