I know a lot of us have been crowing over the nuts at the McCain rally, because they're unwittingly helping Barack. I think that nuts in either party are bad for the country. I generally feel that black people voting 9 to 1 for Dems is actually not a good thing. Black people support Dems because they're convinced, understandably, that the GOP is racist. But that's very different than blacks supporting Dems because they're 9-1 liberal. I prefer the latter--the former, not so much. Anyway, this is why I was heartened to see the following video. Bigots and idiots need to be purged out of our politics. I applaud that purging in both parties. Unfortunately, the McCain people now seem to have muzzled the dude. Oh well. Props to him anyway.
UPDATE: Peace to Asher for the link.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Too little, too late.
Understandably it's hard to write a blog day in and day out without making generalizations. But, my brother, I think it's painting with way too broad a brush to say black people support the Democrats because they think the GOP is racist. Let's not give them that brick to throw.
The black folks I know oppose the GOP for any number of reasons, many far more tied to economics than race. (Admittedly, these things are deeply connected in America.) The GOP is the party of the wealthy and the greedy. If I'm not wealthy, why in the world would I be GOP? It can't serve two masters. That black people get this in a way far too many non-wealthy working class whites don't is not a reflection on us -- it's a reflection on them.
The Democrats aren't our One True Love by any means, simply the lesser of two evils.
Black folks ain't dumb.
Don't I get a H/T?
If the McCain campaign had run a more honorable and inclusive agenda, you are correct TNC- he would probably have more black support because truth be told, lots of Black people are conservative, dare I say very conservative and would not have a problem voting Republican- even if the Democratic candidate is Black like them. Colin Powell would have not had a problem endorsing John McCain.
I saw it on the plane on the way out West. But fair enough.
I liked this video, which underscored what we've been saying about how these embarrassing rally and line-outside-rally filmings wouldn't be an issue if one person in the crowd would say "Hey, you're not my spokesperson and I don't believe you're speaking for what McCain believes, either." I love the bit at the end where you hear someone demanding "Are you trying to lose this for us?"
Best bit of analysis I read, way back in the winter: A Republican somewhere in the southwest planned to go down in November along with 8 buddies and vote for whoever the Democrat was. They were ushering their party into a needed break in the wilderness, to pare away the poisonous elements. Like the extreme social conservatives, who scared off women and young people, and the neocons, who scared off smart people. A leaner, smarter, more centrist party would emerge in 8 years, and their dozen candidates who took the stage in early debates would not be uniformly old white men. I'm an independent; odds are I could vote for some people in this future party. Odds are some of those 9 in 10 blacks could, as well. But you've got to scare away the people with their hateful monkey dolls and stickers, claiming that they can't explain themselves because that mean ol' press will distort it. Let them go be an ugly little minority party no serious party will touch.
If the frothing haters feel at home in your tent, it has gotten too big. If they stay in the tent while a slew of smart people--Zakaria today--are driven from it with cries of "apostate," you're doing it wrong.
I'm going to throw around a generalization here:
Old versus young.
Sweet. It does restore a little of my faith in the rationality of Republicans.
I did say a little.
I actually dig those bumper stickers with the hammer & sickle and Islamic crescent. But that's only because I hate freedom.
Do agree with Lisa, TNC you pushed it bit much. The SOB Republicans have been off the charts for a very long time, and with the passage of the Civil Rights Legislation what were Southern Democrats became Republicans, and the mountain and plain state became Republican, remember Gary Hart, Frank Church, Mike Mansfield, etc. In short a receipt for politics without the populous largely in coastal states and large cities. Republicans as a party have not done much for the public good(Northern Liberal & Moderate Republicans: Percy, Javits, etc.) for the past 45 years. The SOBs indeed have been the party of the wealthy, greedy and all to often refuge for the vicious.
Lewis was correct, what the video protrays was common as little as 30 years ago. Bigots and idiots are part of the fabric and will not be purged. TNC you might want to rethink this one.
