Selective 'racists': Dems double standards

Jewish World Review ^ | Dec. 18, 2002 | Walter Williams

[Kay Soze]

Selective 'racists': Dems double standards

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | During World War II, ex-Ku Klux Klansman, now U.S. senator, Robert Byrd vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Just a couple of years ago, Byrd lectured us on the floor of the Senate that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." I wonder whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.

San Francisco's esteemed mayor Willie Brown once described a successful legislative battle this way: "We beat those old white boys fair and square."

Spike Lee said in disapproval of interracial marriages: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."

The National Association of Black Social Workers drafted a position paper calling white adoptions of black children "cultural genocide." They warned against "transculturation ... when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence."

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager, called Republicans "white boys" who seek to "exclude, denigrate and leave behind."

At a celebration for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said that Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in his 1948 presidential campaign "and, if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Which among the above statements are the most racist, which have received the most media coverage and which caused the most angst? Clearly, Lott's statement received the most media coverage and created the most angst, but it doesn't begin to qualify as the most racist.

You say: "Williams, that's different. High officials shouldn't honor and praise racists or ex-racists." Then what about Bill Clinton's acknowledged political mentors - former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright and former Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus - who were both rabid segregationists? Yet the former president highly praises Fulbright and bestowed upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award.

By the way, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled, "The Southern Manifesto," condemning the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education and defending segregation. That's a bit more recent than Thurmond's run for the White House. Does Clinton's praise of Fulbright mean that he supported "The Southern Manifesto," just as the assertion that Lott's praise of Thurmond means he supported Thurmond's segregationist stand in 1948? If so, why not also condemn Clinton?

I have several possible theories on the responses to Lott's rather stupid remarks - stupid in the context of our politically correct world.

My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals. In other words, it's like behavior that's tolerated in the case of children but ostracized when adults do the same thing.

That theory might also explain why racist statements made by blacks are excused.

Another theory is that since 9-11 and President Bush's public popularity, both appointed and unappointed black leaders have had no platform and been paid no attention. Lott's gaffe gives them platform, voice and mission.

Finally, the Democrats, having lost all branches of national government in the recent elections, are desperate to get something on Bush and the Republicans, and Trent Lott's statement is the answer to their prayers.

[Kay Soze]

More republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did democrats.

Bill Clinton was the five term governor of Arkansas and never once attempted to remove the "star of the confederacy" from the Arkansas Sate flag, Arkansas official documents or emblems. Neither did Hillary.

While Bill and Hillary Clinton were running Arkansas they did not want to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and had to be sued by the NAACP to enforce it.

Sen Ernest Hollings mad the State of South Carolina fly the confederate flag over the state house while he as SC governor.

Sen Byrd was a KKK member and a Recruiter.

Bills Clinton’s mentor ; William Fulbright was a staunch segregationist. Bill Clinton's political mentors - former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright and former Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus were both rabid segregationists.

Clinton highly praises Fulbright and bestowed upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award.

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager, called Republicans "white boys" who seek to "exclude, denigrate and leave behind."

[gov_bean_ counter]

From another thread...For a more recent accounting of the Dems position on race...

To: Miss Marple; gov_bean_ counter; TLBSHOW; Wait4Truth

Maybard Jackson was pushed aside for Terry McAuliffe. Carl McCall's money was diverted to McBride in Florida. The Minnesota Supreme Court justice, who is a formal football star and black (name escapes me) was passed over in favor of Fritz Mondale. Harold Ford was not only passed over for Nancy Pelosi, but Pelosi made a good try at humiliating him in public.

Excellent analysis of govbeancounters post, MissMarple.

Why oh why won't we hear one of the stuffed shirt GOP Senators on todays talk shows point any of this out? 35 posted on 12/22/2002 7:43 AM PST by MamaLucci

[Reagan Man]

This is a good article by Walter Williams, but from your recent remarks, you don't agree with him.

Now, at this late date, you're defending the GOP from racist charges being leveled by the liberal establishment. It would have been better to have done so, at the height of the Lott fiasco. Instead, you and others chose to condemned Lott and run from the liberal race baiting. That's shameful.

