Redstate

and Steny has more in common with us than Murtha.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

n/t

President, I'm glad you raised the subject of Byrd, because I think we make a major mistake by demonizing him rather than attacking racist democrat policies, the democrats that champion them, and more prominent democrats who have practice racism that actually hurts the nation on a daily basis in a kind of KKK today.

First, a few tangential matters you touched upon.

1- Byrd is an ally on judges (at least he votes for conservative judges when they get to the floor!) and I would trust him to not to breach a trust with military intel.

2-I do think we face a very grave danger with many democrats who will have intel, some via subpoenas to the CiA concerning al qaida. I would not be surprised if a democrat is arrested and charged for a breach w/i one year.

Now, as to Byrd and his place in the racism firmament of the Democrat party. And I come to this issue as a former dem for whom racism was the main reson I was a dem and who left the dem party in 2001 in no small poart because I watched my former party advance racist policies, treat blacks as inferior, and saw a lot of liberal friends become racist slowly over time. So, I despise racism to my core. My parents coached and led the first integrated Little League and Cub scouts. I hired some of the first black paralegals, and was called "N" lover as a teen due to my black friends.

OK, whew, sorry for all the preamble. But the main reason I said all that is to establish that I believe that racism is at the core of what the dem party is. It depends for its power on advancing the lie that blacks are unable to compete in the free market or conform to moral behavior due to the racism of white Americans, mainly Republicans. That blacks cant make it without the dem party to take care of them.

So, Byrd, as part of the dem party he is a co-conspirator like 99% of them. But, he is actually much less culpable than most.

Are you shocked to hear me say that? Well, hear me out on that in a bit, but first, let me address what is one of the worst things republicans do with respect to the issue of racism and how their treatment of Byrd undermines the conservative message and plays into the hands of the democrats PC diversionary tactics with respect to their own actual real racism that actually harms blacks and whites.

I think it is disgraceful for us to bring up Byrd's former membership in the KKK that ended in the 1950's. Do we want people to leave the Klan or not? Are we about redemption or not? Isn't it a wonderful thing that Byrd left the Klan?

There are real race problems in America. But the GOP is too afraid of the PC MSM threat to actually take on real racist policies and attitudes. So rather than show any courage and tackle real problems, we try to elevate ourselves when faced with the double standard by taking a cheap shot at Byrd. When we get demonized as not caring about blacks because we won't agree to dem policies, rather than aggressively identify the racism of their policies and call it by its name, we attack Byrd to deflect the MSM racist label from us. When the correct and truthful response to the MSM, would be to point out the racism underlying the MSM-DEM PC conventional wisdom on affirmative action, white guilt, etc

But the MSM buys ink by the barrel and the dems, well, they are their honorable friends who just disagree...

Byrd, I think, actually opposes quotas. He doesn't call repubs racist. For a democrat, he actually practices racism less than most.

Much has also been made of his fairly recent use of the "n" word as modifier on "White." Knowing old southerners like him, what a lot of people don't realize is that for him, that statement was the best way he knew how, to renounce past racist attitudes. He spoke from the heart. He was, in his own way, trying to spill his guts and bare his soul to blacks by calling himself the "n' word in a way.

So many people are so afraid of the race issue, that they are only able to deal with it in a shallow way, for to really deal with it would require too much self introspection. So, they simplify the discernment of who is and is not racist, to being for or against the liberal race agenda, the confederate flag, and whether one ever has used the "n' word.

And the GOP has fallen into the dem trap.

How can I put this. In the 70s and into the 80s, most of the people I knew that were racist and regularly used the n word, were republicains. The word was part of the culture they grew up in. ok, But they were more than caricatures. They were born into a culture that was segregated, but they were also Christians and decent people, and that fact was why MLK could move them. And despite the legend that it was the youth of the 60s, the baby boomers that defeated segregation, it was not. It was mainly the so-called Silent generation that did it. The people that were born in the depression and were children during WWII.

Now, fast forward to the late 80s, 90s and today. Those republicans that used the n word embraced the color blind MLK message. They hired blacks that could do the job. they truly treated Blacks as equals.

But I watched liberals that never used the n word and who were vocally for integration and diversity, develop a superiority complex and snobbish moral superiority that saw hiring blacks as an act of charity born of white guilt.

