NAACP’s Julian Bond calls for DNC to seat FL, MI delegates

posted at 7:00 am on February 13, 2008 by Bryan

Seating the delegates would both go against what the DNC said it would do and it would overwhelmingly benefit Hillary Clinton. She was the only one on the ballot in MI, and she was the de facto winner in Florida. Why does Bond want them seated? If you guessed that identity politics is playing a role, you know your leftwing politics.

A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states’ minority communities.

In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed “great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the states’ delegations could remind voters of the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries,” he said.

Not seating the 366 total delegates would have nothing to do with any racial history, of course. It might remind voters that Hillary’s word is worthless and the primary season was a mess. The NAACP just doesn’t know how to play any other card than the race card, so onto the table it glides.

But think about it. Suppose the NAACP persuades the DNC to seat those delegates, thereby handing the nomination to…Hillary. Could Bond be doing this to keep Barack Obama from blasting all the old race baiters and mau mauers into political oblivion by doing something that they never could, and without their help? Is Julian Bond that cynical?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is Julian Bond that cynical?

We’re talking about the same Julian Bond that said:

“[The Republicans'] idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side.”

Despite the fact the Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party?

I’m going with “Yep”.

amerpundit on February 13, 2008 at 7:06 AM

I don’t think Bond realizes what a disaster that would be for the Dems in the general election. If Hillary gets the nom by doing this and squeezing the super delegates I think you see the Obama supporters completely deflated and many will opt out of voting.

Bradky on February 13, 2008 at 7:06 AM

Could Bond be doing this to keep Barack Obama from blasting all the old race baiters and mau mauers into political oblivion by doing something that they never could, and without their help?

Bingo. If an African American sweeps to victory and becomes president, then Bond, Sharpton, Jackson, et al, lose a tremendous amount of victim status, and therefore power. The same reason Arafat torpedoed the peace process in 2000 after the the Israelis offered him 97% of the Palestinians’ ridiculous demands. Peace would have put Arafat out of business, just like racial harmony would put Bond out of business.

Dudley Smith on February 13, 2008 at 7:23 AM

“Seating the delegates would both go against what the DNC said it would do and it would overwhelmingly benefit Hillary Clinton.”

There may not be blood….but there skeletons in closets, markers to be called, and quid pro quo to occur.

The clinton machine rolls on.

M.B.S.C.S.D.D. (bonus round)

locomotivebreath1901 on February 13, 2008 at 7:40 AM

The NAACP has a gift for making my jaw hit the ground. Just when I thought I could no longer be shocked this political season, along comes Julian Bond.

The NAACP needs to be disbanded. I mean, the organization actually has the term “Colored People” in it’s title. I know a large number of “CP” and not a single one believes this group has anything to do with our Advancement.

12thman on February 13, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Dudley Smith on February 13, 2008 at 7:23 AM

I don’t think he has to be elected, just getting the nomination will be enough to consign Sharpton, Jackson, Bond and the rest to a state of irrelevance.

Oldnuke on February 13, 2008 at 7:48 AM

A perfect storm is brewing and when it’s over, nothing will be the same.

TheBigOldDog on February 13, 2008 at 7:51 AM

If you think Republican voters are dismayed, wait until they try and seat those delegates without a new election/caucus.

Valiant on February 13, 2008 at 7:51 AM

SO WHEN BARACK OBAMA IS SWORN IN AS POTUS, WILL MR.BOND CALL FOR THE LOGICAL AND IMMEDIATE END TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Why has no one called for this?

Now that is **CHANGE** we can all agree on.

seejanemom on February 13, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Wow, it gets better. On the NAACP home page right now:

POLITICAL E-MAIL FROM NAACP CHAIRMAN IS A HOAX

Do not believe or forward

NAACP National Board of Directors Chairman Julian Bond is not the author of an e-mail currently being distributed entitled, “10 Reasons Not to Vote for Hilary Clinton.”

In refuting the misleading message, Chairman Bond stated:

“I did not write the ’10 reasons’ and have not and will not support or oppose any candidate or party for President. The NAACP is studiously non-partisan and does not engage in partisan politics. This is a political dirty trick and a fraud, calculated to confuse.”

