"Offended" Buchanan stands up for "white males," claiming only "white males" died at Gettysburg, Normandy
SUMMARY: After MSNBC's Tucker Carlson noted that Howard Dean reportedly said that the Democratic presidential field "looks like America," while the Republican field, made up of white males, "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s," Pat Buchanan reported being "offended" by Dean's remarks and said: "[W]hat did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy." In fact, "nearly 2,000" African-Americans took part in the Normandy invasion, at least some of whom apparently died as a result, and at least one woman and one African-American were reportedly killed in the the Gettysburg campaign.
Asserting that he was "offended" by comments that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean reportedly made during a speech at Georgetown University -- in which Dean reportedly said that the Democratic field "looks like America," while the Republican field, made up of white males, "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s" -- Pat Buchanan said on the February 28 edition of Tucker: "Look, what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy." Buchanan then responded to radio host Bill Press by stating, "Why is it ... OK to mock ... backhand white -- no wonder you're losing white males," and also said, "I think you guys are self-hating white folks." His comments came after host Tucker Carlson asserted of Dean's remarks: "I must say, I'm not going to sit by a single more time and listen to someone slag on, quote, 'white men.' "
Buchanan's assertion that "white males" constituted "all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy" appears to be false. Approximately 2,000 African-Americans fought at the June 6, 1944, invasion of Normandy, an all-African-American unit reportedly took casualties, and at least two African-American troops apparently died that day and were buried in the American cemetery in Normandy. Moreover, at least one African-American and one woman disguised as a male soldier reportedly died in the Gettysburg campaign.
According to a History Channel documentary, "1.2 million African-Americans served in World War II, and although largely forgotten by history, nearly 2,000 of them stormed the beaches of Normandy." According to a May 5, 2004, Scripps Howard News Service report, "[B]lacks were among the assault troops that June 6 [1944], and one unit was responsible for maintaining barrage balloons over the beachhead that protected troops landing. The Stars and Stripes newspaper in 1944 reported that the unit suffered casualties setting up the balloons, which were floated across the English Channel on invasion day. ... The Army didn't record racial or ethnic differences when counting the dead. [Photographer Samuel LeBon] Wooten said he knows of at least three blacks buried in the American cemetery on the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach at Coleville-sur-Mer." In a February 21, 2007, National Public Radio interview, filmmaker Doug Cohen stated that at least two soldiers from all-African-American units died on June 6, 1944, and are buried at a cemetery in Normandy:
COHEN: When I was in Normandy filming, I went on a tour with a tour guide who seemed to know everything about everything. He knew where each bunker was. He practically knew what happened on each grain of sand. And I told him I'm going to be working on this film about African-Americans of D-Day. And he looked at me with such conviction and said there were no African-Americans on D-Day.
TONY COX (NPR contributor): He said that.
COHEN: He said that. And I said, you know, I've just been to the cemetery and there's the grave of Brooke Stiff(ph), 328th Anti-Aircraft Barrage Balloon Battalion, an all black outfit -- date of death, June 6, 1944. There's the grave of Willie Collins, 490th Port Battalion, Mr. [interviewee and D-Day veteran David] Brown's battalion -- date of death, June 6, 1944.
COX: What did he say to that?
COHEN: He had to acknowledge that I was correct. And what more proof do you need than that, than those gravestones sitting there, the voice of people like Mr. Brown. I certainly hope people will get the message and come to understand that there were African-Americans who served on D-Day in significant numbers.
On June 14, 2004, MSNBC.com posted a story from Black Entertainment Television documenting the experiences of some African-American veterans who served in World War II, including at Normandy. Buchanan's remark also ignored the contributions of other non-whites who served in World War II, including Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans.
According to PBS, during the Civil War, "More than 200,000 blacks fought for the Union, and 38,000 died, the majority of disease." In The Colors of Courage: Gettysburg's Forgotten History: Immigrants, Women, and African Americans in the Civil War's Defining Battle (Basic Books, 2004), Bates College professor of history Margaret Creighton writes that an unnamed African American was the third Union soldier killed in "the Gettysburg campaign":
Most African American men in Pennsylvania were denied the opportunity to fight the Confederates with weapons. But not all of them. One company of black men helped hold back invading soldiers, and their efforts, considered one of the first military engagements in the war by men of color, is still overlooked. The site of the action was the Columbia-Wrightsville bridge, a span a mile and a quarter long over the Susquehanna River. Before word had come of the Army of the Potomac's move north from Virginia, General Lee and corps commander Richard Ewell had envisioned taking Harrisburg from the east and south. The bridge over the Susquehanna River -- twenty-five miles southest of the capital -- was key. On June 28th, and emergency Pennsylvania militia unit and a company of African American men recruited form the area -- numbering at least fifty -- attempted to hold the bridge against 2500 seasoned Confederate troops (including artillery), until the bridge could be destroyed. "The negros," commented one observer, "did nobly." The officer in command of the milita had even more to say. "When the fight commenced," he reported, the black company "took their guns and stood up to their work bravely. They fell back only when ordered to do so." One of the black volunteers paid the ultimate price for his work: His head was "taken off by a shell." As one historian has pointed out, this man -- no one knows his name -- was only the third Northern soldier killed in the Gettysburg campaign. [Pages 134-135]
Moreover, according to historian Jane Peters Estes, as quoted in a presentation at the Camden Country (NJ) Historical Society, women, too, died in the Civil War, including at least one woman in the Battle of Gettysburg:
"Some women came to town with the armies," said Ms. Estes. "There were women who disguised themselves as men and fought with both the Union and Confederate armies during the war. Of those detected (as females), we know that seven were wounded, seven were taken to prisoner-of-war camps, nine died on battlefields, and at least six gave birth to babies. We know that a woman soldier was killed at the Battle of Gettysburg; she was found dead on the west side of the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge. She had participated in Pickett's charge. And we know she was not the only Confederate female there. A wounded soldier from Michigan wrote the following account while recuperating in the hospital: 'I must tell you that we have a female Secesh here. She was wounded at Gettysburg but our doctors soon found her out. They say she is very good looking but the poor girl has lost a leg. It is a great pity she did not stay at home with her mother but she gets good care and kind treatment.' "
Estes also noted that on the Union side, "Marie Tepe was wounded at the Battle of Fredericksburg, where she took a ball in her ankle, and she served under fire in 13 battles, including Gettysburg." On November 16, 2002, a 7-foot bronze sculpture of Elizabeth Thorn (1832-1907) was dedicated in Evergreen Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The statue, titled "The Gettysburg Civil War Women's Memorial," honors all the women who served in various capacities before, during, and following the Battle of Gettysburg.
While it is unclear whether any women died during the June 6 invasion of Normandy, Buchanan's own network has previously noted the vital role women played in the war effort during World War II. In a June 8, 2004, report on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, correspondent Monica Novotny reported: "World War II was the first time women actually served in uniform as official members of the military. More than 350,000 females joined the ranks when their country called. And General Eisenhower later said their contributions to D-Day were an indispensable part of the invasion effort." Novotny's report also noted that James C. Roberts, president of the World War II Veterans Committee, said, "Without the support of women in the military and on the home front, World War II would not have been won." Novotny's report concluded: "Four women are buried at Normandy. They were killed in a car accident about a month after D-Day. Three were WACs, members of the Women's Army Corps. And they were African-Americans from the Central Postal Directory Battalion, the only unit of black women sent overseas at the time. The fourth woman was there with the American Red Cross."
As Media Matters for America has documented, during MSNBC's January 26 coverage of the South Carolina Democratic primary, responding to columnist Eugene Robinson's statement that "I can't think of a whole lot of situations where there's an actual clash between Latino and African American issues," Buchanan cited gang wars "in South Central L.A." and "in the prisons" as evidence that tensions between African Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic primary. Buchanan has also claimed that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion of the United States of America and that it threatens to reduce America to "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities."
