Frameshop: A Picture of the GOP on Civil Rights

[AsburySkinsFan]

Frameshop: A Picture of the GOP on Civil Rights

The one photo the GOP does not want anyone to see was snapped at yesterday's NAACP GOP Presidential Candidate Forum. The NAACP invited all 9 Republican candidates to the forum, but only one showed up: Tom Tancredo. All the Democratic Presidential hopefuls showed up for their forum.

The excuses given by the Republican campaigns mostly had to do with scheduling conflicts--just too busy to make it.

The resulting photo of Tancredo--standing on a stage of empty podiums--sums up the Republican party's commitment to civil rights in America: the only Republican interested is the guy running to deny immigrant workers their rights.

One has to wonder why this photo was not the lead on every morning show and on the front pages of every morning newspaper in America.

The reason, most likely, is a coordinated effort by Republicans to pressure news agencies to downplay the obvious implications of having 8 out of 9 of their Presidential candidates as "no shows" for a debate at the NAACP.

What is keeping the obvious story about Republicans and racism out of today's headlines? David Beckham's arrival in Hollywood.

This is an ideal moment to stand up and demand the kind of news coverage we want in America. Contact your local TV stations and newspapers. Ask them to run this photo and to write an article about Republicans, civil rights and racism.

[Teller]

To the tune of "Electricity," from School House Rock:

Objectivity, Objectivity

Objectivity, Objectivity...

:laugh:

[SkinsOrlando]

And the NAACP has been gracious hosts all these years for repubs, gee, I can't believe they found better things to do than go to the National Association Against Caucasion People.

[dfitzo53]

One has to wonder why this photo was not the lead on every morning show and on the front pages of every morning newspaper in America.

The reason, most likely, is a coordinated effort by Republicans to pressure news agencies to downplay the obvious implications of having 8 out of 9 of their Presidential candidates as "no shows" for a debate at the NAACP.

I think that's a little bit of a leap, but maybe that's just me.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think that's a little bit of a leap, but maybe that's just me.

For the record, the blogger said that not me.

[Teller]

The one photo the GOP does not want anyone to see was snapped at yesterday's NAACP GOP Presidential Candidate Forum. The NAACP invited all 9 Republican candidates to the forum, but only one showed up: Tom Tancredo. All the Democratic Presidential hopefuls showed up for their forum.

The excuses given by the Republican campaigns mostly had to do with scheduling conflicts--just too busy to make it.

The resulting photo of Tancredo--standing on a stage of empty podiums--sums up the Republican party's commitment to civil rights in America: the only Republican interested is the guy running to deny immigrant workers their rights.

One has to wonder why this photo was not the lead on every morning show and on the front pages of every morning newspaper in America.

The reason, most likely, is a coordinated effort by Republicans to pressure news agencies to downplay the obvious implications of having 8 out of 9 of their Presidential candidates as "no shows" for a debate at the NAACP.

What is keeping the obvious story about Republicans and racism out of today's headlines? David Beckham's arrival in Hollywood.

This is an ideal moment to stand up and demand the kind of news coverage we want in America. Contact your local TV stations and newspapers. Ask them to run this photo and to write an article about Republicans, civil rights and racism.

Yours free with your paid subscription to Truth Magazine, this trash-to-truth translation:

The one thing this article fails to point out is that ALL of the democratic candidates for president agreed to a debate on FOX. They all subsequently cancelled. Funny thing is, that story didn't appear on the Frameshop website. But a non-starter like this one does.

The excuses given by the Democrat campaigns mostly had to do with scheduling conflicts--just too busy to make it.

There were no resulting photos because all of them ****ed (kittied) out.

Meanwhile, Tom Tancredo had the cojones to show up in front of a hostile NAACP crowd. He is the only Republican interested in giving AMERICAN workers their rights; and denying access to CRIMINALS from Mexico.

One has to wonder why the photos of ALL the empty podiums for the FOX debate weren't on the front page of every paper in the country.

The reason, most likely, its because the Democrats control every media outlet in the country BESIDES FOX.

What is keeping the obvious story of the fact that every single one of the Democratic candidates for president are too chicken**** to go on FOX? David Beckham's arrival in Hollywood.

This is an ideal moment to stand up and say, "Anyone who's scared of a hardball interview question or two, isn't man (or woman) enough to lead the global fight on terrorism." Ask them where they were during that debate they all promised to attend. Probably the same place Bill Clinton was while Osama bin Laden had free reign to plan the 9/11 attacks.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And the NAACP has been gracious hosts all these years for repubs, gee, I can't believe they found better things to do than go to the National Association Against Caucasion People.

Maybe if the GOP worked with the NAACP more they wouldn't be so opposed to one another. And maybe, just maybe they might actually win some votes, but hey you ain't gonna win votes if you don't show up all you do is lose. Unless of course what you were going to say on such matter would actually cost you more votes than you'd gain, then yeah stay home.