That last bolded part is particularly hilarious considering the link to their Presidential Candidates Civil Rights Questionnaire which only contains answers from the candidates with a (D) next to their name.

12thman on February 13, 2008 at 8:06 AM

A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states’ minority communities.

Because the delegates that represent white people in those states are being treated…differently?

James on February 13, 2008 at 8:08 AM

“Confederate swastika”?

SWLiP on February 13, 2008 at 8:08 AM

Could Bond be doing this to keep Barack Obama from blasting all the old race baiters and mau mauers into political oblivion by doing something that they never could, and without their help? Is Julian Bond that cynical?

In order, no and yes. Obama will come back home to roost with the old guard; he’s a Democrat, after all.

However, the cynical part comes in if Obama takes the nomination without Florida and Michigan. I don’t believe that the outrage factor among the Clinton wing would be enough to flip Michigan, but it would definitely be enough to keep Florida in Republican hands, making the electoral math that much harder. Morever, if both Michigan and Florida go for McCain, it is quite possible (I won’t say likely) that he would pull off the electoral upset. That would wipe out racial politics for the next few election cycles.

Conversely, if Obama were to take the nomination even with the Florida and Michigan delegations seated, that will cement the deal for him, and he will owe the old guard a favor. Believe me, they will come a-calling.

steveegg on February 13, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Conversely, if Obama were to take the nomination even with the Florida and Michigan delegations seated, that will cement the deal for him, and he will owe the old guard a favor. Believe me, they will come a-calling.

How do you figure he will owe them a favor for trying, but failing, to sink his bid for nomination?

Even if it just so happens to help him in the general ellection that certainly and obviously is not the intention.

12thman on February 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM

It’s a shame how the great Civil Rights leaders of the 60s almost all turned into corrupt and/or drug-addled politicians/racebaiters. Atlanta had soooooo many, it was a disgrace. Obama is half-black, but at least he seems to be a decent role model for the black community, though it is still too early to say for sure.

RW Wacko on February 13, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Anyone notice that it’s not just the Republicans losing its party to the libs but that the entire political system is going belly up?

- The Cat

MirCat on February 13, 2008 at 8:24 AM

The NAACP just doesn’t know how to play any other card than the race card, so onto the table it glides.

Nice use of imagery and analogy, Bryan. I admired that. That’s my whole reason for commenting. That’s all.

Captain Scarlet on February 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Can you say DINOSAURS?

TOPV on February 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Is Julian Bond that cynical?

Yeah, he is. I grew up reading the trash he was spouting off in the Atlanta rags. Total racebaiter. Obama is breaking the mold, and I for one appreciate that. I like the guy, it’s just too bad he is a socialist.

RW Wacko on February 13, 2008 at 8:27 AM

I can’t imagine any way they could seat these delegates without having the wheels come off the DNC donkeycart. In case it has escaped anybody’s attention, Detroit has a huge black voting pool that “protest voted” against Clinton because Obama wasn’t on the ballot.

It does, however, set up an interesting dynamic. Michigan and Florida were penalized for voting early. Now, because the race is so close, they want to seat delegates that weren’t supposed to be seated and there is even schemes where they have a “do over” primary with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot. What message does this send for future primaries and states that want to go early? There are penalties or are the penalties ultimately meaningless.

My guess is that this has turned into such a big mess the DNC will let sleeping dogs (asses?) lie.

highhopes on February 13, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Bond knew the DNC decision would affect the minority voters before Hillary won those states, why wasn’t he squawking then?

flyfisher on February 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM

It is true, that Julian Bond is the ‘real’ father of Michael Jackson…The resemblence is striking.

DoctorDentons on February 13, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Now, because the race is so close, they want to seat delegates that weren’t supposed to be seated and there is even schemes where they have a “do over” primary with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot. What message does this send for future primaries and states that want to go early? There are penalties or are the penalties ultimately meaningless.

If because the primaries are virtually tied they decide to have a “do over,” then they are effectively handing all the power to decide the Democrat nominee, and possibly our next president, to Florida and Michigan.

flyfisher on February 13, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Wouldn’t Obama have the right to take this to court if Hillary won due to the seating of these delegates? Afterall, they all signed an agreement to not compete in these states and he took his name off the ballot.

If Bonds was really looking for equality in the vote then he would be calling for another vote in Michigan and Florida, not upholding the results that favor Clinton.

