Sorry, Klan members were largely (D's). Argue all you want that the (D)'s in the klan switched sides later but this claim is absolutely wrong. Byrd was a (D) then just as he was when he died.Look, I openly admit there are Blacks within the Republican Party, as well as, within the Tea Party. We've seen them - folks like Allen West and Herman Cane are two such examples. I'm sure there are others. Those who have studied politics let alone U.S. history should know that it was the Republic party who freed the slaves and first gave Blacks the right to vote. But somewhere along the way the Republican party became a party of separatist moreso than the Democrat party which few people acknowledge was the party that started the Klan.
What if they did? How does what happened 50 years ago justify these hateful words today?Why do you think they use to call some southern Democrats "Dixicrats"? President Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat, opposed freeing the slaves. So, there were people in high positions of power among the Democrat party who did not want to see Blacks with the freedoms we all now share. But again, somewhere along the line for a time, the Republican party stopped being inclusives and took a more separatist stance on issues of race. No time illustrated that populist mentality more than the Civil Rights era. But that's starting to turn around again.
I see, because Rev Wright was black it should have been off limits. It was a very valid point.Still, to put things even more in focus, there are still some elements of racism within the Republican party. It was fully on display during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election and we've seen it at times throughout President Obama's tenure. Such behavior is still on display today. Who do you think was the first to bring up the Rev. Wright "God Damn America" video? Was it a Democrats? The only Democrat who stood a chance to gain anything from having that video go public was Hillary Clinton. Did she plant it?
Breitbart has been around for years. Things are taken out of context in politics. It's never a good tactic but it's commonly done. It's always wrong no matter who does it.What about the Shirly Sherrod NAACP video? It first aired on FoxNews, not CNN or MSNBC nor MediaMatters. FoxNews admitted they got the video from Mr. Brightbart who owe all know is a member of the Tea Party movement. And we also know that her words from the NAACP conference were taken out of context. Yet, the seeds of racism had been planted by an agent of the Right - two if you count FoxNews as such (I certainly do because as most people acknowledge FoxNews is a Right-leaning media outlet same as MSNBC is a Left-leaning media outlet.)
I never had a problem, not did I express one for blacks voting for Obama for this reason. Chris Rock was wrong though, he wasn't qualified. I wouldn't qualify what happened here as racism. People were voting for the guy they felt was most like them. It would have only been racism if they would refuse to vote for someone of another race with the same positions. If Obama hadn't run, most of those who voted for Obama would have voted for Hillary.Now, here's a shocker...there have been Black presidential candidates long before the Rev. Jesse Jackson. The first was Clennon King in 1960; the first Black female, Charlene Mitchell. But the first to run and actully win the primary nomination of a major political party (Democrat) was Shirley Chisholm. The first Black Republican to ever be placed on the ballot for the presidency was also a female, Margaret Chase Smith. She lost to Barry Goldwater.
This and other "Black American firsts" can be found here. So, where President Obama is concerned, he wasn't the first Black presidential candidate to win a major party primary nomination. He was just the first most Black (and White) people believed could actually stand a chance to win! So, of course, millions of African Americans threw their support behind him. As the comedian, Chris Rock, has said, "Barack was Black and qualified". What I found crazy about this whole "Blacks voted for one of their own kind" argument is that African Americans have been voting for White presidents since they first were given the right to vote. But suddenly when a viable Black presidential candiate burst upon the sceen and takes the country by storm suddenly we're all racist because we put the power of our vote to work for one of our own? What does that say about the millions of White people who have voted for nothing but White presidential hopefuls throughout this country's history? Sounds rather idiotic doesn't it considering there weren't a whole lot of candidates from other races to choose from, doesn't it? But then again, it was White America who took issue with electing a Roman-Catholic to the White House in the 60's.
No way was the reaction an overreaction. As a U.S. Senator you do not falsely accuse anyone of wanting to lynch blacks. You simply do not do that. He's just pissed that people disagree with him and he's lashing out by indefensible means. Yet, some (including yourself) seem to want to try and excuse it.My point to all this is there are racist elements in both parties, some perhaps more obvious than others. I try to ignore it, try not to get so caught up in it, but some people make it very difficult to remain above the fray because every time someone tries to have an open and honest dialog about race in America the topic gets thrown completely off track. Look at how this thread suddenly went from being honest about Rep. Carson's comments to cultural issues within the Black race? What does marital statistics among African Americans have to do with anything Rep. Carson said? Why is it so difficult for people to admit they've overracted when the evidence of the man's words are put right before them to read for themselves? Why is it considered misleading when the President points out an obvious political strategy that he knows full well will be levied against him? Why was it wrong for the future First Lady to openly say, "Black Americans traditionally stay away from the voting booths during Presidential elections considering their numbers were low in the Democratic presidential primaries. Thus, all she was saying was when asked of the matter was "hopefully, African Americans will wake up and get out there and put the power of the collective vote behind a viable Black candidate who happened to be her husband?" Why was that so wrong in light of history among African Americans as a voting block?
There has been racism. There are still far smaller elements. That is no excuse for what he said here. It's no excuse for instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government.If we're going to truly talk about the racial divide can we atleast acknowledge the history behind it and try to place events of today in their proper context?
There is no excuse for racism from anyone. Why is that so hard to accept?