You guys really think it's a stretch to say that,"Black people support Dems because they're convinced, understandably, that the GOP is racist." It's pretty clear when the break between blacks and the GOP became a giant fissure--Goldwater. After that, nothing was the same. Trust me, if not for that history, if not for Willie Horton and "States Rights," the social cons alone would likely claim a significant swath of the black vote.
yes, but the republicans don't reserve their racism exclusively for blacks, as has been amply demonstrated. republicans are equal-opportunity bigots.
TNC, I'm feeling you on those remarks. While the purging of the bigots is a good thing for America, I'm not so sure if it's a good thing for the Republican Party. Being of a libertarian mind (of the cosmo-lib subgenre), I'd have to think twice supporting Barack Obama over a Ron Paul. Heck, quiet as it was kept, Ron Paul got ~30% of the Black vote from Republicans, which short of an actual Black Republican is good.
Simply put, I respectfully disagree with the notion that the state can be the great equalizer. Heck, in any scheme to discriminate, now and in the past, the government has to sign off on it, and getting them the heck out of Dodge and restricting them to national defense, disasters and the courts would be a net good. I do agree with you though that if the social conservative movement made more of an effort to woo Blacks, there would be a lot of Black folk in that corner. We saw what happened in 2004; there's a good argument to be made that the small margin for Bush in swing states was due to social conservative outreach to Black churches.
One last thing about Goldwater. It's interesting that he would be the one who created the great divide, if only because compared to his contemporaries in the Republican party, he was definitely more on the moderate side. You can argue that he was willing to throw Black people under the bus on a militant reading of the Constitution, but he obviously didn't have a problem with them. Sounds like another Arizona senator now, doesn't it...
Probably true of my mother's generation, TNC. But not true, by and large, of the educated, passionate black folks I know of my generation (I'm Obama's age)or yours, by and large. As you've said -- we don't care what white people think of us. We care how/if they stand in our (collective and individual) way. The GOP stands in the way of everyone except their corporate masters. We see that. Yeah, the GOP is largely racist, but really mostly because race is the most effective tactic they found for convincing poor (and I mean that in every sense of the word) white folks to go along.
"Unfortunately, the McCain people now seem to have muzzled the dude. Oh well. Props to him anyway."
Wait - which dude [to whom you appear to be extending props] have they muzzled?
You guys really think it's a stretch to say that,"Black people support Dems because they're convinced, understandably, that the GOP is racist." It's pretty clear when the break between blacks and the GOP became a giant fissure--Goldwater. After that, nothing was the same.
ICAM.
I feel about The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act the same way Jews feel about Israel.
Support is non-negotiable.
I don't think this is hard, IMO.
The same folks who did Poll Taxes, are the now the ones engaged in Voter Caging and Voter Purging. Same group of mofos.
Rikyah: Are you sure you want to compare Zionism to the Civil Rights Act? Unless there's some proposal to screw poor Whites out of the vote, there is none.
I remember seeing a story yesterday about how there were polls in 1996 of a Clinton vs Powell presidential race, with Powell winning it for the Republicans 50-38 while losing the Black vote 2-1. Not sure if this validates or contradicts your argument, but it's worth mentioning.
Yeah, the sensible McCain supporter, the Muslim, was scheduled to speak to CNN but was told by the campaign not to talk to them. Maybe they wanted to give him more Ayers/Socialism talking points.
I'm happy that this year black folks have thrown their support in huge numbers to Obama, though I'm an independent who think the Dems have had a pretty critique-free courtship with black folks too long. But when a cadre of right wing politicos think that McCain/Palin is dangerous for the country, you've got to shudder at the possibilities of the erractic maverick and ignorant barrcuda!
with Powell winning it for the Republicans 50-38 while losing the Black vote 2-1. Not sure if this validates or contradicts your argument, but it's worth mentioning.
Losing the black vote 2-1 would be an improvement for a Republican candidate. That's got to be at least a 1-2% shift in the vote, which is huge in modern politics.
One thing to remember, is that that every vote counts. Even if you end up losing a particular demographic, improving in that demographic is still more votes. Political pundits concentrate too much on the demographics split 50-50, when it can matter just as much to shift a demographic from 9-1 against to 2-1 against.