Luckedout on February 13, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Bond knew the DNC decision would affect the minority voters before Hillary won those states, why wasn’t he squawking then?

flyfisher on February 13, 2008 at 8:36 AM

Yup, that’s the real issue. The NAACP has been useless and irrelevant and it appears has been bought and paid for by the Clinton Mafia.

But man it would be good to see the slugfest that will occur if the Clintons continue to push this issue. It also might be the only way McCain can assure a victory in November due to the implosion of the DNC.

TOPV on February 13, 2008 at 8:40 AM

How do you figure he will owe them a favor for trying, but failing, to sink his bid for nomination?

Even if it just so happens to help him in the general ellection that certainly and obviously is not the intention.

12thman on February 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM

It’s the results that will matter, not the immediate intentions. I don’t necessarily believe the intention is to sink Obama as much as it is to get a ‘Rat back in the Oval Office by any means necessary. Without Michigan and Florida, the math becomes very hard for them.

Morever, as it is the NAACP’s goal to get a ‘Rat back in the Oval Office (just as it is NOW’s), when it comes down to trying to defeat McCain, they will push just as hard for either ‘Rat candidate regardless of the blood shed in the primaries (just as NOW will). That’s what I mean by “favor”.

steveegg on February 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM

they are effectively handing all the power to decide the Democrat nominee, and possibly our next president, to Florida and Michigan.

flyfisher on February 13, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Yep and Michigan is controlled by the UAW so they are pretty much are in the blue column no matter who the nominee. Clinton’s campaign is running out of money and to stage a “do over” in Florida would be very expensive since there are so many media markets involved. That’s why I think these delegates will remain unseated.

Which leads back to the scenario where Obama gets the popular vote, Clinton gets the nomination due to all the loyalist superdelegates. We get to watch WWIII at the convention as the special interests of the DNC wage scorched earth warfare.

highhopes on February 13, 2008 at 8:47 AM

News Flash! Michigan and Florida mysteriously fall off the face of the earth. African Americans suffer most. Film at eleven.

Akzed on February 13, 2008 at 8:54 AM

The Clinton’s are calling in all of their favors on this. They want those delegates.

If the DNC decides to seat Michigan and Florida and hand Hillary the nomination……well….I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near that convention center.

MAybe some folks will finally realize just how sleazy Team Clinton is.

Talon on February 13, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Clinton wouldn’t stand a chance in a general if Michigan and Florida’s delegates are counted in Hillary’s favor. The Obama supporters will stay home on election day.

This is Bobby Kennedy redux. The Democrat party doesn’t want to nominate a populist anti-war candidate that’s drawing support from independents. Bobby Kennedy was timely assassinated for the DNC and LBJ.

gabriel sutherland on February 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM

If Hillary gets the nom by doing this and squeezing the super delegates I think you see the Obama supporters completely deflated and many will opt out of voting.

Bradky on February 13, 2008 at 7:06 AM

Clinton wouldn’t stand a chance in a general if Michigan and Florida’s delegates are counted in Hillary’s favor. The Obama supporters will stay home on election day.

gabriel sutherland on February 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Go Julian!
Go Hillary!

geckomon on February 13, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Bond is doing this because he is a Clintonista first, an angry black racist second, and American comes down on his list somewhere between communist(which precedes) and hungry(which follows).

BKennedy on February 13, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Is Julian Bond that cynical?

I don’t know about cynical, but I saw him speak once (a neighbor of mine was a big deal Dem in Orange County)at a private meeting of maybe 50 people (no newsmen). And he let loose on the “white boys” I was maybe one of 10 in the room. He spoke so highly of Hillary and Bill (that was when she had just published “it takes a village”, that it was over the top…and the rest of the crowd was yelling and a stompin. They honestly do not think of them being white…amazing evening, and still gives me the creeps of the hatred that spewed out of that man’s mouth. Never seen so much hate, against conservatives; until you see it first hand, feel it first hand, from a professional hater, you can’t imagine how “whipped” up this guy can get them.
I told my neighbor don’t ever invite me to one of your “special” events again, and even he was taken aback by the anger and hatred.
Bond would do anything, anything, to get what he wants. I am convinced of that. He needs to find a small country, and be its dictator.

right2bright on February 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM

I have a strong feeling that the Clinton’s had this planned from the outset.

