I wasn't going to post on the Harry Reid comment about Obama…..that Obama is "light skinned" and "doesn't have a Negro dialect unless he wants to"….. because there's not much to talk about. Reid, who was praising Obama in his remarks, didn't say anything that wasn't true and didn't mean any of it as a slam on Obama, just the opposite. Given that,….Reid apologized, Obama accepted the apology….end of story, right?
Not when Republicans are as unpopular as they are right now.
Hysteria overload….seems like an apt description of Republican and conservative response to Reid's remarks. Nothing unusual though. The Detroit underwear bomber guy hysteria overload has barely cooled and now we're treated with fresh, new, hysteria overload. In fact, if you think about it…..all of last year was dominated by hysteria overload from the right. Townhall bust-ups, tea parties, the Cheneys, Rushbo, Beckerhead. I don't want to refer to what I've been witnessing as TeaBagger Overload….because that could be, you know, misunderstood as something obscene.
The word Negro, though used less prevalently now than in the 60's, is not a derogatory name. We just love it when Samuel L. Jackson says Negro in movies like Pulp Fiction. We still have with us today the United NEGRO College Fund and the American NEGRO College Fund.
But the Harry Reid comment and the hysteria overload surrounding it has nothing to do with the word 'Negro' or the words 'light skinned'…..it has to do with the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) called for Reid to resign as Senate Leader, saying….
"It's difficult to see this situation as anything other than a clear double standard on the part of Senate Democrats and others,"
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the embarassing Michael Steele followed Cornyn's lead.
Our own Da King followed suit….
"So I ask, why the double standard ? If these types of racially insensitive remarks are wrong and call for punishment, then they are ALWAYS wrong and call for punishment. It shouldn't matter to which political party the offender belongs."
Those who push a deceptive national storyline have, once again, attempted to force a square racist "double standard" peg into a round hole of political calculation.
Sorry….doesn't fit.
First, the incident Cornyn and the ususal suspect Republicans are referring to as proof of a "double standard".
Here's what Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) said at Strom Thurmond's birthday party in 2002…..
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
That statement doesn't just contain "racially insensitive" wording. That statement endorses national racism. Lott, with the words he chose, endorsed segregation as the better way.
Here's a quick breakdown of what it would have meant to have "followed" Strom Thurmond's "lead"…..
Thurmond supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single Senator, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
……
Thurmond became a candidate for President of the United States on the third party ticket of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which split from the national Democrats over the proposed constitutional innovation involved in federal intervention in segregation. Thurmond carried four states and received 39 electoral votes. One 1948 speech, met with cheers by supporters, included the following:“ I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
……
Senator Thurmond decried the Supreme Court opinion in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, which ordered the immediate desegregation of schools in the American South. Thurmond praised President Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" of delaying desegregation, saying Nixon "stood with the South in this case."…he (Thurmond) never explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation.
Strom Thurmond was an overt racist and proud of it. He believed in keeping blacks and whites separate in American society. Thurmond earned his label as a segregationist. Trent Lott stated that if America had followed Thurmond's segregationist "lead",…."we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years."
Lott was confirming his own segregationist tendencies.
Harry Reid, on the other hand, has been rated with a 96% voting record on civil rights by the NAACP.
Let me be clear. To invoke a double standard…..one must be faced with, at the very least, similar circumstances.
Trent Lott praised a segregationist, a racist, saying America would have been better off if we had kept segregation in tact, had maintained racial divisions. Harry Reid, while praising Barack Obama, clumsily chose the words "light skinned" and "without a Negro dialect", to evaluate Obama's chances of becoming president.
And finally,….Trent Lott lost his position as Senate Leader because George W. Bush actively worked to push him out after the Thurmond snafu.
When comparing apples……you must start with apples in each hand. The Republicans don't care anything about whether they are comparing and contrasting equal situations. What they care about is maintaining the hysteria overload.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
don't think Reid's quote is that big a deal, but it's odd that a presumably very intelligent attorney and Senator who works on a regular basis with groups like the NAACP and the black congressional Caucus would still be using the term "negro," isn't it?