From the February 28 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
BUCHANAN: Did you see Howard Dean, though?
CARLSON: Well, let's put it up on the screen, Howard Dean's remarks.
BUCHANAN: OK.
CARLSON: I have it right here. He was at Georgetown. This is from The Georgetown Voice. "Dean contrasted the two party's presidential candidates. He said that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field, quote, 'looks like America, while the all-white male Republican field looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.' " I must say, I'm not going to sit by a single more time and listen to someone slag on, quote, "white men."
BUCHANAN: You know, I am off --
CARLSON: Television hosts do that. It makes me want to puke.
BUCHANAN: I am offended by this. Look, what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy. Why is it, Bill --
PRESS: Pat, Pat --
BUCHANAN: -- OK to mock --
PRESS: Pat, Pat, Pat --
BUCHANAN: -- backhand white -- no wonder you're losing white males.
PRESS: What do you have, white guilt? Look, here's -- Howard Dean --
BUCHANAN: No, I think you guys are self-hating white folks.
PRESS: No, Howard Dean told the truth. If you look at the Democrats on stage when they were up there, you had a Latino, you had an African-American, you had a woman, you had young, you had old. And then you contrast that with the 10 Republican all-white men over 50.
BUCHANAN: He didn't say all 10. He said these two look like America.
PRESS: No, no. No, no, no. No.
BUCHANAN: In other words, it's not just -- every president has been a white male, Bill, every one.
PRESS: Pat, Pat, Pat, he said Democratic candidates. And it is true, if you look at the diversity -- if you look at this country, Pat, at the population of this country, they are not all white, older white men.
[crosstalk]
PRESS: That's the point he's making. He is absolutely right.
CARLSON: Let me just say this. I think -- and I'm not just -- you know, people say, "Oh, you're a white man. That's why you're defending white men." Actually, I'm being sincere. I'm defending this purely on principle. I don't think that you ought to cavalierly attack people based on their race or gender. And consider if that was any other group. "Well, this group is so-and-so or such-and-such." There would be an uproar. I think when you allow this kind of gar -- I mean, Howard Dean's an -- not very smart, so he gets kind of a pass, but a lot of smart people say this sort of thing.
PRESS: He is telling the truth. It's the same thing -- when you look at the floor of the Democratic convention and look at the great diversity on the floor, in terms of men and women and people of color, and then you look at the floor of the Republican convention, and it looks like the, you know --
BUCHANAN: What's wrong with that?
PRESS: -- the White Person Society meeting with hardly -- not that many women and hardly any minorities at all.
CARLSON: Well, you're right. I mean, you're certainly speaking right. No, no, but hold on.
PRESS: One reflects America, and the other doesn't.
CARLSON: Wait, hold on. Hold on.
PRESS: That's all. That's all.
CARLSON: You're right that there -- it is much more diverse, the Democratic convention. I've been to all of them in the past 20 or 15 years. But there's a hostility toward white men --
BUCHANAN: Exactly.
CARLSON -- that's not even cloaked and that, by the way, is wrong. It's immoral to attack people because of their skin color. Period.
PRESS: There is no hostility towards white men.
CARLSON: Oh, B.S., Bill. Come on.
PRESS: You guys -- no, you guys are --
CARLSON: I hear it at work. I hear it here. I hear it in politics.
BUCHANAN: You're saying because it's a woman and an African-American, only those two -- it is morally superior in some way to the Republicans because their candidates are white males.
PRESS: No, no. No, no, no, no. May I say it as clearly as I can? If you want to reflect what this country is all about, OK, you don't put 10 old white men on the stage. Period.
BUCHANAN: Look, they didn't put them on. These are guys who ran for the nomination of their party. I would remind you, every single president has been a white male. Is that something wrong with America?
PRESS: All right. You know what? That's going to change this year, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Is that wrong with America?
PRESS: That's going to change this year. We're going to have a woman or we're going to have an African-American as president. It's going to change this year.
CARLSON: Let me just bring up one final white man, and that's Roger Clemens.
The only reason only white men died at Gettysburg is that black men who were willing to fight were not permitted.
The reason no black men signed the Declaration is because they were all owned by the signers and the other white men.
Just when I was starting to think Buchanan was mellowing out in his old age and staring to occasionally make some sense - he pulls a rant like this!
As "middle-of-the-road" or "independent" any phony wingnut might ever claim to be, the real side can always be brought out by pushing the right button or touching the right nerve.
You're right.
Buchanan is capable of making good points, and I often think the same thing you do.
What I make out of it is that people who have held such positions as Buchanan has, such as his in the Nixon administration, need to be able to think coherently of opposing arguments. Anyone who is successful in debate or lawyering knows this practice.
However, the knowledge and ability to convey it is not necessarily reflective of the person conveying it.
Buchanan's knowledge and abilities do not change the fact he's prone to racial explosion.
Oh, God, please no!
Better to have his trollish remark remain cryptically incomprehensible than to have it explained in all its hellishly ugly trollishness!
COPIOUS,
Didn't I tell you before that if you want to keep coming here to MMFA instead of staying at that blog of yours, you have to at least say something that is relavent to the thread or something that makes sense....
Pat claimed history to be that of only the 'white' man dying, leaving out many individual blacks and it seems at least one woman......
Perhaps it was easy to pick on Gettysburg, perhaps historically is was the one battle in the Civil War were the least blacks died, so Pat used it but I seem to recall that many thousands of blacks died fighting for their freedom.....
In the end it's just another fantasy example of the 'white' man making all the sacrifice while the woman and black man are reduced to the ones that have to be saved.
"Just look at all the great things we WHITE MALES have done in our history, while simultaneously keeping our boots on the necks of minorities, women, and anyone who wasn't a WHITE MALE."
Not a great argument, Pat.
I know the entire audience keeping people like Buchanan in a job as guest-monkey can't be watching just to laugh at him. There must be a core audience that watches this and feels a connection, thinks that he's making sense.Can it be just the over-80 year olds, shut-ins and mentally-challenged?
Copiousconsent made a comment up there, but it's so incoherent, and so unrelated to the topic, I'm not sure if he/she agrees with Buchanan or is even on the right thread.
Of course, I won't ask for clarification, knowing that CD generally posts these tidbits of nothingness and runs, but I wonder if he/she and Buchanan share some sort of common language. Is this the mode of communication of the 30%ers?
Hey, don't lump all the over 80s together in Robertson's fan club; my 90 year old grandmother can't stand idiots like him. She's a proud lifelong liberal Democrat.
-ChiCat
Sorry, Chicat, didn't mean to imply all of the oldsters are in that group, just the ones who are scared of everything and have quit trying.
I know somw old geezers who are definitely not in that group. They're the ones I really like, The ones that take advantage of their limited remaining time on this planet to step outside of their fears.
"You do realize that all of the technology you use everyday, you owe to people of color."
really? So the computer that i am now typing at was the product of a person of color? let me guess, they first invented the basic idea of computational machinery that led to the computer. Your argument depends on the asumption that people of color invented certain basic concepts that white civilization elaborated upon, bringing up the advanced technology i use every day does not help your point seeing as most of modern technology was invented by white civilization.
"The Greeks were taught mathematics by the Egyptians."
Mathematics was a concept that would have developed with or without the egyptians. The isolated mayan people are a good example of this.
"You also realize that the weapons we used to defend ourselves against the tyranny of British Colonialism was created by other people of color from China."
The basic concept of gunpowder was developed in China, the actual advanced guns and their functions made by the whites.
