Media figures claimed Clinton played "race card" but ignored her 2004 comments and similar "plantation" comments by Republicans
SUMMARY: Media figures have accused Hillary Clinton of "race-baiting" and "playing the race card," because her "plantation" analogy was made before a largely black audience on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The same media figures failed to report that Clinton made a similar "plantation" analogy during a 2004 interview and that numerous Republicans have used similar "plantation" analogies to attack Democrats.
Speaking at a January 16 Martin Luther King Jr. Day event at New York's Canaan Baptist Church of Christ, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) compared the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives to a "plantation," stating: "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary point of view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
In response, conservative media figures have accused Clinton of "race-baiting" and "playing the race card," because her "plantation" analogy was made before a largely black audience on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. But in doing so, these commentators did not report that Clinton made a similar "plantation" analogy during a November 2004 interview on CNN -- which garnered no media attention at the time and which cast some doubt on accusations that she was motivated by the racial makeup of her audience or event's timing. Nor did these commentators report that numerous Republicans and conservatives, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), have used similar "plantation" analogies to attack Democrats.
On the January 17 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, host Carlson asked viewers: "Hillary Clinton shoots off her mouth on Martin Luther King Day, likening the Republicans to slaveholders. Should she be reprimanded for using the race card?" Appearing on the January 17 edition of CNN's Live From ..., Ron Christie -- a former special assistant to President Bush and former policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- accused Clinton of making "terrible racially divisive comments." And in a January 18 editorial, the New York Post called Clinton's comments "naked race-baiting."
Similarly, on the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews opened the show by asking viewers: "Hillary Clinton says Republicans are guilty of running the Congress like a plantation. Do you believe it? Does she? Is she willing to say the same thing to the country she said up in Harlem?" In fact, as the Rev. Al Sharpton -- a former Democratic presidential candidate -- pointed out later in the show, Clinton had already told "the country" substantially the same thing. On the November 18, 2004, edition of CNN's American Morning, Clinton used the "plantation" analogy in response to a question from co-host Soledad O'Brien:
O'BRIEN: Another thing we were talking about in the news today, of course, is the House Republicans changing the rules to essentially inoculate Tom DeLay if, indeed, he is indicted. No, don't laugh before I finish my question here. What do you make of that this morning? We're hearing lots from -- from Capitol Hill about this.
CLINTON: Well, I mean, what can I say? It's just so typical. I mean they're running the House of Representatives like a fiefdom with Tom DeLay as, you know, in charge of the plantation. I think it's kind of a sad commentary. I don't think it's good for democracy. I don't think it's good for the Republican Party. But again, I don't have a vote in the Republican Caucus in the House. They'll decide what they want to do.
In addition, Matthews asked Sharpton: "Suppose a white conservative were to say to a white Democrat, 'You've been running the blacks in the Democratic Party for years, using them to get votes and never electing any blacks to major national office. And you're running the place like a plantation.' Would you have taken offense at that?"
Though Hardball viewers would not have known it, Matthews' question was more than a hypothetical scenario. As the Think Progress weblog has noted, an October 20, 1994, Washington Post article reported on one such comment made by Gingrich:
"I clearly fascinate them," Gingrich said of the Democrats. "I'm much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion."
The following year, Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-FL) called Democrats "overseers of the last plantation in America," as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on February 16, 1995:
Calling Democrats the "overseers of the last plantation in America," Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. yesterday rebuked Democratic colleagues who accused the GOP of cruelty toward children in its welfare legislation.
Shaw (R., Fla.) and his GOP colleagues on a Ways and Means subcommittee had just approved sweeping welfare-reform legislation that would turn over most of the nation's poverty programs to the states.
"You (Democrats) have jealously guarded a corrupt poverty program for the past 40 years, and we are here to right the wrongs that were made," Shaw said.
On June 25, 1992, The New York Times reported that then-Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-PA) also used a "plantation" analogy to attack Democrats:
But such criticism paled in comparison with the hyperbole served up by Representative Robert S. Walker, Republican of Pennsylvania. First Mr. Walker likened the tight reins of Democratic control to the plantation system of the South before the Civil War, a comparison that visibly upset Southern Democrats. Then he reached farther afield and said, "It's a little like when the people of Nazi Germany were stripped of their rights."
In addition, numerous conservative commentators have used "plantation" analogies when discussing minorities in the Democratic Party.
- Robert D. Novak, syndicated columnist and former CNN host, now a Fox News contributor.
