Democrats: The Party of the Klan?

By Erick Posted in Comments (108) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Robert C. ByrdDemocrats always accuse evangelicals of projection. If a Republican is upset over gay rights, it is probably because that Republican is a closet homosexual.

Maybe we need to start thinking the same way about the Democrats.

They are always claiming that Republicans are racist, but it is looking more and more like the Democratic Party, to its core foundation, is racist.

In New Hampshire, white Democrats turned out overwhelming to reject the uppity black man who dared to challenge the Democratic establishment.

In South Carolina tonight, Democratic voters would rather vote for the rich, Southern, white man than either the black man or the female yankee.

In fact, exit polling by and large shows that John Edwards, by staying in the race, is taking votes that would otherwise typically go to Barack Obama. Is this a racist ploy? Is John Edwards in league with the Clintons to make sure white voters, who don't want to vote for Clinton, have a white alternative to go to, lest Barack Obama get more traction?

And what of the Clintons? Bill is out comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. In fact, the Clintons have made race a sport in this primary election. They are reminding white Democratic voters that Barack Obama is black.

How can that tactic work? It seems it can only work if Democrat voters are, in fact, racist.

The party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, appears to still be the party of the Klan. Robert Byrd must be pleased.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | South Carolina Results Open ThreadComments (120) »
Democrats: The Party of the Klan? 108 Comments (0 topical, 108 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Obama is going to force the Democrats to face the unpleasant truths about themselves.

They are a party with only a shared desire for power and a mutual repugnance amongst all the interest groups that make up their coalition. Neither Hillary nor Obama can get the nomination without alienating at least one major block in the party.

The fact that a nonentity like Edwards is doing this well is just confirmation. His vote is best looked at as the will not vote for either contingent.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

needed in your title, Erick.

The Dems have proven themselves willing to kill the candidacies of Black contenders (see, e.g., how they lined up against Jackson in '88).

They're even willing to engage in Orwellian doublespeak to convince themselves of their own diversity while having next-to-none (see, e.g., the repeated reference to Bill, the whitest man on God's good earth, as our "first Black president").

By contrast the Party of Lincoln has quietly changed the game by having two African-Americans serve as Secretaries of State over the past seven + years, which is a remarkable step towards achieving the dream of Martin Luther King.

Thanks for the post.

..."Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." - Malcolm Forbes...

"For their own good mentality"

It's the same tune, just with different musicians and instruments

The SC results don't exactly reflect this. With 99% of precincts reporting:

"Nearly complete returns showed Obama winning 55 percent of the vote, Clinton gaining 27 percent. Edwards had 18 percent and won only his home county of Oconee."

Which looks like an Obama landslide to me.

"About half the voters were black, according to polling place interviews, and four out of five of them supported Obama. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got about a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina split the rest."

I'm sure that there are some unreconstructed racists in the Democratic party. But generally, no.

Now, as a certified lefty, I don't like Hillary, and I don't like the way in which the Clintons have been campaigning. Though no doubt I'd hold my nose for her in November, as it seems very unlikely that y'all are going to nominate Rudy.

If 75% of 'white' voters went with the 'white' candidate[s], and 80% of 'black' voters went with the 'black' candidate, then that sounds pretty conclusive to me. The Democratic party has a systemic problem of bias.

HTML Help for Red Staters

1 got 40, 1 got 35, and 1 got 25 among the white voters. This is a fairly even split amongst 3 candidates to choose from.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

one could make that conclusion, and I have long argued that dem whites are MUCH more likely to reject a black candidate that repub whites, and that their race based policies since 1968 are racist, but that is not what tonight is about.

Blacks in the dem party have proven they will vote for whites ad nauseum. Its whites that regularly deny them that opportunity.

But tonight is a victory within that party. Three candidates remember and compare to Jackson vs Obama.

The 25% of whites that voted for Obama defied the Clinton strategy against an all out Bill Clinton 24/7 assault and a native son. Plus, blacks went for Obama after Iowa in the polls and there are MANY great reasons for black dems to prefer Obama over hill of John.