In any case, the year 1957 was a good one for racist comments by Democrats and I'm glad you brought it up. LBJ regularly used the term "negro" as well:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
–Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Here's another revealing quote, more contemporary, that's probably most reminiscent of Lott's statement and more clearly delineates the "double standard" being discussed:
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
–Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
And here's a nice quote from Byrd–a man sometimes referred to as the "conscience of the democratic party"– that I think nicely rounds out what Dodd was talking about:
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
–Robert C. Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
Rev sez….."And finally,….Trent Lott lost his position as Senate Leader because George W. Bush actively worked to push him out after the Thurmond snafu."
King and his republican fellow travelers are trying to perpetuate a myth that republicans wanted Lott out because he was a racist. Republicans could not have cared less. What Bush and the republicans wanted was for cat torturer Dr.Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader.
why King and the republicans would choose a cat torturer over a racist is beyond me.
but you know what cat torturers, racists and republicans say……King is their boy (as in slave)
according to joe, that's not derogatory….joe's got a masters degree
roybot sez when talking about the use of certain words….."I guess habit is a very strong motivator."
Dodd, Johnson and Byrd….have nothing to do with what I'm talking about in the post. Nothing.
I'm pointing out the incorrectness of those who are screeching "double standard." It is ignorant to suggest there is equivalency in the Lott-Reid discussion.
Have some Democrats said stupid stuff? Yes. So?
Bush wanted Lott out, and used the "opportunity" to do so. Frist was Bush's guy. If Bush had wanted Lott to stay in the Senate, Lott would have stayed in the Senate….I don't think there's any question about that.
Lott's praise of Strom was a compassionate stroking of his old buddy. But Trent couldn't shut his mouth at "we voted for the guy for president when he ran, we're proud of him"…..he had to go ahead and say what he really thought…."if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Boneheaded.
Reid spoke specifically about the type of black man Barack Obama was. Light skinned with no Negro dialect. It is true that white people regard light skinned blacks differently than they do dark skinned blacks. Reid's light skin remark was in an overall comment about Obama's chances to become president. Same with the Negro dialect….Reid could have said black dialect, but that doesn't capture the point he was making. Harold Ford Jr. doesn't talk like Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson Jr. doesn't talk like Jesse Jackson. Obama was more like Ford and Jackson Jr…..and that encouraged Reid about Obama's bid for the presidency.
Lindsey Graham and Haley Barbour, for starters, alienate me with their dialects. But that doesn't mean that other white politicians can't enunciate properly. Think about it.
Sorry, Reverend. I just thought the better equivalency was the Lott–Dodd comments, which seemed quite similar to me. But I don't remember Dodd being drummed out of Washington over what he said.
The only quote I remember really resembling Reid's recent remark was when Biden called Obama the first "clean" and "articulate" black presidential candidate or something along those lines. Worse than Reid's, but the pattern emerging seems pretty disgraceful in general, wouldn't you say?
Nobody was "drumed" out of Washington. Lott was "drumed" out of his Senate leadership position and not because he was a racist. He resigned in 2007.
this from wikipedia about his resignation….
"On November 26, 2007, Lott announced that he would resign his Senate seat by the end of 2007.[11] According to CNN, his resignation was at least partly due to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.[12] In his resignation press conference, Lott said that the new law had no influence in his decision to resign."
Wiki speculation is beside the point, walt. The topic is double standards, and Lott definitely got a lot more flak for his comment than Dodd got for his, and the gist and circumstance of both comments were quite similar.
Just ask for help when you're having trouble following along. It will save you a lot of googling and linking.
it's all about turf.
the characterizations have been ingrained.
democrats are tax and spenders that love abortion and hate guns.
the republicans are fiscally conservative that hate abortion and love guns.
no matter that Clinton was the last president since Johnson to preside over a balanced budget and did not make it easier to get abortions.
no matter the last republican held house, senate and presidency did not outlaw abortion or full time debt.
republicans are not allowed to say things related to race because of the past that has cast them as racist, money grubbing, chauvinist, war lovers;
and the democrats as integrating, corporate hating, woman's-libbers, doves.
