PDA

View Full Version : Can Republicans Win Back Blacks?


Bloggingheads
03-12-2008, 09:52 PM

somerandomdude
03-12-2008, 10:08 PM
Oh great, another Republican talking about how stupid black people are. "Why are you black people voting for the party that counts you as a major part of its electoral coalition and supports programs that benefit you? Why are you people so stupid? Get off the plantation!"

somerandomdude
03-12-2008, 10:14 PM
Here's one thing I don't get: isn't Bruce Bartlett supposed to be one of the smart, non-crazy conservatives? Why is he writing a Liberal Fascism-esque book?

piscivorous
03-12-2008, 11:52 PM
Nope he's the guy that believes FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Perl Harbor, by suppressing intelligence, so that we could go to war to aid the British. What I found interesting is that when Mr Bartlett raised examples of where the "common wisdom" is at odds with historical facts Mr. Loury seemed to essentially ignore them instead of dispute them thus essentially validating them, Nixon and the southern strategy being prominent example.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 03:20 AM
First off, I'd like to give major props to Glenn for being able to stay cool and intellectual when listening to much of what Bruce had to say. I will try to follow his example, but I suspect that I will be unable to resist letting off at least a little steam.

I was struck, early and often, that Bruce Bartlett seems to be trying to do for race relations what Jonah Goldberg did for fascism: heap blame on the other side as a way of disavowing responsibility for his own. His tactics are certainly similar: He bobs and weaves when discussing his book's motivation and thesis, and he frequently retreats to the "I just want to get the conversation going" trope when it's just as easy to hear his words as nothing more than another attempt to demonize the Democrats. The examples he cites from history bear the same Jonanistic (http://thepoorman.net/2008/02/28/vocabulary-corner/) trait of searching for random facts of dubious relevance to support a preconceived idea, and he shares the same tendency to treat history as identical with today whenever -- and only whenever -- it suits him.

On that last: Bruce's attempt to downplay the significance of Ronald Reagan's dog whistle speech at Philadelphia, MS, is disingenuous at best. He can dismiss St. Ronnie as "someone who's dead," and that would be strictly true, but I have to ask: Did he not watch any of the current campaign's Republican debates (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/01/shorter-gop.html)? Today's GOP wants nothing more than reincarnation of the Gipper, so it seems a little ridiculous to try to characterize an example of Reagan's racist undertones as an "insignificant speech from 27 years ago," when he acts like the ink is still wet on Andrew Johnson's veto.

Here's another thing that would have made me leave my seat, were I sitting where Glenn was: the dissonance on Bruce's part of his "hey, that's reality" attitude when it comes to hyping the black/Latino divide, not to mention his rejection of Glenn's appeal to a higher road, when compared to his gooey idealism concerning the Republican Party doing anything that would attract black voters.

I'll also note that the Republicans themselves made a serious effort to woo the Latino vote during the GWB campaigns, especially on socially conservative terms, and it seemed a bit specious for Bruce to act like the Democrats came from out of nowhere in their own efforts to appeal to this group.

Okay, so much for my reaction to the first 21 minutes.

======

I don't have much besides derisive laughter to offer to Bruce's thinking on reparations, especially his one-time tuition payment idea that he gave as his one example. Glenn said pretty much what I could have said. I'd only add that, even setting aside the pipe dream aspect of ever implementing his suggestion, the whole thing just came off to me as a cross between the modern American craving for a quick fix and the way liable corporations pay off settlements: one-shots that attempt to "make the problem go away," but reflect nothing of an intent to make the long term and systemic changes necessary for real solutions. The longer the discussion went on, the less cynicism it required to see his proposal merely as a carrot one could hold up while trying to dismantle affirmative action programs. There's also a real whiff in Bruce's plan in that it could be sold to many on the white right as follows: Once we give "them" their one generation of free tuition, all future race problems in America are then "their" fault.