And on the subject of this so called "tyranny of British colonialism", the thirteen American colonies experienced the lowest taxation and regulation than any other colony of the British empire. Our biggest objection was "taxation without representation", not a supposed tyrannical personality in our British overlords.
"You also realize that the Democracy in which you live was first founded by people of color in India."
Democracy is an achievement that is often attained regardless of race and development. The most advanced states in a particular time could be absolutist monarchies while the most primitive tribe could be at the same time a democracy.
"You also realize that ALL people owe their very existence to the men and woman of Africa from which we are all decedents of."
You do realize that at one point in human evolution we were ALL people of "color"? So at that point whatever advancements were achieved cannot be championed by the people of today who remained "coloured." The men and women of Mesopotamia thus cannot be championed by the black race currently inhabiting that part of the world. The so called "black Eve" is an early human inhabiting Africa, this does not mean that somehow black people are the origin of the human race. If this were so it would only make the uncomfortable point that black people are physically less developed if they are the most direct descendants and of greatest resemblance to the proto-humans.
All the people of the world have contributed to the evolution of our worldwide society.
Finarfin,
By your thinking every great thought and idea would have been thought of regardless of who discovered it or laid the foundation for it. All the people of the world from White to Black and everywhere in between have had a direct influence to where we are as a people today. For some reason you have a misplaced belief that the white peoples of the world have done more throughout the history of the world than anyone else.
As far as your thoughts on "Black Eve" goes. Yes all of the people on this planet descended from a small group of African people. As these peoples moved across the globe their physical appearances changed to best adapt to the part of the world they were in. That does not mean they are "more" evolved. We are genetically the same people as all of our homosapien ancestors. We are all genetically the same distance from our "proto-human" predecessors.
Of course I don't really expect you to accept or understand any of this. After seeing your other posts on ethnicity it is apparent what your views are.You're right. In fact, we should set up some sort of program so that the beleaguered white males, particularly wealthy white males, should get preferential treatment. For example, mediocre students should be able to get into Ivy League schools like Yale...oh, wait a moment...
"Just look at all the great things we WHITE MALES have done in our history, while simultaneously keeping our boots on the necks of minorities, women, and anyone who wasn't a WHITE MALE."
Right, because males of all other cultures treated women better, and treated peoples of other cultures better. Asians, Africans, Arabs, Latinos, etc throughout recorded history are pure of heart and deed.
Nice to see white guilt still florishes.
netsez, I think you missed Tex's point. It was a satirical paraphrase of Buchanan's idiocy, the subject of which was "white males". Wouldn't have made sense to include the others.
Good to see knee-jerk white victimhood still flourishes.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tucker lives in quite the bubble if he sees himself as "SMARTER" than Howard Dean, a M.D., two term govenor, and Chairman of The Democratic Party that lead the party to taking the House & Senate back, and now on the verge of taking the Presidency with a veto proof majority in both Houses!! Not very smart??? Democrats were the poor party that couldn't raise the money the Republicans could, now the Republican nominee is trying to handcuff the Democrat into public finance because the Republican could not raise a buck!
Tucker is on the verge of loosing his show, has been wrong about every prediction politically for the past 3years, and managed to show his true colors as a xenophobic, homophobic BONE-HEAD!
I want to know when the White Man/Woman was oppressed in America like the Black Man/Woman has in the bondage of slavery? Listening to Tucker talk in terms about himself as a "Man" is hard to stomach to begin with. He claims to have confronted a Homosexual in a public restroom, but do we really believe he wasn't the Homosexual in the bathroom cruising?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Good to see you still believe rascism works only one way, and that minorities are absolutly incapable of racism.
N- said it well, white guilt has never been so alive.
Well technically speaking racism does only work one way. Racism deals with power. Therefore, in the United States Whites can be the only "racists". Now if you want to talk about prejudice, well that is another story. Of course people of all colors can practice discrimination. However, you cannot realistically say that the level of discrimination against white people is even close to the level of discrimination against people of color. Being born white is still an advantage in the United States.
On a side note I love hearing people talk about "white guilt". Acknowledging the history of racism is not white guilt. It is the truth. Acknowledging racism today is not white guilt. It is accepting reality. Those of you talking about white guilt are either ignorant of history and the current state of affairs. Or you are in fear of the inevitability of the day when being born white will not be an advantage.
Buchannon totally flipped over nothing.
Dean is right. The Republicans are out of touch with who and what America is.
Oh yes, because only a woman can understand women's issues and only a black man can understand minority struggles.
I guess Bill was just another mean, white, SOB
Frankly I think a poor white guy like Bill has more in common with America than privileged Hilary or Obama.
You think a "poor white guy like Bill has more in common with America than privileged Hilary or Obama. "?!
News flash, Bill is not poor. He's had a life of privilege! And really, how sheltered in your own lily white world do you do you have to be to be "shocked" that black people are capable of behaving just as civilized as white people in a restaurant?
"lily white"-chicat
Chicat, i object. If you find it OK to use this term than conversely i shall use the term "mud brown".
H-Man,
While Buchanan's statement is bigoted and FINARFIN's comments are definitely over the top. Yours are overly apologetic for the CHICAT's racist comment he is addressing and if you were being intellectually honest you know it. Yes, lilies are beautiful but the comment "lily-white" is seldomn used as a compliment, expect in Romantic era love poems. And I am not thinking given the comments of the rest of the post that CHICAT was writing "Ode to Bill Press".
And everyone can dogpile on those decrying this racism going but Blacks, Women, Latinos, whoever... have no power so they can not be racist, only the White Male can because he has the power. Fair enough -- continue that line of thought -- and you can then carry the banner of racism and sexism for those groups that are slowly fading because people see them as full of crap -- like the KKK and so forth.
Racism and sexism won't die if people continue think they have some privileged status in it use.
If you don't want black or women jokes don't tell white guy jokes. You don't want young black men attacked on the streets, don't appauld black youths that send white teenager to the hospital -- even if he is a bigot. You want fairness realize you will have to work for it first because the "other" side probably is not interested in it at all. You have to prove your humanity so that others will HOPEFULLY go in search of and find theirs. Otherwise your just a bigot with a different agenda.
And yes life is unfair and no you should have to do this because people should all be fair, kind, and merciful. Get over it. Life is tough and it is up to those who believe in a better vision of the world to move first and suffer for it most likely.
Ufleirx,
I was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that Chicat's remarks were not acceptable in my opinion. I think Fin as attempting to use the inappropriate term to justify using a derogatory term.
That being said I take offense by your insinuation that I condone "white jokes". If I hear any person tell those types of jokes I say something. And many times I have endured the label of being an "Uncle Tom" because I defend all people of all colors, white, black and everyone in between.
My remarks regarding Chicat were not bigoted and I am not a bigot.
CHICAT: No doubt Bill Clinton is not poor – NOW. And he may have led a life of privilege SINCE his emergence into political life. But you have to admit that NETSEZ is correct in saying Bill has “more in common with (average) America”.
To say Bill Clinton “had a life of privilege” is ludicrous! … Born in Hope, Arkansas – father a traveling salesman who died 3 month prior to his birth – supported by his mother whose parents owned a small local grocery store and who took up nursing before re-marrying to Roger Clinton, who owned a car dealership with his brother and was a gambler and alcoholic. Yep - What a fine example of a “privileged” life!
Now GW Bush, on the other hand – there’s a guy who made it on his own - Pulled himself up by his bootstraps and took “personal responsibility” for himself throughout his life. <end deep sarcasm> Everything this guy has ever had was handed to him – including the presidency.
Neither Hillary of Obama could hold a candle to GW Bush when it comes to a “life of privilege” – so it’s all relative. But in general, as the nomination of GW Bush in 2000 has proven, the measure of one’s status to the Republican elite is not their current net worth or “privileges” they have acquired through dedication and hard work – what is more important is their heritage, bloodline, or pedigreed status amongst the hierarchy.