From the January 25, 2005, edition of CNN's Crossfire:
NOVAK: This afternoon, President George W. Bush met with 24 prominent African-Americans, 14 members of the clergy and 10 leaders in business and nonprofit agencies. Tomorrow, the president meets with the Congressional Black Caucus, 43 members, Democrats all.
It's good for the Republican president to sit down with the black lawmakers, though I'll doubt he'll make much progress with them. But today's meeting with black non-politicians may be another matter. The black reverend clergy are particularly attracted to the Bush faith- based aid programs. That terrifies Democratic politicians.
Where would the Democrats be if they're not picking up around 90 percent of the black vote? What if black voters started moving off the Democratic plantation?
From the November 7, 2003, edition of CNN's Crossfire:
NOVAK: It seemed a moment of fairness in the relentless Democratic attack on President Bush's judicial nominees. Presidential candidate Al Sharpton told columnist Armstrong Williams in a television interview that California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown should be given an up-or-down Senate vote for Confirmation, no filibuster.
But Democratic senators put the heat on the Reverend Al. He issued a statement yesterday which called for everything possible to be done to block Justice Brown's confirmation. That means a filibuster. Al Sharpton has been around long enough to know the rules. Blacks are not permitted to leave the liberal plantation to be a conservative, like Janice Rogers Brown. She threatens the Democratic monopoly on the African-American vote.
From the September 4, 2003, edition of CNN's Crossfire:
NOVAK: This is a -- this is a -- this is a sad day for politics and a sad day for America. [Judge] Miguel Estrada asked for withdrawal of his nomination by President Bush for the nation's second most important court. He is a brilliant 42-year-old lawyer who is part of the American dream. He came here as a 15-year-old refugee from Honduras, could not speak a word of English.
Nobody denies that he is superbly qualified, but he is a conservative Latino. And the Democratic plantation bosses cannot permit such a breakaway and would not let his nomination come to a vote. Will such an outrage stand? It's up to the American people.
From the September 26, 2002, edition of CNN's Crossfire:
NOVAK: The brilliant 40-year-old Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada groveled today before Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee and party line votes has killed two highly qualified Bush nominees for the federal appellate bench. Estrada may be next, so he promises senators that he would have an open mind on the court and follow the facts instead of his own views. His own views are conservative, which constitutes one strike against him.
The second strike is that he would be the first Hispanic-American named to the prestigious circuit court from the District of Columbia. That terrifies Democratic strategists who want to keep Hispanics on their democratic plantation.
- Armstrong Williams, syndicated columnist who accepted money from the Bush administration to promote Bush's education policies.
From the "Novak Zone" segment of the March 6, 2004, edition of CNN Saturday Morning News:
ROBERT D. NOVAK (segment host): And now, the big question for Armstrong Williams. Mr. Williams, about 90 percent of your fellow African-Americans vote Democratic when they vote. Do you think the leaders of the Republican Party are doing enough to attract black people to the standards of the GOP?
WILLIAMS: You know, until -- it doesn't -- they do much in terms of outreach, in terms of trying to create positions on Capitol Hill, faith-based initiatives, I mean, appointments. But I think Congressman [Tom] DeLay (R-TX) said it best. Until they elect more officials like [Maryland Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele [R] and people like J.C. --
NOVAK: Michael Steele's the --
WILLIAMS: Lieutenant governor of Maryland. And [Rep.] J.C. Watts [R-OK], who is an ex-congressman. Until we can prove to the black elite that black conservatives can be elected in districts where there is a high percentage of black voters, I think then and only then will we gain the kind of credibility that we need in order to have a mass exodus of blacks from that Democratic plantation.
- Oliver North, syndicated columnist and former Reagan administration official, joined by Williams.
From the July 6, 2000, edition of MSNBC's Equal Time:
RON LESTER (Democratic pollster): How is making a major tax cut going to help the black community? By robbing money from education and Medicare, from Social Security --
NORTH (co-host): It doesn't rob money.
LESTER: That is going to help the black community? It is illogical.
NORTH: It's disingenuous and deceptive because what George W. Bush wants to do is encourage the entrepreneurial class of middle-income blacks who can rise up above being kept on a Democrat plantation of welfare.
[crosstalk]
LESTER: That's going to help a few people like me and Armstrong. But it's not going to trickle down to the masses of folks.