Obama understands this, as evidenced by competing against Clinton in every primary. Even if he lost the state, he picked up more delegates than if he conceded it and didn't campaign there. Ditto for this election. Obama also has put a large number of states in play, which McCain has to win all of to have a chance. If any one of those states goes Obama the election is over. Who would have thought 6-months ago that Virginia and Colorado would be swing states?
I'm glad to see it's all the young people that won't stand for this stuff. Plus, that girl is pretty cute.
There are things that are non-starters for me. It was why I was never enthralled by Ron Paul. He could try and explain it 6,000 different ways, but I'm not listening to anyone who tries to intellectualize why the pieces of legislation that finally codified my community as 1st class citizens were wrong. I'm just not going to listen to it.
Non-support of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act is why I don't trust evangelicals to this day. They always seem to have a ' reason' for not doing the right thing, but expect folks to be' Christian' afterwards and forgive them. Bump that.
Props to all the McCain supporters who confronted and shouted down that bigot. This is what we need more of. I'm a die hard Democrat, but we need two serious parties in this country, not one, and these sorts of confrontations are a start.
What Dave K said. It's going to be people like those Muslim McCain supporters who'll need to be part of picking up the wreckage of the Republican party and rebuilding it into something that's politically vital.
Looking around the blogs, it will be a good thing when people like Andrew Sullivan and even John 'Balloon Juice' Cole can speak from their conservative position as Republicans and not be regarded as apostates.
Acrosst history, sometimes a clapped-out party dies, and sometimes it receives the kind of beat-down that puts a new generation in charge, even if it takes a while to get the hands of the one that fucked up from off the wheel.
Rikyrah makes an interesting point. I don't really believe that you should vote on the basis of what a party did for you 44 years ago, but let's suppose that's a legitimate basis on which to base your vote. Which party was more supportive of the Civil Rights Act? Here are the numbers:
The original House version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Now, what about the Voting Rights Act?
Senate: 77–19
* Democrats: 47–17
* Republicans: 30–2
House: 333–85
* Democrats: 221–61
* Republicans: 112–24
Conference Report:
Senate: 79–18
* Democrats: 49–17
* Republicans: 30–1
House: 328–74
* Democrats: 217–54
* Republicans: 111–20
Finally, it should be mentioned that in the 1960 election, Nixon arguably had the more progressive position on civil rights. Kennedy, in fact, voted against the Eisenhower Administration's 1957 civil rights bill - the same year Nixon, then Vice President, met with MLK in Ghana. If Kennedy had never gotten assassinated, the civil rights laws probably wouldn't have gotten passed as soon as they did.
I saw this video posted elsewhere earlier and it really did smooth the edges of my anger at the Palin mobs to see that some people had the decency to step forward and call the fools out. It was the complicity of the mob that was truly damning. It just goes to show, it just takes one or two people to either stand up or say nothing for justice or tryanny to take hold. As for why the McCain camp won't let the organizer/staffer who is Muslim speak to the press, all the reasons I can think of do not reflect well on the party. Do they think that if the anti-Muslim bigots learn that one of them is on the payroll they'll revolt? Is that why they're keeping him muzzled?
I would say though that my mother is a socially conservative Demorcrat who IS voting for Barack because he is black/the GOP is racist. If you asked her, she would not ultimately be interested in the Democratic Party's liberalism because of a lot of it flies in the face of her conservative/Christian values.
It's 1992. I'm in the parking lot of the Medford Mall, after the weekly breakfast meeting of the Medford Chamber of Commerce. Not surprisingly the membership of the MCC is largely republican, and the topic of the parking lot BS session is the recently concluded Republican convention, featuring Pat Buchanan's "culture war" speech.
"This isn't my party."
"This isn't what conservatism is about."
And on and on and on.
Andrew Sullivan likes to pat himself on the back for writing a book in 2004. I'd be the folks in this clip feel proud of themselves too.
Too little, too late.
Rikyah: you're conflating 2 separate dudes. I was referring to Goldwater's non-support of the Civil Rights Act in my last comment. While Ron Paul has done some dumb stuff in terms of omission with regard to civil rights, non-support of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't among them.