Tee-hee! I just realized I was talking about the wrong Bill too! More often than not it's Bill O'Reilly that is being discussed on this board. Hence the reference to his dinner in Harlem and his comments about his experience. I honestly don't know enough about Bill Press to comment on his level of privilege.
And as far as my use of the term "lily-white" ...I apologize. I didn't really think of it as racist. Rather, I was using it as emphasis of the whiteness guys like Bill O have spend their lives surrounded by, which leads to willful ignorance of nonwhite culture. But if folks see the term as racist I will cease using it, except in poetry ;)
That’s OK CHICAT. You can always say you meant it as one of the other 2 definitions listed in the dictionary, like… 2. Beyond reproach; blameless. If BiilO can use “lynching” you can use lily-white.:)
(And I know the feeling of putting your foot in your mouth because you misinterpreted another post – happens to me all the time- and it hasn’t stopped me from continuing to make a fool of myself here. LOL This place is like Goodwill – All contributions are welcome.)
The idea of building a polity based on equality of sexes, religions, and races is a new one on this planet, as new to European White Male culture as it is anywhere else. It's one of the remarkable things about America.
But when my mother was born, women couldn't vote. And I was 12 before racial segregation stopped being the law of the land in the South.
America had these ideals, but the British Empire got rid of slavery before we did, and without a war that people still obsess over today.
The fact that we were the only nation in the alliance against the Axis to fight with a racially segregated army is nothing to be proud of--and ut is something not lost on the rest of the world.
America is built on ideals--and that's what we, as Americans, should measure ourselves against. Not whether we're worse than Idi Amin.
I understood his point and wanted to inform him that his version of Pat's comment could be applied to any culture.
Knee-jerk is usually a liberal reaction, nice try though.
"Reaction" = "reactionary" = "right-wing"
Nice try though. Thanks for playing.
BUCHANAN: You're saying because it's a woman and an African-American, only those two -- it is morally superior in some way to the Republicans because their candidates are white males.
Not morally superior but a true representation of America. I've watched the Republican convention and can count the people of color. The camera tries to make it appear like there's a lot of them but they aren't fooling anyone, they keep showing the same faces over and over again. During the Republican convention we play a game like counting cars but we count people of color. It's a really short game.
BUCHANAN: Is that wrong with America?
You are what's wrong with America Pat. The Republican party is whats wrong with America Pat. It's a party controlled by old white men. Old white men like yourself who fear losing power that you've held far to long. Diversity is your greatest fear and keeping America divided is the the tool you've used to retain power. Not for much longer Pat.
Righttt, ignore Condi, and Colin and Gonzolez, and others. Bush has more minorities and women in high ranking posts than any other administration but Republicans hate diversity
Don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
And don't let facts get in the way of yours as well...
"Clinton nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women."
Furthermore...
"Bush has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton. ... [But] just below those highly visible positions -- in the hundreds of little known but important appointments to senior executive posts that don't need Senate confirmation -- the diversity of the Bush administration fades."
Junior has a few but they were just for show. They followed like blind sheep. Not a thinker in the group. Condi both as Natl Sec. and Sec. of State simply repeating exactly what Junior says is about as effective as a rock. Gonzo has not heard of a single law that couldn't be broken or ignored IF Junior told him to. The one minority who refused to follow, Colin Powell is no longer a part of the administration and that should tell you something.
Why do you have to keep "the folks" like me and Bill O'Reilly down? As white men, we're tired of having to feel guilty at our prep schools and yacht clubs. Please try to show some tolerance, and a little compassion for our plight. ;0)
LOL
Col, right now I'm picturing you, Bill and Pat's face in that YouTube video of that guy who's a fan of Brittney Spears crying "Leave poor white men alone". ;-)
Give us some ACTUAL facts and not HIVEMIND delusions and SEE how we react. Here is a clue you deseprately need. Just because Rush said it doesnt mean its true.
I've watched the Republican convention and can count the people of color. The camera tries to make it appear like there's a lot of them but they aren't fooling anyone, they keep showing the same faces over and over again.
How much of this is because of the lies the left tell people of color to keep them from actually voting their conscious as opposed to voting from some mythical fear drummed up by the left? Like running ads telling people that voting for a Republican means another black church will burn.
"How much of this is because of the lies the left tell people of color to keep them from actually voting their conscious as opposed to voting from some mythical fear drummed up by the left?"
Nice attempt at projection. Maybe the GOP should stop wondering why so few people of color support their platform and instead roll up their sleeves and decide collectively to seriously court their votes for a change.
"Like running ads telling people that voting for a Republican means another black church will burn."
Do you have anything more to back up your sweeping generalization other than what you read about on Free Republic?
Regardless...
Do you really want to throw stones at the POLITICAL LEFT for the charge of fear mongering for votes?...
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," --- Dick Cheney
"There seems to be two approaches, and in the [2006 Connecticut senatorial race], one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of the Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn’t stay the course and that led to September 11th." --- WH Press Secretary Tony Snow
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," --- George W. Bush
"These are the Stakes" --- GOP campaign ad
"Tancredo, before it's too late" --- Tom Tancredo campaign ad
I think we know who the real fear mongers are.
Maybe the GOP should stop wondering why so few people of color support their platform and instead roll up their sleeves and decide collectively to seriously court their votes for a change.
Do you mean COURT or PANDER for their votes. A slight distinction perhaps that actually isn't that slight when you think about it.
Isn't about time that courting or pandering to special interest groups ceases? And that we stop categorizing the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the other ethnic minority vote, the Gay vote, the religious vote, the female vote, & yes the White male vote.
This type of thinking has kept us divided not brought us together as Americans.
As far as Dean's remark about The Democratic nominees looking like America, I might ask oh really? So America only consists of Black men & White women? I mean seriously how stupid is that?
Look I think it's great that this country has come as far as it has as to find a Black man & a White woman running for President. But did Dean really have to belittle White men?
Does this guy really believe a Black man or White woman or any other combination couldn't have run as a Republican had they chosen to? Wasn't Colin Powell being urged several years ago to run as a REPUBLICAN? Weren't folks clamoring for Condi Rice to run as a REPUBLICAN?
What Dean & other Dems need to do is get off their high horses.
Quite frankly I don't blame Buchanan for getting ticked off. I for one am tired of the holier than thou trip you Dems are on.
"Do you mean COURT or PANDER for their votes. A slight distinction perhaps that actually isn't that slight when you think about it."
Get over yourself, wordsmith. They are two very distinct words with two very distinct meanings. I used the former, you're invoking the latter.
I'm not talking about special interest groups. I'm talking about voting blocks. A big distinction, when you think about it.
It's not about COURTING or PANDERING for votes.
It's about ACTING or FAILING TO ACT to make lives better.
And, it's about WHETHER the government SHOULD act.
The Republicans tell us the government SHOULD NOT act ... that the government should not be doing much of anything except DEFENSE, i.e. having a military. Yet, in PRACTICE, Republican Administrations have seen the greatest growth of government, the biggest spending, the largest deficits, the greatest interference in personal lives (curtailing RIGHTS), and the most secrecy of government.
And, under Republicans, the Government is VERY active. No bid contracts, needless wars, manipulation of markets to favor corporations, geopolitical moves to benefit American industry owners, and such things as banking rules that ALLOW creation of bogus corporations and cash shelters off shore. These are ACTIVE things that government, under Republicans, DOES to benefit certain Americans.