It is the inequity of (politics, religion, work, children, and perception) life and the exercise of arguing over it, that does little more than reinforce the ramparts each side stands behind.
OK….double standards….republicans didn't care if Lott was a racist. Bush wanted to get rid of Lott and used the racist card to do it. The double standard is now all of a sudden republicans are whinning about Reid's remarks.
You are speculating based on your own biases and insecurities, walt. What we know for certain is that Repubs shamed Lott out of Washington while Dems gave Dodd even more Dem leadership responsibility after he made very similar remarks. Dodd even ran for president.
I couldn't believe Fox last night while the other stations CNN and MSNBC had on Haiti they had on O'Reilly and Hannity talking about Reid. This was still the news of the night. First I thought perhaps the shows were pre recorded – But wasn't the case. OReilly also had on Bo Dereck ( she ranked more important than people dying in Haiti). I was flipping channels because I was in such shock. Every time I turned back to fox they had another stupid thing to get the democrats on …" Did you know Obama waited 3 days to address the nation after Terrorist attack " ( Bush just took 6 days for shoe bomber and wasn't a attack but a foiled attack) Hannity's going on about MA race and Reid. Finally Greta Van Sustern said to him you know people are dying in Haiti .
It just proves a point they are catering to what they think their listeners want to hear – people in Haiti suffering is not something important to them . But to repeat over and over Reid remarks is. Dumb down news for biggots
larry is twisting and turning like an old ice cream maker. Chris Dodd has NOTHING to do with the topic. Dodd isn't involved in the double standard discussion. He isn't. larry drug him into it.
1) GOP'ers screeched double standard over Reid not stepping down over his non-racist comments recorded in a new book by two Villagers, Halperin and Heileman.
The GOP screechers, themselves, mention Trent Lott as the template-case Democrats must follow. Chris Dodd…umm…isn't in the picture….at all.
2) My post deconstructs the foolishness of GOP'ers, like Cornyn, and conservatives, like Da King, and their attempt to find equivalency with Lott and Reid. There isn't any. The end.
George Wallace ran for president…so did Alan Keyes.
The topic is the "double standard," Reverend. Dodd's comment is remarkably similar to Lott's. They both went overboard trying to praise a racist but venerated colleague.
The logic that causes libs to brand Lott pro-segregation dictates that Dodd should be seen as a KKK sympathizer and possibly even pro-slavery. While Lott was drummed out of Washington (by his own party) for his statement, Dodd was given more leadership by his party and even ran for president. The double standard and hypocrisy is astounding, wouldn't you say?
While the Dodd-Lott parallel makes for an interesting comparison, the Reid situation is much more close at hand. I don't feel Reid's unwise comment should cause him to step down, but it is awfully odd that a sharp lawyer who has been working closely with the NAACP and other African American groups over the past 25 years would be throwing around the word "negro." Awfully odd.
Rev says, " Reid, who was praising Obama in his remarks, didn't say anything that wasn't true"
Soooo, only a light-skinned black person can become President ? That's pretty racist, Rev.
larry sez……."What we know for certain is that Repubs shamed Lott out of Washington….."
WTF are you talking about?
Lott's "comments" were in 2002. Lott resigned in December 2007. Lott became a lobbiest in Washington in January 2008.
The way I look at it is if republican John Boehner (and 9-12 Tea Party activist) knows that a ped0phile is walking around the halls of Congress and does nothing about it why would republicans be bothered about a racist walking around the halls of Congress
I agree with the pediphile thing and Barney Frank should be kicked out of office. I also agree with you about the racist thing and the Clintons should leave.
Well said, walter…..and really, larry, you have to tell me….what's Dodd got to do with anything here?
