Political Racial Blackmail

[Kyobanim]

Dems Fear Racial Divide

The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's solid win in the Pennsylvania primary exposed a quandary for the party. Her backers may be convinced that only she can win the white, working-class voters that the Democratic nominee will need in the general election, but many African American leaders say a Clinton nomination -- handed to her by superdelegates -- would result in a disastrous breach with black voters.

"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."

That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out.

Clinton's camp has a vastly different interpretation, arguing that the most recent primary demonstrated that Democrats remain very interested in seeing the contest continue.

"Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed," said Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson. "It showed that the big states around the country think she's the best person to be president."

But that opinion is far from unanimous. More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters and opening a rift between her campaign and an African American Democratic base that strongly backed Bill Clinton's presidency. Some surrogates in her camp are trying to render Obama unelectable against the Republican nominee so she could run for the Democratic nomination in 2012, he suggested. The discussion flared up yet again when Bill Clinton suggested this week that Obama's campaign had played "the race card" after the former president compared the candidate to Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary.

"We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter."

The reemergence of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's controversial former longtime pastor, in an appearance on PBS last night may only fan the dispute.

"When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate," Wright said in an appearance with Bill Moyers. "Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' "

(continued on above link)

[JJ_BPK]

Let me preface,, I do not support any Democratic candidate.. I lean closer to Congressman Ron Paul than Senator John McCain on some topics.. Like sex,, you push an inch here and pull an inch there..

A couple weeks ago, I had a conversation with one of my liberal neighbors, she's a lawyer, worked several years as an assistant DA and did a lot of pro-bono(sic) work in the family courts, in NY city.. She could not under stand why I thought the Republican party had done more for America's minorities than the Democrats..

I am not a history addict nor do I profess to any X-spurt,, But I looked up some statistics for her,, I'd like to share here. I think they may frame and/or augment Kyobanim's post..

1)The Civil Rights Acts: 1964, 1965, 1968

In all but one vote, the Democrats were proportionally more negative than the GOP,, LBJ was the President, and both the Senate & House were controlled by the Democrats,, but the GOP made the vote happen...

1964 Civil Rights Act

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

1965 Voters Rights Act

Senate: 77-19
Democrats: 47-17 (73%-27%)
Republicans: 30-2 (94%-6%)

House: 333-85
Democrats: 221-61 (78%-22%)
Republicans: 112-24 (83%-17%)

Conference Report:

Senate: 79-18
Democrats: 49-17 (74%-26%)
Republicans: 30-1 (97%-3%)

House: 328-74
Democrats: 217-54 (80%-20%)
Republicans: 111-20 (85%-15%)

1968 Civil Right Act

Senate:
Passed 71-20
Democrats: 42-17 (71.2% For, 28.8% Against)
Republicans: 29-3 (90.6% For, 9.4% Against)

House:
Passed 250-172
Democrats: 150-88 (63% For, 37% Against)
Republicans: 100-84 (54.3% For, 45.6% Against)

2)Democrats have historically not favored interrogation of minorities but they like to spend your money to get their vote:

Lincoln the 1st GOP President,, was shot by a Democrat segregationists..

Jump 70 years forward,, Democrat President FDR establishes Social Security System, which inaugurates the welfare state as we know it today.

In the 50's, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower enforced the desegregation of the military

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation

Eisenhower also supported the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960

What were the Democrats doing??

Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond who also served as governor of South Carolina, ran for the presidency of the United States in 1948 under the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party banner

Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school, in 1954

Senator John F. Kennedy voted for final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 after having earlier voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment", which
effectively rendered the Act toothless because convictions for violations could not be obtained.

Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr.(that's Al the movie star's daddy) voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act

In 1958-59, J F Kennedy curried favors with the staunch segregationists senators James Eastland and John McClellan and Mississippi Governor James Coleman to get early support for his presidential campaign..

After he became president, Kennedy OPPOSED the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, a BLACK Republican.

President Kennedy, with his brother, Bobby, then Attorney General, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.

Democrat Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace Jr. He is best known for his quote "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

The Democrats have hoodwinked and manipulated American's minorities for 200 years,, and Hilary & Bill are no exception.. They are like plantation owners,, they keep everyone fat, dumb, and happy,, with their tax-n-spend welfare state agenda.

I hope with this little bit of history,, the points raised in Kyobanim's post might make sence??

