Skip to comments.MSNBC Host Touré Shocked That MLK’s Son Thinks Black Voters Should Engage With Tea Party
Posted on 05/11/2014 11:35:57 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
While I happen to be a Democrat, I think its important for African-Americans to be Republicans, Martin Luther King III said on MSNBCs The Cycle, earlier today. I think its important for African-Americans to be independent. Uh, Ill say this kinda I also think its important to be engaged with the tea party, he continued. Co-host Touré then asked the son of famed civil rights advocate Martin Luther King Jr. if he thinks the modern Democratic Party does enough to earn the overwhelming support that it gets for black people? Is it taking black people for granted in a way? King largely agreed with Toures point, but wanted to stress that African Americans are not a monolithic people. Touré was stunned by Kings comments, largely because Toure disqualifies the Tea Party as a racially motivated political arm of the Republican party that shouldnt be engaged on any level. Wh why would it be important for us to be engaged with the tea party? Touré struggled to ask. Because the only way you can change the only way you can change is you have to be at least communicating, King noted. If theres no communication, you just let someone have an agenda. But King did believe that tea party animus against President Obama was based, at least partially, on race. Its probably a combination of things, he said. But certainly the policies are the mask.
The ghost-face reaction that these MSNBC hosts displayed proves how small and simpleminded their thinking is when it comes to how black people should think and vote. Touré and his liberal colleagues simply couldnt imagine that the son of MLK jr. would find it politically positive for black people to support and vote for any party other than the Democratic party. A black person going against the grain and thinking for themselves, is inconceivable to these highbrow liberals. Shorter MSNBC: If you are born black, you should die a Democrat.
At its founding, core, and experience,,, TEA has been 100% about finances and taxes, and little else.
The tea party I know and love stands for restoring the constitution. Abide by the constitution and taxes (and debt) will be low. We’d have about 90% less government.
All freedom-loving Americans should embrace the tea party. Constitutional government means less government, less spending, lower taxes, less corruption, equality under the law, free-enterprise, better economy, less unemployment, ie, freedom and opportunity for all Americans.
I noticed about a year ago a poll. What it generally said about people attracted to the Tea Party was that it was a simplified listing of priorities. The shocker, I felt, was that even three percent of extreme liberal Democrats...found the Tea Party enticing, while around twenty percent of conservative Democrats were agreeable to the platform of the Tea Party.
What worries the big players of the Democratic and Republican parties....is that it’s not really a Republican theme. Both could easily lose Representatives, Governors, Senators, and even a Presidential race....based on perception of Tea Party values. Just turning three percent of the Democratic vote in one state....is a major accomplishment.
I don’t think the Tea Party concept is really going away. Even with big wins for the Republicans in the Senate for 2014....I think it only puts the remaining Republican Senators running in 2016 into a very tough position (some won’t be able to win in the primary or the main election) because of Tea Party opposition.
Toure is among the most racist of scumbags. If it were 1700 Carribean he would be wlinging the whips to keep the black slaves in check.
>>Touré was stunned by Kings comments, largely because Toure disqualifies the Tea Party as a racially motivated political arm of the Republican party that shouldnt be engaged
The Left has been pushing the Big Lie of Tea Party racism for years now. They have no intellectual response to the Tea Party message of low taxes and limited government, so they fall back on the only thing they have - their ever-popular racist smear.
The Presidential candidacy of Herman Cain in 2012 demonstrates the lie most clearly. Cain had huge Tea Party support. There are plenty of other examples.
It is long past time to call these Leftists on this nonsense at every opportunity. We should all, in a professional manner, hammer
Touré on this.
Toure’ is merely fulfilling LBJ’s plantation prophecy for how blacks would vote after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the War on Poverty. Not a bit surprising to me, just another LBJ-spawned Stepin Fetchit, playing his role for the amusement of others.
Nice to see MLK’s Son is a chip off the old block—he can think for himself. This is a good thing—this is hope.
Unlike “mainstream” Democrats, MLK III has not given up on the idea of trying to win people over.
There’s hope for everybody that is willing to have the open mind to question what they’ve been fed their entire lives.
I’m glad he doesn’t view the black vote as monolithic.
He basically said the Tea Party was racist. Just another black racist.
Pray America wakes up
As I recall, MLK Jr and his father were both Republicans until Bobby Kennedy convinced them to change.
It was that way with my wife's family, traditional Democrats before I entered the picture. It took me, and a sister-in-law, about a decade to convert them from Democrats to Republicans. Of course, we were helped immensely by the stridency of pro-abortion types, and other liberals.
This guy was just speaking in rope-a-dope, when asked is the Tea Party more against obama’s policy or obama himself, the guy answered: “his policies are just a mask”.
He is a liar entertaining liars!
I never heard MLK Jr changed to D’rat due to pressure from RFK - any links?