The freaking comparison that idiotic GOP'ers are making is this: what Reid said was equivalent to what Lott said. This is not true….in any way, really.
This saga is yet another episode in the ongoing hysteria overload Republicans and rotted media continue to push in our faces.
KIng….
"Soooo, only a light-skinned black person can become President ? That's pretty racist, Rev."
Saying that white people feel more comfortable with light skinned rather than darker skinned blacks, when studies demonstrate that that is so…….isn't being racist. At least, I don't think it is.
Rev,
Your usual mindless blather
The topic is the double standard, Reverend, as I've repeated several times now. Your refusal to confront the Dodd quote suggests you know I am right.
If Trent Lott were a Democrat he'd probably be VP right now, walt. Though it would have been hard for him to beat Biden's "clean and articulate" comment.
larry sez……"If Trent Lott were a Democrat he'd probably be VP right now, walt"
you're probably right….with his racist background he would have pulled in a Lott of the republican cross-over voters
walter says, "Lott's "comments" were in 2002. Lott resigned in December 2007. Lott became a lobbiest in Washington in January 2008."
Major disinformation, walter. Trent Lott was forced out as Senate Majority Leader by the GOP after he made the statements about Strom Thurmond. That happened in 2002-2003. The GOP made him relinquish his LEADERSHIP position. Meanwhile, Harry Reid has no problems, and has the backing of Dems and the President.
Rev says, "Saying that white people feel more comfortable with light skinned rather than darker skinned blacks, when studies demonstrate that that is so…….isn't being racist. At least, I don't think it is."
Sooooo, again you agree with Reid that only light-skinned blacks can become President. If that isn't racist, then there is no such thing as racism.
And what Reid said about light-skinned blacks only represents what Reid thinks. He sure as hell doesn't speak for me. I'm not as racist as Reid or the Reverend, not even close. The last thing I think about is skin tone.
Anyone can be elected president who meets the Constitutional requirements.
"you agree with Reid that only light-skinned blacks can become President. If that isn't racist, then there is no such thing as racism."
What would the chances be of an atheist becoming president? Would it be bigoted of Americans to vote against an atheist candidate for president? Would in be "insensitive" to say out loud that Americans might not vote for an atheist?
The same questions apply to whites and how they regard dark skinned blacks. If you think that we're beyond race….you are mistaken. Reid, in an off-the-record conversation, pointed out the still-existing dynamic of the American electorate.
Lott, on the other hand, praised segregation.
By that rationale, Dodd praised slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and secession, Reverend.
larry sez…"What we know for certain is that Repubs shamed Lott out of Washington…."
walter sez…. "Lott's "comments" were in 2002. Lott resigned in December 2007. Lott became a lobbiest in Washington in January 2008."
King sez…..Major disinformation, walter.
King….Lott wasn't shamed out of Washington for being a racist…..what part of that don't you understand?
King….you republicans suck
For the last time……Dodd has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Sure he does, Reverend. We're talking about a double standard and his comments parallel Lott's quite closely. The fact that Dodd's comments may have helped him establish a higher profile and more power within the Dem party while Lott's comments led to his humiliation among Rep colleagues is quite revealing.
larry….as unbelievable as this seems, I'm with you all the way
first, let's kick Dodd out of his Senate Majority leader role and then "shame" him for 5 years so that he resigns
I mean you're right….why should Dodd be treated any different that Lott
"Lott's comments led to his humiliation among Rep colleagues…." can you imagine what 5 years of humiliation does to a man?
Dodd's response back in 2004…
"Mr. Dodd said he was trying to say Mr. Byrd was a good senator and had not thought of his membership in the Klan or his stance on the 1964 Civil Rights bill."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/nyregion/dodd-says-he-regrets-poor-choice-of-words.html?pagewanted=1
Lott actually said we would have been better off to remain segregated. Dodd said,.."He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation." Do you beleive Dodd actually believed we would be better off with slavery? Well, Lott actually believed in Thurmond's segregation and said we would have been better off not having given equal rights to blacks. Lott's voting record on civil and equal rights versus those of Dodd's would demonstrate that Lott kinda meant what he said, Dodd not so much.