It is racist to assume racism from the breakdown. Having lived in that state and party for my whole life till 2000, I can tell you this was huge.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Considering the Democratic party is the party of institutionalized racism through affirmative action, set asides, quotas, Voting Rights Act gerrymandering, and what have you, and these people are themselves constantly saying that "race is always an issue in America," I'm just taking them at their word.

HTML Help for Red Staters

son. CASE CLOSED. One of four in a three person race.

We agree on what you said about the party. What I am focusing on are South Carolinians. My people, not the Uncle Bills and Bill, whose strategy failed tonight. They expected to keep Obama at 10-15% of the white vote.

All this bodes well for the GOP. The Dem Party alienated BLACKS AND MANY WHITES tonight, as evidenced by the 25%. They may have blown the lection in the fall tonight.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

The same thing was said about New Hampshire after the primary, you know, and about New York when polls showed that 'blacks' are the only subset of the party backing Obama over Clinton. We're not playing the stereotype of the south.

HTML Help for Red Staters

the lie was refuted. You can't relate. Its not about what you say or anyone at Redstate says. Its about what happened. Its about 25% of whites going for Obama in defiance of the party leaders. Its about many blacks waiting to back Obama till he won Iowa. Its about 2008 vs Jackson and Sharpton.

Resting easy now, 5 minutes ago, 5 hours ago, 5 days ago, and into infinity!


Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

In a 3 person race where the split is 55-27-18 (Obama-Clinton-Edwards) it is nonsense to argue that the white vote breaking 20-40-40 (approximate isn't people voting their race.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

invitation. Blacks voting against whites playing race war against them is not voting "race". Its voting rational.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

"it is nonsense to argue that the white vote breaking 20-40-40...isn't people voting their race."

Sorry, but you'd have to have some evidence that the reason the breakdown was 20-40-40 was because people voted their race.

This was an election pitting a relatively new face (Obama) against a well-established candidate who just happens to be married to a former president and a man who was born in South Carolina, represented North Carolina, and won the SC primary in 2004.

The need to demonize the Democrats ought to be limited to issues on which you have actual evidence. In this case, the numbers look more like the result of an African American man exceeding reasonable expectations against stiff odds than a case of racism.

(Note: in the end it was more like 24-36-40, further weakening your argument.)

And trying to argue African American racism would be ridiculous. After more than two centuries who could blame an African American for voting (even if it's an emotional rather than a rational vote) for Barack Obama over Clinton or Edwards. Actually, that sounds rational to me. It seems to me that more than a few Redstate loyalists (and other conservatives) have already opined that they would rather have Obama win (the eleciton, not just the nomination) than Clinton with Edwards being dismissed as having no chance to win.

"liberals" will be facing front and center...I find this entire race on the Democrat side to entertaining...I cannot fathom black voters consistantly giving the racist party a block vote each and every election....this is going to change that in ways we will not see until after the primaries...good time to remind all Democrat voters to take a look at the better party...the conservative one.

It was Republicans that put forth Clarence Thomas as well....the best conservative justice ever as far as I am concerned.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

...Democrats being the racists is that the argument is being made here by people who are in all likelihood mostly conservative whites and apparently most African Americans don't agree.

So, a question worth asking might be, if it's really the Democrats who are the racists, why have Republicans (and/or conservatives) done such a poor job of convincing African Americans of that reality?

"It was Republicans that put forth Clarence Thomas as well....the best conservative justice ever as far as I am concerned."

Since you are undoubtedly conservative, it seems reasonable that one could interpret your statement as meaning: Clarence Thomas is the best justice ever.

If that's the case, it seems very unlikely that very many African Americans agree with you.

Clearly, if the Democrats are really the racists then how can Republicans convince African Americans that their perceptions are 180 out?

It seems inescapable that Republican or conservative candidates would do a lot better among African Americans -- and there would be a lot more Republican African American candidates, too -- if this "misperception" could be corrected.

If Republican candidates could cut into overwhelming African American majorities for Dems, they'd win a lot more elections.