[crosstalk]
WILLIAMS: What about Bush's supporting J.C. Watts' program of urban renewal, offering tax incentives to businesses that want to go in the inner city? What about that? You're saying to me that's not going to benefit American blacks? See, you know what the problem is here? At least I will admit when Ron talks about Bush going to Bob Jones, I will say that's wrong. See, you're so wrapped up in that Democratic plantation, you're unwilling to even see the forest for the trees. The Democratic Party is not the answer for American blacks. Yes, they get a better job with symbolism (ph). And yes, they've had outreach, and they have blacks in the hierarchy of the Democratic party --
- Rush Limbaugh, nationally syndicated radio host.
On the September 30, 2005, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, a caller described Rev. Jesse Jackson, radio hosts Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), "all of the Democratic delegation up there in Congress", "the [Sen.] Ted Kennedys [D-MA], and "anybody who's in the leadership position in the Democratic Party" as "pimps" who attempt to deceive black people into remaining on the "Democratic plantation."
The caller also described liberalism as "a form of mental illness" that is "actually a type of rebellion against God and virtue through the justification of ... immorality, things like abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, racism, even race-centered thinking." After confirming that the caller was black, Limbaugh paraphrased the caller's comments, saying, "So liberalism is a mental illness. It's borne of people that do not like any judgmentalism against their depravity." Limbaugh was so pleased with what he described as "one of the greatest oral final exams and dissertations ever presented" to the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies" that he awarded the caller a free one-year subscription to the Rush 24/7 website.
- Neal Boortz, syndicated radio host.
From the January 10, 2005, edition of The Neal Boortz Show:
BOORTZ: One of the reasons that Armstrong Williams is under such heat, by the way, is that the No Child Left Behind Act is not popular with liberals. Neither are black conservatives. He has strayed from the plantation. He must be punished. And anybody that promotes the idea of school vouchers must be punished because liberals, of course, need to maintain their death grip on education. How else are young people indoctrinated into the wholesomeness and the sanctity of the state?
From Boortz's April 11, 2002, column at the conservative news website NewsMax:
The REAL reason the Democrats are going to Bork [judicial nominee Miguel] Estrada is because he is the one type of person they fear the most: a smart, hard-working, educated minority who happens to be a conservative.
The minorities must be kept on the Democratic plantation. Success stories like Miguel Estrada must not be showcased.
- Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and columnist.
From the December 8, 2004, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
COULTER: They [liberals] feel like they have blacks on the plantation, they can say whatever they like. And, interestingly, you don't even hear Hispanic conservatives attacked in the same way that people like [then-National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice and [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas are, and -- and, I mean, just look at it. Look at what the Democrats' minority leader [Harry Reid D-NV] in the Senate said this weekend. He praises [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia as "Oh, he's one smart guy, and his opinions, can't dispute the logic, though I disagree with them," and then he says of Clarence Thomas "He's an embarrassment. His opinions -- they're just poorly written."
- Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor.
From the December 6, 2004, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KRAUTHAMMER: In the end, you've got to ask yourself, why [Justice Antonin] Scalia, good, Thomas, bad in the eyes of a man like [Senate Democratic Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV]. I say it's the liberal plantation mentality, in which if you're a man on the right and white, it's OK. If you are the man on the right and you're African-American, it's not.
- Star Parker, columnist, founder and president the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education, and author of the book Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It (WND Books, 2003).
From Parker's March 22, 2005, column:
President Bush's Social Security initiative has gotten off to a shaky start. However, polls indicate that voters are warming up to the idea of personal retirement accounts. It's time for the Bush administration to start making crystal clear the core principles that distinguish its approach on Social Security reform from that of Democrats.
Whereas Bush is selling his reform under the theme of an "ownership society," I would call the Democratic alternative the "plantation society." The "plantation society" is characterized by a wealthy class of owners who want to limit the choices, opportunities and freedom of working-class Americans.
[...]
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, worth $16.3 million, is an appropriate spokesperson for the plantation caucus. This past week she stood at a press conference with other Democratic leaders stating uncompromising opposition to personal retirement accounts. The Democrats' message: no negotiation on Social Security until "privatization is off the table."
[...]
The owner/masters of today's Democratic plantation reject all attempts to roll back government and give working Americans more choice and freedom. The response is the same whether it's personal retirement accounts or choosing where to send your kid to school. Anything reducing government control gets rejected.
[...]