On the rehabilitation of the images of Nixon and Agnew, I can't be bothered to go over that ground again. I will say that I found it especially Jonanistic of him to insist that "these are the facts" and "others need to look at the history" when it suited him, while in the next breath claiming to have no knowledge of Nixon's nominees for the Supreme Court.

In the end, I will concede that Bruce had some things to say that could be called worthwhile, if I really bend over backwards to take him at face value. The problem is, he sounds an awful lot like so many closet racist conservatives who I've spent too much time hearing all my life, and consequently, I've lost some limberness. I wouldn't go so far as to call Bruce a racist on the strength of this one diavlog; on the other hand, nowhere did I hear him acknowledge the possibility that blacks are just people in many, many ways, not least of which is a wide spectrum of views on policy. To him, it appears, "they" are just a single-minded special interest group, and his only interest in the matter is how much that imagined group can be gamed.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 03:38 AM
Pisc:

It's a bit of a reach to say that Glenn ignored rather than disputed "facts," thereby "proving" their validity, when you only give one example. It seems just as plausible, in the case of Nixon's Southern Strategy, that Glenn did not want to waste time rehashing history when he had so many other points -- of current interest -- to debate.

It's the same as me saying I have no interest in arguing about the significance of the second word in the name change in 1920 to "National Socialist Workers Party," when the debate is whether liberals are being fascist for preferring organic foods.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 03:39 AM
Here's one thing I don't get: isn't Bruce Bartlett supposed to be one of the smart, non-crazy conservatives? Why is he writing a Liberal Fascism-esque book?

Happy to see I wasn't the only one to have that reaction. Believe it or not, I posted my first comment before reading yours.

rws1st
03-13-2008, 04:44 AM
The experiment has already been done. We know how to take schools full of low socio economic status children in Title 1 schools and take them from the 20th to the 50th percentile in math, reading and other metrics. The experiment was called Project Follow Through. The answer is a educational method called Direct Instruction.

What are the basics of Direct Instruction?

"# Homogeneous Skill Grouping: Children are grouped according to their levels of ability, rather than according to age or other factors....

# Scripted Class Sessions: Teachers use pre-designed scripts when teaching. The scripts are based on extensive research regarding student retention, and every aspect of every script is based upon results that were demonstrated through research...

# Intense, Constant Student Interaction: The scripted sessions consist primarily of sequences of stimulus/response pairings...

# Teaching to Mastery: The group does not move on until everyone in the group understands the material."

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/grossen.htm
http://www.projectpro.com/ICR/Research/DI/Summary.htm

I write this because I have seen education come up in several of Glenn's chats...but never with any clear idea of how we might go about improving it.

The political and economic question is...why is this method so underutilized?

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 11:30 AM
The great uniter seems to be having some problems even uniting the Democratic party so I not quite so sure he will enjoy any kind of success uniting people that actually you know disagree with his agenda. Sounds like Senator Obama and Clark Stanley are close cousins.

junkiemonkey
03-13-2008, 11:37 AM
Do African Americans really want some kind of reparations or public apology?

Really?

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 11:45 AM
Will race be a part of the general election if Senator Obama is the candidate? You tell me Isn't this Racist? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM)

Jeff Morgan
03-13-2008, 11:53 AM
As far unifying the Democratic party, don't forget the McCain example. A few weeks ago, the party bases weren't exactly lining up behind him. We can probably thank the New York Times for causing fantastic unity soon after.

Obama and Clinton may be cleaving the party, but it might not take much to rally the party behind the new candidate.

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 12:02 PM
I have no doubt that there will be a presented unified front, in the end, I just find it hilarious that Senator Obama sells himself as the great uniter when all I see on the Democratic side is greater and greater disunity.

Jeff Morgan
03-13-2008, 12:26 PM
Well you're definitely right.

/sigh

rcocean
03-13-2008, 12:39 PM
Funniest moment. Glenn: " (laughingly) are there any other Republicans (like BB) who believe in Reparations?"

