PDA

View Full Version : Harry Reid shows his true "colors"....



K G
01-09-2010, 06:42 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/09/reid-apology-for-negro-dialect-comment/


kg

Franco
01-10-2010, 09:29 AM
The book, which will be released on Tuesday also has some juicy Bill Clinton racial slams. Something about Obama should be fetching Hillary's coffee. ;-)

subroc
01-11-2010, 02:44 PM
Democrats, racism and Harry Reid and the double standard

I guess there are, at least in the media and democrats view, degrees of racism. There is one standard if you are a republican, you must resign in disgrace. If you are a democrat you are allowed all the excuses you need for your obvious bigotry and the media and party will provide any needed cover.

Do they, the democrats, party and media really stand for anything as it relates to racism?

Bunch of hypocritical racists!

I wonder how the rank and file views this. Does this rise to the same level as the Trent Lott situation or is this somehow an accepted form of racism?

Here is one link, there were many to choose from:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/11/gop__response_to_reid_remark_shows_double_standard .html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/11/gop__response_to_reid_remark_shows_double_standard .html)

Franco
01-11-2010, 03:40 PM
How 'bout Nancy Pelosi accusing the CIA of not briefing her, only to find out she was not paying attention!

Swept under the rug.

YardleyLabs
01-11-2010, 04:03 PM
Democrats, racism and Harry Reid and the double standard

I guess there are, at least in the media and democrats view, degrees of racism. There is one standard if you are a republican, you must resign in disgrace. If you are a democrat you are allowed all the excuses you need for your obvious bigotry and the media and party will provide any needed cover.

Do they, the democrats, party and media really stand for anything as it relates to racism?

Bunch of hypocritical racists!

I wonder how the rank and file views this. Does this rise to the same level as the Trent Lott situation or is this somehow an accepted form of racism?

Here is one link, there were many to choose from:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/11/gop__response_to_reid_remark_shows_double_standard .html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/11/gop__response_to_reid_remark_shows_double_standard .html)


Trent Lott, in his speech, said that America would have been better off if it had elected Strom Thurmond -- who ran on segregationist platform and conducted the longest filibuster ever to oppose the 1957 civil rights act -- had been elected rather than Harry Truman. That's quite a bit different from Reid's observation that Obama's election was helped by the fact that he didn't sound "black." Reid's statement was true and spoken as a supporter. If there was a racially oriented insult, it was against white voters that Reid believed might be negatively influenced by a candidate that they saw as being too black. Obama himself clearly recognized the same thing -- gearing his campaign to place down racial issues -- and the opposition to Obama recognized the same thing and tried to play up racially issues knowing that Obama's votes would go down if they could make him seem more "black." It is not racist to discuss the effect of race in politics. It is not racist to say that some people voted for Obama because of his racial background and that others voted against him for the same reason. Trent Lott was not discussing the effects of race in politics, he was stating an opinion that we would have been better off with a segregationist in the white house than with the man who finally had the courage to desegregate the US Army.

Bayou Magic
01-11-2010, 04:28 PM
Trent Lott, in his speech, said that America would have been better off if it had elected Strom Thurmond -- who ran on segregationist platform and conducted the longest filibuster ever to oppose the 1957 civil rights act -- had been elected rather than Harry Truman. That's quite a bit different from Reid's observation that Obama's election was helped by the fact that he didn't sound "black." Reid's statement was true and spoken as a supporter. If there was a racially oriented insult, it was against white voters that Reid believed might be negatively influenced by a candidate that they saw as being too black. Obama himself clearly recognized the same thing -- gearing his campaign to place down racial issues -- and the opposition to Obama recognized the same thing and tried to play up racially issues knowing that Obama's votes would go down if they could make him seem more "black." It is not racist to discuss the effect of race in politics. It is not racist to say that some people voted for Obama because of his racial background and that others voted against him for the same reason. Trent Lott was not discussing the effects of race in politics, he was stating an opinion that we would have been better off with a segregationist in the white house than with the man who finally had the courage to desegregate the US Army.