The superiority complex white liberals have toward minorities exists in France as well. It took an election in France of a conservative President to get minorities appointed to Cabinet posts. The liberals just wanted to look on them as an inferiors who deserved to be pitied and only survive via welfare state. I wrote a blog on it today.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Birds of a feather and all that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I recall a CSAN-televised town hall that Rep Chris Shays (D-CT) held during the Iraq War. It seemed that most of the disgruntled people in the audience were upset the most because we'd dissed and alienated France in the runup to the war.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

also have a love afair with Margret Sanger, the woman who advocated negative eugenics, which is racist to its core.

There are a good number of leftists around the world who have this attitude.

However it is not just the "minority" groups that they feel this superiority to. They look down on the average "non minority" person as well.

As well as what Pilgrim wrote; having racial division and victimisation; then blaming the rest for causing it, is a useful tactic to gain or keep power.

You make many good points in this diary, but I wish you hadn't chosen the title that goes with it. Of course the Democrats are not the party of the Klan, anymore than the GOP is. The Klan is a despicable, racist, terrorist organization that almost all Americans totally reject.

As for the Clintons, I think you are quite right in suggesting that they have been using race to their own advantage in this election. Although, it's hard to say that the guy who just won 80% of the black vote in SC didn't also benefit from racial politics.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

... not the whole party.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

There's no other rational explanation for Bill and Hill's alienation of blacks within their own party. Use of the term "spadework", defiant defense of the title "first black President", and Hill's explanation of how irrelevant MLK was without LBJ. These are not uncalculated moves to gain votes at the certain risk of losing black votes. Why would they take such risks unless they know that the majority of their own party is not only white, but racist as well.

Remember, this is a party in which Joe Biden got flamed for calling Barack Obama "articulate." If Dems expect their leaders to be finely tuned into the many and varied hyper-sensitivities of their party's Balkanized interest politics groups, then HRC must have known that "spadework" would be viewed as a loaded phrase. Yet, the Clintons used it.

Are they politically tone-deaf? Doubt it. Calculating? That sounds more likely.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Politics is dirty business, so when I hear attacks from any side to any side, I get real skeptical. I also know how easy it is to twist something innocent into sounding racist. For example, there's a danger when you start to become color blind when it comes to friends. You can get too relaxed and somethng "wrong" slips out, like referring to one of them as boy -- a term that when said between white friends is no big deal, but said to a black one is horrible -- and I understand why. Does that make me a racist? I certainly don't think so but can understand why a casual observer would think so.

So with that in mind, I was willing to give passes on the following:

  • spadework: It's just a word, maybe an unfortunate choice, but still, just a word. It has to be dissected to be racist and it's all about context and intent. I assumed this was innocent and being distorted for political gain.
  • First Black President: I find that a bit insulting but it's not a term Clinton made up. I'm pretty sure others pegged that on him. For him to run with it is a bit rude, but I was willing to let that slide.
  • MLK needing LBJ: Come on, that's just the truth. MLK pushed for change, but change would not have happened without a supportive President. How does this fact diminish any of the great thinks Dr. King has done?

However, comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson just was too much. Obama is nothing like Jackson except they are both Democrats and Black. This clinched it for me that Clinton is making this about race and hence I have to go back and re-evaluate my original "benefits of the doubt" on the other items.

The point is that the libs have spent years have spent years playing the race card, trying to paint every innocent GOP remark as proof of racism. Now it's coming back to bite them. Do you think the libs would have been willing to give a pass to a Republican who said something about spade work? Heck, if someone on the right had compared Obama to Jackson, we'd no doubt be hearing that he must believe that "they all look alike". There's kind of a delicious pleasure in seeing the Dems endless race war against the GOP becoming a Dem civil war - and I hope it gets less civil to tell you the truth.

I'm not one to say it's OK to do it because they do it -- I do try to stay away from that -- but I must admit I am enjoying it all coming back to bite them. You're certainly right that if a Republican said that same remark, there'd be an outcry. I'm sure you'd have Reid and Pelosi trying to pass a resolution demanding a full apology to the American people for the remark as well.