Well, I've wanted to have my say on how we treat Byrd for a long time, and I just seized your comment as an opportunity to do so. I have uttered the gratuitous KKK Byrd oftentimes myself, but I think its wrong. But I think you are mostly right most of the time, and appreciate our discussions brother.

more later

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Byrd less racist? MMMmmm. I am sure you are right that he is too feeble to serve as President. Not sure why it is a good idea to install him as PPT, in that case, and I do think it is valid to make something of the fact that the Dems seem about to do that. Strom Thurmond always made it clear that if the situation ever arose he would step aside for the next person in line - the Secretary of State (or when Albright held that position, Treasury Secretary). I am not aware that Byrd has ever made such a statement. I suspect he would have problems with the idea of Powell or Rice succeeding to the Presidency.

Votes for conservative judges? Well, he is the only member of the Senate to vote against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. Read what you like into that. It is clear to me why he did so.

You are absolutely right that many people used the N-word a few years and decades ago. I have no problem with that. The semantic meaning of the word is inoffensive, it is the emotional loading that is a problem. And the emotional loading has changed over the years. In the 1970s that word was commonplace on British TV. The F-word, however, was not. Both situations have changed.

Gamecock, your mother became pregnant with you as a result of sexual congress with your father. An uncontentious and inoffensive statement. I am sure you can imagine how I might have reworded that statement, with precisely the same semantic meaning, but in a way that would cause you deep offense. Some of the Anglo-Saxon words for sexual parts and acts are considered offensive - especially if I apply them to your mother. That is because words mean a lot more than they mean.

Like you, and like Byrd, I oppose racial quotas. But this is insufficient. It is possible to be right for wrong, even very wrong, reasons. I find common cause with people who oppose racial quotas because they want all people to be judged by the content of their character. I find no common cause with people who oppose racial quotas because they do not wish to see black people succeed. Is Byrd onesuch? I believe so.

I do recall that he used the N-word to describe white people. To my mind this makes it worse, not better. If it was a slip by an old man, reverting to language which was commonplace, and not widely viewed as offensive, in his youth, I would understand. But this was not such an instance. He was trying to insult people. And the worst insult he could think of to insult a white person was to call him black. That is why I am not willing to let up on Byrd. He may call me black any time he likes. He would be incorrect, but I would not take it as insult. The fact that he would mean it as such is the problem.

BTW, on a personal note, I am very glad you regard me as a brother. As it happens, G Langley is my brother's name. I am Q Langley, as my signature file indicates, though I appreciate that in lowercase and underlined the letters are hard to distinguish.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

OK, I may have gone too far in defending Byrd. (And certainly I wouldn't want him 4th in line to the Presidency.)

But this to me is the most important thought you expressed when you said:

More on that below, because that paragraph made me realize why I am so incensed with Hoyer and unconcerned with Byrd.

But first, let me be clear that I despise Byrd as I do most elected Dems in DC for mostly the same reasons related to their dishonest policies across the board, their party's moral and intellectual bankruptcy, their unpatriotic conduct in wartime, their tendency to lie, their weakness on national security, etc ad infinitum. I left the party in disgust. Nuff said.

Your points about his votes on Marshall and Thomas are significant if not dispositive of the condition of the man's heart on race. I truly think you are wrong about how he used the n word in that interview. He is exhibit A in the way older white people evolved in their attitudes about race and the n word over the decades. But never mind that. I don't know his heart. I guess I judge him by a bit of a different standard due to his age, the fact that he left the Klan so long ago, has lived a long life in public with no scandal and no acts of racism on his record for so long. MLK said that the real problem in solving the race issue in the 50s and 60s were not the Byrd style racists who were out in the open, but rather the good people that do nothing or clandestinely continue it. Moreover, as a white person with inside information, I can tell you that the old style racism that saw blacks as an economic threat and desired to hold Blacks down or that was born of hatred based on race is almost non-existent. The moral argument worked. In fact, to be racist is considered one of the worst sins that one could commit. Racial jokes that were prevalent in the 70s and into the 80s are non-existent now and have been for 20 years when whites are alone, except among a small segment of PWTs.

I'm glad you continued the discussion because this has helped me realize better what is so dangerous about the Hoyer racism vs the innocuous racism of Byrd, and why I think the attention paid to Byrd hurts the cause of bridging the racial divide and especially of eliminating govt policies that inhibit the economic and social advancement of Blacks and thus our society as a whole.

Back to your telling paragraph:

"Like you, and like Byrd, I oppose racial quotas. But this is insufficient. It is possible to be right for wrong, even very wrong, reasons. I find common cause with people who oppose racial quotas because they want all people to be judged by the content of their character. I find no common cause with people who oppose racial quotas because they do not wish to see black people succeed. Is Byrd onesuch? I believe so."