Trust me, there are a lot of Republicans who think like Bruce Bartlett! Reparations/AA and beating your breast about racism, are class markers in the Republican party. It proves how "sensitive" you are, and many consider their hatred of racism as a badge of moral superiority.

It also telegraphs, "Hey, I have so much money, I can be very generous toward blacks - unlike you rednecks who live in trailers".

Bruce Bartlett also supports open borders, since more worker bees (of what ever color) equals lower wages & more profit.

bkjazfan
03-13-2008, 01:43 PM
Monetary reparations for African Americans doesn't score high but rather low on any national opinion poll.

Wonderment
03-13-2008, 03:41 PM
Will race be a part of the general election if Senator Obama is the candidate? You tell me Isn't this Racist?

I found nothing "racist" about the clip. Divisive maybe, but not racist.

The campaign is not going to be about whose preacher is capable of more outrageous statements. I would personally take Jeremiah Wright about 10,000 times over McCain's man Hagey.

Obama has already sufficiently distanced himself from Wright. He "renounced and rejected" Farrakhan and said he doesn't agree with all of Wright's views.

His whole campaign is inclusive --- the antithesis of divisiveness.

Smearing Obama with clips from his church won't work. Or it will only work with people already predisposed to vote against him.

Wonderment
03-13-2008, 03:55 PM
From Times Online
March 13, 2008
(Reuters)

John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been called upon to renounce a church leader he considers his spiritual guide for urging a Christian war to destroy the “false religion” of Islam.

A number of prominent US weblogs demanded he reject the support of Reverend Rod Parsley, of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, an influential televangelist and political figure who campaigned alongside him in the run up to the Ohio primary.

On February 26, a week before the Ohio vote, Mr McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the evangelical pastor, who praised the candidate as a “strong, true, consistent conservative”. ...Standing side-by-side with the minister, Mr McCain hailed him as a “spiritual guide”.

...The leader of a 12,000-member megachurch, Mr Parsley has written several books detailing his fundamentalist views, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this contentious work, Mr Parsley castigates homosexuals, abortionists, the entertainment industry and civil libertarians before turning his attention to the perceived threat to the United States from Muslims.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Mr Parsley speaks of Allah as a “demon spirit” and urges "war between Islam and Christian civilisation". There is no difference between violent Islamist extremists and moderate Muslims, he argues.

...It is not the first time that Mr McCain’s desperation to win over the religious right has landed him in trouble. The Republican had already angered Catholics by cosying up to John Hagee, the leader of an evangelical Texas megachurch who has described the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore” and a “false cult system”. ...

Joel_Cairo
03-13-2008, 03:56 PM
I'm kind of not even sure how to take this diavlog. Is Bruce Bartlett serious? His "proposals" are some of the most naive, incoherent, freshman-dorm-room pap I've ever seen on BHTV. I can't believe a full-grown adult, who has worked in gov't, who has actually exercised influence over policy in the real world, could possibly be so pollyanna and unsophisticated about this stuff. We'll just boost a generation of blacks with free tuition and they'll "get with it", and then the GOP will "once and for all" have made everything all better... Someone actually published this?...it's a joke, right guys??...?

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 04:51 PM
...

Smearing Obama with clips from his church won't work. Or it will only work with people already predisposed to vote against him.
Just as only a true believer can call a 4 minutes harangue against the evils of the "white man" is not racist.

In a word: Barnacles
03-13-2008, 05:08 PM
Is Bruce Bartlett serious? His “proposals” are some of the most naive, incoherent, freshman-dorm-room pap I’ve ever seen on BHTV. I can’t believe a full-grown adult, who has worked in gov’t, who has actually exercised influence over policy in the real world, could possibly be so pollyanna and unsophisticated about this stuff. I basically agree. For someone who professes to want to win over African Americans, Bartlett appears not to realize that he’s putting a terrible offer on the table. From the diavlog, it sounds as though he’s trying to persuade African Americans to vote Republican not by making genuine appeals, but by hectoring them. And his one concession, reparations for slavery, comes with some serious strings attached: the end of affirmative action, if not the end of the consideration of race in public policy.