Government, under Republicans, can also drastically affect the lives of Americans by what laws they FAIL to enforce. Laws like environmental, workplace safety, and public health regulations. The laws are on the books, but Republicans have a thousand ways to make sure they are not properly enforced, from cutting the staffing of the investigatory agencies, to staffing the judiciary with corporate-friendly judges (who summarily toss lawsuits which might hold corporations responsible, out of court).
Republicans work hard to make sure Government remove the rights of average citizens to seek redress in our courts, calling it "tort reform." And they routinely demonize "trial attorneys" as being enemies of the state, instead of advocates for the powerless.
So, it's not about WHETHER government SHOULD act: Republicans have government working tirelessly to advantage their core constituency, the very wealthy.
It IS about Acting, AND FAILING to act, to make lives better ... for ONLY their core constituency, the very wealthy.
AVERAGE CITIZENS SHOULD be "courted" and "pandered to" ... that's called constituent service. The problem is, Republicans court and pander to only the very wealthy. And then their problem becomes convincing the Average Citizen that's it's all "for their own good."
But they KNOW this just will not fly, which is why Republican politics is all about fear, hate, racism, sexism, demonizing gays and immigrants and even women. Because without prejudices and divisive politics, Republicans cannot win. And if they don't win, how can they use government activism to heap favoritism on their base, the very wealthy?
The lines have never been more clear in America as to which PARTY is working for which CONSTITUENCY.
In Jolly Olde England, they solved their "diversity" problem by splitting their legislature into a "House of Lords" and "House of Commons".
In America, the LORDS are well represented by the Republicans.
Our wealthy corporate owners are our Aristocracy, and they believe they are entitled to ALL the wealth, ALL the power, and to make ALL the rules.
They can't be blamed ... but they CAN be STOPPED. For every aristocratic Republican, there are TEN Democratic commoners. And it looks like this election, those commoners will NOT be staying at home. The LORDS have wildly enriched themselves under Bush, with unchecked greed and arrogance, but have driven the rest of us into a ditch. As the saying goes, absolute power has CORRUPTED, absolutely. And America has noticed.
Funny. Even minorities in higher tax brackets vote democrat. But you keep believing that poor minorities want to take your money because they are inherently lazy. The republican party's theory is the rich need to be richer and if they have enough money they will allow their leftovers to feed the rest of the populace. Hence, trickle down economics. This is why the division between the rich and everyone else has become larger under republican control. The only class to do better has been the upper class. The middle and lower classes have seen their real wages drop.
Oh and you may be inherently lazy but do not label the rest of us because you are.
Progressive Democrats connect with poor people and minorities because instead of giving lip service to family values they value families. So when Democrats put our money to work for us on programs that aid working people, naturally the cruel to be kind crowd will chafe because they do not understand kindness without cruelty. That is to say the cruel to be kind crowd cannot relate to true family values.
Isn't about time that courting or pandering to special interest groups ceases? And that we stop categorizing the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the other ethnic minority vote, the Gay vote, the religious vote, the female vote, & yes the White male vote.
People refer to categories of voters because they share common interests. The "Black vote" has economic and civil rights interests due to centuries of discrimination. The "Hispanic vote" has interests in immigration and labor issues. The "Gay vote" would be crazy to vote for the Republican party which kicks them around in order to gin up the rubes. The "religious vote" is rather unclear because different religious people have different political views, although you may be referring to the so-called "Religious Right", which has their own views. The "female vote" has interests in various matters such as equal pay, maternity leave, and such. Finally the "white male vote", of which I'm a part, seems to have a constant siege mentality despite the fact that they've owned everything nearly everything since America's inception.
As far as Dean's remark about The Democratic nominees looking like America, I might ask oh really? So America only consists of Black men & White women? I mean seriously how stupid is that?
Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards. Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guliani, and Ron Paul. Which group looks more representative of the US to you?
Does this guy really believe a Black man or White woman or any other combination couldn't have run as a Republican had they chosen to? Wasn't Colin Powell being urged several years ago to run as a REPUBLICAN? Weren't folks clamoring for Condi Rice to run as a REPUBLICAN?
Sure they could have, but they'd have little reason to. Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet their own leadership continues to act otherwise. Those aren't my words, those are the words of CA GOP Secretary Shannon Reeves. You can have some fun and read up on her story here http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/01/09/bush/index.html
By the way, George Bush has lied about Condi's stance on affirmative action to bolster his own stand in public. You know, window dressing and all.
There may be something to that, but there should be a better alternative than a lot of crapulous happy talk about "American" interests to which everybody should subscribe. Which is pretty much all the Republicans have offered, to date.
Isn't about time that courting or pandering to special interest groups ceases? And that we stop categorizing the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the other ethnic minority vote, the Gay vote, the religious vote, the female vote, & yes the White male vote.
Jeter be truthful, Republicans have pandered to their base which has been white males since the 60's. They fashioned their campaigns against Blacks, Hispanics and Gays in order to court/pander to their own base. The very reason special interest groups were created was because they were being ignored. While I will say that the special interest groups have made great strides towards equality pretending that they're no longer ignored and their needs have been addressed is to pretend that Republicans no long pander to their base, white males. We know that's not true. You might say that Democrats pandered to the special interest groups needs but I would say that Democrats CHOOSE to include them while Republicans CHOOSE to continue to ignore them in favor of keeping the white male voter.
I don't think that drawing attention to the diversity of the Democratic party is belittling the Republican party or the white male. It's simply a fact that because Republicans were more concerned with keeping their white male base they've excluded large numbers of Blacks, Hispanics and Gays.
MMFA is a partisan organization. They don't mince words about it in their mission statement.
There are other organizations with websites whose mission to expose "liberal bias." They aren't hard to find. When you do find them, be sure to berate them in their comment sections for concentrating solely on "liberal bias."
Not to my eyes. He referred to Hillary and Obama as the front-runners, and clearly meant that they were part of a diverse field of candidates.
FINANCEBUZZ: WOW, talk about angry white men!
You make is sound as if “facts don’t matter”. If someone prefaces an argument with FALSE facts, it sort of kills the whole argument, no? This story is classic Media Matters mission statement material. If it bothers you that they do what they do, don’t come here. If you want the best source for a daily synopsis of conservative misinformation, you found the right place - and are even welcome to throw in your take on it. What more could a concerned American ask for?;)
You KNOW darn well what Dean’s comments were meant to say – and it was NOT a slap at white men. It was a slap at the Republican Party – the party that does NOT embrace ANY minorities – blacks, women, latinos, gays, muslims,… OK, so what is left? WHITE MEN ONLY – the Republican rule of thumb! At least Dean’s comments WERE based on facts.
So now Dean offended you? Oh you poor privileged white boy - someone left you out of the mix and made you sound less relevant. Now you get a little taste of how it feels to this conglomeration of people who are the part of REAL America that you want to ignore - and you, like Buchanan, throw a hissy-fit! It’s both sad and shameful.
And not to confuse you all the more than you already are… I’m a proud white Democrat.
"When did it become a bad thing to be a white male?"
Poor Buzz, you must be so confused. Being a white male isn't a bad thing: reproducing a political system that favors white males to the exclusion of all other people is a bad thing because it's antidemocratic.
Take, for instance, Bob Novak's remarks last year:
You see, according to Bob, Republicans are hoping that come November, Americans will make the white decision -- excuse me, the right decision -- and they'll do what they've done in EVERY presidential election: elect a white man. The trick for Republicans will be to take advantage of America's history of electing white men without appearing to do so on the basis of gender and race. And a great way to do that is to frame positive statements about the Democratic candidates non-whiteness and non-maleness appear to be an attack on white males.
