Democrats’ Hypocrisy on Race

Pages: 1 2

Here we go again.

A Republican official, this time a member of the Orange County, Calif., GOP central committee, stands accused of — racism!

Her crime?

She forwarded, to a circle of friends, an email depicting an image of a family of chimpanzees, with the superimposed face of President Barack Obama over the baby chimp’s face. The caption read, “Now you know why no birth certificate.” The national media soon picked up the story with the implicit “GOP-is-bigoted” story line.

Given her position as a central committee member, America’s ugly history of demeaning images of blacks and the Democratic Party’s unfair but calculated characterization of the Republican Party as racist, the official exercised poor taste and bad judgment. She has apologized. But many demand her resignation.

This is a teachable moment.

The Democratic Party has lost the “white vote” in every presidential election since 1964. Democrats attribute this to white racism. Yet in 2008, when a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked whether voters would refuse to vote for a qualified black for president, only 3 percent of Republicans said “yes.” More Democrats — at 4 percent — than Republicans admitted refusing to vote for a qualified black for president. Republican presidents have appointed more blacks to positions of authority than have Democrats. Of the black members of the House of Representatives, the only ones from majority white districts are Republicans.

Democrats are in trouble. Most Americans reject their left-wing agenda: bigger government; the refusal to address the need for entitlement reform; high taxes; anti-business regulation; anti-choice in education; pro-amnesty/porous borders; appointment of social-agenda-driven liberal judges; job-killing “climate change” hysteria; and the naive and dangerous strength-through-peace approach to foreign policy.

What tool does the Democratic Party often resort to in order to win elections? The race card.

As recently as 1960, the GOP attracted 32 percent of the black vote. Without the now-monolithic black Democratic vote, the Democratic Party could not survive. So it recruits and retains black voters by calling white Republicans “racists” — and by calling black Republicans “sellouts.”

We suggest black voters ask four questions:

First, why are Republicans painted as the bad guys and Democrats the good guys on the issue of civil rights?

Pages: 1 2

  • RobertPinkerton

    I am white, and I come from (paternal line) a family that was pro-Union from Civil War times. I want a colorless society — which I interpret to mean a society wherein skin-color is no more salient than, say, the fact that someone wears glasses. Too, though I have always considered myself a man of the Right (as counterposed to a conservative), I have never been able to "get" the purported mystique of the South.

  • jerry

    Like you Larry, I could never understand the black community's love affair with the Democrats. This party has exploited the African-American people for the last 75 years, starting with the Roosevelt administration, and continuing to the present with every Democrat playing the race card when it's convinient to do so. Is it any wonder why there are still so many black folks struggling to make it in America??

  • voted against carter

    Little history need here,..

    The Republican Party was created in 1854 to combat the threat of s l a v e r y 's extension into the NEW territories, and to promote more VIGOROUS MODERNIZATION of the economy.

    Abraham Lincoln was the FIRST Republican to run for president, and won in 1860.

    Before that it was the Whigs and the Democrat Party.

    And by the way, the Democrat Party was the party of the S L A V E OWNERS.

    And It hasn't changed ANY since then.

  • Jim_C

    "And by the way, the Democrat Party was the party of the S L A V E OWNERS. And It hasn't changed ANY since then."

    Um, yes it did. Little history lesson for you dingbats: What happened to those slave-owning democrats? When it came time to ensure blacks could vote and attend the same schools, those democrats BECAME REPUBLICANS in opposition. And so the South is as solidly republican today as it was solidly democratic before civil rights.

    I know, I know, "blah blah blah 'state's rights'" yeah, sure.

    Once again, nice try. Thanks for pretending; it does amuse.

    • chrisnichols

      "When it came time to ensure blacks could vote and attend the same schools, those democrats BECAME REPUBLICANS in opposition."

      So, those racist Democrats became racist Republicans. In other words, they joined the party that overwhelmingly voted for the civil rights and voting rights acts of 1964. Yes, that make perfect sense, keep perpetuating that lie. Now that reversal of logic is funny.

      • Jim_C

        No. Southern democrats OBJECTED to those acts, nimrod. That is why they switched parties. And subsequently, northern republicans became known as "RINOs."

    • chrisnichols

      So, does that mean that all the Democrats in D.C., including Barack Obama, who oppose school vouchers, are really modern Southern Republicans. Conversely, are today's Republicans, who believe in school choice, really compassionate Democrats?

      • Jim_C

        Um…no, it doesn't. But nice try.

  • chrisnichols

    You have it backwards again. What's racist is the liberal position that Blacks need a government program to subsist because they are not smart enough to take care of themselves.

    • Jim_C

      1. As I said, Good luck trying to sell that one.

      2. Helpful hint: it's not just black people who avail themselves of government programs.

      You're welcome.

  • http://newmediaage.shugartmedia.com/NewMediaWorld/ Tar_n_Feathers

    Obama raised by apes? Does that mean he's related to Tarzan?

  • LindaRivera

    Although we have a black (half black) president, he is the most dangerous and terrifying president for black people the world has ever known. Unless you are Muslim.

    Racism, contempt and violent hate for blacks has to stop. The U.S. administration, France and the UN have blood on their hands. With VERY STRONG U.S. backing, French military and UN troops went to war against black Christian innocents in order to conquer the Ivory Coast for Islam. Another huge victory for global jihad.

    frontpagemag.com
    A Plea for the Cote D’Ivoire:
    Faith J. H. McDonnell on Apr 15th, 2011

    Senator Jim Inhofe warned the UN and the State Department “that they would have blood on their hands.”

