Stephen A. Smith: If Lott had to go, Reid has to go

posted at 10:08 pm on January 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop. As gratifying an expression of poetic justice as this is, I have to grit my teeth and side with Ramesh Ponnuru.

Republicans and conservatives are comparing Harry Reid’s comment about “Negro dialect” to Trent Lott’s remark about how we would have avoided a lot of problems if Strom Thurmond had been elected. Just as Republicans turned on Lott and forced him to give up the Senate majority leadership, they say, so Democrats should turn on Reid and make him resign his post.

But the comparison is off the mark. Lott’s comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy. What Reid said isn’t within a lightyear of that.

Yeah. Apparently Tucker Carlson came to Reid’s defense on Hannity tonight, too. As much as I’d like to club him, the most objectionable thing he said was his use of the word “negro” and evidently even that’s not all that objectionable anymore. (Although it will be tomorrow if a Republican uses it.) But don’t despair: As our friend Mr. Brown is proving tonight in the bluest of blue states, Reid’s time will come. Patience, patience. Exit question: Isn’t there another Democrat who’s getting off easy amid the uproar over Reid?


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Sen. Reid isn’t racist.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM

Would you go with ignorant, then?

BigAlSouth on January 12, 2010 at 7:21 AM

You know I have more and more respect for Steven A Smith… I really do.

BobAnthony on January 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM

Personally, I’m tired of the Democrat race-race-race-race-is-all-that-matters crap as it is. I imagine many people are as well.

There are more important things we should be focused on, like KILLING OBAMACARE AND MAKING SURE IT STAYS DEAD.
This is a convenient way for the Obamacrats to avoid having to talk about their idiotic health care bill.

Use this “light-skinned with no Negro dialect” nonsense in campaign ads against Reid and let’s just be done with it.

Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 7:40 AM

Yeah, the double standard for liberals here is huge.

The Dean on January 12, 2010 at 7:50 AM

The truth is language rules are dictated by liberals and by being liberal allows them to liberally change the rules at any time and how dare one argue with them. It’s not just in language bu at every step in politics they are allowed to change the rules as they go along. We on the right need to get our minds straight and accept that or else when obama care kicks in we’ll be sent to some thought re-adjustment camp

ranzofola on January 12, 2010 at 7:53 AM

Reid is the new KKK leader

Denniscat on January 12, 2010 at 7:53 AM

the most objectionable thing he said was his use of the word “negro”

nO No it wasn’t. It was his insult to American voters that we are too racist to vote for someone who is dark-skinned and an insult to Black voters that they need to be spoken to in a “negro dialect.” And it also implied that Obama talks down to Black voters by using such a dialect when he wants to.

And I always thought Lott was referring to Thurmond’s long time championing of state’s rights, not segregation.

Deanna on January 12, 2010 at 8:03 AM

All Dems got a pass because ‘their hearts are in the right place’ and they always vote for massive giveaways to minorities.

They are bulletproof in this regard and can do anything.

rockbend on January 12, 2010 at 8:03 AM

So ALLAHPUNDIT you agree then that Dark Skin with a Negro Dialect is not desirable in a person??

ChuckTX on January 12, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Republicans need Reid now more than ever. Reid should stay; The triple threat of Reid, Pelosi and Obama sums up the message for November. Don’t be foolish people

wiseprince on January 12, 2010 at 8:12 AM

We are always saying Democrats can’t have it both ways.

As Conservatives, we need to not spend time calling for Reid’s resignation. Let’s just let their hypocrisy be evident. It’s fine to point out the hypocrisy.

Storms on January 12, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Would you go with ignorant, then?

BigAlSouth on January 12, 2010 at 7:21 AM

Big time.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 8:40 AM

I think we should all realize that all this indignation by blacks, especially from political or professional race hustlers, at some public white man’s verbal slip-up or private carelessness with racial reference is standard race-card power playing. They are not really “offended” or hurt – as if people like Sharpton are tender, sensitive souls – they are trying to exercise clout and acquire intimidation power. This is about power. They couldn’t even care less if the poor fellow is not a racist – he may even have been a liberal civil rights advocate at one time – but if they can get him to resign or fired they are exercising power and thus acquiring power and they’ll throw any innocent white person under the bus for that, unless he happens to be a very useful political ally for acquiring more payoffs or “affirmative action” goodies.

It’s all just a race-card scam that even many white liberal tender hearts can’t seem to recognize. I wish the public would just get fed up with PC power gaming and make it go away by not taking this kind of “offense” seriously and tell the race card hustlers to go jump in a brier patch.

