DEMOCRATS AND RACIAL POLITICS: FROM JIM CROW
TO BARACK OBAMABy Frances Rice
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history.
Click here to view the full article.
As many of you know, I'm a major advocate of getting more African-Americans to vote for conservative Republican candidates. The NBRA is a major force in making that happen. The following is my response to Frances Rice's piece:
Frances Rice's piece is outstanding, and it demonstrates why conservatives of any color need to fight the effort to keep Blacks in a state of political bondage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Bob Johnston, have determined that now is the time to "go negative." You are seeing subtle efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as not only the "female candidate," but also as the "white candidate."
But don't liberal Democrats "love Black people?" Not exactly. They love the votes more than they love the individuals who cast ballots. Four years later they show up, brag about a few short-term handouts, and ask (demand) the votes again.
Frances Rice mentions the slurs against Michael Steele, a great candidate and a wonderful man, and Condoleeza Rice. Similar slurs were made against Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann, candidate for governor in PA. In Swann's case, Gov. Ed Rendell (who supposed "loves" Black people) ran campaign ads -- in black-and-white -- that sought to portray Lynn as some sort of unsavory character out of an old Steppin Fetchitt movie. Gee, did anyone (besides me) call Rendell on this? Nope.
Yes, I am Caucasian, but I do understand how difficult it must be at time for Black conservatives to sustain their efforts. But it's absolutely essential to make sure that great candidates like Steele, Blackwell, and Swann ultimately prevail. Your peers might not thank you now, but your children and grandchildren surely will.God bless all of you who are doing the "heavy lifting." It will pay dividends.
I intend to reprint the short of version of Frances Rice's piece on my blog. I also urge people of all races to join conservative Black groups (such as the ones in Yahoo Groups) and do everything possible to support their efforts. If you can, please make financial contributions to Black conservatives. Thanks!
IS JOHN MCCAIN A (SHUDDER!) LIBERAL?
In response to Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) endorsing John McCain, some of the dear folks on the "Conservative Americans" Group at Yahoo are proclaiming their latest mantra: that, in their "opinion," McCain is a liberal. As you'll see below, I begged to differ. (Note: Tom Coburn is in many ways the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate.)
The problem is that whether one is a conservative or not doesn't depend on some half-baked emotional response. There are rating systems, including the one from the American Conservative Union (and liberal counterparts such as the ADA and the ACLU) that indicate a person's conservatism. In the latest ACU ratings, Coburn got 100%, which is an "A" in conservatism. McCain's rating in a recent year was 80%, which is a good solid "B." Obama's ranking was zero, an "F," and Hillary Clinton's was also zero, again an "F." Yes, McCain who has always opposed abortion and opposes earmarks and opposes tax cuts without decreases in spending and supports a strong national defense is a staunch conservative. The good folks on conservative Americans can believe McCain is a liberal, just as they can believe two plus two equals five or that the moon consists of bagels and cream cheese. There are a fine old saying: "You have a right to your own opinions, but you don't have a right to your own facts." When people ignore the facts, we should smile -- and dismiss their silly "opinions."