Clintons Fight to Keep Control of Plantation and Kitchen

By Erick Posted in Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It's not enough that the Clintons seem on a mission to make sure black voters do not overrun and take over the Democrat Plantation. Speaking out of one side of their mouths, the Clintons and their supporters are quietly telling Hispanic voters how bad it would be for them if they let a black man lord over the Democratic household. Out of the other side of their mouths, they are telling black voters how much they should appreciate what their masters in the Democrat party have done for them.

Look, for example, at the Bushies: they put the second black man on the Supreme Court, gave us the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave us the first black Secretary of State, the first black female Secretary of State, the first black National Security Advisor, the most diverse Presidential administration ever, and the list goes on.

But that's nothing. Clinton *was* the first black President. And he reformed welfare . . . oh . . . wait.

In any event, the Clintons are desperate to maintain control of their plantation. And as it just so happens, they are losing control of the kitchen too. The "working poor," minorities, and women who work in casinos in Las Vegas have wanted caucuses set up in their casinos. They cannot afford to skip work and go home to their precincts of residence. The Nevada Democratic Party agreed. What have the Clintons done? They have sued by proxy, using the teachers union as a plaintiff so they can maintain plausible deniability.

D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, criticized the lawsuit as “despicable” and “disgusting.”

“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state,” Mr. Taylor said. “I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign.

“If there’s not a renouncing of it,” he added, “then there’s an agreement with it.”

The Clintons, of course, have not denounced the lawsuit.

Ain't it grand to finally see the offspring of class warfare and racial/identity politics coming home to roost in the Democratic Party?

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Did they mean to call it that?Comments (4) »
Clintons Fight to Keep Control of Plantation and Kitchen 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

about the lie that Republican's are racist....the truth is the Democrat Party has been and will be the party of hatred.

I am taking extreme pleasure in seeing the truth trickle out a little a must be slow water torture for those who thought they knew who the enemy find out who it really is. The mask has slipped to far to put it back on the face. The race hustlers Sharpton and Jackson must be dying inside...they have worked so hard to keep their people down and the people are seeing what they have gotten them.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Yes, the Bush administration deserves praise for picking a very diverse and glass ceiling shattering cabinet - and qualified folks as well.

But the GOP still has a very long ways to go on getting minorities (espcially african americans) ELECTED - especially to federal office. I don't know how we can appeal to african americans when they point to our reps and scream "Where are the african americans."

And we don't do much better with latinos. It's difficult confronting racial bias claims of the left when our recruiting of minorities to run for federal office does not improve. Yes, guys like Michael Powell are excellent candidates even if they don't win - but we need to do better.

...oh, right. They aren't nice.

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====

I notice the MSM isn't covering this any better than they cover any other dirty Clinton deal over the last 16 year. Hopefully these folks will open their eyes and see them for who they really are.

deal out of this until they can see for a fact that Hillary-Bill won't be getting their double coronation. I expect lots of long knives to be whipped out if Obama is the one and then it will be a free for all as to who can carve up the Clintons the fastest.

and no surprise. The Democrats play the tune but they don't really want to dance the dance.
Hillary has a foul mouth and and has been known to surround her profanities with ethnic slurs. Strictly speaking however she may not be racist due to the fact that she hates everybody.

I read somewhere that Bill had a close encounter with a African-American women so there is a toleration and acceptance of sorts in his case, open mind, open zipper, you might say.

Quite a pair, but against their wills and out of a semblance of shame, usually unknown to these two psychopaths, they may use their malign influence in a reversal of the situation.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I wonder why the media doesn't add to the MLK debate the fact that the Democrats filibustered the civil rights act, led by none other than Byrd. If it weren't for Republicans there would be no civil rights act.

Looks like the institutional racism in the Democrat party has come home to roost.

Maybe I'm too young to remember, but if the GOP was more responsible then the Dems for getting the Civil Rights Act passed - then why did the southern Dixiecrats who hated the Civil Rights Act so much run to the GOP just a few short years after it was passed?

what else was going on around that time?

It's such a convenient bunch of MSM know-fact nonsense that previously democratic voters in the south became Republicans because the democratic party embraced civil rights.