Now, tell me this….when was Dodd the Senate majority leader? You know, cause I can't remember it. And while you're at it….what physics laws have you discovered that permits the twisting and morphing of a 2004 statement (Dodd's)into an equivalency of a 2008 statement of another person (Reid) while simultaneously insisting you've found some double standard with yet another statement by another person (Lott) altogether?
I notice you don't have a quote in which Lott "actually said" we would have been better off to remain segregated and withholding equal rights from blacks, Reverend. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to find an article quoting him saying he used a "poor choice of words," however.
The circumstances and quotes are remarkably similar. They delineate the double standard you brought up quite nicely for anybody to see. Fibbing won't help you.
Rev,
Lott did not say we'd be better off with segregation. He didn't even mention the word, nor did he mention race. His comments were taken that way, but how do you know that's what he was talking about ???? Lott even said that's not what he meant.
In Reid's case there was no doubt as to what he meant, no other way to take his words. Yet, you are trying to defend him. I don't get it.
Sounds like the same old, same old double standard to me. Defend the party no matter what. Spin, spin, spin.
so let me get this straight…..Lott's comments were NOT racist but the republicans made a big fuss, kicked him out of his majority leadership position and then shamed him for 5 years until he resigned.
is that about right?
so what's the double standard here……..because Lott was forced out of his position by the republicans because of remarks that were NOT racist the democrats should force Reid out of his position for remarks he made that were NOT racist?
is that about right?
I didn't make any kind of judgment on the "racist" character of any of the remarks, walt. As I've pointed out elsewhere, putting words in other people's mouths then attacking those words is just one of the strategies that has led to your Crisis of Credibility.
King sez….Rev, Lott did not say we'd be better off with segregation. He didn't even mention the word, nor did he mention race. His comments were taken that way, but how do you know that's what he was talking about ???? Lott even said that's not what he meant.
larry, could you paraphrase that for me?
Lott's words…
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Thurmond ran for president as a Segregationist. "We" voted for him….which means Trent-boy too.
There's no question about Lott's meaning here. Everyone but wingers understand what happened.
"all these problems"……what do you think Trent-boy was referring to? Affirmative action, dealing with equal rights…..what?
Southern strategy at it's finest. Never mention the words, black, race, equal rights….no, no…..they have perfected the art of baiting those white supremacy thinkers out there…..and still be, you know, politically correct….in a cynical, devilish kind of way.
So it looks like Lott didn't say anything about segregation, just as King said, Reverend. Using your interpretive methods, it should be equally as clear to you that Dodd advocated secession and slavery while Reid thinks darker skinned African Americans have smaller craniums and weaker brains.
You have to ask yourself one question: Was the South more racist under Democratic leadership or under its current Republican leadership?
walter,
Is it even possible for you to respond to what I actually said, as opposed to your reinvention of what I said ?
Ditto for you, Rev.
I'm not here to defend Trent Lott. I just said he didn't explicitly mention either segregation or race. Harry Reid DID explicity use racial language.
Thus, the question remains, why do you defend Harry Reid for his explicitly racist remarks, while you castigate Lott for his non-explicit remarks ????? That makes no sense to me.
And walter, the fact that Trent Lott lost his leadership position, while Harry Reid didn't, is THE POINT. That's the double standard.
King sez…."Lott even said that's not what he meant."
so Lott didn't lose his leadership position because of his comments……right?
larry sez…." As I've pointed out elsewhere, putting words in other people's mouths then attacking those words is just one of the strategies that has led to your Crisis of Credibility."
then goes on and sez……"Using your interpretive methods, it should be equally as clear to you that Dodd advocated secession and slavery while Reid thinks darker skinned African Americans have smaller craniums and weaker brains."
larry….nicely done
Try to follow along, walt.