You can spin this one any way you want, but the fact is if a conservative had said those words under any circumstances he would have been roasted.

fp

Captain Mike D
01-11-2010, 04:32 PM
Trent Lott, in his speech, said that America would have been better off if it had elected Strom Thurmond -- who ran on segregationist platform and conducted the longest filibuster ever to oppose the 1957 civil rights act -- had been elected rather than Harry Truman. That's quite a bit different from Reid's observation that Obama's election was helped by the fact that he didn't sound "black." Reid's statement was true and spoken as a supporter. If there was a racially oriented insult, it was against white voters that Reid believed might be negatively influenced by a candidate that they saw as being too black. Obama himself clearly recognized the same thing -- gearing his campaign to place down racial issues -- and the opposition to Obama recognized the same thing and tried to play up racially issues knowing that Obama's votes would go down if they could make him seem more "black." It is not racist to discuss the effect of race in politics. It is not racist to say that some people voted for Obama because of his racial background and that others voted against him for the same reason. Trent Lott was not discussing the effects of race in politics, he was stating an opinion that we would have been better off with a segregationist in the white house than with the man who finally had the courage to desegregate the US Army.

Don't know his heart but I believe Trent Lott was just humoring an old man on his birthday.

Jeff, just how much loathing would a black candidate for a job have toward you if you said "I think you are going to be in the top 3 of my picks because you have light skin, and oh by the way, I"ll give you extra points for knowing how to speak proper English"?

Sharpton is already defending Reid. So far Jackson, Waters, and Brown are silent. It will remain so because these people are in power and they are not stupid enough, nor incensed enough to let anything get in the way of their agenda. The race card cannot be played on a member of the the team!!

subroc
01-11-2010, 04:41 PM
circle dem (pun intended) wagons Jeff.

double standard Jeff, double standard.

YardleyLabs
01-11-2010, 04:54 PM
Show me the double standard. Show me where a Republican has been attacked for saying that whites would be more willing to vote for a candidate that is well dressed, educated and speaks in a manner that sounds more like a Harvard graduate than a Chicago politician.

There is a big difference between recognizing a political reality and endorsing it. If you can't see the difference between what Reid said and what Lott said, I doubt you would know the difference between a Republican and a Democrat anyway.

Hew
01-11-2010, 04:58 PM
For starters, what Trent Lott said was harmless kindness to an old coot at his 1,000th birthday party. In no way did he say, mean or infer that we'd have been better off with segregationist policies. The only people who got their panties in a wad were the predictable chorus of race pimps, the PC Police ninnies and the media. Combine the ginned up furor from the usual suspects with some nasty backbiting from within the GOP itself (including Bush) and it was a recipe for Lott's demise.

What Reid said was equally innocuous. What has this country come to when we can't even acknowledge, without hysterics, that most blacks and whites do not speak the same way?

Lastly, there is most definately a double standard at play. Had a Republican said the same thing the race pimps would be marching at the steps of Congress this very moment.

PS...Like DNF said, I don't think the GOP really wants or expects to see Reid gone...he's an ineffectual and unlikeable a-hole whose own constituents don't even care for. But the GOP would like to bloody him up some more.

road kill
01-11-2010, 05:04 PM
Well........thank goodness Senator Reid is not trying to but an NFL team!!:D


rk

subroc
01-11-2010, 05:16 PM
No Jeff, saying a black man that doesn’t look or sound like a black man makes him acceptable is even more egregious. Trent Lott was trying to be nice to a 100 year old man with an innocuous comment. He was not speaking of a racial issue in itself. Reid’s comment, on the other hand, was racist. It centered on race. It was a comment that highlighted, that at some level, being something other than what he considered a “conventional black man” was better.

The Quote:


was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately

circle them wagons, make them excuses, keep up the double standard...bunch of hypocrites

subroc
01-11-2010, 05:19 PM
Well........thank goodness Senator Reid is not trying to but an NFL team!!:D


rk

good point! But, he would be allowed to own one, racist comment and all. After all, he is a democrat.

