Wash. Times article misquoted Clinton comment it claimed "seemed to diminish the accomplishments" of King
SUMMARY: A Washington Times article misrepresented Sen. Hillary Clinton's January 7 statement on civil rights -- which it claimed "seemed to diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement -- by reporting that she said: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done." But Clinton actually said: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done."
In a January 23 article, headlined "Party of racism," Washington Times culture writer L.A. Holmes misquoted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) January 7 comment on civil rights, which Holmes claimed "seemed to diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement." Holmes wrote: " 'Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done,' Mrs. Clinton said Jan. 7 in New Hampshire." But Clinton actually said: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done" [emphasis added].
After misquoting Clinton, the article, which was based on a telephone interview with conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett about his new book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past (Palgrave Macmillan, January 2008), quoted Bartlett as saying that it's a "revealing comment ... exactly the sort of thing that, if a Republican said it, would be viewed as racist." The article itself claimed that Clinton's presidential campaign had made "racial gaffes," but the only specific remark cited in the article was Clinton's comment.
The article also claimed that the recent focus on "the issue of race in the Democratic Party" has made Bartlett "seem like a prophet of sorts," and quoted Bartlett's assertion that "[a]t least on a historical level, the Democratic Party has always been the party of racism." But the article included no mention of the Republican Party's notorious Southern Strategy, which used race as a wedge issue to appeal primarily to southern white voters starting in the 1960s. As USA Today reported on July 14, 2005, then-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 2005, "saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South." According to the report, Mehlman's apology "marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced" the Southern Strategy.
From Holmes' January 23 Washington Times article:
Racial gaffes by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, the meteoric rise of Sen. Barack Obama and the pivotal role of the South Carolina primary on Saturday have intensified the issue of race in the Democratic Party, which makes Bruce Bartlett seem like a prophet of sorts.
In his new book, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past," Mr. Bartlett chronicles the party's history from slavery to the civil rights era and beyond, providing a look at such figures as South Carolina's "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman and other racist Democrats.
"At least on a historical level, the Democratic Party has always been the party of racism," Mr. Bartlett said in a telephone interview with The Washington Times.
[...]
He noted the uproar over a comment by Mrs. Clinton this month that seemed to diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," Mrs. Clinton said Jan. 7 in New Hampshire.
"It's a revealing comment," Mr. Bartlett said, "exactly the sort of thing that, if a Republican said it, would be viewed as racist."
Mr. Bartlett said such incidents give Republicans an opportunity to find common ground with black Americans and fight for their vote.
"Republicans have to make a major effort to reach out to the black community. They have a responsibility to, even if the payoff is low, because if you're going to be a national party you have to represent everybody in the country," he said.
The rise of Mr. Obama as a challenger to Mrs. Clinton indicates the urgency for Republicans to establish their appeal to black voters.
"If [Republicans] start to talk now about the Democratic Party's racist past, then they'll help prepare themselves for dealing with the possibility of running against a black candidate and being able to frame some of their criticism of him, that they undoubtedly will have, in terms that will not be viewed as potentially racist," he said. "It's going to be a difficult balancing act."
Nooooooooooo the media isn't trying to fuel the controversy, of course not. It's just reporting, almost 2 weeks later.
What other explanation could anyone have for printing this piece of trash at this late date?
I wish at one of the debates someone would ask the Republication presidential candidate if they support the 1967 and 1968 statements of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., regarding militarism and excessive materialism. His opposition to the War in View Nam, for example - I can not image he would support the Iraq debacle.
Politicans today seem much more comfortable with the 1964 vintage...
And what happened to many of those racist Democrats again?
They became Republicans!!!
The Republicans focus the spotlight on The Dems wherever and whenever it is necessary to hide their blemishes – and everyone seems to see this but them.
The party thrives on denial and uses it as a recruitment tool. It’s as sick as handing out free passes to the local pub at an AA meeting.
Wait for it. Wait for it. Any second now, someone posing as an alleged intelligent republican supporter will drop in and mention something about Robert Byrd, and his ties to the KKK. I've got of course a 2 word response to that:
Jesse Helms
Do I believe that the republicans are racists? Nah, some are of course, and there are democrats that are racists, but the actions of republican politicians have tended to move on down towards blatant racism in the past, and in the not so distant past (again, go back, reference Helms' remarks about creating a national holiday for MLK and you'll see some awful things in there). Is the democratic party perfect? 'Course not. We'd all have to be completely ignorant to believe such a thing, but I think in democratic party we tend to try and work on these things, and try to make them better as a whole.
Take a look at the debates that the NAACP held in 2007. They invited ALL of the republicans and democrats to their meetings and to have a debate (presidential candidates). Who showed up? All of the democrats did. Who showed up for the republicans? Tommy Tancredo, and that was it. I think that this statement says a lot.