I want to focus on these points as we then explore the different kinds of racism we find.

1- The supposed "insufficiency" of Byrd's votes against racial quotas

2-The "cause" of the "common cause"

3-The damage done to Blacks (and whites) by democrat policies voted into law by people that want all people to succeed and who in some ways share your "heart" cause.

Now, to the types of racism (unacted upon beliefs based on superiority/acted upon such beliefs/pure hated simply based on skin color-acted upon and unacted upon/calculated manipulation of race to exploit people based on race/fear based racism).

And you know Quentin, I didn't know you were Black until I just read it in your post, but, as you probably know from reading me over the years, I seek the truth and state the truth as I see it. One of the main reasons less progress has been made on the race issue is that Whites are so afraid of being thought to be racist that they will not be totally honest with Blacks. This is the white guilt effect that Shelby Steele wrote about in his recent book. Over time, this guilt that causes whites to be nicer to Blacks than they should be, evolves into a kind of assumed inferiority, since they are not supposed to offend, yet its Ok if people offend me, then i must be stringer than them. You see?

But anyway, I digress. This analysis of racism is really just analysis of how all humans evaluate all interactions and judgments of others. White Southerners are a distant, but not insignificant second to blacks, in terms of having to overcome stereotypes. So when I go thru this analysis, I know whereof I speak, and i can't imagine that ultimately you could disagree with what i am about to propose to you. That may sound presumptuous, but this Southern Boy didn't get where he got by being unsure of himself.

But most importantly brother, we are men in the world, way before we are black or white or anything else.

1 - Beliefs (re aggregate vs individual) vs Acts/omissions
2 - Intent vs Results
3 - Means - Ends

One of the main goals of people like us that share the common cause is that all people will one day believe that race is insignificant and so not act upon false beliefs, is very important, but much more so as a long run goal. In the short run, ie Today, in terms of how we relate to certain persons, belief alone is usually not very significant. Why? Because there are many factors that determine behavior that are as significant if not more so than belief. Belief is mostly theoretical and vague in this realm.

So much to say
how best to say it briefly

1 - Would quota laws passed by well meaning sharers of the common cause do any less harm than such laws passed by the KKK?

2 - Would the repeal of quota laws do any less good if passed by lawmakers with hearts that hate Blacks?

3 - What do you hate most: a person that hates you because they fear you or a person that pities you because they think you are inferior?

Byrd is a means to a desired an end when it comes to quotas. He is like car mechanic. You want your car fixed. He will fix the car.

Now, to Hoyer. I don't know Byrd or Hoyer's heart. I do know that Hoyer, like most all of the Dem party leadership and activists, uses race and exploits Blacks to maintain their power. They treat Blacks like pawns. They insult Blacks intelligence. they try and keep them on the plantation with lies and subsistence level dependency victim status. They see blacks and they don't see the individual. they see skin color they can exploit. They see Michael Steele and they taunt him like he wasn't a man. Liberals in differing stages share the common cause. But it evolves within liberalism to a kind of pity racism. And that racism is the threat today.

Whereas the Byrd type racism is cured over time as they see Blacks over time achieve. Self interest of repubs that saw that blacks could do work that could benefit them coupled with religious belief cured the disease mostly.

In other words, the kind of hate based on perceived threat or fear is cured over time by experience.

the liberal kind is more akin to the classic white supremacy concept which must keep blacks down to maintain it.

So when Byrd votes against quotas for venal reasons of fear, it is less invidious than when a liberal votes for them from a feeling of superiority.

Byrd knows Blacks can make it on their own. Libs aren't so sure.

I think if MLK were alive, he would say that Byrd's vote is sufficient. Didn't he say (or was it Malcolm x?), I don't want you (whitey) to love me. Just dint lynch me. And didn't Frederick Douglass say, 'just leave us alone"!

more later

gamecock tired

As a southerner, I have had to deal with people's pre-conceived beliefs. I really pitied them more than despised them. I really felt it was my duty to win them over and correct them.

And ultimately, its what people do that matters. In many ways, people can't help what they believe about the races. But the very act of overcoming beliefs and acting as Christ would have us act changes those beliefs over time. So whenever I have encountered a person that didn't like me, I always go out of my way to speak to them and win them over. And its these people that usually end up being the people you can trust. Because the liberals or sycophants that only say what you want to hear, are like used car salesmen oftentimes. And when one only speaks PC, they become what they hate.

See Hoyer and the dem party.

Now, I am tired!

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

But you ARE tired.