Social Security reform, with a crucial central component of personal retirement accounts, is being threatened by elitist Democratic liberals. They preside over a government plantation over which they do not want to relinquish control. It's time to let the slaves free. Transforming taxes into ownership is an important way to do it.
- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND).
From the November 29, 2004, edition of Fox News Hannity & Colmes:
PETERSON: And so what they are trying to do right now is to discredit President Bush, and this is nothing, [co-host] Sean [Hannity]. It's going to get worse after the holidays are over. They're going to try to discredit the president. They're going to say that blacks were disenfranchised, whatever they can do in order to regain power, to keep black Americans angry in order to keep them on the plantation of the Democratic Party. It's about that and nothing else.
From a January 26, 2005, BOND press release:
For the last 15 years, I have said that most liberal Democrats are racist toward blacks. Liberals believe that blacks should all think and vote the same. And they loathe any free thinking black who dares to walk off their plantation.
- Robert Alt, National Review contributor and fellow at the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
From Alt's September 5, 2003, National Review commentary:
Unfortunately, Estrada is the first to fall prey to [Sen.] Ted Kennedy's [D-MA] obstruction, but he inevitably won't be the last. Who will be the next victim of the Democrats' racism? Most likely California supreme -- court justice Janice Rogers Brown. While the Democrats in the Senate are likely to say that they only oppose her because she is conservative, their actions will prove otherwise. Listen for comparisons of her to Clarence Thomas, and note that she will be treated much differently than was her White fellow nominee John Roberts. That Teddy's 45 should treat Republican minorities differently is disappointing but not shocking. After all, nothing upsets Sen. Kennedy and his pals more than when those they view as intellectual slaves dares [sic] to leave the Democratic plantation.
- Lynette Boggs McDonald, who was appointed in 2004 by President Bush to the national Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program.
From a September 25, 2004, Las Vegas Review-Journal article:
The politics of race flared up in Lynette Boggs McDonald's Clark County [Nevada] Commission race this week in an unusual way: as a result of the black commissioner's own comments likening Democrats' treatment of blacks to slavery.
Boggs McDonald, a former Democrat who has held local offices as a Republican since 1999, was quoted in Thursday's Las Vegas Sun as saying she regrets having been a Democrat.
"From my perspective, there is one last plantation in America, and it's called the Democratic Party," Boggs McDonald said.
In an interview Friday, the commissioner said she was simply trying to explain her beliefs that Democrats take black voters for granted and offer them little in the way of policies that improve their lives. She said that blacks have the same statistical percentage of the nation's wealth today as they did after the Civil War.
"One party believes they're owned, and that's the Democratic Party," Boggs McDonald said. "My party doesn't do enough, but at least it doesn't presume that African-Americans are along for the ride. I have always earned my votes from African-Americans."
- Deborah Simmons, Washington Times columnist.
From Simmons's February 4, 2005, column:
Indeed, while many conservatives cringe at the prospect of losing the homosexual vote, the fact of the matter is black America has never embraced that demographic, helping, perhaps, to explain why, while most blacks remained faithful to the Democratic Plantation, er, Party in the 2004 presidential election, the black vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket increased. Look at Ohio, where black support for Mr. Bush rose from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004, handing the Bush-Cheney team an outright victory over Kerry-Edwards - a feat that the we-shall-overcome crowd has yet to accept.
- Joseph Perkins, San Diego Union-Tribune columnist.
From Perkins's October 25, 2004, column:
The America Coming Together handbill is racial demagoguery at its ugliest. It is a big lie meant to keep black voters on the Democratic plantation. Then there's the suggestion by Kerry that Bush has a plan to revive the military draft.
- Joseph Farah, syndicated columnist and founder and editor of conservative news website WorldNetDaily.
From his November 19, 2003, WorldNetDaily commentary, titled "Racism on Dem plantation":
I've suspected there are essentially two motivations behind the Democrats' promotion of racial preferences -- or what they call "affirmative action":
- It's a self-empowerment plan to keep minority votes on the new Democratic Party plantation by offering them special race privileges.
[...]
Now [Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-MA] has demonstrated his utter contempt for women in the past - for instance, by leaving a drowning woman and the scene of an accident. But it seems to me Kennedy is speaking in racist code language here. Could "Neanderthal" be the new "N" word he and his colleagues use to discuss minorities who are disloyal to their Democratic Party patrons and others who leave the "progressive plantation"?
[...]
Thankfully, more than a few courageous minority leaders are blowing the cover on this racist campaign for a new plantation mentality in America.