All sarcastic comments aside, it still doesn't answer why only 1 of the GOP candidates showed up. Just more proof that GOPs and Dems pander to their base and aren't really interested in dialogue with those who disagree with them. Personally, if I were a candidate I'd be speaking to every major group that would give me time to speak.

IMO wasted opportunity.

[Teller]

IMO wasted opportunity.

Maybe so, but my point about the dems only debating in front of homerific crowds and moderators stands. Meanwhile, didn't I watch a republican debate on MSNBC? Yep. I sure did.

Seriously, if you're afraid of a television network, you are not capable of leading my country.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yours free with your paid subscription to Truth Magazine, this trash-to-truth translation:

The one thing this article fails to point out is that ALL of the democratic candidates for president agreed to a debate on FOX. They all subsequently cancelled. Funny thing is, that story didn't appear on the Frameshop website. But a non-starter like this one does.

I knew this would come up, and I'm glad you raised the issue. The problem is that the NAACP is a civil rights group and Fox News is supposed to be journalism. One is allowed to have a distinct bias, the other...not so much. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

[twa]

I knew this would come up, and I'm glad you raised the issue. The problem is that the NAACP is a civil rights group and Fox News is supposed to be journalism. One is allowed to have a distinct bias, the other...not so much. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

You know the debate on FOX was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus ?

Wheres the outrage ?

Sounds closer to Washington state or Granny Smith apples.

[Teller]

I knew this would come up, and I'm glad you raised the issue. The problem is that the NAACP is a civil rights group and Fox News is supposed to be journalism. One is allowed to have a distinct bias, the other...not so much. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

Touche. The only problem is, as you well know, it's cool for Dr. King to say, "I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Translation: No preferential nor discriminatory treatment. No affirmative action either.

The message carries decidely less well to the same audience when you're a white guy from the South. Even if it's precisely the same message, the reception will be harsh.

Oh, and keep in mind that many in attendance may well have been those who heard at the Millions More Movement that "the enemy doesn't wear blue. The enemy doesn't wear red. The enemy wears white, even when he's buck naked."

Oh sure, Johnny White Guy from the South wants to go right in there, doesn't he? Maybe if there was a tendency on the part of the NAACP to reach out to the right, especially when they're in power, there'd be more progress.

Do we as republicans need to do more in the civil rigts arena? Probably. But the hostility that rears its ugly head at times comes from both sides.

Also, MSNBC is decidely slanted left. Again, my boys had no problem going there. I do seriously worry about someone afraid of a network leading the country in the current global environment.

[Teller]

You know the debate on FOX was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus ?

Wheres the outrage ?

Sounds closer to Washington state or Granny Smith apples.

How could I have forgotten that? :doh:

Thanks for gettin' my back, bro.

[Duncan]

List of sample questions from the NAACP:

1. "Are you still a racist?"

2. "What is your position on discriminating against white and asian college applicants?"

3. "Why are none of you trying to talk like black preachers? We kind of dig it when democrats try to pull it off."

4. "What do you plan on doing about the 80% illegitimacy rate, unemployment, drug use, glorification of the gang lifestyle and general disdain for education that is rampant in a substantial percentage of the black community? Wait a minute, we are the NAACP and don't care about these issues, next question."

5. "When did you stop being a racist?"

6. "Do you currently own a pair of jack boots?"

7. "When was the last time you took food out of the mouths of black children?"

[ImmortalDragon]

All 9 Republican candidates? I'm pretty sure there are 11.

[SnyderShrugged]

All 9 Republican candidates? I'm pretty sure there are 11.

Nope, 9 as of a little while ago. Gilmore is dropping

otherwise it's Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Guiliani, McCain, T. Tompson, Romney, Huckabee, and Brownback

[ImmortalDragon]

Nope, 9 as of a little while ago. Gilmore is dropping

otherwise it's Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Guiliani, McCain, T. Tompson, Romney, Huckabee, and Brownback

I just read about Gilmore right after I made that post >_>

What about Fred Thompson?

[AsburySkinsFan]

List of sample questions from the NAACP:

1. "Are you still a racist?"

2. "What is your position on discriminating against white and asian college applicants?"

3. "Why are none of you trying to talk like black preachers? We kind of dig it when democrats try to pull it off."

4. "What do you plan on doing about the 80% illegitimacy rate, unemployment, drug use, glorification of the gang lifestyle and general disdain for education that is rampant in a substantial percentage of the black community? Wait a minute, we are the NAACP and don't care about these issues, next question."

5. "When did you stop being a racist?"

6. "Do you currently own a pair of jack boots?"

7. "When was the last time you took food out of the mouths of black children?"

Funny, but I could just as easily whip up a few of my own sample questions from Fox News.