I thought I was clear that if someone called me black he would be wrong, but I would not take it as an insult. I think you can read into this that I am not actually black. My point in raising this was that Byrd seems to regard it as an insult. I confess I have never seen the tape, and if you do not believe he meant it as an insult, you may be right.

By the way, I didn't know you were white until I just read it. It had crossed my mind, given your detailed knowledge and passionate engagement with this topic, and your past associations with Jesse Jackson, that you might not be.

As regards Hoyer, I absolutely do not want you to let up on him. And thanks for raising the point.

And finally, and in passing, my brother G is a great guy, but politically you would probably not regard him as a brother.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I believe that Reagan would have defended Colin Powell and denounced the racist attacker just as we should show Steele and all blacks that would have the courage to stand up against the majority of their communities and be a part of the republican family, that we will defend them when they are attacked. What message does our silence send to blacks that a white dem can insult one of our black republicans, and we ignore it when we get back to the good ole boys club and pat each other on the back and yuk it up?

Hoyer called Steele a "slavish token." That statement is dripping with racism. Just pure racist. As racist as Strom Thurmond WAS 60 years ago and Wallace was 40 years ago.

What, pray tell, must a person say before they should be called a racist?

And where does the reference to perverts and pedophiles come from? Get up on the wrong side of bed, brother? But since you brought it up, given that pedophilia is crime, right? may we not charge a person with pedophilia that commits pedophilia since personal attacks are not allowed???

Pilgrim, is OK to call an actual racist, a racist? Is that allowed? Are we supposed to grin and bear all the false charges of racism levelled against us everyday by the advocates of actual racist policies and not identify them for what they are, so that we can address the problem? What if MLK had refused to identify racists due to some PC notion making "personal attacks" taboo? How can we eliminate racist laws and practices if we don't identify them? Flesh and blood people, advocate the racist policies we oppose. The policies don't just occur in nature. People that advocate racist policies demonize themselves. To not be willing to oppose them is to let them persist in the practice and continue to let them get votes by falsely calling us racist.

Pilgrim, if a person practices racism, then they must be called out. The GOP must treat DEMS like adults rather than indulge them like weak parents afraid of their own unruly children. The dems go into black neighborhoods and slander us up and down as racists. And we smile about the playing of the race card an say things like, "Well that's politics" or "Well, he shouldn't say that" or the aggressive.. "that's just flat wrong."

We come across like sissies and lose votes.

And then Hoyer calls one of ours a "slavish token" and we shouldn't denounce him?

Sorry man, I don't live in that world. Hoyer insulted Steele with impunity, with no consequence. No sir. It is wrong to not defend your own. It is wrong to treat a man the same no matter what he says and does. Good character should be honored by denouncing bad character.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Bush 41 and Clinton.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Its just that the DEM-MSM party falsely called Lott a racist and the GOP made him step down. And here is Hoyer making a blatently racist statement and nary a word is heard. Thats not right.

more later
you make some good points

ps

Allen was wrong to imply that about Webb. What he should have pounded was the insults webb leveled against reagan when he quit as Navy sec and then tried to make it seem Reagan was endorsing him post-humously with a campaign ad film.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

come around, what with being a pilgrim on the way to devine gamecock nirvana! smile

but seriously

plus, I love TCM, incl Jimmy Stewart and the Duke
Love Gary Cooper too
Clint

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

At the highest levels. Everyone here at the grassroots on RedState did their best. Did anyone in the Administration ever talk favorably of Steele? Did Rush Limbaugh talk favorably of Steele?

soundbites from Steele's commercials and TV debates all the time.

There was no GOP failure in this race. This was Maryland. Deep Blue Lib state. Government employee lib state. Union state.

Steele lost by 10 points despite a great campaign against a dud. ok

Plus this was a 6th year election. The odds were just stacked again st him.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

in the aftermath the Republicans had an opportunity to promote a new star, Michael Steele, as the new RNC chair. IMO they abandoned him because he disagreed with President Bush on immigration. Both Mel Martinez and Mitch McConnell support the President's immigration.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I just don't blame Bush and the GOP for slighting Steele's campaign for the Senate. As you know, I do blame them for not citing Hoyer's racist comment when he announced for Dem Leader. But you know, Now that I think about it, it may have helped if more noise had been made about Hoyer's comment by the WH and GOP during the campaign. I know that they did denounce Hoyer's statement at the time.

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

. . . that becoming RNC Chair at this point would be a setback to Steele's electoral prospects in Maryland. He needs to run as a maverick, independent-minded, Republican if he is ever to win there, which he may yet.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net