When is the last time you either used or heard someone else use the term "spadework"? But suddenly, within 14 days of the SC primaries, Hillary and Maddy Albright speaking as one of Hillary's campaing reps both used the term.

That is no accidental slip of the tongue or language insensitivity for something said frequently or casually. It was calculated.


I dunno, maybe lots of Democrats are racists. But to say the white ones in NH "turned out overwhelming [sic] to reject the uppity black man" is a little nutty. The uppity black guy only lost by 3 percentage points, and he would have won if Hillary hadn't tugged at her sisters' hearts with that teary complaint about the public's refusal to see her wonderfulness. Anyway, don't blame New Hampshire.

polling in NH had Obama winning by double digits. The polls called the Republican primary accurately. This has led to the contention that a lot of white Dem voters would lie to pollsters about who they would vote for.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The Democrat position has grown into one of labeling, and stereotyping, and pigeon-holing people. Not just on race, but on any category where they can divide people. And while I do think we should call them on it, I think it's more important that conservatives strictly avoid doing so ourselves.

Which is why I've never really cared for the name of this site. :(

...and Hillary got 20% of the black vote.

It seems balanced to me.

supposed alienation of African American's. THe bigger question is how overwhelmingly African American's are moving to Obama. As deeply as Bill and Hillary have been involved in Black politics for years it seems to be to be an overwhelming racial move by African American's rather than whites.

of them. Who can blame black dems for not voting for their masters! The victory is that 25% of whites split from them.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

if Obama was capped at 25% of the white vote the rest of the way, because he will not get the nomination that way. While I agree with your main point that its refreshing to see 1 in 4 stick it to the politics of race baiting, the Clintons can still win nationally with these numbers.

McCain '08

In South Carolina tonight, Democratic voters would rather vote for the rich, Southern, white man than either the black man or the female yankee.

Could it just be that the rich, Southern, white man was the favorite son candidate?

...with the Fred Thompson vote in most states and used THAT to judge the Republican party what would THAT be saying. (It would be saying NOTHING because, of course, its a rediculous premise.) is about race (and the Iowa results should indicate that), but to imply racism because EVERYBODY didn't go for the "black" guy (especially when that same "black" guy has WON half the contests and leads in the elected delgate count).

So in South Carolina, Obama WON the White vote under thirty and SPLIT with Hillary the entire white male vote. In Iowa he WON the white vote.

This is... this blog is... funny.

'Black 18-29' 8%: Obama 77, Clinton 21, Edwards 2
'Black 30-44' 17%: Obama 82, Clinton 17, Edwards 2
'Black 45-59' 19%: Obama 79, Clinton 18, Edwards 3
'Black 60+' 10%: Obama 73, Clinton 23, Edwards 4
'Non-Black 18-29' 5%: Obama 52, Clinton 27, Edwards 21
'Non-Black 30-44' 9%: Edwards 41, Clinton 34, Obama 25
'Non-Black 45-59' 15%: Edwards 40, Clinton 37, Obama 23
'Non-Black 60+' 16%: Edwards 42, Clinton 42, Obama 15

'Non-Black 18-29' is 5% of the vote here, and 11% of the 'non-black' electorate. It's a real reach to hold that up as useful.

Obama finished in third in every other 'Non-Black' category.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Has the presence of John Edwards escaped your notice ?

If this wasn't hitting home why the obvious error ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...with this game, because its too silly to regard seriously.

There are three candidates with three sets of ideas and styles.

Therefor if you choose race as the ONLY reason for voting for someone... that's your issue, not mine.

Objectively more Democrats have voted for an African-American in this race than have voted for ANY of the Republican candidates.

There's a word for people who start something, then back off before they finish it: quitter

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Does Hillary really need the black vote to win?

"Bill Clinton suggested that Obama's victory was an indicator of black support and not of real strength." (quote from an AP reporter)

I realize that quote above is simply a reporter's interpretation of something Bill Clinton said, but the perception is there that the Clinton's may not believe that they need the black vote to win.