Does he really think this is a good offer? The terms are pretty laughably one-sided.

I’m straining to come up with an analogy. I guess this would be like the Democrats trying to win over conservative libertarians by offering them a one-time tax rebate of five bucks, and in exchange, it’d be understood that the conservative libertarians would never again raise the issues of the size of government or the scope of individual liberty.

Any takers?

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 05:43 PM
I didn't realize that a four year education cost 5 dollars. When you set up a strawman at least make it somewhat less laughable.

brucds
03-13-2008, 06:05 PM
Re Jeremiah Wright - "Isn't this Racist?"

No. You'd have to be an ahistorical idiot to think it such. Sorry. But thanks for playing.

In a word: Barnacles
03-13-2008, 06:16 PM
I didn’t realize that a four year education cost 5 dollars. When you set up a strawman at least make it somewhat less laughable. Hey smart guy, I made my hypothetical laughable so as to mirror the laughability of Bartlett’s unconvincing proposal. The point is that he’s peddling a pretty terrible deal.

bkjazfan
03-13-2008, 06:43 PM
I don't understand why Bartlett even wrote this book. Yes, I heard his reasons for doing so but I wouldn't bother reading it. Information he gave about Senator Byrd is common knowledge.

I don't completely understand why people attend religious services that have politics high on their agenda. To go to one ministered by John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Jeremiah Wright, or other like minded crackpot is beyond my comprehension and seems like a total waste of time.

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 06:46 PM
Perhaps we should pay reparations, but then it would only be fair to charge everyone that got them for the costs to the North of the Civil War which set them free as they didn't seem to have the gumption to stand up for themselves and overthrow their oppressors. But I guess that the lives and costs associated with doing so should be discounted and now we owe more than the 100s of billions in reparations that have already throw their way cached in the form of quotas, set asides and special programs.

Wonderment
03-13-2008, 09:21 PM
....they didn't seem to have the gumption to stand up for themselves and overthrow their oppressors.

I must admit I've never heard the idea before that slavery in the South was the slaves' fault.

I have heard the gun-packin' theory that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust because they didn't have rifles and handguns, but slave lack of "gumption" is a new one on me. Thanks for sharing!

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 09:26 PM
Your welcome. According to your philosophy all they would of had to do was paint a few signs, hold some protest marches and dialog with their masters and all would have been fine.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 10:09 PM
pisc:

Didn't you just get back from vacation? Why so bitter?

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 10:18 PM
Not bitter I have just been reading over the leftist drivel on some of the Diavlogs that I missed and am feeling very contrarian.

Jyminee
03-13-2008, 10:19 PM
they didn't seem to have the gumption to stand up for themselves and overthrow their oppressors.

Wow, that is just incredibly offensive. Talk about blaming the victim!

I am not for reparations, but let's take your logic and extend it to another historical wrong: Post-WWII Europe wants a "Marshall Plan"? Those lazy fools didn't even have the gumption to stand up for themselves and defeat the Nazis on their own!

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 10:26 PM
No but at least they stood up and tried to resist. When we wanted our freedom from England we stood up and fought for it. Out manned, out gunned, out generaled and out spent but we poor white folk prevailed.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 10:30 PM
Not bitter I have just been reading over the leftist drivel on some of the Diavlogs that I missed and am feeling very contrarian.

It'd be more impressive if you addressed the ideas, rather than just making snide remarks about those who don't share your political outlook.

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 10:37 PM
I have addressed the issue but it unfortunately is from an angle you are used to seeing so I can understand your confusion.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Sorry, Pisc. This

Your welcome. According to your philosophy all they would of had to do was paint a few signs, hold some protest marches and dialog with their masters and all would have been fine.

is not addressing the issue.