Chessplayer on January 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM

Deanna on January 12, 2010 at 8:03 AM

I agree with that. Democrats have the luxury of interpreting statements any way they like and their faithful media pets will make sure it gets ink and air. Thank goodness for alternative media, may it grow strong and loud.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Ramesh Ponnuru comment below, shows how the left is so full of bigotry for those that do not comply with their viewpoint.

But the comparison is off the mark. Lott’s comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy. What Reid said isn’t within a lightyear of that.

Really, look at the context of both remarks and they will show exactly what the PC police has wrought – fear of speaking ones mind. Because dem folk will tell everyone they know, what you said (in their words) and why you said it (in their words) and not give up until you are drawn and quartered.

Bottom line both men said Stupid things but only the Stupid one gets a pass while the other was ordered to be dismissed and was – but dem people won’t do the same to their own.

Philosophy says “Keep your Friends close, but keep your enemies closer”. So, what do you think President Hussein Barrack Obama considers V.P. Biden

MSGTAS on January 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM

The comparisons between Lott and Reid may be a bit off the mark, but it demonstrate this – when it comes to issues like this, primarily race, for the right it’s about consistency and principle, hence the calls for Lott to go.

For the Left, it isn’t about any of that. Hypocrisy doesn’t matter, as long as you’re “on the right side of history” as President Obama has said about Reid. To the Left hypocrisy takes a back seat to ideology. I don’t know why any of us are surprised by that.

But in a greater context, this incident illustrates that it isn’t even about ideology per se either. Power, Control is what drives the Left. Everything takes a back seat to Power and Control. This is why Leftists are so quick to tack to the Center/Right during an election. This is why the Left always gets a pass and the apologists for Reid can get away with excusing his language, even though we all know the crapstorm which would have erupted had this come from a Republican.

Principle doesn’t matter to the Left. Ideology even takes a backseat when the chips are down. Power and Control is all that matters and is why Reid has his apologists, from the president on down and why the Left will not remove Reid from his seat.

catmman on January 12, 2010 at 9:36 AM

More proof that Allah is a total moron.

MobileVideoEngineer on January 12, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Lott was railroaded. The dems equate his toast to Thurman with agreeing with segregation and wishing the ways of the 40′s had continued. The dems never finish the story but Thurman ran for president in 1948 as they call it a Dixiecrat, which is just another form of Democrat. He was being toasted on his 100th birthday and still a senator from SC. If we peeked behind the curtains on the dems wonder what we’d see.

Kissmygrits on January 12, 2010 at 9:49 AM

One guy longs for segregation, the other makes a cringeworthy observation about black culture.

Apples. oranges.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Sure the word “negro” is nothing. But the missed point that he combined it with a “dialect” is stero-typical.

Add to that the fact that Reid accused a negro man of fdloating in and out of this persona to match his environment, while true as it may be, is still a racist comment. THAT NEEDS TO BE THE POINT!

CynicalOptimist on January 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Add to that the fact that Reid accused a negro man of fdloating in and out of this persona to match his environment, while true as it may be, is still a racist comment. THAT NEEDS TO BE THE POINT!

CynicalOptimist on January 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM
—–
For chrissakes that’s not racist.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM

The veil, while slow, is being lifted.

I don’t think Reid was trying to be, or sound, or necessarily is racist. I’d go more with ….stupid. He said it, thinking it would never be repeated? He didn’t have the guts to say it to Obama’s face, rather in a private conversation, and as it turns out, IS the source behind it, for the book. And this dude is leader of the Senate, and writing health care bills for the rest of us? I don’t feel very comforted thru this at all.

I am however, angered. While Reids statement wasn’t right to say, and I agree…it doesn’t rank with Lotts, I would also say, I don’t think Lott was trying to be racist either. He was at a party, and by all accounts….roasting Thurmond. It was a bad, bad joke.

Now, for anyone saying I’m making excuses for Lott….the same can be said for the excuses being made for Reid. Thereby proving….the double standard. That’s what Mr.Smith is saying, and is why he’s calling for Reids resignation. Turn about, is fair play. Because we all know here, that if a Republican had said what Reid had said, you’d all be hypocrites, calling for that republicans resignation, and you can’t deny that.

capejasmine on January 12, 2010 at 10:38 AM

But the comparison is off the mark. Lott’s comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy.