South Carolina's always been different demographically. It goes back to slavery days actually. South Carolinian plantations had much higher numbers of slaves, following a pattern of behavior more like Caribbean slavery than anything seen in the rest of the US.

HTML Help for Red Staters

It will drop the automatic dem turnout significantly if they just don't show up. If they vote republican it kills her.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The title, but if Erick wants to title it thus, it's his site. I do believe that the recent machinations, especially by attack dog Bill, lay bare the racist tendancies of many in the democrat/liberal leadership. Until now it's just been the "soft bigotry of low expectations" & expected dependence; with the racial attacks against Obama, more people black & white are seeing this.

In a time of war, Americans will reject the least experienced candidate since Dan Quayle.

I feel like I have to apologize to Mr. Quayle over that remark. He'd been a senator for twice as long as B.O. when he was selected as Bush's running mate.

B.O. needs a little more "seasoning", as Senator Lieberman would say, before he starts thinking about the presidency.

What's more, Romney or McCain could beat B.O. in at least 35 states. B.O. would shift Wisconsin, Michigan, and probably a few other states to the red column.

No way would Florida or Ohio voters roll the dice by putting a rookie in charge when our enemies are plotting to kill us.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

They'll just call a vote at the DNC, and darned if they don't vote to seat the delegates.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The Republican party has ideological dividing lines between the more narrowly defined conservative factions and the more moderate factions. The Dems are racial/gender narrow special interest group tinder box ready to go off given one good spark.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

By the time of the convention, I'm sure the Dems' mantra will be "Just win, baby." And, if Team HRC tells the rest of the party---and the MSM---that NOT seating the Florida and Michigan delegations might make it harder to win those states in November, I'll bet the party will go along.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I think his near complete lack of a record helps him rather than hurting him. We can't attack him the way we attacked Kerry.

HTML Help for Red Staters


I'm an Independent who is wondering what in the world are you smoking? First, Obama won a smashing Democratic primary victory in Iowa, where the electorate is 99.8% white. That fact alone puts to rest your contention that the Democratic party is racially motivated.

You also make the ridiculous assertion that "in New Hampshire, white Democrats turned out overwhelming to reject the uppity black man who dared to challenge the Democratic establishment."

Erick, Obama in fact finished an eyelash behind Clinton in NH, an overwhelmingly white state which was long supposed to be a slam-dunk for her campaign. And he came out of NH with as many delegates as she did.

Further, you state that, "In South Carolina tonight, Democratic voters would rather vote for the rich, Southern, white man than either the black man or the female yankee." How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Democratic voters turned in record numbers (500,000+) to give Obama a thunderous win. He clobbered the rich, southern white man in his own home state.

Trying to paint the Democratic Party as some sort of racist institution is such a far reach that Red State ought to be ashamed to post such rubbish on these pages. 85% of African-Americans are registered Democrats; do you think they are all stupid enough to cast their votes for a party with a racist agenda?

Finally, how many people of color or women do you see in the GOP Presidential field? None is the answer. A bunch of cranky old white guys.


Apparently Kos assigned you the early-morning Sunday shift. What, did you anger him? Or Amanda Marcotte, perhaps? Or, are you just the junior guy on duty for the lefty bloggers tonight.

Democratic voters turned in record numbers (500,000+) to give Obama a thunderous win

Yeah...real objective writing there. Did you type this with one hand? (With the other clenched in a "Power to the People" salute?) If so, your typing hand must be tired.

Good morning! :)

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Truly a fatuous response to old grizzly's comments.

Invoking the name of Kos as a substitute for intelligent discussion is embarrassing.

Smagar, maybe Obama's victory wasn't "thunderous." All you have to do is demonstrate without calling names, demonizing, or being snarky, why what old grizzly wrote wasn't objective.

Certainly the alternative construction -- Obama eked out a victory in an election with light turnout -- isn't remotely objective or even arguably true.

Obama got about as many votes as were cast in 2004 for every Dem candidate. That's quite an accomplishment, no matter how one feels about the candidate, the party, or the state.

In one of Wallace's races, he and his staff determined that the African American vote in Alabama would most likely go to his opponent. So, they took a direct path to galvanizing the white vote to Wallace.