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 10:51 PM
It directly contrasts her pacifistic philosophy with the context of the price in blood and money we evil whites spent in putting an end to the vile practice of slavery. An small price that is so easily forgotten and ignored when the discussion of bigotry arises in this and just about any other forum.

bjkeefe
03-13-2008, 11:00 PM
pisc:

... the price in blood and money we evil whites spent in putting an end to the vile practice of slavery ...

Didn't realize you were around during the Civil War. What's that make you, about 160 years old now?

No wonder you're so cranky.

I gotta say, if you're gonna spend the rest of the night feeling sorry for yourself because you're white and unappreciated, I am outta here.

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 11:04 PM
No I wasn't and I am quite frankly tired of paying for the sings of my forefather when the price that has been paid is quite high and completely unappreciated by some.

somerandomdude
03-13-2008, 11:55 PM
Don't feed the troll!

piscivorous
03-13-2008, 11:58 PM
Don't worry I wont.

Wonderment
03-14-2008, 02:26 AM
It directly contrasts her pacifistic philosophy with the context of the price in blood and money we evil whites spent in putting an end to the vile practice of slavery.

I love the gender ambiguity.

Love,
Wondermento or Wondermenta, as the case may be

rws1st
03-14-2008, 03:31 AM
No idea about the reperations, but raising human capital i.e. improving education is a good idea regardless. It seems to be one of those universal things that people say we should do, yet have no idea how to actually do it. Someone goes to the trouble of figuring out how to do it, and gathers decades of data and is as ignored as my original comment was.

You may now return to your partisan bickering :)

Bloggin' Noggin
03-14-2008, 12:59 PM
No but at least they stood up and tried to resist. When we wanted our freedom from England we stood up and fought for it. Out manned, out gunned, out generaled and out spent but we poor white folk prevailed.

You aren't really serious in thinking these things are comparable, are you?

Unfortunately, slaves didn't live 3000 miles from the country of their owners and they didn't live in 13 self-governing communities.

Slaves did rebel and run away. The rebellions were unsuccessful, but then I believe there's only ever been one successful slave rebellion in all of history (Haiti) and the numbers in that case were on the slaves' side in a way that they certainly were not in the Southern US.

I don't believe the colonists were so outnumbered by the troops that the British could send over here as all that. Given the insurgency strategy of the Americans (avoiding open battle) and given the distance from Britain and the American home-court advantage, the odds were nowhere near as bad for the white colonists as they would have been for a slave rebellion.

The comparison just looks ridiculous. It sounds like you're just taking a rationally indefensible position and trying to support it by bluster alone.

piscivorous
03-14-2008, 01:33 PM
Maybe you should go back and actually look. It is estimated that 25% to 30% of the colonists remained loyal to the Crown (Loyalists) with estimates of those supporting the rebellion in similar proportion of the populace with the balance remaining neutral. Add in the British troops and paid mercenaries and the slaves recruited to resist I would say that leaves the rebels "out manned". Out gunned is a no brainer as the English were the industrial powerhouse of the day, as is out spent, logistics is a bitch and awful expensive. Just a listing of the number of battles the British won vs the numbers won by the rebels answers the question of who out generaled whom, again in favor of the British. If we had been" 13 self-governing communities" would there have been a need for the revolution in the first place; I think not. Haiti was not the only successful slave revolt in the west in fact there was a rather successful one right here in FL, goggle the black Seminoles, the decedents of which still live in Mexico. But as hyperbole from the left is so prevalent and acccepted on this site some from the right should be expected.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-14-2008, 05:52 PM
And your reply shows that the vast differences I pointed out between slaves and the colonists how?
You reassert that the colonists were outmanned and outgunned. I don't recall denying that. My point was that your comparison between the strategic situation of the colonists vis a vis Britain and the slaves vis a vis their masters was completely ludicrous. It's not as though anyone who is outmanned and outgunned has exactly the same odds as anyone else who is outmanned and outgunned.
Are you denying that the colonies had assemblies in which to make collective decisions long before the revolution? Of course, they were supposedly subordinate to the British, but that doesn't mean that collective action was as difficult for them as it would be for slaves.