Oh, just an accident? Bullshit. It’s Clintonoidal political judo.

benrand on February 13, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I like this story because if properly framed it could be an excellent argument against electing any democrat. Something like, “Do you want a member of a party that is comfortable with agreeing to a set of rules but has no problem with modifying the rules to please people with money and power as it suits their needs? Do you want lots more of special interests, earmarks and Washington business as usual?”

snaggletoothie on February 13, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Could Bond be doing this to keep Barack Obama from blasting all the old race baiters and mau mauers into political oblivion by doing something that they never could, and without their help? Is Julian Bond that cynical?

Is the sky high, the grass green, or is that a rhetorical question?

An Obama victory might just put the race industry into a serious recession.

petefrt on February 13, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Go Julian!
Go Hillary!

geckomon on February 13, 2008 at 9:17 AM

I so second that emotion!

Dis gon’ be reeel fun, you betcha! (The Dhimmicrat Presidential Convention, that is) WIll it be televised? I’m bringing the popcorn! 8^D

dmh0667 on February 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM

SO WHEN BARACK OBAMA IS SWORN IN AS POTUS, WILL MR.BOND CALL FOR THE LOGICAL AND IMMEDIATE END TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Why has no one called for this?

Now that is **CHANGE** we can all agree on.

seejanemom on February 13, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Heh. That would require more honesty than he and the race baiters are capable of.

My memory could be faulty, but isn’t the reason the delegates weren’t going to be seated because they moved the dates of their primaries against the wishes of the DNC? Knowing that if they did so, their delegates wouldn’t be seated?

Laura on February 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Julian Bond is an ignorant dumb ass. How that fool made his way to where he is is a testiment to how gullable and mindless his followers are.

He needs to exit stage left.

saiga on February 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Or has Bond made a backroom deal with the delegates for them to switch to Obama if he, Julian, gets them seated?

Machiavelli, call your answering service.

1-888-Race-Bait.

profitsbeard on February 13, 2008 at 10:03 AM

For decades, the race-baiters have screamed about not enough black head coaches, not enough black quarterbacks, not enough black corporate execs, not enough blacks in Congress, etc., etc. It was, we were told, all due to racism. Now, for the first time in history, a black man has a shot at becoming president – and who is standing in his way? The race-baiters. Just as with the feminists, their real agenda is exposed. It’s not about civil rights, it’s about advancing the agenda of world socialism.

whitetop on February 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM

This is going to be fun to watch!! To quote Flounder from Animal House …”Oh boy, is this great!!!!!!”

bobeast on February 13, 2008 at 10:11 AM

But think about it. Suppose the NAACP persuades the DNC to seat those delegates, thereby handing the nomination to…Hillary. Could Bond be doing this to keep Barack Obama from blasting all the old race baiters and mau mauers into political oblivion by doing something that they never could, and without their help? Is Julian Bond that cynical?

put on the tin foil hat. I was lucky enough to see Bond speak last year, at the end of the speech someone asked him who he was supporting for president. He said he couldn’t answer because the NAACP was non-partisan but mentioned with a smile that his wife was giving “all of my money to Barack Obama”. Yep but I’m sure that’s just a diversion from his secret plot to undermine Obama’s campaign in order to safeguard his “victim-status”.

Or not.

crr6 on February 13, 2008 at 10:15 AM

If an African American sweeps to victory and becomes president, then Bond, Sharpton, Jackson, et al, lose a tremendous amount of victim status, and therefore power.

Actually, I’m extremely concerned that the opposite will be true.

With Obama as their puppet, the race whores will wield the presidency like the Thor’s Hammer.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM

If seating the FL and MI delegates leads to a Clinton win, one of us should be ready outside the Dem convention with a supply of pitchforks and torches to hand out. I have a feeling there’d be some takers.

Such a sleazy win by Clinton in the primaries general election would be a butt-kicking of epic proportions not seen since Mike Tyson was in his prime.

Hollowpoint on February 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Hollowpoint on February 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM

As I mentioned elsewhere, the twists and turns of this plot are the sort of thing that Shakespeare would mine for gold.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM

You got a point there. Not sure if this is a tragedy or comedy at this point but it certainly isn’t the usual fare.