Bayou Magic
01-11-2010, 05:22 PM
Too bad Reid's words weren't spoken by Sarah Palin. Can you imagine the angular velocity of every democratic head in the country!

Head's a spinnin' regards,
fp

YardleyLabs
01-11-2010, 05:40 PM
For starters, what Trent Lott said was harmless kindness to an old coot at his 1,000th birthday party. In no way did he say, mean or infer that we'd have been better off with segregationist policies. ....


No Jeff, saying a black man that doesnít look or sound like a black man makes him acceptable is even more egregious. Trent Lott was trying to be nice to a 100 year old man with an innocuous comment. ...

Had i been speaking at the retirement party of a man serving in public office for as long as either Strom Thurmond or Methuselah, I hope that I would have been gracious is giving thanks iin recognition of the sacrifices made, and that I would be generous in forgiving concerning positions held in what was truly a different age. However, i would certainly have stopped short of an endorsement saying that our nation would have been better off had it accepted the positions taken by that person more than 50 years before. Lott's statement was idiotic. In case it has been forgotten, what he said was:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

What Strom Thurmond said as the Dixiecrat candidate for President was:

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

and


"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Try to spin that into anything except stupidity.

Bayou Magic
01-11-2010, 05:46 PM
Had i been speaking at the retirement party of a man serving in public office for as long as either Strom Thurmond or Methuselah, I hope that I would have been gracious is giving thanks iin recognition of the sacrifices made, and that I would be generous in forgiving concerning positions held in what was truly a different age. However, i would certainly have stopped short of an endorsement saying that our nation would have been better off had it accepted the positions taken by that person more than 50 years before. Lott's statement was idiotic. In case it has been forgotten, what he said was:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

What Strom Thurmond said as the Dixiecrat candidate for President was:

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

and


"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Try to spin that into anything except stupidity.

Nice deflection, but isn't the current issue about REID'S misstep?

fp

YardleyLabs
01-11-2010, 05:51 PM
Nice deflection, but isn't the current issue about REID'S misstep?

fp
The entire complaint that I have heard about Reid is from Republicans complaining that he is being treated more gently than Trent Lott. People who were outraged by the negative reaction to what Trent Lott said and supported Lott's continuation as minority leader are now the only ones calling for Reid to resign as Majority Leader. Does that mean that two wrongs do make a right, or just that Rights are happy to do wrong if it attacks the Left?;-)

dnf777
01-11-2010, 05:57 PM
In no way did he say, mean or infer that we'd have been better off with segregationist policies.
Please let me borrow your mind-reading machine someday. It must come in handy! I can only take him at face value. He said 'we'd be better off with his policies...', his policies were segregationist....ergo....

...he's an ineffectual and unlikeable a-hole whose own constituents don't even care for. But the GOP would like to bloody him up some more.

You help make my point (and many others') that the current republican party is indeed the party of negativism. They'd rather bloody somebody up and stir the pot of hatred, than do what will help them accomplish traditional republican platform items. Right now, they have none, so they might as well bloody away.

subroc
01-11-2010, 05:59 PM
I am in no way defending Strohm Thurman. This isn't about Strohm Thurman, this is about the treatment of Trent Lott and the treatment of Harry Reid by the media and democrat party. Thurman probably said far worse than that. That isn't the issue. I am sure that Lott wasnít or didnít review all the issues that Thurman stood for or on in 50 years before he made that statement. Pah-leezze. It was an innocuous comment to make a 100 year old man feel good.

You and I disagree on this, part, good enough.

That said, then letís say he meant it. Letís say he wanted segregation to continue, which I donít concede he did. Either way, as a standalone issue, he paid the price.