And since slave rebellions took place, though they were unsuccessful for the most part, I don't see how you can blame slaves for not fighting for themselves.
But your last line suggests that, as I suspected, you were not serious anyway. I just don't understand how spouting nonsense does you any good -- whether "the left" does it or not.

piscivorous
03-14-2008, 08:32 PM
The argument its self is exaggerated, as I to believe that the slaves were incapable of win their freedom without significant help, but the underling rational, that proportionally so few actually tried is salient. Once set free and given the opportunity to fight they did, both during the original revolution as Loyalists, and during the Civil War. However for the majority they accepted their bondage, by force of arms, with little resistance. Today there are a large number of them that are now held in a bondage by the force of the "rhetoric of victimization" and government dole. I personally see little difference.

DCox
03-15-2008, 06:02 AM
The struggle over which political party – the Democrats or the Republicans – deserves to be the dance card favorite of black voters presents one of the more intractable, if not paradoxical, problems on the American political landscape. The more that black voters are told that their votes as a block matters less because of the demographic increase in Hispanic and Asian voters in America, the more tenaciously it seems that the Democrats and Republicans pursue and squabble over their votes. Black voters are like the girl that no one wants to be seen accompanying to the dance but once the lights are turned low and the music begins everybody wants to dance with her.

The Republican Party’s immediate prospects for recruiting more black voters to punch a chad or touch a screen on behalf of its candidates seems remote at best these days. This seemingly glacial reality causes no end of dismay and hand wringing on the part of Republicans looking to expand their narrowing base. This desire has become more pronounced given their party’s failure to attract more Latino voters because elements of its base are so hostile to liberalizing the county’s immigration laws.

If Republicans truly desire to recruit more black voters to their party then they will need to create a political agenda that moves beyond attempting to use issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prayers in school to drive a wedge between African American voters and the Democratic Party. The fact that an overwhelming majority of African American voters profess a belief in a divine force animating the universe does not mean that a similar number look to heavenly or Biblical guidance when making decisions about who will represent them in the state house or the White House. There is, after all, only a certain amount of guidance and direction that black voters will take from their ministers.

Black voters, given their unique history and experiences in the United States, are particularly adroit at understanding and navigating the complexity of American electoral politics and they are not likely to throw over their allegiance to one party or candidate based on issues that they view as tangential to their lives. Most black voters are aware enough to know that the fate of the world and its people does not turn on moral or theological issues alone. People need bread, literally and figuratively, to survive.

Far too many Republican commentators and pundits seem to be as deeply afflicted with the same strain of political myopia that they so often and loudly accuse black Democrats of having contracted. With regard to black voters, Republicans appear to have forgotten or never learned that the most assured way of gaining political legitimacy in American politics is to win an election. As long as the Republican Party seems not able or not willing to recruit and sponsor attractive black political candidates who can either win or run extremely well in predominantly black or substantially black voting districts then the Republican Party will make little or no headway among black voters. Until that time comes, if it does at all, comments and speculations about the motivations (and, by implication, the intelligence) of black voters will seem like nothing more than the childish whining of sore losers.

Former Representative J.C. Watts and others may be correct in asserting that blacks have a greater affinity for the values embodied in the platform and legislative agenda of the Republicans than they do for the Democrats. The truest test of his contention lies, however, in the voting booth. The potency and credibility of these claims cannot be established through the op-ed pages of newspapers and the pronouncements of intellectuals affiliated with various conservative foundations and “think tanks”. Black voters may be acting contrary to their best interests by putting all of their political eggs into the Democratic basket but, to date, too many Republicans seem baffled and turned off by the heavy lifting required to move any black eggs into their party’s basket.