[Texasforever]

Instead, you and others chose to condemned Lott and run from the liberal race baiting. That's shameful.

Now starts the revision of FR history.

[Kay Soze]

My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals. Lott is and was an idiot. However I am compelled to point out that there era many more democrat racists than there are republican ones. Also, we ax our racists even at the risk of losing power. But make no mistake Lott is an absolute moron and hurt the conservative and republican movement more than Hillary could ever fantasize about doing.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[driftless]

I agree. In fact I'm glad to have the honor of being held to higher standards. This supposes that we do in fact have higher standards and inhabit a higher moral plane than those wretched Dems many of whom are not only racists but stinking hypocrites. I'm extremely proud to say that I have higher standards than liberals.

[.30Carbine]

Having higher standards and being held to a higher standard are two different things.

What the good Dr. Williams has suggested in this article is that those who would hold Conservatives/Republicans to a higher standard than Liberals/Democrats (and examples of this abound) are practicing political bigotry. In the same vein he suggests, and points out specific examples of whites being held to a higher standard than blacks - Here's an example. Here's another. Very un-PC of Dr. Williams to point out these discrepancies, I might add.

Are they children? Children make gaffes all the time that adults are shunned for. Do you really think it is noble of us to accept the dichotomy, to treat our political opponents as children and to let them skate on behavior that we ourselves are shunned and hated for? They want all the advantages of adulthood, but none of the responsibilities, none of the consequences for indecent behavior, and that's okay with you?

That would mean, wouldn't it, that we think we are better than they are? Well, we in our persons are not better. We are all created equal, equally entitled to human rights and human dignity, and equally culpable when we err against human decency and decorum.

It is in the arena of political ideas that are superior and the Liberal Democrats are inferior. Hands down our proposed solutions merit higher appraisal - if I didn't think so I wouldn't be a member of the VRWC. To purport that any one political party, race, gender or religion ought to be held to a higher standard in a just, color-blind and egalitarian society, to say that this is a good thing, is bigotry disguised as nobility. Are you proud to be held to a higher standard? Doesn't that place others beneath your feet, lower than you are on the totem pole?

It is in the arena of ideas that Conservative Republicans rise above. Nothing inherent in our persons makes us more capable or more culpable than anyone else. There are certain social standards of behavior that all ought to uphold and maintain equally. This does not apply to children, who don't know any better.

I refuse to treat anyone of legal age and sound mind, regardless of their individual distinctions and affiliations, differently than I myself expect to be treated.

[.30Carbine]

It is in the arena of political ideas that are superior and the Liberal Democrats are inferior.

Bummer. That should read: "It is in the arena of political ideas that WE (i.e., Conservatives/Republicans)are superior and the Liberal Democrats are inferior."

I hate when I do that.

[Brasky]

Just a couple of years ago, Byrd lectured us on the floor of the Senate that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." I wonder whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.
"Sheets" Byrd wasnt' talking about this guy was he?

[driftless]

While I personally don't feel that I am a superior person, yes, I do feel that conservatives hold the moral ground over liberals today by virtue of our positions. That does not mean that I don't like to see Dems criticized, and if you read some of my comments about them on other threads, you'd know this.

My point is that whether the Dems criticize us or not, we should hold our elected members to high standards something that doesn't trouble Dems. If the Dems had said or done nothing about the Lott statement, I would have wanted him out. If he meant what he said about Thurmond, that makes him a racist and eminently dispensable. If he didn't mean it, it makes him obtuse. His further groveling in front of the libs was sickening and confirmed my worst fears. I don't think Lott really desires a return to the days of Jim Crow, and I don't think you get where he was by being an idiot. Above all he's not the person I want as majority leader. Too much baggage and not the best man. Frist will do much better.

[Reagan Man]

First off, just because we conservatives hold our own to higher standards, doesn't mean Lott should have been abandoned, in favor of kowtowing to the leftwing and liberal blacks in particular. And contrary to your insults, Lott is no racist. To even suggest that Lott in someway did actual damage to conservatism, or the Republican Party, shows a woefully inadequate understanding of American politics. The way to face charges of racism, is head on and immediate. Turning tail and running scared accomplishes nothing. Some day you may learn your lesson.