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just wondering, but why exactly did the Republicans support the Civil Rights legislation, as from my understanding, the Civil Rights legislation institutionalized discrimination, so shouldn't Republicans have been against it?

I would guess it is the Evolved Version that we are looking/thinking of.

The Equal Rights Items were good. It was the expanded "view" of them and the welfare state that has grown into the monster we know today.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just wondering, but why exactly did the Republicans support the Civil Rights legislation, as from my understanding, the Civil Rights legislation institutionalized discrimination, so shouldn't Republicans have been against it?

My guess,,

The anti-slavery abolitionist were heavily populated by religious leaders. The underground railroad between 1810 and the Civil War used many churches as way-points, including by not limited to the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodist, and American Baptists.

To this day, most "conservative" church issues are carried by the Republican Party.. While the Democrats Party uses the liberal left to denounce just about all Christian values..

Which is really strange,, because you can see more working blue collar parishioners than corporate giants in the pews on Sunday???

How You Gonna Act???

**********************

A patch to my original note: I had mentioned that Philip Randolph was a Black Republican and organized the freedom march on DC that made MLK..

MLK was a registered Republician...

Ref: Black Republicans

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....pages.BlackGOP

Remember:
Politics is like sex,,
you push an inch here
and pull an inch there
hopefully everyone ends up with a smile
and you get elected to come back again...

[JJ_BPK]

Ah,, That is another point..

Repuilicians are ardent anti-tax,, they don't want to fund welfare programs, food stamps, give-a-way programs, free this-n-that..

Democrats try to portray the anti-tax position as being bigoted..

It is not the same...


The Democratic Party, on the other hand, wants to tax the rich and produce a poor, un-educated population of UN_PAID voters for their socialist agenda,,

AKA, put Uncle Tom back on the plantation,,

or better yet George Orwell's Oceania ( ref 1984), The Inner Party controlling the Proles...

If you haven't read 1984 in a while, I would suggest you go find a copy..

I'm a little worried,, I have this feeling our grandchildren will think 1984 is the new revised Bible..

Call us paranoid,, one of me will answer...

[Radar Rider]

Why it always gotta be about race? Do either candidate care about the Asian vote?

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Radar Rider

Why it always gotta be about race? Do either candidate care about the Asian vote?

Because it's an emotional issue that can generate votes. It also enhances control.

So, if I wanted to go into politics and had 3 groups of voters, what would I do?

Make each group fear the others, and create widespread distrust. I would cause them to believe that I (their one true defender and champion) would protect them from the evil people in the other groups. I would, of course, have to make sure that the right message got to the correct audience.

Years ago it was labor versus capital. Now, there are more groups, so manipulation and control is easier. As for the Asian vote - it isn't a big enough factor so far.

Of course, our politicians would never be that cynical....

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by nmap

Because it's an emotional issue that can generate votes. It also enhances control.

So, if I wanted to go into politics and had 3 groups of voters, what would I do?

Make each group fear the others, and create widespread distrust. I would cause them to believe that I (their one true defender and champion) would protect them from the evil people in the other groups. I would, of course, have to make sure that the right message got to the correct audience.

Years ago it was labor versus capital. Now, there are more groups, so manipulation and control is easier. As for the Asian vote - it isn't a big enough factor so far.

Of course, our politicians would never be that cynical....

Worked well for certain groups in Europe back in the '30s...

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by nmap

Because it's an emotional issue that can generate votes. It also enhances control.

So, if I wanted to go into politics and had 3 groups of voters, what would I do?

Make each group fear the others, and create widespread distrust. I would cause them to believe that I (their one true defender and champion) would protect them from the evil people in the other groups. I would, of course, have to make sure that the right message got to the correct audience.

Years ago it was labor versus capital. Now, there are more groups, so manipulation and control is easier. As for the Asian vote - it isn't a big enough factor so far.

Of course, our politicians would never be that cynical....

A column from a couple of weeks ago addresses this subject:

http://tinyurl.com/5ywgtt

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Anyone find it ironic how the Democrats HATE President Bush for being religious and all religious Republicans, but Senator Barack Obama's being a church-goer is perfectly okay with them...?

It's the nature of the church - his cursed America, blamed everything on "the Man", and expected the government to pander to particular (their) special interests. What's not for a Dim-o-Krat to love?