BTW, going to the NAACP is not the same as going to a black Klan rally, the sooner people figure that out the better.

[SnyderShrugged]

I just read about Gilmore right after I made that post >_>

What about Fred Thompson?

Not declared yet, but still likely. I think his Cancer and some of the recent lobby skeletons are slowing down the announcement.

[DjTj]

Touche. The only problem is, as you well know, it's cool for Dr. King to say, "I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Translation: No preferential nor discriminatory treatment. No affirmative action either.

Martin Luther King spoke English, so his words don't need a translation:

On "Preferences"

Reporter: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?"

Dr. King: "I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group." -- (Interview,1965, p.367)

"A section of the white population, perceiving Negro pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges...The ensuing white backlash intimidates government officials who are already too timorous." -- "Negroes Are Not Moving Too Fast" (p.177)

Realistic Approach

"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." -- 1964, Why We Can't Wait.

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro..." quoted by Stephen B.Oates, Let The Trumpet Sound.

Equality is not an Abstraction

"Anatole France once said: 'The law in its majestic equality forbids all men to sleep under benches -- the rich as well as the poor...France's sardonic jest expresses a bitter truth. Despite new laws, little has changed...The Negro is still the poorest American -- walled in by color and poverty. The law pronounces him equal -- abstractly -- but his conditions of life are still far from equal." -- "Negroes Are Not Moving Too Fast", 1964 (p. 176-177).

"Although the terms desegregation and integration are used interchangeably, there is a great deal of difference between the two...Desegregation simply removes legal and social prohibitions. Integration is creative...more profound and far reaching than desegregation...

"Integration...is the welcome participation of Negroes into the total range of human activities...Desegregation is not enough; integration alone is consonant with our national purpose." -- "Ethical Demands for Integration" ,1963, (p.118).

Something Positive Needed

"Something positive must be done... In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man -- through an act of Congress it was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and Midwest -- which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor...Not only that, it provided agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, as the years unfolded it provided low interest rates so that they could mechanize their farms. And to this day thousands of these very persons are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies every year not to farm.

"And these are so often the very people who tell Negroes that they must lift themselves by their own bootstraps...

"We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice." -- "Remaining Awake," 1968 (271).

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html

...So I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that King opposed affirmative action.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with Republicans skipping this debate ... this early in the campaign, I think the debates are mostly pretty useless anyways and it's simply a reality that they're not going to gain many votes from the NAACP (and in fact may be getting more votes by skipping it).

It's kind of amusing that Tancredo decided to show up though - does anyone know what he said while he was there?

[Teller]

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread altogether. :doh:

I realize it was a different place and a different time; and there was a culture in place that truly did mistreat African Americans during Dr. King's life. However, I suppose I tried to edit him into something even greater than he was by suggesting that he believed it was a person's character and qualities that should determine what he or she receives, not their skin color. Maybe I was wrong. But I'd assert that I erred on the side of removing what amounts to discrimination from his motives. I'm not ashamed of that.

As far as "preferential" treatment for veterans, that is a ludicrous comparison. I truly hate to say that about such a great man...honestly...but our veterans risked their lives to earn their keep. He's essentially saying if your born dark complected you should receive entitlements too? Here again, transpose the colors we're talking about and tell me whether it's right or wrong.

I often do wonder what Dr. King would think about our country today. I have to take his stance on affirmative action with a grain of salt, because as I said before, African Americans WERE mistreated regularly in his day. But can you give me even one example of something I can do, or am entitled to, as a white man in today's United States that an African American is not?

[AsburySkinsFan]

But can you give me even one example of something I can do, or am entitled to, as a white man in today's United States that an African American is not?

Nothing that you're "entitled" to its more of the reality that as white males we automatically have an advantage in our culture. Now whether or not its our fault that its that way, or whether or not we resent that reality, the problem is that the reality of the situation exists. This is something that I have had to come to terms with in my own life, and as a white male I know that when I start talking in the church, school or elsewhere I'm most likely not going to have to overcome my gender or my skin color as I try to get my point across.

[Ax]

This has zero to do with civil rights. Neither does the NAACP, anymore.

The NAACP has become a narrow-minded organization living off the success of it's storied past. There official vote is a Democratic lock.

IMO, it's hard for blacks to openly support any Republican, as they are immediately labeled a "Tom" if they do. I doubt any of the NAACP faithful would be swayed by an appearance of Republican candidates. The leadership will tell the flock to "Get Out The Vote", as long as that vote is for the Democrats, and that's exactly what they'll do.

End of story.

[isle-hawg]

I am interested to hear from the Ron Paul followers why he did not attend? Was he invited? It may have been a hostile crowd for him, but I want and respect a President that will speak his or her mind in front of a hostile crowd. Any windbag can express their feelings in front of a homer crowd. If he was invited and refused to attend, while at the same time complains of being excluded from other debates he just lost me the same way Ross Perot did back when he was running.