- Alan Keyes, radio host and former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate.
From an April 29, 2000, speech:
KEYES: People always badmouth slavery, with good reason you know, but, when you read in depth about it, what you realize is that there were the "good plantations" and the "bad plantations." There were plantations on which people were deeply brutalized, and abused, and treated worse than animals, and destroyed in their integrity, and so forth. And then there were others that were run by half-way decent people, in which the only thing that they were deprived of was their human dignity and the essence of their humanity! But in every other respect, they ate well, dressed well, slept well, were cared for in their health, had a guaranteed job, a little income on the side, and nothing too much in the way of abuse. When the Clintons are done and the Socialists have triumphed, you tell me what will be the difference between America and that plantation with a good master!
- J. Matt Barber, Republican strategist.
From Barber's January 19, 2005, commentary on the website The Conservative Voice:
You see, the Democratic Party, the liberal mainstream media and the rest of the cultural elites are having a very hard time handling Dr. Rice's rise to power. They've waged a disgraceful, racist and cowardly back-door assault against her. Why? Little Ms. Condoleezza has wandered away from the plantation. She refuses to slave in the cotton fields of progressive ideology.
The problem here isn't with Clinton or anyone else, her comments didn't bother me at all - she was responding to a question asked, so what?
The real issue is there is a definite double standard - if a conservative makes a "plantation" comment, they are immediately jumped on by the media and the racist charges come fast and furious, but when a liberal makes a similar comment it is largely ignored and "how can it possibly be racially motivated because it was uttered by a liberal? No way!!?? Same goes for Ray Nagin's stupid comments - can you imagine a conservative white mayor of any city saying what he did?
I never heard a PEEP from the media when these conservative figures used the term.
Only when Hillary says it do we get the media backlash, the posturing and faux outrage from the Right, and the rebuttal by none other than the expert of experts, Mrs Laura Bush.
There IS a double standard, its just the exact opposite of the one he claims
You must feel that the Rebublican party isn't filled with biggotry and bias. Open your eyes for just a moment,and try to remember just a few of the things said by some of your heros--Rush, Sean, BillO, and I'm certain you must just love Glen Beck, and the Savage one. Why don't you guys get a clue. There is no equality, and it has as much to do with economic factors as race. The problem is that the Democrats try to do things to make things better for all. Repubs do things to make things better for themselves.
Tommy,
Could you please provide some examples of this double standard? The quotes provided by MMFA should make it easy to find such clear examples if there are any.
Thanks.
I've watched this situation unfold with glee! I'm an African American who is delighted when Republicans and conservatives try to pick my enemies for me. It's as if they think I can't think for myself. Hillary Clinton's statements have sparked calls for apologies, her removal from the Senate and everything just short of her lynching. Oops! Did I use the wrong word there? If those surrogates for my best interests like, Ann Coulter and Ron Christie continue with this nonsense, they will continue to drive me and other black Americans away from the Republican "plantation", the way they've already driven themselves away from common sense!
Republicans/conservatives insult the intelligence and sensibilities of ALL Americans when they insult even ONE American; in the same way that the freedoms of ALL of us are injured when the freedoms of ONE are injured.
"Same goes for Ray Nagin's stupid comments - can you imagine a conservative white mayor of any city saying what he did?"
Well, if you're referring to the "chocolate city" thing, that's a term used locally by the black citizens there as a term of endearment. It's a specifc reference, so quit feigning outrage over it.
is Chris Matthews' only responsibility and only accountability his ratings? IF that's all he has to account for, I feel a real disappointment in NBC News' DC bureau.
I have never once seen him make a correction, restract a misstatement, or even admit something sor of like a mistake. Is it all conjecture, opnion, analysis? Does Tim Russert give him a free ride? Does he have free reign to say anything that comes in his mind?
Cuz it sure looks like he'll say almost anything that pops in his mind - no edit, no filter.
When Media Matters says "Take Action" on the item, will any action be able to hold Chris Matthews responsible for the lies, misstatements, and misquotes that he spouts almost daily?
I won't hold my breath........
Hold on Tommy,
Are you implying that there is a liberal bias in the media? I thought the media was dominated by right wing newspapers like the NY Times and the Washington Post.
It's perfectly acceptable in the era of W for conservatives to be bigots.
Woe to any Dem/liberal type to call them out on it.. That's what we have going on here.
As for conservatives being "jumped" on for making bigoted comments - seems like they have a history of making those types of statements.