Jeff Morgan
03-15-2008, 08:21 AM
I dunno, I think the 'white man' has earned it. I think the fair criticism is that his worldview is stuck in the past.

piscivorous
03-15-2008, 09:07 AM
I don't know but I don't think it was the "white man" that invented slavery but it was the "white man" that has tried to put an end to it. It is in on the continent of Africa, in the Middle East and parts of Asia where it is still practiced semi openly. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good meme.

JLF
03-15-2008, 12:49 PM
And, of course, this completely ignores the self-interest of Northern capital in defeating a major economic competitor. Southern investment in slaves instead of machines sucked available investment dollars out of Northern markets, thereby making capital more expensive. And, too, the limited retail market in the South for manufacutured goods due to the extensive scope of slavery, both geographical and economic, dominating Southern market relationships, limiting potential free white consumers of Northern manfacturing to the margins, restricted the ways in which Northern capital could repatriate those investment dollars.

Like so much of the real world, it was more about economics than just "doing the right thing."

piscivorous
03-15-2008, 01:05 PM
In the scope of things human it always boils down to gold fever.

edbarbar
05-25-2008, 11:33 PM
Glenn seems to be saying that the institutions are beyond the skin deep issues of race.

But he seems (perhaps he isn't, but he seems) to support affirmative action. If the US is largely beyond the skin deep stuff, then why support affirmative action?

edbarbar
05-25-2008, 11:51 PM
I assume people believe there is some benefit to the drug laws. My own personal experience was when my brother in law was addicted to methamphetamine, and sent threats for money. My innocent children could have been harmed by this man. Given the low cost of the drugs, and that my innocent children were threatened, I think the libertarian argument is bankrupt.

Two additional points.

1. Taking criminals, including drug users, off the street is a benefit to the law abiding citizenry.
2. It costs money to do it.

So to those who claim the drug laws are racist, I say yes, it is unfair to taxpayers to help out black communities in this way. I wonder how Glenn would feel if black sentences were reduced by 2/3rds for all crimes. Perhaps he would feel it was racist then too?

johnmarzan
05-26-2008, 07:00 AM
As far unifying the Democratic party, don't forget the McCain example. A few weeks ago, the party bases weren't exactly lining up behind him. We can probably thank the New York Times for causing fantastic unity soon after.

Obama and Clinton may be cleaving the party, but it might not take much to rally the party behind the new candidate.

hahaha... the difference between mccain and his rivals vs. hillary v. barack is that mccain's main opponent mitt romney conceded early and threw his support behind mccain. the previous frontrunner giuliani did the same.

sure huckabee the entertainer stuck around until mccain got the magic number, but he was no threat to mccain, and the two actually were civil to each other during the campaign.

johnmarzan
05-26-2008, 07:08 AM
From Times Online
March 13, 2008
(Reuters)

John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been called upon to renounce a church leader he considers his spiritual guide for urging a Christian war to destroy the “false religion” of Islam.

A number of prominent US weblogs demanded he reject the support of Reverend Rod Parsley, of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, an influential televangelist and political figure who campaigned alongside him in the run up to the Ohio primary.

On February 26, a week before the Ohio vote, Mr McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the evangelical pastor, who praised the candidate as a “strong, true, consistent conservative”. ...Standing side-by-side with the minister, Mr McCain hailed him as a “spiritual guide”.

...The leader of a 12,000-member megachurch, Mr Parsley has written several books detailing his fundamentalist views, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this contentious work, Mr Parsley castigates homosexuals, abortionists, the entertainment industry and civil libertarians before turning his attention to the perceived threat to the United States from Muslims.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Mr Parsley speaks of Allah as a “demon spirit” and urges "war between Islam and Christian civilisation". There is no difference between violent Islamist extremists and moderate Muslims, he argues.

...It is not the first time that Mr McCain’s desperation to win over the religious right has landed him in trouble. The Republican had already angered Catholics by cosying up to John Hagee, the leader of an evangelical Texas megachurch who has described the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore” and a “false cult system”. ...

i'm disappointed this isn't getting enough play in the media.