No, those white southern democrats didn't leave the party, the party left them to align itself with a bunch of Communist sympathizing hippie agitators who cheered when South Vietnam fell, spit on vets, threw rocks, bottles and bags of s*** at police officers at the '68 convention, and generally bought into the myth that Capitalist America was the true global villian.

The CRA passed in '64, the VRA in '65, actually more important politically. The South largely stayed with the Ds in '64. They resurrected the "Dixiecrat" in Wallace in '68 or '72 - i was a college student and more than a little detached from reality during that time, and I'm working mostly from memory. '72 was the McGovern year and I don't think it counts. The Ds held on in '76 mostly because Carter was a Southerner. It wasn't until '80 and Reagan that The South became truly R in Presidential politics and by that time, the Democrat Party that Southerners had adhered to for a century was unrecognizable. Many, many Southerners, myself included, made the same journey Zell Miller describes, though, unlike Miller, we renounced the now wholly leftist party altogether. I don't deny that Goldwater's opposition to the CRA was the basis for some, maybe a lot, of his support in The South in '64, but if by Nixon's run there was a Southern Strategy based on race, it didn't work very well because The South was more attracted to the genuine article in the form of third parties that served the racism pretty much straight, though carefully couched in codewords. Few of the old boys of the Segregation Now, Segregation Forever era were around or lucid by the time The South turned solidly Republican in the '90s.

The meme "The Dixiecrats Became Rethuglicans" meme that the Left so loves simply isn't true though if one knows little enough one can make an argument on correlation rather than causation along the lines of:
All Southerners are racists,
All Southerners were Democrats,
All Southerners are now Republicans,
Therefore, All Republicans are racists.

Leaves out a few things, doncha think?

In Vino Veritas

Barry Goldwater was in the minority in his party. Republicans were in favor of sticking it to Jim Crow, even if it mean violating the Constitution. Goldwater, however, said that tradeoff wasn't worth it, so he personally voted against the CRA.

So when given a choice between pro-CRA Johnson and "anti"-CRA Goldwater, the Democratic establishment in the South voted Goldwater.

Basically this was a case of some racists taking a pro-Constitution message and miscontruing it as pro-Jim Crow.

HTML Help for Red Staters

How did the GOP violate the Constitution by "sticking it" to the South over its Jim Crow laws?

I think portions of the Civil Rights Act are, to be generous, a stretch of the Interstate Commerce clause. Likewise the Voting Rights Act has portions that are Constitution-busting.

It's all well-intentioned but just a violation of the federalist prohibitions on the Congress set in the Constitution.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I though they were the basis of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

If not, what portions of either were based on interstate commerce?

They go far beyond demanding that the Congress and the States treat citizens equally. Consider the parts of the CRA related to employment and privately held establishments open to the public.

Or point to me where the Congress has the right to give the DoJ veto power over a state's own districting. That strikes at the core of the federalist principles of the Constitution.

HTML Help for Red Staters

1. Employment: Do not understand how a company can legally only hire whites or Christians? Equal protection.

2. Private Establishments: If it's a closed club then fine - freedom of association even if it is whites or blacks only. If it accepts business from the general public or federal fundas then it does not have the right to discriminate.

3. Districting: If the effort is to minimize minority representation and the district is clearly intended to herd all the blacks into the same district then I can understand it. I'm mostly conservative on this. States should have a VERY WIDE latitude to district as they wish. But it is not EXCLUSIVE POWER.

1. The words "equal protection" have a context. I urge you to look it up so you understand what they mean. They aren't just a magic catch-all.

2. Where does the Constitution grant the Congress the authority to force businesses that open to the public to serve anyone?

3. Likewise, where does the Constitution grant the Congress some authority over districting, let alone give the feds veto power over districts?

HTML Help for Red Staters

the arguments you heard most in The South - I grew up in Georgia during this time - was that the '64 law was a Constitutionally impermissible intrusion into the rights of freedom of association as well as an exercise of power not expressly delegated to the US - the reason the 10 Am. fell out of favor for a generation.