And what about Hillary using the "plantation" analogy before? No one batted an eyelash at it.
In my opinion, when it comes to matters of civil rights and equality conservatives are the last people i would trust to do the right thing.
Methinks there are plenty of conservatives still left that would love it if those of us of color were "back on the plantation". Sure looks like they've been trying hard to do that with policies and attitudes put forth by their president...
but what do i know - I'm just another Black person doing the best i can to make it in this world. To some conservatives, no matter what we do we're always going to be dumb, ignorant and criminals.
What I don't understand is why (based on reading the quotes above in the article) conservatives have to go negative, trying to reflect their attitudes onto liberals/dems etc.
Maybe you better educate yourself a little on the history of Rebulicans and Democrats and civil rights in this country.
1) Lincoln, a Rep. issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, 100% of the Rep supported it, only 23% of the Dem.
2) 14th ammendment giving full civil rights laws to blacks - every voting Republican voted for it, every voting Democrat voted against it.
3) Civil rights in the 60's - 64% of Dem supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 80% Republicans supported it.
I replied to this in a previous post. You can't compare the Republican party of the past to todays Republican party. If Lincoln were alive today I'm pretty certain he'd be a Democrat and as for support of civil rights that broke down along regional lines. Northerners supported it and Southerners didn't. Those Southern Democrats that fought tooth and nail against these laws are now Southern Republicans. They left the Democratic Party when we (Blacks) joined it; and they were welcomed with wide open arms by the RNC who told them there's nothing wrong with you being a bigot and how dare they persucute you for it, come on in our tent is large enough for everyone. They called it the "southern strategy". Maybe you need to study some more my friend.
Stick with the Democratic party of today if you are so inclined, but in my opinion, they only placate, pander and patronize black Americans today. They have a vested interest in keeping AA's dependent on the government for it keeps their voting block intact. I am not a Republican for many reasons, they spend recklessly and they also pander to many interest groups that I don't support.........the point is I don't blindly follow any political party because of "what they can do for me". I support certain politicians because of what best they can do for the country among other admirable qualities.
" I support certain politicians because of what best they can do for the country among other admirable qualities."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I agree but what we think is best isn't the same thing, and let me assure you Tommy, I've worked since I was 19 years old all through college and I am in no way dependent on the government and nobody that I know is. Nevertheless, it gives me a certain comfort to know that if a tragic set of circumstances should befold me that the country I've paid taxes to all of my adult life would be there to lend a helping hand as I get back on my feet. It's never happened and I pray that it never happens but it's nice to know that my fate won't be that of the homeless guy that was beaten to death because he didn't have a safe place to call home.
Those republicans who have pin up posters of Ebeneezer Scrooge on their bedroom walls want to pretend they care while dismantaling the system that helps the needy so they have to reach far into the ludicrous. Since the average stay on welfare is 18 months its pretty hard to make the dependency argument as if it made sense. I have never been on the public dole, I have a great job, with excellent job security and will have a good pension when I retire. I however CARE if my NIEGHBOR has enough to eat, if the man down the street has to eat catfood to make ends meet. The new GOP standard mantra seems to be give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him alive for the rest of his life.
Have you taken a good look lately at what welfare "reform" has accomplished?
Maybe in years gone by it was possible for people to just sit on their butts and feed from the public trough. But with the advent of welfare reform in the '90s, this has changed drastically.
This ridiculous stereotype of African Americans just laying around living high off "our" money is old, tired, and just plain inaccurate.
It really irritates me that the right keeps trotting out this b.s. and that we keep letting them get away with it.
My wish for people who keep perpetuating this lie is that someday they will experience some sort of life disaster that will put them at the mercy of the safety net they so assiduously work to destroy. There you go, sweeties. Let's see just how much mercy and understanding your corporate masters will bestow upon you should you find yourself in dire straits.
That would be justice of a sort. I would prefer real justice, but then, I'm one of those horrible liberals.
...but parrots the gop line, has to go back to the civil war to make two of his points. your third point about support for the civil rights act in 1964 ignores 1-the fact that a lot of those democrats then were southerners who now belong to the republican party which has spent the last thirty years on their "southern strategy", and 2-the gop in in 1964 nominated barry goldwater who voted against the civil rights act.