Todd, of course Ron Paul doesn't support the Civil Rights Act. He's said so several times, and voted against a 2004 bill honoring its 40th anniversary. Now, he says the reason is because, in his view, the Act led to forced integration that violated constitutional rights and actually worsened race relations. But he does definitely oppose the Act, and says he would vote against it if it were on the floor today.
"Too little, too late."
But it's a start Tony, it's a start. The change will be a while in coming, no way in 4 yrs, I doubt even in 8, but 12-16? We can hope...
Asher posts: "I don't really believe that you should vote on the basis of what a party did for you 44 years ago, but let's suppose that's a legitimate basis on which to base your vote. Which party was more supportive of the Civil Rights Act? Here are the numbers:
The original House version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Now, what about the Voting Rights Act?
Senate: 77–19
* Democrats: 47–17
* Republicans: 30–2
House: 333–85
* Democrats: 221–61
* Republicans: 112–24"
I really hate the sheer stupid dishonesty involved when Republicans pull this bullshit out of their vast store of bullshit. Yes, the Democratic Party was once the home to the despicable Dixiecrats. So fucking what? They left the party almost to a man and were embraced by the Repiglicans within a matter of years EXPRESSLY because the Dems became the party of civil rights and equality. The Repiglican Party has been Alpha Base Zero for racists ever since, and it will remain so after this election.
Awesome clip!
We need to see more of this denunciation of the conservative freaks from the conservative common folk. I'm a life-long moderate Democrat, and I _know_ that we need a serious, well-informed opposition.
We can't let the nuts take over our party either. (the Michael Moores, the moveon.orgs, etc.) They don't speak for me as a Democrat anymore than those hate-filled bumper sticker peddlers speak for normal conservatives.
Right and justice will prevail!! eventually.
"left the party almost to a man and were embraced by the Repiglicans within a matter of years EXPRESSLY because the Dems became the party of civil rights and equality."
TR: Some truth in this and Southern Republicans tended to side against it.
However John Malcolm Patterson, the guy who ran against Wallace and was endorsed by the Klan, is still a Democrat so far as I know. Only one of the signers of the "Southern Manifesto", which opposed Brown v Board, seems to have become a Republican. Of those who stayed Democratic men like James O. Eastland or John C. Stennis remained in important positions up to the late 1980s. Robert Byrd was also against the 1964 Civil Rights and remains an elder statesman in the Party.
Thomas R replies: "John Malcolm Patterson, the guy who ran against Wallace and was endorsed by the Klan, is still a Democrat so far as I know. Only one of the signers of the "Southern Manifesto", which opposed Brown v Board, seems to have become a Republican. Of those who stayed Democratic men like James O. Eastland or John C. Stennis remained in important positions up to the late 1980s. Robert Byrd was also against the 1964 Civil Rights and remains an elder statesman in the Party."
So far as you know. So do you think Patterson will be voting for Obama, if the prick is even alive?
And when Byrd dies, what will you Republicans do to avoid facing the fact that the GOP is now the racist party and adopted racism as a deliberate strategy? Were Lee Atwater and Ken Mehlman lying when they confessed about this?
Consider today's reality, not that of 1964, when assessing the two parties today. Any other approach is purely idiotic.
Sure many Republicans are racists. Republican strategists, like all party-strategists, are basically slime. Anyway yes they played on racism. I'm all for a house-cleaning. (Although Atwater is dead, what can they do make him more dead?)
I'm just saying many of the Democrats I named had political power up into the 1980s. Both sides will do loathsome things, ally with loathsome people, to win. Do you think Democratic strategists are above using bigotries? Does Mark Penn's trying to cast Obama as "lacking American roots" nudge, nudge, not ring a bell at all with you?
Interesting question: What will the landslide victory of a black president do to the Southern Strategy?
Personally I think "Southern strategy" has already shifted, a fair amount, to being more anti-gay than racial.
I think we are reaching a point where a play to "the Democrats are cosy with gays and atheists, so vote for a black Republican who supports Affirmative Action" could work with many Southern whites.