As the documentary reported it, Wallace supporters gathered outside the polling places, and kept repeating to white voters entering the polls, "Remember you're white."


"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

the flat-out stupidest thing I've ever seen on this site, it's certainly up there.
Don't MAKE me exhume Strom Thurmond.

Of course the Democrats/Liberals are racists and every other divisive thing you can imagine. It's their only way to make an argument. Conservatives wouldn't dare make comparisons because we are the thought process of true equality.

But Dems NEED Racism, so they can tell us how they are going to FIX racism. (And thereby they HAVE to enforce Affirmative Action which just keps drawing lines of distinction.)

Dems NEED Sexism, so they can tell us how they are going to fix it. (And thereby support things like MWOB government contract priorities, support gay/lesbian affirmation programs, Title 9 in schools, etc, etc.)

Dems NEED Class warfare, so they can tell us how they will fix it. (And thereby, create more and more regressive tax stuctures to right the perceived wrong.)

As a conservative, I couldn't care less about any lines you draw about anybody. I want an educated, responsible, contributing human beings who will work for a living, pay taxes and be productive members of my community.

But my ideas are very un-sexy. I can't turn to a group like Hispanics and say "Yes, my government plan will lift you up." My government plan is to treat you with equality so that you can compete just like any other group. Affirmative Action? I can't even tell what race you belong to, I'm so color blind - if you have a resume and want to work - I probably have a job for you. Why does my government or any other agency care whether I am of African descent, Asian descent, European descent or Australian descent? (Notice: all continents - you made the inference, not me.)

Only the Liberal Media and the Democratic Party are telling me the way Blacks vote and Women vote - why? Why are they separating us like that - aren't we all just American voters?
Hypocrites - look up the word and then realize that Dems/Libs are the very definition of the term.

Please explain the Southern Strategy.

The former is bad, the latter is good. And when he, like Hannity, waste time with the sound bite attack against "KKK" Byrd, we forego opportunities to point out the invidious race-based policies that ALL liberal Dems, incl Byrd, have advocated for 40 years that have hurt Blacks and America.

We look small when we dredge up a man's distant, distant past in this personal way. Its lane and its ineffective.

Former klansmen are the kind of klansmen we want!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Byrd won't even admit he was in a terrorist group and apologize for it. He still claims it was just a reasonable thing to do.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Byrd & Co DO NOW, rather than suggesting that the problem is what he did 60 years ago. The "& Co" is harming Blacks NOW.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

when its just one man, its kind of a waste. But if you have links to quotes of what he has said recently that joining the Klan was reasonable even in retrospect, send it on. That he left the Klan seems more significant to me.

We have so much that Byrd, and, significantly, his PARTY have said and done in public since 1968-yesterday, that can be shown to have harmed Blacks and America, that it seems we should use precious airtime to point all that out rather than get laughs about "KKK" alliterations about an old man.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Quoting the Washington Post:

The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.

His latest account is consistent with others he has offered over the years that tend to minimize his direct involvement with the Klan and explain it as a youthful indiscretion. "My only explanation for the entire episode is that I was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions," Byrd wrote.

While Byrd provides the most detailed description of his early involvement with the Klan, conceding that he reflected "the fears and prejudices I had heard throughout my boyhood," the account is not complete. He does not acknowledge the full length of time he spent as a Klan organizer and advocate. Nor does he make any mention of a particularly incendiary letter he wrote in 1945 complaining about efforts to integrate the military.

HTML Help for Red Staters

My mother was both from the South and a racist, though she realized that the tide had turned against her and none of her children accepted or excused any of her views or reasoning.

She frequently excused what she and her family did and believed as simply agreeing with the accepted norms of her day. That is true, as far as it goes. What she never accepted was her responsibility to think for herself. As a result she simply remembered things in the light most favorable for herself. It's not right, but it's certainly not surprising.

As far as I know, there were no Klan members in her family. Go far enough back and there were slave owners as well as a signer of the Declaration of Independence. She was proud of one -- ignored the other.