Now on Harry Reid. Without the Lott issue to measure against, does his racist position rise to a situation that requires sanction or forced resignation? Is it an egregious comment in itself?

from my earlier post:

Reidís comment, on the other hand, was racist. It centered on race. It was a comment that highlighted, that at some level, being something other than what he considered a ďconventional black manĒ was better.
The Quote:

was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama ó a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately

Bayou Magic
01-11-2010, 06:03 PM
The entire complaint that I have heard about Reid is from Republicans complaining that he is being treated more gently than Trent Lott. People who were outraged by the negative reaction to what Trent Lott said and supported Lott's continuation as minority leader are now the only ones calling for Reid to resign as Majority Leader. Does that mean that two wrongs do make a right, or just that Rights are happy to do wrong if it attacks the Left?;-)

Clever, but totally inaccurate. This is about the lack of outrage from the liberals who will not dare criticize one of their party elites and champions of their agenda. Maybe that's the double standard you fail to acknowledge.

road kill
01-11-2010, 06:06 PM
The entire complaint that I have heard about Reid is from Republicans complaining that he is being treated more gently than Trent Lott. People who were outraged by the negative reaction to what Trent Lott said and supported Lott's continuation as minority leader are now the only ones calling for Reid to resign as Majority Leader. Does that mean that two wrongs do make a right, or just that Rights are happy to do wrong if it attacks the Left?;-)

I think the issue is you & your party's hypocrisy!!;)

Just a stab in the dark.



rk

Hew
01-11-2010, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hew http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=549123#post549123)
In no way did he say, mean or infer that we'd have been better off with segregationist policies.
Please let me borrow your mind-reading machine someday. It must come in handy! I can only take him at face value. He said 'we'd be better off with his policies...', his policies were segregationist....ergo....I assure you my mind-reading machine is much better than your fact-telling machine. Can you provide a link to the Lott quote, "We'd be better off with his policies..."? Thanks.

...he's an ineffectual and unlikeable a-hole whose own constituents don't even care for. But the GOP would like to bloody him up some more.

You help make my point (and many others') that the current republican party is indeed the party of negativism. They'd rather bloody somebody up and stir the pot of hatred, than do what will help them accomplish traditional republican platform items. Right now, they have none, so they might as well bloody away. I'm pragmatic and make no bones that both sides play political hardball. You're a democrat shill who pretends otherwise (and you don't need any help from me in reaffirming that with nearly every one of your posts).

YardleyLabs
01-11-2010, 06:17 PM
I am in no way defending Strohm Thurman. This isn't about Strohm Thurman, this is about the treatment of Trent Lott and the treatment of Harry Reid by the media and democrat party. Thurman probably said far worse than that. That isn't the issue. I am sure that Lott wasn’t or didn’t review all the issues that Thurman stood for or on in 50 years before he made that statement. Pah-leezze. It was an innocuous comment to make a 100 year old man feel good.

You and I disagree on this, part, good enough.

That said, then let’s say he meant it. Let’s say he wanted segregation to continue, which I don’t concede he did. Either way, as a standalone issue, he paid the price.

Now on Harry Reid. Without the Lott issue to measure against, does his racist position rise to a situation that requires sanction or forced resignation? Is it an egregious comment in itself?

from my earlier post:

The Quote:

Where in your comments does Reid say one behavior is "better" than another? He is saying that one was more electable than another. Do you believe he was wrong in his judgment? Do you believe that he was wrong to articulate what many blacks and whites believed to be true? In what part of his comment does Harry Reid endorse any position suggesting that light skin blacks or black who talk :like whotes" are superior to others?

As I noted in my comments, Trent Lott praising Thurmond was entirely appropriate. The fact that he singled out Thurmond's 1948 election campaign which had segregation as its main platform was flat stupid. Personally, I don't think Lott was intending to express a racist comment. The fact that he resigned was his decision. As noted by CNN at the time:

"Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Monday he believes Lott did not intend for his comments to be interpreted as racist. "There are a lot of times when he and I go to the mike and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I'm sure this is one of those cases for him as well," Daschle said."


By the way, Lott made the same comment at a Reagan rally in 1980 and was a strong opponent of all civil rights legislation throughout his public career.

BonMallari
01-11-2010, 06:40 PM
the left can spin it however they want, the voters will have their say on Harry Reid come election time, he is a mealy mouth spineless man, who just happened to back the correct candidate, had Clinton surged ahead in the polls he would have swung the other way