Here it is:
Snopes is real interesting:
We know that his father, the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr., a longtime Republican when most Southern Democrats were segregationists, endorsed John F. Kennedy publicly in the 1960 presidential race over Republican Richard M. Nixon.
Asked for her sources for the claim, Bergmann directed us to her website, which displays a 20-page newsletter of the National Black Republican Association that charts Republican Party efforts to advance Civil Rights from 1854 through the Eisenhower Administration and the 1957 Civil Rights Act and documents the segregated positions of prominent Democrats in the Jim Crow South. It concludes by saying, if King were alive today, hed be a Republican.
She also pointed to a statement made by Kings niece, Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: “My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican.” Bergmann also said King “subscribed to Republican values” and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party — the Party of Lincoln — that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.
However, in a 2008 Associated Press story, Kings son and namesake Martin Luther King III said:”It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states.”
Dr. Kenneth W. Goings, professor and past chairman of the Department of African American and African Studies at Ohio State University, said in an email message that King may have had to register as a Republican to vote in Alabama in the 1950s. Goings said: “Daddy King was a Republican as were most African Americans in the South until the early 1940s. But the combination of Dem. Party outreach and Republican Southern strategy meant that by the 1950s the South was well on the way to the split that is evident now. Ive not seen any evidence that MLK Jr. was a Republican but if he registered to vote it would have been as a Republican in Alabama simply because the Dems. would not allow black voters. Throughout the (Civil Rights) movement he worked with the northern Dem. Party...I wonder if somehow people have just confused Sr. and Jr. (maybe even on purpose).”
Another academic authority on King was not as generous in his assessment of the motivation for suggesting King was a Republican. Michael K. Honey, a professor at the University of Washington-Tacoma and author of “Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther Kings Last Campaign” (2007), said in an email: “Do they now make things up out of whole cloth or do they fabricate based on assumptions with no actual knowledge. In either case, not very good qualifications for office.”
MLK Jr. has a similar problem with O’Bummer and the name change:
1) To this day, questions remain over the names of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and his father: what names they were given by their parents, what names appeared on their birth records, and when (if ever) they changed their names are subjects of some murkiness. According to an account Martin Luther King, Sr. gave to a New York Post reporter in 1957, he had always intended his son’s name to be Martin Luther, and the appearance of the name ‘Michael’ in his son’s birth records was a mistake due to confusion over his own name:
I had been known as Michael Luther King or “Mike” up until I was 22 ... when one day my father, James Albert King, told me: ‘You aren’t named Mike or Michael either. Your name is Martin Luther King. Your mother just called you Mike for short.’ I was elated to know that I had really been named for the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, but there was no way of knowing if papa had made a mistake after all. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of Negro births in our backwoods county ... I gladly accepted Martin Luther King as my real name and when M.L. was born, I proudly named him Martin Luther King, Jr. But it was not until 1934, when I was seeking my first passport ... that I found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name.
No records documenting a formal name change for either King yet have been uncovered, so in a strict legal sense one might say that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s name officially remained “Michael” until his death.
2) During the 1980s, archivists associated with The Martin Luther King Papers Project uncovered evidence that the dissertation King prepared for his Ph.D. in theology from Boston University, “A Comparison of the Conception of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman,” was plagiarized, and the story broke in the national media in 1990.
King included in his dissertation a good deal of material taken verbatim from a variety of other sources without proper attribution (or any attribution at all), an act which constitutes plagiarism by any reasonable academic standard.
The Martin Luther King Papers Project addressed the issue in Volume II of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. (and reproduced a statement thereform in the FAQ on their web site):
The readers of King’s dissertation, L. Harold DeWolf and S. Paul Schilling, a professor of systematic theology who had recently arrived at Boston University, failed to notice King’s problematic use of sources. After reading a draft of the dissertation, DeWolf criticized him for failing to make explicit “presuppositions and norms employed in the critical evaluation,” but his comments were largely positive. He commended King for his handling of a “difficult” topic “with broad learning, impressive ability and convincing mastery of the works immediately involved.” Schilling found two problems with King’s citation practices while reading the draft, but dismissed these as anomalous and praised the dissertation in his Second Reader’s report ...
As was true of King’s other academic papers, the plagiaries in his dissertation escaped detection in his lifetime. His professors at Boston, like those at Crozer, saw King as an earnest and even gifted student who presented consistent, though evolving, theological identity in his essays, exams and classroom comments ... Although the extent of King’s plagiaries suggest he knew that he was at least skirting academic norms, the extant documents offer no direct evidence in this matter. Thus he may have simply become convinced, on the basis of his grades at Crozer and Boston, that his papers were sufficiently competent to withstand critical scrutiny. Moreover, King’s actions during his early adulthood indicate that he increasingly saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship rather than as an academic producing such scholarship ...
In 1991 a Boston University investigatory committee concluded that King had plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation but did not recommend the revocation of his degree:
A committee of scholars at Boston University concluded yesterday that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation, completed there in the 1950s.
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.