Buchanan is attempting to coopt the rhetoric of minority politics in defense of white males, as if white males are a persecuted minority with an endangered culture and noble history of contributions: "They (we) alone faught at Normandy! They (we) alone faught at Gettysburg! They (we) alone founded the United States!" Not only is Buchanan wrong in his claim about Normandy (and I would argue the founding of the US as well), but unfortunately, this snake of an argument turns back on itself and bites its own tail when taken to its logical conclusion: "We white males are the only ones who have ever been elected president."
It's important to point out here that Buchanan and Carlson are not outraged at the prospect of white men being excluded from or even discriminated against political life: they're horrified by the idea that white men shouldn't have exclusive rights to the presidency. Dean did not attack white men, and he certainly never said that it was bad to be a white man. He said that "the all-white male Republican field looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.'" And that is what got under the skin of Buchanan and Carlson.
Exactly.
When you see the context of the entire speech, you will see Dean talking entirely about Democrats seeking to reach out for a diversity seen in the front runners of its FIELD of Presidential candidates.
He was speaking to his audience saying younger voters see themselves as part of a multi-cultural generation, and that young voter turnout in the Democratic primaries is up 61-percent.
Now, if old man Buchanan thinks his blathering will somehow connect with the community to whom Dean was speaking... then he will have to remain offended come November.
Last night I watched C-Span's rebroadcast of a session of the 9th annual “State of The Black Union 2008” conference held last week. If you have not seen any of it – there was some great brain food thrown out by the speakers, most notably Dick Gregory’s usual “seriously humorous” talk – this being his take on black voters.
What was strange is that while Hillary was in attendance – Obama was not. I suppose that this was a political decision sparked by the perceived consequences of any possible media take as Obama pandering – or fear of the repeated overkill from the media of the reception he would have had from that crowd.
At any rate – the point I want to make here is that what was most obvious was the lack of a “Republican” presence or mention of any kind.
Buchanon- "Look, what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy."
Buchanon is making two distinctions here in my opinion. There is a separation between his "all" comments and his "only comments" "All" could be interpreterd to mean the mass numbers of whites that died in these conflicts. MMFA is attributing the word "only" where he said "all", and those two terms are not necessarily synonyms of each other.
Interesting argument Bruce. I can see our point annd it seems that MMFA is nitpicking a little here. Some time ago there was discussion here about John Edward's homeless vets statements. There seemed to be a consensus at that time that everyone should be able to look past hyperbolic statements.
Some here argued that we should automatically know that when Edwards said that 200,000 vets would be sleeping under bridges and on grates he really did not mean that 200,000 were actually sleeping under bridges and on grates. I guess Buchannan is unworthy of the same "pass".
Except that Edwards really did mean 200,000 homeless vets. It wasn't an exaggeration. And he wasn't wrong: 200,000 is the VA's estimate for the number of homeless veterans. http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
<blockquote>Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America. </blockquote>
Chicat,
There are not 200,000 vets sleeping on grates and under bridges. Edwards' himself clarified this in a response to O'Reilly. The overall point is that in a past thread some posters felt that Edwarsds' hyperbole should be overlooked. Should Buchanans?
I can see Bruce's point as well. In casual usage that phrasing could mean a large percentage. It's ambiguous.
However, there are some major differences here. First, the contrast between Edwards saying 200,000 sleeping on grates and under bridges and listing all the places they can sleep isn't significant. The point is made either way, and it's obviously a concern for society. For Buchanan, to say that there are some black people that died for a worthy cause seriously undermines his point. How is this some great defense of white people if black people did the same thing?
More importantly, if Buchanan's argument is just that more white men than black men died in these battles, what does that suggest? Black men are cowardly? If he thinks that it's because there were simply less black men allowed to serve, then again that destroys any point he's trying to make.
So even accepting what Bruce is saying, it deserves to be mentioned here.
"You can rationalize this to draw your own distinctions, if you must. I feel you are over analyzing this."
If you can explain why the distinctions are not valid or are irrelevant, please do.
"The point is that Edwards' used hyperbole and folks saw fit to look over it with the rationalization that people should be smart enough to not take his words literally. Now that Buchannan does essentially the same thing there is no such reciprocation. That tells me that blind partisanship ruins objectivity. Wouldn't you agree?"
Blind partisanship does ruin objectivity. What you have to show is that this is an example of that. You gloss over the distinctions as "over analyzing" but then you say it's "essentially the same thing". It's really not as clear cut as the Edwards example. There's nothing about what Edwards says that implies he means it literally. Buchanan, on the other hand, talked about two groups that really were all white, so it's a little bit more understandable to think that he was using the war dead as an identical example. The context makes a difference. If you really think that's rationalizing, tell me why.
Whether you take it literally or not, it's still a ridiculous piece of commentary, which is why it's not "nit-picking". Is it really somehow better if he means that most of the war dead were white? What would the point be, then? If they should phrase their argument differently, that's fine, but I don't see how the criticism extends beyond that. Would you disagree with that, honestly?
Without fighting the whole war again, it may be possible that Buchanan---proud of his Southern heritage and his Confederate flag, who describes the war as being about "the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance"---was thinking of a different Army than the Army of the United States.
Pat seems to have a selective memory. Sherman's army contained large african american elements.
We are our best when we reach out beyond the color of our skins. Fuggin melanine density.
I see nothing wrong with this. Pat is only trying to empower white males, who, more times than not, are demonized by the liberal media and militant minorities.
/sarcasm
I wonder who does Buchannan want to choke?
He's always got his hands in that position when he talks,maybe its himself.
RINO, We Shall Overcome. Hopefully you and I will live to see the day when we don't even have to pretend that we care about anybody but ourselves. A day when you can be judged, not by the lack of content of your comments, but by the color of your skin. That, my brother, will be true liberation.
A white male president? Maybe not in our lifetime. Maybe not in that of our children. But with hard work, brothers Tucker and Pat can help pave the way for the white male children of our children...
I totally agree. Who in this case is attacking a white male solely on the basis of his skin color?
Dean actually said that? With actual words? Or was he blinking this in Morse Code as he spoke?
Finarfin,
You need to realize saying that a group of white males does not represent the United States is not a slap at white males. It is a slap at the Republican Party only. Howard Dean did not say that white males should not be part of the political process. He did not say anything derogatory about them at all. He said that only having white men does not represent the diversity of America and therefore is not truly representative of America. How is that discriminatory?
What? Is that guy Black? I'm sorry, I don't even see color.
Tar-nation, RINO, you're not seriously trying that bit, are you? Stephen Colbert doesn't even do it as over-the-top parody anymore. Do you have any interaction with human beings in your life? I can't believe there's nobody that loves you enough to have gently explained how weak your ideas are.
Why do you lie so much? Buchannons point was not only racist it was WRONG. What part of the FACT he was flat out wrong is eluding your tiny brain? According to the left its time to spread things around a bit. That isnt discrimination against us white males. Silly boy. White American Males are about the most priveleged group of non royalty in the history of the world. Not agreeing with the agenda to KEEP privelege among them is NOT reverse discrimination. Do you EVER have even a dim conception what you are talking about? So far I have NEVER seen that you do.
As far as there not being very many black Republicans, oh why do you think that is?!!!
Sorry, Solon, I've got to call this one against you.
"Rather than wanting equality of opportunity you want equality of results." - RINO Hunter
"There is no guarantee of equality of outcome in America. There is a hoped-for guarantee of equality of opportunity"- Rush Limbaugh
See, RINO fired up his last few independent brain cells and substituted "results" for "outcome".Show me the parrot who understands synonyms, and I'll give it a cracker. Don't call him a dittobot! Har!
Now go to bed, RINO. Rush will be on in about 12 hours, and you'll get some shiny new thoughts.
Alan Keyes does not express a Black perspective. We're not fooled by his skin color.