It was the man’s 100th birthday. Isn’t it at all possible he was just paying the man a complement as a leader? Was that all the 100-year-old ever stood for? And if so, why wasn’t he the one ousted? Am I the only one who finds it idiotic that someone can be thrown from the party for saying something nice about someone else in it?

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM

One guy longs for segregation, the other makes a cringeworthy observation about black culture.

Apples. oranges.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM

I don’t think either of those observations are correct. One is trying to be nice to a 100 year old man on his birthday and the other is laying out what he believes to be the tipping point of voter support for a candidate of color. Both ill advised and both incorrect but people are allowed to be wrong.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM

One guy longs for segregation, the other makes a cringeworthy observation about black culture.

Apples. oranges.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM

And yet…it’s a black Democrat calling for Reids resignation. Doesn’t that say something? That perhaps some see the hypocrisy in all of this, and that maybe…just maybe….some are offended by the comments?

capejasmine on January 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM

And yet…it’s a black Democrat calling for Reids resignation. Doesn’t that say something?

capejasmine on January 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM
—–
Uh, no. It does not say something.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM

One guy longs for segregation, the other makes a cringeworthy observation about black culture.

Apples. oranges.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Lott made no mention of segregation. Again, if that was the only thing Thurman was good for, then he’s the one who should have been kicked out of the party, not Lott.

And the observation that black people talk funny is a bit more than cringeworthy.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s neice was on Laura Ingraham’s show and while not calling for Sen. Reid’s resignation as leader, she felt that his words were racist. The voters in Nevada will decide.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Lott made no mention of segregation. Again, if that was the only thing Thurman was good for, then he’s the one who should have been kicked out of the party, not Lott.

And the observation that black people talk funny is a bit more than cringeworthy.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM
——-
“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.”

You are correct that he did not utter the word segregation.
However you would have to be incredibly fu*king stupid to not understand that that is exactly what Lott meant.

Thurmond most certainly should have been thrown out of the party. That they chose to keep him for all those decades and throw Lott under the bus speaks volumes about the stupidity in the room.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM

However you would have to be incredibly fu*king stupid to not understand that that is exactly what Lott meant.

Again, was this the ONLY thing Thurmond ran on? Did he not have an economic plan or a foreign policy plan? Was that it, just “no blacks mixing with whites” and nothing else?

It was the man’s 100th birthday, a man who once ran for president.

Thurmond most certainly should have been thrown out of the party.

Maybe they felt it was balance for Byrd.

That they chose to keep him for all those decades and throw Lott under the bus speaks volumes about the stupidity in the room.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Not just in the room, apparently even Obama thought Thurmond was worth keeping while Lott was not. But is that stupidity or just politics? Because if Obama and others were really offended at the complement given to a 100-year-old on his birthday, then Thurmond should have been out the door years ago. It’s not as though his past is a secret.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM

For those who are defending Reid how do you explain his racist remarks about Clarence Thomas?

Capitalist Infidel on January 12, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Again, was this the ONLY thing Thurmond ran on? Did he not have an economic plan or a foreign policy plan? Was that it, just “no blacks mixing with whites” and nothing else?
Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM
——-
I never said it was. Sure he probably had a platform but that’s kind of irrelevant once you’re shown yourself to be a scumbag racist. Oh wait – he got voted in anyways. Over and over. Oh well. Speaks volumes about the electorate.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Byrd = racist scumbag too.

Again, Thurmond should never have enjoyed the privilege of being elected. he did not deserve it.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM

I never said it was. Sure he probably had a platform but that’s kind of irrelevant once you’re shown yourself to be a scumbag racist.

It’s not irrelevant if you’re Lott. Or if you’re Oliver Stone trying to reinvent Hitler. Or to all the Che idiots out there.

Oh wait – he got voted in anyways. Over and over. Oh well. Speaks volumes about the electorate.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:44 PM

That he’s not the only one says even more, possibly about how much Americans love someone who repents. These days, it comes with rehab, but it hasn’t stopped. People say or do something stupid, beg for forgiveness and continue to have a lucrative career.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Geesh, Mr. Rywall, people can’t learn and change? Sen. Thurmond was the first senator to hire a black staff member. Whether he should have been elected is up to his constituents. Sen Byrd also grew out of his earlier views. Life is a learning process, how many people do you know if think exactly the same way they did in their youth. Such a hard a$$.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Geesh, Mr. Rywall, people can’t learn and change? Sen. Thurmond was the first senator to hire a black staff member. Whether he should have been elected is up to his constituents. Sen Byrd also grew out of his earlier views. Life is a learning process, how many people do you know if think exactly the same way they did in their youth. Such a hard a$$.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM
——
Both Byrd and Thurmond needed to be penalized for their racism. They weren’t.