Much of The South got around the law, still does today, with all sorts of private clubs that de facto restrict their membership to White Only with a little allowance for Blacks who are well liked or who carry a football very, very well.

In Vino Veritas

The Democrats are reaping the whirlwind of decades of evasion and hiding behind petty identity politics. All those black voters who were on the fence about leaving the Democrat party now have the straw and the camel with a serious back problem. Make no mistake, if the Dems don't get a handle on this ASAP they are in deep trouble. If they lose just 10 of 15 percent of the black vote they are looking at serious defeats in November and beyond.

Sooner or later, justice happens.

Soldiers' Angels

While offensive, I am sure, to many, could not be more appropriate.

The first thing I thought when I heard Hillary's comment about MLK and LBJ was, "When will African Americans get away from these people and off the plantation?".

And he said when the GOP calls off the drug war which imprisons such a disproportionate share of african americans for longer sentances then whites (see crack sentancing laws).

Plus, he added, if the GOP conservatives despise big government so much then why continue to fund and fight a federal drug war that has proven to be unwinnable and cost so such and bloated the federal government and criminal justice system.

...pushing for an end to it themselves? :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And he said they don't have the political testicles to do it since they would be painted as "weak on crime" by the GOP - which is probably true.

And he also said that it was the GOP that created the war on drugs so the burden is on them to end it.

...that he shouldn't be using "they"; he should be using "we". And that if he's not prepared to fight for what he thinks is right, why should we fight for what he thinks is right?

Or not: you might like him, aside from this nonsense. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I know MANY conservatives who think the drug war is a total loser and just another big government project that has failed.

I agree with you in the sense that conservatives should fight for what we believe is right and not because of what a liberal thinks is right or willing to fight for.

What is your view Moe? Is the drug war a failed big government project or not?

...and if it wasn't, say, eighth or ninth on my list of Political Issues That Moe Worries About I'd probably pontificate more about it. Then again, said pontificating would be limited to calling to decriminalize maryjane and stop going after mere possession of junk, so there you go.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's because they are terrified of being painted as "soft on crime".

Imagine, if you will, (insert Democratic nominee here) getting up behind a podium and saying "We have sunk too much money, imprisoned too many otherwise harmless people, and left too many pain sufferrers out in the wilderness. We need to rethink our drug policy in terms of what happened with Prohibition in the 1920's."

Can you imagine what might be said about this (sadly hypothetical) candidate?

"So-and-so hates children."
"So-and-so hates democracy, these laws were made by representatives who were elected by The People!"
"So-and-so obviously wants to use drugs."
"Anyone who supports So-and-so wants to use drugs."

I've heard it said that only a Democrat could sign Welfare Reform into law. I suspect that only a Republican could sign a bill rethinking Drug policy into law.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But since there is nothing to be gained politically for the GOP I don't see it happening any time soon - which is different from welfare because there was a fairly broad consensus, even among moderate Dems, that welfare needed serious reform.

Perhaps a deal can be reached. Something along the lines of the Dems agreeing to the creation of private SS accounts in exchange for ending the federal drug war (or at least the war against marijuana which there is a fairly broad based support in this country to decriminalize and tax).

But since there is nothing to be gained politically for the GOP I don't see it happening any time soon - which is different from welfare because there was a fairly broad consensus, even among moderate Dems, that welfare needed serious reform.

Perhaps a deal can be reached. Something along the lines of the Dems agreeing to the creation of private SS accounts in exchange for ending the federal drug war (or at least the war against marijuana which there is a fairly broad based support in this country to decriminalize and tax).

Not to stand up for them, but I'd guess the reason that Democrats don't push for an end to the War on Drugs is that it's a 'only Nixon can go to China'-type issue. Dems fear being labelled soft on crime. Unfortunately, I don't think the War on Drugs will be ended any time soon unless a Republican with enough foresight does it.

Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

In the time it took me to type that, two other people posted basically the same thing. Heh.

Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Black Americans are tired of the patronizing, entitled attitude the Democrats have always had towards them and their votes.

What could this mean for Republicans? Read on:

On Life and Lybberty @

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service