Heru,
Just because you do not agree with Keyes does not mean he is less of a black person. Every black person has their own black perspective. There is no one spokes person for black people. There is no one black perspective. He has his own perspective. I understand you do not agree with it. However, I do not think you should insinuate he is less black than any other black person.A person with melanin in his skin does not necessarily have a Black perspective. Slavery and white racism are ultimately weapons of mind control. Some weak-minded brainwashed negroes have even joined the KKK. Sorry, but a KKK negro does not have a Black perspective. Were we willing to accept the views of brainwashed negroes as expressing a Black perspective, there would be no such thing as a Black perspective.
I don't care what color his skin is, nor do I care about the crispiness of his hair texture or whether he can dance. Alan Keyes' worldview is about as Black as Trent Lott.
Heru,
Sorry but I still disagree with you. Just because someone does not agree with the majority of a group does not mean he does not have a perspective. Furthermore, it is unfair to measure's one's blackness based on that perspective. We all do not and should not think as one. Frankly, saying his worldwide view is as black as Trent Lott's is insulting. Why can't black people have vastly differing opinions without fear of other black people telling them they are not really black? Who are you to say who is and who is not black? What would you say if Buchanan said someone was not white because of their view on the world?
1. Just because someone is darker than a paper bag doesn't mean his utterances express a Black perspective.
2. "Blackness" means nothing if it means anything.
3. Nobody said we think as one. I said Keyes does not have A Black perspective, not THE Black perspective. There is a range of Black perspectives and Keyes falls way outside that scope.
4. The fact that Keyes and Lott's worldview is identical doesn't bother Keyes so why shoud it bother you?
5. Black people who serve as agents of white supremacy beg for acceptance in the Black community because their "control" of the community is what they get "paid" for. Sorry, we're not drinking the koolaid.
6. Stop ignoring Black history. You know as well as I do that weak-minded negroes have a long history serving as agents for white supremacy in betrayal of the Black community. If you don't know this aspect of Black history, start with COINTELPRO.
7. Who am I to say what is Black? A Black scholar. Whare you to say what is Black?
Sorry but I still disagree with you. Just because someone does not agree with the majority of a group does not mean he does not have a perspective. Furthermore, it is unfair to measure's one's blackness based on that perspective. We all do not and should not think as one. Frankly, saying his worldwide view is as black as Trent Lott's is insulting. Why can't black people have vastly differing opinions without fear of other black people telling them they are not really black? Who are you to say who is and who is not black? What would you say if Buchanan said someone was not white because of their view on the world?
Heru,
Once again, just because Alan Keyes does not conform anywhere near what you believe A Black perspective is does not mean it is not a Black perspective. Alan Keyes is Black and has lived in America. Therefore, he has A Black perspective. I am not offended by Alan Keyes having the same political view as Trent Lott. I am offended that you are insinuating that Alan Keyes view is that of a white person. As far as weak minded negroes goes, I'd like to know what constitutes serving as an agent to white supremacy. As far as who I am to talk about who is Black. I'm not the person saying who gets to be Black and who does not, you are. Because you are a scholar does not give you the right to say who is and is not black. If you want to say it is just your personal opinion fine. Opinions are like butts everyone has one.
I see. So even if an African American runs for President on the Republican side they aren't counted as an African American since they're a conservative rather than a liberal. Nice.
Being a "conservative" simply means that you support limited government and individual freedom. You can be any color or any gender to be a conservative. You simply have to be self reliant and realize that the government can only do so much. In the end it's up to you to succeed. Some blacks simply reject the notion that the government must do everything for them, and they have become conservatives who are self reliant and who support individual freedom. That doesn't make them any less black than the black liberals who have bought into the notion that they are all victims.
"You simply have to be self reliant..." Rinohunter
Aw, now I almost feel bad for busting you on your Rush-puppetry.
And some conservatives just reject the very concept of compassion or empathy. Embrace racist nonsense and spew it onto websites
And some Republicans actually vote for what they contend that they stand for, but mostly, they vote based on their pocketbook, hold out abortion as a carrot for the gullible knowing that if they outlaw abortion so-called "religious" voters might actually vote for issues that benefit the poor. They run on "conservative" "non-intervention" policies and start wars that many of their constituents refuse to fight in the name of "Protecting" America. They claim to want to keep a small government and value individual freedoms, but engage in domestic spying.
They hate affirmative action in education, but refuse to give up systems that give benefits for having a family alumnus.
But some Republicans actually see this administration for what it is (John Dean for example).
He didn’t get any media attention because even the media knows a black man hasn’t got a chance in hell of getting the Republican vote. The Rebugs used him as their candidate opposite Obama for the Senate race and when he didn’t win they used the lame excuse that he got in too late. The Republicans threw him in there only because they knew they couldn’t win and had nothing to lose by running a black guy opposite Obama to “prove” they’re really not the racists that liberals make them out to be. I should change my nic to TellItLikeItIs.
Alan Keyes is running on the GOP ticket?
Really? I voted in the Feb. 12 Virginia Republican primary and didn't see his name on the ballot.
I am about as liberal as they come. I disagree with 90%+ of what Buchanan says but I think people are completely missing his point here.
His point, with which I happen to agree, is that white males get all the credit for every evil thing that has ever happened in the world but little if any credit for the good things that they have done, like authoring the Constitution and founding this country on its brilliantly inspired principles.
Another case in point; white men were in fact responsible for the enslavement of Africans in this country. But let's remember (as Buchanan was pointing out) that over a HALF MILLION white men died, and millions others were wounded HORRIBLY to free the slaves.
His only point was that it gets really old hearing only about the evils of white men but nothing about their contributions or sacrifices.
On that note, you do realize that all that you have is directly or indirectly a product of white civilization? Moreover are you grateful of what our western forefathers did for us, or would you have rather waited till the inhabitance of non-European continents developed?
First of all, I think dude meant to say "inhabitants", but whatever. He's dumb. Also, we'd be grateful "for" rather than "of" what our western forefathers did for us. I'd also have to guess David Duke is awfully proud of what "white civilization" has done for all of us.
Good to know that FINARFIN is absolutly(sic) incapable of rascism(sic).
Oh, c'mon.
Blacks were recognized as one-third citizens in the original Constitution! How can you say they were not represented!!??
sarcasm off >>
I don't usually defend Pat Buchanan, but to say that he is wrong about Gettysburg and Normandy because of one or two exceptions is absurd, if he had said "more than 99%" rather than "all" his point would still have been valid. Buchanan's point wasn't that women and people of other races are despicable, but that white males have done noble things, including fighting and dying for the liberty of others. He was objecting to Dean's statement that Republicans were necessarily flawed because they were like Dean in sex and race.
The US population is about 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans. About 12.5% of the populationi is black, and about 90% of those vote Democrat. Therefore only about 2.5% of the Republican voters are black, whereas about 22.5% of Democrat voters are black. So when the Democrats merely "look like America" they are not coming close to reflecting the racial makeup of their party. On the other hand, Republicans have promoted black leadership far beyond the level that would have been expected from the racial makeup of the party.
Now it looks like the Democrats will finally have a black leader who is a leader of the party, and the nation, as a whole rather than merely there to shepherd the black rank and file, and I applaud them for it.
Republicans have not promoted Black leadership. They have exploited a few token Uncle Toms.
Heru,
You need to stop. Just because a minority is a republican does not mean they are serving anyone. It also does not mean they are "Uncle Toms". You constantly insult any black person who has a political opinion different from yours. You can be a minority and a republican.
Secretary of State is not a token position. Neither is National Security Advisor, Supreme Court Justice, nor any cabinet-level secretary. Nor is RNC party chair.
Democrats, as evidenced by your remark, see blacks as pathetic creatures, strong and coordinated, but uneducable and attracted to shiny objects and racially programmed for crime. They believe the unfortunate stereotype of the rapper, and thus see someone who tries to educate themselves and advance within a free market, judged by the content of their character, as nothing more than an Uncle Tom.