It's pretty normal, when confronted with ugly facts about our own pasts, for human beings to pretend it was all really different than it appears now and people today just can't understand. After all, you had to be there.

I didn't buy it from my mother and I don't buy it from Byrd. But at some point people have to move on. It would be reasonable to not vote for Byrd because of his past. For anyone who finds his current politics agreeable, it would also be reasonable for them to forgive him.

Still, we'd all probably be better off if he retired. I'm too old to be ageist, but come on, 165 is old enough -- he's earned a rest.

not just The South, where in the Twenties through the Forties you simply could not be successful in politics without at least a nodding acquaintance with the Klan. In the Klan's heyday in the twenties and thirties, the largest membership was in Indiana.

The modern image is small, shadowy groups meeting furtively to plan attacks, but in those days they met openly and proudly and even had large marches on Washington. I'm not defending Byrd or the Klan; as an expatriate Southerner raised in the Jim Crow South, I know a LOT about the Klan, none of it good, but the actual history is much different from the modern mythology.

The original Klan was, in fact, an insurrectionist group in The South that used terror tactics at times against occupying Union troops and their Black allies. It was led in large part by former Confederate officers and widely believed to have been headed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, though he always denied it - and nobody believed him. That iteration of the Klan was disbanded when federal troops were removed from The South in 1877. The Klan was re-established in the Twenties by some doctor whose name escapes me and grew to immense size in those turbulent times on a combination of racism, nativism, anti-communism, anti-Semitism, and some more multi-purpose antis. It reached its zenith in the Thirties and had all but died away by the early fifties.

The modern image of the Klan arose in the wake of Brown v. The Board largely but not exclusively in The South. That iteration was indeed a terrorist organization, though far from all of its members were terrorists. It had immense political power, in the rural areas especially, in the deep South. It was extirpated as a political and terror force in the late Sixties and early Seventies by the federal government, and it can safely be said now that anyone who professes to be a Klansman is simply a nut.

In Vino Veritas

to dredge up Byrd's distant past rather than focus on his dem party's recent past?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

whenever the Ds go into their righteous mode on race, but as a general matter I agree with you. I don't think you could find anyone his age from The South or the rural Midwest in politics in those days who didn't have at least an understanding with the Klan and in lots of places you had to be a member to be successful politically. Old times there are best forgotten!

In Vino Veritas

Byrd wants, but what we should want, i.e. to defeat liberals. We do that by attacking Byrd & Co. for what they do now and have done since the late 60s, i.e. advance destructive race based policies.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

get to the other. Its all personal lazy ad nauseum "arguments" that mean nothing to people. So maybe "we", you can, but the on the ground WE are not making and have not been. Which is a major reason we aren't running Congress anymore.

There is limited airtime. Not enough time for the "Byrd KKK" line, the laughs and jokes and protestations that follow, and a meaningful attack against liberal race based policies

before the commercial break.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Red State is not Fox News Channel. We don't have limited airtime, nor do we have any ability to control what those jokers say.

Maybe they'd have time to cover the whole record of RCB if they spent less time talking about the latest fashionable crime, or less time 'analyzing' the news instead of reporting it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

highlight the dem party's race problem is not to call it the party of the Klan as evidenced by a man that has not been a memeber of same since the 50s, and even to target an organization that is quite tiny and irrelevant, as that cartoonish personal "argument" drowns out what follows and is rightly seen as irrelevant to peoples' lives now and can seem as gratuitously mean to an old man

but rather

we should point to the Dem's ongoing race based failed policies.

Redstate seems to be devolving a bit downward in seriousness lately, much like Fox News.

Its sad.

God has spoken to me and insisted that I stay here and write more, even if I am never paid, so as to save the Red non-communist soul in Redstate!


Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

...but would that really be the best use of their resources?

Even without the "fashionable crime" and news analysis there are only twenty-four hours in a day and I have to believe RCB's ancient Klan activities still don't fit in that time frame.