[Teller]

Nothing that you're "entitled" to its more of the reality that as white males we automatically have an advantage in our culture. Now whether or not its our fault that its that way, or whether or not we resent that reality, the problem is that the reality of the situation exists. This is something that I have had to come to terms with in my own life, and as a white male I know that when I start talking in the church, school or elsewhere I'm most likely not going to have to overcome my gender or my skin color as I try to get my point across.

The overall picture isn't the one that matters. It's the picture from a personal level. My mom and dad couldn't afford to send me to a prestigious university, but my best friend in high school (who's from Iran) got a scholarship specifically for first-generation Americans. His parents didn't pay a dime for his education, and he's now one of the most respected heart surgeon's in the country. Any Asian American, African American, hispanic American (don't even have to be a citizen), or woman (though they're 54% of all college graduates now) can find a scholarship tailored just for them.

It's bull****, and I'm sick of it. And frankly I could give a damn what people think about me for saying so. Wrong is wrong, and that system is wrong.

Oh yeah, and my friend the world-renowned surgeon...yeah...he pretty much commands immediate respect when he walks in the room too.

[DjTj]

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread altogether. :doh:

I realize it was a different place and a different time; and there was a culture in place that truly did mistreat African Americans during Dr. King's life. However, I suppose I tried to edit him into something even greater than he was by suggesting that he believed it was a person's character and qualities that should determine what he or she receives, not their skin color. Maybe I was wrong. But I'd assert that I erred on the side of removing what amounts to discrimination from his motives. I'm not ashamed of that.

I think that you're conflating ideals with results in the "I Have a Dream" quote. He was concerned with his children being judged by the content of their character; not necessarily with determining what they should receive. That's a subtle but important difference.

As far as "preferential" treatment for veterans, that is a ludicrous comparison. I truly hate to say that about such a great man...honestly...but our veterans risked their lives to earn their keep. He's essentially saying if your born dark complected you should receive entitlements too? Here again, transpose the colors we're talking about and tell me whether it's right or wrong.

With veterans, there is an easier individualistic argument to make that suggests they have earned their right to preferential treatment, but I think the analogy makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of government or society at large. We are willing to give veterans special preferences because we know that by doing so, it will be for the greater good: more people will be willing to fight for our country and they will be more content while they are serving. And here is where the distinction between judging and results: When a veteran is given a preference for a government job, it is not necessarily because we judge him to be superior based on his veteran status; we give him the preference for the betterment of society at large.

Better examples might be special preferences for athletes or the children of alumni in college admissions. Why does the football player get into school over a regular applicant with similar academic credentials? It's not because we judge him to be better but because he contributes soemething unique to school. Children of alumni bring in revenue in the form of donations ... there are preferences handed out all the time, but they do not necessarily judge anyone.

Modern-day affirmative action is usually justified on similar grounds. It's not judging that certain individuals are better than others because of their race, and it doesn't even claim that certain individuals suffered more than others or deserve the opportunity more than others because of their race. The argument made in favor of affirmative action is that a person of a particular race has something special to contribute in terms of diversity and that there is a greater societal benefit to having more underrepresented minorities among the professional class - to accelerate society's growth towards racial harmony by trying to promote racial equality among observable results like wealth and education. The idea is that in a world that is more equal, there should be a decreased tendency to form stereotypes and to judge on the basis of the color of someone's skin, which inevitably still happens in the present day.

When a minority is the beneficiary of affirmative action, there is no implication that he is better than a non-minority candidate (in fact, Clarence Thomas would argue the opposite). Although people may be given or denied benefits based on the color of their skin; nobody is being judged.

I often do wonder what Dr. King would think about our country today. I have to take his stance on affirmative action with a grain of salt, because as I said before, African Americans WERE mistreated regularly in his day. But can you give me even one example of something I can do, or am entitled to, as a white man in today's United States that an African American is not?

I think King would have disagreed with a lot of the Civil Rights Movement took after his death, but he was fighting those battles when he was a live as well: his nonviolent philosophy was always in conflict with the more militant elements of the movement.

I really don't think the question should be about whether or not present-day blacks are disadvantaged, but we should simply ask whether or not these programs are still doing good for society at large - are they moving us towards a society with less racism or are they creating more racism? I think that's actually a very close question, which is why we're mired in this debate, and why the era of affirmative action is ending.

With respect to King, however, I don't see anything philosophically inconsistent with his views. He did not want anyone judged by the color of their skin, but he never argued that we should never look at race at all. He lived in an era when schools were being desegregated - a process that was not proceeding in a "colorblind" manner at all. Courts had to track the precise numbers of each race in the schools, and they had to bus students from white schools to black schools ... organizing and acting along racial lines was the basis for King's life work. He recognized race without judging based on race.