So I think your remark is classic.
Black Democrat leaders have tended to be relegated to the role of "black leader", without any influence over the party as a whole. This role did not exist within the Republican party, (admittedly, this may have been because there are not enough black Republicans to warrant having anyone in that position).
When Clarence Thomas officiated at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, that wasn't tokenism. The many conservatives who only tune into Rush when Walter Williams is moderating, aren't doing it to meet some quota. But how many white Democrats rush to listen to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?
The Democrats saw that such criticism was rising, and knew that black support was the cornerstone of the party, and thus found a black man, but one who was raised within a white suburban culture by his white mother and therefore seemed less threatening, to serve as a token. Much to their surprise, this man, Barack Obama, showed that given such a chance, he could succeed in surprising ways, much as black Republicans have done. He rose beyond the role that was cast for him by the Democrat leadership. Good for him.
And the Clinton campaign has become a little more overt with their 60s style whisper campaign against him. I think it is a strategy that will backfire for the Clintons, but which may result in Obama capturing some Southern electoral votes in the general election.
The Bush administration has not appointed quite as many blacks in total as did the Clinton administration, but their appointments have been at about five times the rate of the Clinton administration in relation to proportion of the party.
Actually, the Clintons did spread the myth that Bill Clinton was the first black President, so it is hard to take their statistics on race seriously. There is, after all, no legal standard that defines race. Legally, it is just whatever a person claims to be. According to the Clinton mythology, Obama will be the *second* black President.
The statistical comparison is like looking at Vermont vs Mississippi and saying that you can decide about racism only by looking at the numbers of blacks in office, without looking at the proportion in the population from which those leaders would be drawn. If Mississippi's government merely reflected the overall national averages, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion that race was no longer a factor there. Similarly, the people of Vermont could be completely colorblind and the numbers of blacks in their leadership wouldn't come close to the national averages.
So this "looks like America" line is just a slogan Democrats use to make their blatant racism seem less apparent. And most of the black leaders know it, as do the rank and file, but they think that appearing to accept it, like some Steppin Fetchit, is easier than risking the free-market approach that the Republicans offer, which is risky because the market is, in fact, not a level playing field. The actual fact is that free markets offer less social justice than Republicans claim, but the cultural costs of racial subservience to the Democrat leadership has been very high.
This may change with Obama, and you may find that there is quite a lot of turmoil as Obama may make political appointments that fall more in line with (or perhaps even exceed) the racial percentages within his party.
Baloney a couple of THOUSAND Blacks were at Normandy. To portray that as a WHITES ONLY undertaking is dishonest and its WRONG. Also the Dems have had many blacks in leadership positions. Rangel is a leader in the party you can see him all the time. Donna Brazile RAN Gores presidential campaign if that isnt a leadership position nothing is.
Yes, that's right. One out of 75 or so of the fighters was black, and about one out of 750 of the dead was black. The vast majority, well over 98% of the fighting force, and over 99.9% of the dead, were white men, but Buchanan's statement that all of the dead were white men appears to have been slightly wrong.
Not nearly as much of an exaggeration as Dean's statement that Republicans are the party of white men, but wrong.
The problem is that if you think Buchanan's comment was intended to say that "Only white men do anything worthwhile" you are obviously taking it wrong. Buchanan would not have given a list of specific instances in that case.
Clearly the intention was to say "White men are also worthwhile".
You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that one person's success necessarily implies another person's failure.
You can probably find lots of examples where people other than white men fought and died for the rights of people of other races and nationalities. Our involvement in Iraq, for example. Buchanan would have assumed that people would be aware of the honorable service of people of different races in Iraq. That kind of thing undermines the "white's only" interpretation of his remarks.
Dunuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur...
And only motorcycle escorts seem to be dropping like flies on these mysterious motorcade processions of Bush and now Senator Clinton out campaigning in Texas.
Bizarre Motorcycle Escort Fatalities Haunt Bush-Clinton
Last week the most recent, always blamed on the operator of the motorcycle having "crashed" their bike..as in losing control of it, or just falling over post mortem before they hit the pavement? They wear huge helmets (low velocities) everyone there knows CPR, surely there is EMT traveling with such an entourage--looks like something's wrong."they were the only guys signing the Constitution"
Because all the blacks were slaves.
"the Declaration of Independence"
Because all the blacks were slaves.
"all the dead at Gettysburg"
Not true but regardless, a war fought by liberals against conservatives to free the black slaves.
"all the dead at Normandy."
Not true but regardless, what is his (attempted) point? That because blacks were maginalized and enslaved in the past they shouldn't have the chance for equality today?
I don't think Buchanan is racist, but I think he is nationalist, and I disagree strongly with his positions on globalisation and immigration. However I think his remarks here were taken wrongly. A cheap shot.
Amos 'n' Andy was racist, but it was more subtle than is widely believed by people who don't have a clear memory of it. I think that Buchanan is thinking of the fact that the show depicted most blacks as responsible members of society who were aware of the Kingfish's many flaws, but accepted him nevertheless and who were, by acting with good character, ultimately able to avoid being taken by his schemes. The people who were involved in the show thought it was a step forward, and were happy to be a part of one of the first shows that featured black lead actors and a nearly all black cast. They were quite puzzled and hurt that their show was banned while later, less groundbreaking, shows with similar "lovable lout" or "lovable scoundrel" stereotypes such as "Sanford and Son", "Good Times", and "The Jeffersons" were hailed as progressive.
The racism implied by the show was a reaction to the shift of black populations from the rural South to the urban North. This threatened white union jobs, and the response was to portray these newly urbanized blacks as yokels who were either too stupid or too conniving to be considered reliable.
The stereotype wasn't only a racial stereotype, but was also more generally targeted against rural folks. Farm work requires great individual ingenuity and a lot of knowledge, and yet farm workers are often depicted as slow when compared to people who live on "street smarts".
This kind of racism and urban bias also was expressed more practically in policies such as the minimum wage laws and the Davis-Bacon Act, both originally devised as a way to favor higher paid union workers (who tend to be more skilled and supported by more capital) over their less skilled counterparts, primarily (in the days when those programs were first devised) Southern black laborers.
You do realize, do you not, that the "learning disability" crack provides no supporting evidence for your views, and is a good illustration of a logical fallacy. I won't respond in kind.
The near 50-50 split of voters may be off by a few percent, but it isn't far off the mark. Just look at the popular vote in 2000 and 2004. Bush got a little bit less than 50% in 2000, and a little bit more than 50% in 2004.
If you go back to the Clinton era, the percent of the population that voted for him was much less than 50% in 1992 and remained a little less than 50% in 1996. So I was being generous to Clinton.
Furthermore, the 10% figure of black support for Republicans was probably generous. The actual figure was closer to 9% for Bush in 2004. So again, I was being generous to Clinton.
But the errors in my rough calculations are probably small in comparison to the error implied by using a "looks like X" standard for reaching the conclusion.
But the difference is not a matter of a few percent here or there, we are talking something like 5x more promotion of blacks, and to positions of greater authority, within the Bush administration than within the Clinton adminstration, as compared to the composition of the party.
This seems to imply both that blacks have some reason to avoid the Republican party, and also that black Republicans have a much better chance of rising to power within the Republican party than black Democrats have of rising to power within their party.
The analogy with Vermont vs Mississippi is apt. The disparity in population implies that there is probably some reason why blacks prefer to live in Mississippi over Vermont, but that reason is probably not that there is less racism in Mississippi.
Buchanan's ignorant remark nicely emphasized Dean's point that the Repubs
and their supporters believe in white male supremacy.