South Carolina had no Democratic Presidential Primary in either 1984 Nor 1988. Clinton’s statement has caused most people to believe that Jesse Jackson won presidential primaries in South Carolina in those years. Actually there were no Democratic presidential primaries in South Carolina in either of those years. Jackson’s success in that state was in caucuses (Jackson was born in South Carolina).

Huh. That's interesting if you are right about it. Got a link?

Anyhow, in defense of Clinton, I think his overall point was that Jackson did well in Southern States with large black populations, and that's true. Jackson won Georgia in '88 I know, which has a very similar makeup.

John Bolton for President

vote. Obama won 25% at least of same in a primary. So Clinton's analogy is fatally flawed. Obama is no Jackson.

Hillary is more monochrome in her support than Obama.

see my blog for links

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

If Obama had come in first and Hillary second, Erick's essay would be about sexism in the Democratic Party.

The fact that Obama is a front-runner and neck and neck with Hillary (another first in a presidential race) demonstrates the open-mindedness of Democrats and Americans. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates are all white, all male, all the time. So much for change on the Republican side.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So he did! (I'm late catching up on the news...)

Good for him. I'm not a Hillary fan (because she was a supporter of the Iraq war and has pandered to [LOOK AT ME I'M BIGOTED AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION] evangelicals on the right. I don't trust her.)

Personally, I couldn't care less about colour or sex. I just want to see the end of George Bush and neoconservative Republicans. Eight years of those [LOOK AT ME I'M A POTTYMOUTH] has been hell.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Enjoy this post.
[Oops, there goes another whiny re
Oops there goes another whiny retread]
Have fun banning me again! (as if I care)

I still don't know why we allow your so-called country to be independent.

In Vino Veritas

Hillary Clinton If Hillary wins the nomination African -Americans should vote for the GOP or at least abstain. The Clintons would pay a heavy price for a disgraceful campaign. Billary is working on the assumption that Blacks have short memories and that they will troop to the polls in November to support her if she is the Democratic Party nominee. In truth the Democrats are the Party of the Klan. Just imagine the outcry from Liberals if a GOP candidate injected racism into the campaign.

I think the premise of Erick's argument, based solely on the reasoning he employs, might be wrong.
He makes two points, first that "in New Hampshire, white Democrats turned out overwhelming to reject the uppity black man who dared to challenge the Democratic establishment." A look at the numbers shows that Obama received 36% of the white vote in NH, compared to Clinton's 39% and Edward's 17%. In what was basically a three person contest, Obama earned more than a third of the white vote, which clearly isn't an overwhelming rejection of an uppity black man. In a state that is 95% white, I think it's unfair to point to racial-line voting when a black candidate handily beats one white candidate and narrowly loses (2 percentage points) to the other white candidate.
Secondly, Erick says, "in South Carolina... Democratic voters would rather vote for the rich, Southern, white man than either the black man or the female yankee." This might be true, but no evidence is given to prove it. It might be equally as true (and likely much more provable) that Edwards did well among white voters in South Carolina simply because he is their native son. And the numbers support this. Obama received 24% of the white vote in SC. In a three person race, this hardly proves white people don't want to vote for him.
In the two primaries he's participated in, Obama has recieved about 145,000 white votes, compared to Clinton's 180,500 and Edwards' 134,000. If the "core" of the Democratic Party were racist, as the post claims, wouldn't all (or at least most) of the white vote that don't want to vote for Clinton naturally flow to Edwards? Yet, do these numbers lead anyone to conclude white Democrats are voting along racial lines? In a three person race, Obama has received about a third of the white vote and has more votes than one of the white candidates. Obama also won a caucus in a state with a 91% white population and came in a close second in a state with an 84% white population.
I could be wrong, and Erick could be totally right. But his lack of evidence and the fact that the numbers don't seem to support his claim give me confidence. Any thoughts?

Look, I’m a Canadian who closely follows the American political scene (both the left and right) due to the large impact it has both here in my country and the world in general. That said, I find it utterly ridiculous how poorly you understand the delegate system in your own country and then pass on this pseudo-understanding to your readership. I ask you; to whom are you serving by making your readers less informed? Is this not counterproductive no matter your political or ideological preference?

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

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