One thing is as certain as any of this can be….. We won’t be seeing Clinton/Obama bumper stickers this fall. Obama has been far too successful to take the VP slot and Clinton is too arrogant (and old) to run as anything other than President. That being said, if I were Obama, I’d be personally doing all the maintenance on the campaign aircraft.

highhopes on February 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Nothing must keep the queen from achieving her destiny.

Dave from Flint on February 13, 2008 at 11:38 AM

This would be the best election season EVAR, if McCain wasn’t ruining it for the good guys.

p0s3r on February 13, 2008 at 11:38 AM

BClinton didn’t seem to really care for Gore and vice versa-whichever one gets the nod, the other will be the veep, all bad blood and parsimonious behavior forgotten when they have a chance to grab the brass ring together.
I think it will be Obama with HClinton veep. See you in Nov.

Doug on February 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM

If Obama wins, that’s the end of hegemony by old style victimology mongers like NAACP. Obama’s success wipes that argument from the board. It’s the power structure versus the upstart.

Is he that cynical? Yes. I’m sure the Clintons promised him something tasty for that support.

PattyJ on February 13, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Follow the money!

SouthernGent on February 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Is Julian Bond that cynical a racist?

Card carrying

Kini on February 13, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Bond is a black racist fanatic who could never conceive of the concept of the truth. He has been blinded by hate his entire life and will remain a parasite on the black race as long as he breathes. Same for Jesse Jackson. Black dinosaurs.

volsense on February 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Julian Bond is still bustin up the chiffarobe. He is an old man with old habits and old memories. He and Gov. Ed Rendell are both stuck in a time warp. Their liberal politics keep them there.

He should get over it, but he can’t. I blame him for not seeing America for what it has become — a truly free nation.

I also blame America. Here’s a tip. Don’t enslave, commodify and murder people for 400 years if you can’t handle them complaining for the next 50.
***

right2bright on February 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Hillary’s Village came out in 95 or 96 I think. Bond has been NAACP chairman for less than a decade. In what capacity was he speaking when you saw him?

And what specifically did he say about “white boys?”

For decades, the race-baiters have screamed about not enough black head coaches, not enough black quarterbacks, not enough black corporate execs, not enough blacks in Congress, etc., etc. It was, we were told, all due to racism. Now, for the first time in history, a black man has a shot at becoming president – and who is standing in his way? The race-baiters. Just as with the feminists, their real agenda is exposed. It’s not about civil rights, it’s about advancing the agenda of world socialism.

whitetop on February 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM

You sound as if you believe that decades ago, such claims would have been unfounded. Get real dude. Most contemporary Republicans are pretty new to the inclusive mindset.

Why do so many people lie or misrepresent our history of racism? We all know the facts and dates. No need to go over basic American history. What I am amazed at is that so many Republicans act as if racism was never a factor.

I posit this notion. Many whites are tired of hearing about racism and its role in the lives of African-Americans. Some feel as if its impact is overstated. Others simply feel the time has come to put the past behind us. That’s all fine and dandy.

What I am wondering is when are Republicans going to stop whining? White men have experienced institutional racism. The degree to which it typically impacts whites is nowhere near what a typical African-American experiences. That is not to say that no whites have been horribly wronged. Rather, the average experience of prejudice is worse for blacks than it is for whites. Still, for the past 20 or so years, many whites have been victims of institutional racism in the form of consent decrees, quotas, hiring freezes, etc.

One would think from the incessant din of right-leaning voices always complaining about race-baiters that this had been going on for centuries.

African-Americans suffer institutional, religious, and social marginalization and prejudice for 400+ years. And now, whites are tired of hearing about it. But white guys endure substantially less prejudice for less than 2 decades and they seem to complain as much as the left over whining blacks?

PUH-LEASE!

Based on the amount of whining I hear from Republicans, conservatives and others about race-baiting, double standards, reverse racism, etc you would think that whites had been enslaved, had their families obliterated and been the butt of their own nation’s racial hatred.

When will you get tired of hearing yourself complain? Who has more room or reason to still be pissed? Honestly.

The Race Card on February 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM

volsense on February 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Where do you think Julian Bond first experienced this blinding hatred to which you refer? Do you think he arrived at such a sad state independently? Or do you realize that his warped views were cultivated by a warped nation?