    Ouattara’s troops were using machetes. “They were slitting people’s throats, anyone — men, women, children…

    Ouattara’s men circle Simone Gbagbo. Inhofe said that the thugs had pulled out her hair by the roots and then went to the streets, displaying her hair to mobs of cheering Ouattara supporters. Again Inhofe repeated his warning to other Sub-Saharan African leaders, saying, “This could happen to you. This could happen to your wife.” http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/15/a-cri-de-coeur

    UN Peacekeepers? Give them their proper name: UN Soldiers for Global Islamic Conquest.

    Ruthless and cruel French military handed over Christian President Gbagbo, his wife and son to their enemies for abuse. What terrible things are Quattara and his followers perpetrating against them in private? The Koran commands to show no mercy to non-Muslims. The UN, French military and their U.S. backers are fully responsible. They are allowing it.

    There are pictures of terrified captured black Christians on the internet. They are deeply aware of Muslim barbarism. 1,000 Christians were hacked to death or burnt alive in recent days. There is no one to rescue them and Gbagbo’s family. No one to help.

    A photo on the internet shows an Ivory Coast black Christian man and woman holding identical signs – a desperate plea to the world for help. This is how America and France are now seen by victims of Islam.

    UN-USA-FRANCE=ASSASSINS

    We ought to be massively protesting in the world’s city streets. Which African nation is targeted next by the US/EU/UN for barbaric Islamic conquest?

    NON-MUSLIM BLACKS MUST HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS

  • Jim_C

    By the way, kids, The Evil Emperor himself, George Soros, just got back from an engagement at the Cato Institute, where he discussed, among other things, his admiration for Hayek–the economist all conservatives love to cite, yet most fail to understand. I hope FPM gets around to putting some spin on that appearance.

    • CPTBMan

      He is far, FAR, more evil than the Koch brothers could ever be.

  • Ramon

    Here is my issue with articles like these: they paint black Americans as way too gullible and naive. For years conservatives have lamented the fact that blacks vote in large blocs for Democrats at rates that dwarf any other ethnic/racial group in the country. In finding an answer to this problem, many right wing pundits like Elder blame it all on a manipulative cabal of Democratic leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who manage to race-bait their constituents into a rank-and-file allegiance to the Democrats. But this explanation is as condescending as the one which portrays conservative white America's preference for Republican candidates as the sole result of a "Southern Strategy" designed to channel white fear of a evil minorities into a political movement.

    I don't doubt that there are people on both sides of the divide whose political preferences are based around their own evaluations of our contemporary post-Civil Rights era. Nor do I doubt that many political leaders have exploited this difference for their political gain. But at what point do we begin to attribute voter preferences to more than the machinations of political leaders and begin to consider them as rooted in the everyday experiences of those voters themselves?

    • Carrie

      Ramon, I completely agree with your post. People are so complex with many different layers of reasoning behind a vote – or a reason not to vote. No candidate embodies our entire belief system, and they may even hold some views that are deeply conflicting to those that vote for them. But in the end, reducing people to a vote they might make every few years does not acknowledge the routine acts that people contribute to their communities that ultimately will have more lasting effect.

  • Carrie

    Here is the issue. Even in historic elections like 2008, only 62% of eligible voting Americans voted. We have a huge legitimacy problem here, largely because people feel that even when they do vote, things don't really change. 92% of black people can be relied on to vote Democrat. This is not enthusiastic support, but seen as the lesser of two evils. Both parties have a pretty bad track record for standing up for issues important to the black community, but in the last few decades the Republican party has continued to lose minority support – even from groups that were reliable, like Latinos who are socially conservative, not so much because of their policies, but their rhetoric. Only six Black Republicans have been elected to Congress in the last 60 years. So even while Democrats have no spine standing up for the people who elect them – they are viewed as more welcoming than the alternative. I think we need to change the two party system to allow for a more diversity of views. That might help boost the voter turnout for both parties.

  • B.J. Lange

    Coincidentally all of the progress made to resolve race relations were reversed with the election of the first African American President, Obama. Obama's strategy to win and governor is the reason. What Obama strategy is:

    1. Do not take blame for any failure and blame all of them on others (particularly Bush).

    2. Take credit for all successes (as few as they are) even if not responsible (ie Iraq).

    3. Anyone trying to blame Obama is immediately branded a Racist by his supporters.

    It has been that simple and transparent. The only reason Obama has been able to get away with this is that he knows this country is hyper-sensitive to "race" and his opponents are fearful of the racism branding.

    Donald Trump is not and is too clever and is too determined to succumb to those kind of slanderous attacks. He is unafraid of calling gutless individual out and would expect that he will challenge every one of those tiny liberal journalists who have witlessly defended an incompentent Obama.

    • Jared

      Trump used to be a Democrat and ran his casino intro bankruptcy. Ha! No wonder conservatives like him. He's not consistent and can screw up where no one else could. Conservatives would even like Obama if he began asking questions about his own birth certificate.

  • Meffi

    Trump? The guy who used to be a Democrat and ran a casino into bankruptcy? Very credible hahaha! Last I heard he had a reality show to promote. You could beg him to and he still won't officially run. That's because he doesn't like you, and mocks your intelligence that you even think he is serious.