You must feel that the Rebublican party isn't filled with biggotry and bias. Open your eyes for just a moment,and try to remember just a few of the things said by some of your heros--Rush, Sean, BillO, and I'm certain you must just love Glen Beck, and the Savage one. Why don't you guys get a clue. There is no equality, and it has as much to do with economic factors as race. The problem is that the Democrats try to do things to make things better for all. Repubs do things to make things better for themselves.
i don't care how many people have used the analogy, it's just plain wrong. slaves had *no power* inside or out of the plantation system. for *any* political party to use their lack of voice as a comparrison... it's absolutely wrong, borderline immoral.
media matters, please focus on the misinformation and disinformation of factual events, such as policy debates or conservatives taking over the airwaves. this type of apologizing is really making you look bad.
the democrats are not *always* on the moral high ground.
You're right that even HIllary's use of the "plantation" analogy is inaccurate and clearly plays on strong emotions. I think there are a lot of people fed up with the Republican party who would be turned off by this kind of rhetoric, so it's a losing strategy anyway.
But MMFA does need to point out the hypocracy of the right's reaction to this. They have used the analogy in the past for the same reason, to awaken those strongly held emotions tied to race in this country.
There's so much going for the left now in terms of facts--let's stick to those.
With the Jack Abramoff bribery investigation about to swallow up the Republican leadership in Congress (it's being said there's a lot more names to be named), and with two lobbyist-owned Representatives angling for House Majority leader, and with phony reform being proposed on that front, and with the 'warrantless surveillance' matter about to fall in the Senate's lap, and with a 2005 federal deficit of $319 billion dollars projected to top $400 billion for fiscal 2006, and with 2,222 U.S. Troops killed in an unpopular military operation in Iraq [link to icasualties.org]
...with all this going on, right now, our media is fascinated by the word
PLANTATION
It's ridiculous indeed.
is the idea that the Republican Party of 1864 has any resemblance to the Republican party of today.
And wasn't it the first George Bush who called Reagan's policies "Voodou Economics"? Everybody knows Voodou is a African religion that became prominent through black slaves on plantations. Black people weren't offended by this. We knew exactly what Hilary was talking about. It was the truth. Nor do republicans care about what offends black people. This was about sticking it to Hilary whom they think may run for the Presidency.
Right now, with all the corruption charges floating about, and ninety percent of those charged are Republicans, its a bad time to be in the line of fire. The Republicans will latch on to anything that will divert attention away from their Party. Wake up Hillery you have been scapegoated. You could expect a lot of overkill by Republicans throughout t he Abramoff trials.
As for the comment, it stands; I do find the Republican stonewalling tactics toward the Democrats similar to Plantation style dynamics, complete with the typical Uncle Tom Blacks, who do more to inflame Blacks then anything Hilery says. I was shocked at the campaign like approach Chris Mathews took with asking every guest "how offensive Hillery was toward them." If there were an award for the best effort to create a story out of nothing, Chris would win hands down. For the whole day, Chris did everything he could to inject words into his guest mouths, give endless examples of how Hilery's comments were directed toward evil White men, and invite guest after guest who supplied him with a "rubber stamp" for his leading assertions Hilery was playing the race card. Congratulations Chris Mathews for you have did your part in diverting the negative attention away from your Republican Party.
Joseph
ninety percent of those charged are Republicans
Actually, it's more like 100%. As far as I've heard, to date no Dems have been charged, because there's nothing to charge them with.
Anyone have any other figures to support or refute this? I'd really like to know.
once and for all.
Lincoln was a LIBERAL. During the election of 1860, all of the NE states (blue states) voted Lincoln, and all of the Southern states (red states) voted against him. As a matter of fact, in many Southern states, Lincoln was NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT!
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
If Lincoln were around today, he would be a RussFeingold type LIBERAL.
The comments above about the aftermath of the 1964 election and "Dixiecrats" turning republican is right on.
Please Tommy, don't come here using Lincoln as an example of Republican "inclusiveness", it only highlight your lack of historical insight.
"If a conservative makes a "plantation" comment, they are immediately jumped on by the media and the racist charges come fast and furious, but when a liberal makes a similar comment it is largely ignored and "how can it possibly be racially motivated because it was uttered by a liberal?"
This item shows that Clinton's comment was given much more attention and scrutiny than when the conservatives made similar remarks.
It's not the least bit coincidental that the flap over Hillary's plantation analogy comes at a time when the Bushies may at last be in real trouble.
Deflect. Smear. Change the subject. And please, please don't let the other side talk about anything important.
Sheesh.