Had they been, then done your little butterfly repent and change dance, then I would have been fine with them enjoying successful careers. They paid no price and that is not okay with me. Same goes for Kennedy. SHould have gone to jail. Get out of jail, run again – sure.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Sen Byrd also grew out of his earlier views.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Yes, he now believes that white people can be n-s too.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Get out of jail, run again – sure.

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM

To be fair, what Kennedy and his supporters knew, was that if he’d done so, his political career would have been over, and the same is true of Byrd and Thurmond.

No one recovers from something like that.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM

You seem to forget that those men’s beliefs were probably pretty normal at the time. That’s why there was such turmoil when things changed. There were problems as late as the 70′s in Boston with the intergration of schools. And how do you know that they didn’t suffer from their beliefs, just because you aren’t aware of it? You are aware that Sen. Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman are you not? Politicians of every stripe get away with more than they should, maybe the media should do a better job and be more even handled with the dirt they expose. As for the late Sen. Kennedy, you are right there but again, if the people of his state elect him and it’s legal, all the rest of us can do is wonder.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Yes, he now believes that white people can be n-s too.

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM

I don’t think the word was exclusive to black in Sen. Byrd’s day, I think it was used to indicate a shiftless, self centered person willing to live off of other people. Although usually the Democrats encourage that sort of behavior so it is rich that he would complain about it.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM

You are aware that Sen. Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman are you not?

She mixed races and is a l3sbian or did you mean black man?

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM

I don’t think the word was exclusive to black in Sen. Byrd’s day, I think it was used to indicate a shiftless, self centered person willing to live off of other people. Although usually the Democrats encourage that sort of behavior so it is rich that he would complain about it.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I’m sure you’re right, but that wasn’t so much true in 2004. I just file that one away in “what if an R had said it.”

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Ramesh Ponnuru would make more sense if…. he was a light-skinned african-american with less of a Negro accent.

Al Sharpton would make more sense if…. he was a light-skinned african-american with less of a Negro accent.

Jesse Jackson would make more sense if…. he was a light-skinned african-american with less of a Negro accent.

Democrats are hypocrites.

ms on January 12, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I think Michael Steele should put together a time line of Democrats and race.

I think it is time to give America some history and some learnin’ about race in America.

Why are blacks still buying this dem. stuff……Because no one is educating them on the truth.

nondhimmie on January 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Esthier on January 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Amen to that. I tend to give very old people a pass. Like very small children, they say the darndest things. The big difference is that they usually have given so much to others and lived in such different times that I try to not to hold it against them. I have a 93 year old little skinny aunt who thinks that being over weight is a capital offense and that the government should step in and put an end to fattening foods. Now is that logical?

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Smith is right, Reid is saying “Americans are inherently racist”. I resent that to the core of my being. The elitists are the race baiters, always have been. They sustain power through divisivness.

elclynn on January 12, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Democrats are hypocrites.

Now they are encouraging black people to let white people be racists.

ms on January 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM

correction….

Democrats are hypocrites.

NOW they are encouraging black people the Negro people to let white people be racists.

ms on January 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM

ms on January 12, 2010 at 2:03 PM

the Black Republican Magazine
(please allow a few minutes for loading) more…
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Republican and NBRA Logo Items
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican and Nbra Logo Items
more…
CPAC 2009
Cpac 2009
more…

Martin Luther King Was A Republican Billboards – Photos Democrats Smeared MLK in the 1960s For Those With Black RepubIican PAC Questions – Click Here In her article, “A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy”, MLK’s niece, Dr. Alveda C. King, affirms that her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican Order Black Republican Forum Videos
Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860′s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950′s and 1960′s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960′s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860′s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former “Dixiecrat” is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970′s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

nondhimmie on January 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Of course what Harry said was racist! He didn’t call Obama a dark skinned Caucasian did he? Nope! Jumped right to the NEGRO! Guess where Harry’s concerned, one drop of black blood and you’re all black! Very Jim Crow of you there Har!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Obama is an American Negro.

.

ms on January 12, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Did I just witness Harry Reid getting a left right combo?

Boom Boom hit the mat.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM

One guy longs for segregation, the other makes a cringeworthy observation about black culture.
Apples. oranges.
Dave Rywall on January 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It’s okay for the Senate Majority Leader to sneer at an ethnic group, so long as he’s freestyling?

Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2