I think that you and many others who sound like you would be angrier and more resentful than many of the race-baiters you so despise if you had a similar experience growing up.

You have never experienced racism in the way that many older African-Americans have. But based on your currently expressed frustration, it is apparent to me that if you endured any real racism, you would crack.

I think you’re a whiner and couldn’t handle the heat of real racism. I think Bond, Jackson, et al are dinosaurs for sure. But I don’t think you would have made it through their era in their shoes.

Think of it like this. You are afraid of terrorism, right? Before 9/11 most Americans had not been touched personally by terrorism. Whereas, many African-Americans had. My mom, dad, grandparents, and others all experienced deadly racist terrorism in their lives several times over…before September 11, 2001.

How long would be too long to be angry over 9/11? How long would be too long to hate those who attacked us? The same can and should be asked of those blacks who suffered terrorism at the hands of their own nation’s citizens.

It’s so easy to forget and let go on behalf of others, isn’t it?

The Race Card on February 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

African-Americans suffer institutional, religious, and social marginalization and prejudice for 400+ years

Broadly speaking, I understand what you’re getting at.

The real flaw in your line of reasoning is that you are talking about blacks and whites as if they each consist of the same people over time. 400+ years ago, a population of blacks were viewed as property by a population of whites. Over the decades, each population changed, in both raw numbers and individual members (slave purchases and births & deaths), but the overall social arrangement remained the same – blacks are property.

As the centuries wore on, amidst the constant change within these distinct populations, those social arrangements (and the attitudes towards them) started to change. Whites thought differently about blacks. They may not have wanted their daughter to marry one, but they didn’t view them as property.

From generation-to-generation, the torch was passed – within both the black & white population – that beckoned the end of slavery. A movement initiated by whites, lest ye forget.

Nowadays, we have blacks complaining about essentially non-existent racism, and expecting to capitalise on emotional guilt associated with the suffering of people other than themselves. They are trying to use the blood, sweat & tears of long-gone ancestors as currency in today’s political marketplace.

It is just as wrong to institutionalise racist policy today as it was then – and the whites that object have every right to be as vocal about it as ever MLK was.

It all needs to stop. No more quotas, no more affirmative action, no more handouts, no more speech codes, no more excuses.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

… They may not have wanted their daughter to marry one, but they didn’t view them as property.

From generation-to-generation, the torch was passed – within both the black & white population – that beckoned the end of slavery. A movement initiated by whites, lest ye forget.

Nowadays, we have blacks complaining about essentially non-existent racism, and expecting to capitalise on emotional guilt associated with the suffering of people other than themselves. They are trying to use the blood, sweat & tears of long-gone ancestors as currency in today’s political marketplace.

It is just as wrong to institutionalise racist policy today as it was then – and the whites that object have every right to be as vocal about it as ever MLK was.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Excellent. Well played.

The Race Card on February 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

The Race Card on February 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

I don’t have any particular insights on this one I haven’t already posted (e.g. Julian bond is a proud Clintonista, then a proud race baiter long before he’s a proud American.)

I did however, reply to your questions on education in the “Johhny never learned to read.” topic that has since fallen below the veil. I can repost them here if you like.

BKennedy on February 13, 2008 at 2:20 PM

It is just as wrong to institutionalise racist policy today as it was then – and the whites that object have every right to be as vocal about it as ever MLK was.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

are you equating affirmative action with the centuries of slavery, lynchings and jim crow laws that MLK spoke out against? MLK was for affirmative action anyway.

crr6 on February 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM

are you equating affirmative action with the centuries of slavery, lynchings and jim crow laws that MLK spoke out against?

No. I’m equating affirmative action with a small bowl of lukewarm porridge, a slightly turned haddock, and a small guatemalan child.

My above response is a coherent as your query.

MLK was for affirmative action anyway

The affirmative action the MLK alluded to was most definitely not racially polarised standards. He was literally speaking of the positive (affirmative) steps (action) needed to correct the injustice embedded in racist law.

The term “affirmative action”, along with others, have been usurped & hijacked by the ‘left’. They now stand as codes for tenets of fascistic socialism.

LimeyGeek on February 13, 2008 at 4:34 PM