Eugene Robinson: Harry Reid's comments were crudely put, yet true

[ccsl2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103066.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"American society's focus on race instead of color explains why what Harry Reid said was so rude. But I don't think it can be a coincidence that so many pioneers -- Edward Brooke, the first black senator since Reconstruction; Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice; Colin Powell, the first black secretary of state -- have been lighter-skinned. Reid's analysis was probably good sociology, even if it was bad politics."

Pretty good read by Mr. Robinson.

[ixcuincle]

Was praised by Tony Kornheiser today on his radio show. Good article

[ccsl2]

Was praised by Tony Kornheiser today on his radio show. Good article

Yeah I heard Tony talk about it. Heck of an article.

[aREDSKIN]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103066.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"American society's focus on race instead of color explains why what Harry Reid said was so rude. But I don't think it can be a coincidence that so many pioneers -- Edward Brooke, the first black senator since Reconstruction; Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice; Colin Powell, the first black secretary of state -- have been lighter-skinned. Reid's analysis was probably good sociology, even if it was bad politics."

Pretty good read by Mr. Robinson.

Although the interpretation that it's a "true" statement doesn't address the FACT that if ANYBODY else, who is not a liberal democrat, had said the exact same thing in the exact same context would have been treated VERY differently than Harry Reid has been. They would have been criticized, ostracized and belittled by the same group who are now defending Reid's comments. It's obvious, to those who REALLY want to see it, that there is a double standard here. Some will be ok with that double standard and reconcile it accordingly I know but it is pretty telling to see what side everyone is on.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Although the interpretation that it's a "true" statement doesn't address the FACT that if ANYBODY else, who is not a liberal democrat, had said the exact same thing in the exact same context would have been treated VERY differently than Harry Reid has been. They would have been criticized, ostracized and belittled by the same group who are now defending Reid's comments. It's obvious, to those who REALLY want to see it, that there is a double standard here. Some will be ok with that double standard and reconcile it accordingly I know but it is pretty telling to see what side everyone is on.

I agree with this.

In the book, Game Change, it outlines a discussion between Clinton and Kennedy and Clinton is alleged to have said that President Obama should not receive support of the Democratic Party and that "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." according to the book. Now, is he saying that Obama did not have the experience, which IMO is and was certainly true, or is he saying something else? Either way, I think it speaks towards your point.

[ccsl2]

Although the interpretation that it's a "true" statement doesn't address the FACT that if ANYBODY else, who is not a liberal democrat, had said the exact same thing in the exact same context would have been treated VERY differently than Harry Reid has been. They would have been criticized, ostracized and belittled by the same group who are now defending Reid's comments. It's obvious, to those who REALLY want to see it, that there is a double standard here. Some will be ok with that double standard and reconcile it accordingly I know but it is pretty telling to see what side everyone is on.

aREDSKINS, the reason i wasn't so offended by what he said is because of have heard black people say pretty much the samething about Obama: That he wasn't "black enough". What the hell does that mean I have no idea, but I accept the fact that if Obama was the same complexion as Wesley Snipes, I am not sure if people would be comfortable voting for him.

I dont't know what is worse: The fact that Reid said it, or that it doesn't surprise me that he said it.

[ccsl2]

I agree with this.

In the book, Game Change, it outlines a discussion between Clinton and Kennedy and Clinton is alleged to have said that President Obama should not receive support of the Democratic Party and that "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." according to the book. Now, is he saying that Obama did not have the experience, which IMO is and was certainly true, or is he saying something else? Either way, I think it speaks towards your point.

IMO opinion that is worse that what Reid said.

[DjTj]

Although the interpretation that it's a "true" statement doesn't address the FACT that if ANYBODY else, who is not a liberal democrat, had said the exact same thing in the exact same context would have been treated VERY differently than Harry Reid has been. They would have been criticized, ostracized and belittled by the same group who are now defending Reid's comments. It's obvious, to those who REALLY want to see it, that there is a double standard here. Some will be ok with that double standard and reconcile it accordingly I know but it is pretty telling to see what side everyone is on.

Of course there is a double standard in politics about race. If your party wanted the benefit of the doubt, they should have supported Civil Rights fifty years ago.

[GhostofSparta]

Of course there is a double standard in politics about race. If your party wanted the benefit of the doubt, they should have supported Civil Rights fifty years ago.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/183344.html

What is the breakdown by party of who voted for and against the CivilRights act of 1964?

House of Representatives:

Democrats for: 152

Democrats against: 96

Republicans for: 138

Republicans against: 34

Senate:

Democrats for: 46

Democrats against: 21

Republicans for: 27

Republicans against: 6

Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional

Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative

District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state:

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the

Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for

the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for,

6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act.

[...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152

for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103

Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent

(138 for, 34 against) voted for it."

[Burgold]

I was having an argument with a fellow liberal who believes that what Reid said wasn't wrong to say because according to most studies what he said was accurate. I think that's missing the point.

We can't stay within the same box and tie ourselves to the old realities that we know are wrong. We need to progress and as a leader, he needs to be able to see beyond the present and challenge definitions that inhibit us. What Reid said wasn't wrong. It was dumb.

We should not be limited by the status quo. Obama's election proves that. There's no way that a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama with a Muslim father should have been electable. No marketer would have ever picked him as their poster boy. We proved we are better than most thought. We proved we are more grown up and sophisticated and that the stereotypes we know are not always clothes that fit.

Reid's statement was one of sideways thinking or backwards thinking that defies or limits possibilities and that's why it is dumb. I would like to think that the darkness of a man's skin is not defining. I know it is. I know we're not over our race hang ups, but we need to push the boundaries and not be snared by our old shortcomings, or limited by how we think people are.

Reid wasn't wrong, but he was dumb. He's supposed to be a leader. He needs to lead into the future. Not into the status quo.

[mjah]

In the book, Game Change, it outlines a discussion between Clinton and Kennedy and Clinton is alleged to have said that President Obama should not receive support of the Democratic Party and that "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." according to the book. Now, is he saying that Obama did not have the experience, which IMO is and was certainly true, or is he saying something else? Either way, I think it speaks towards your point.

That quote is pretty hypocritical, coming from a guy who became a governor at age 32 -- after 2 years as state AG and no years at anything else. I'm sure people said the same thing about him at the time.

It strikes me as the bellyaching of a guy who was smart enough to see the legitimate threat Obama posed to his wife's candidacy -- and who was also smart enough to know that he couldn't really fight it without hurting his wife's campaign.

Until 2008, I don't believe either of the Clintons had lost an election or even a primary since 1980. I'm sure Hillary's impending fall from sure-thing to also-ran at the hands of Obama was a subject of just a little bit of bitterness for Bill on the campaign trail.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was having an argument with a fellow liberal who believes that what Reid said wasn't wrong to say because according to most studies what he said was accurate. I think that's missing the point.

We can't stay within the same box and tie ourselves to the old realities that we know are wrong. We need to progress and as a leader, he needs to be able to see beyond the present and challenge definitions that inhibit us. What Reid said wasn't wrong. It was dumb.

We should not be limited by the status quo. Obama's election proves that. There's no way that a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama with a Muslim father should have been electable. No marketer would have ever picked him as their poster boy. We proved we are better than most thought. We proved we are more grown up and sophisticated and that the stereotypes we know are not always clothes that fit.

Reid's statement was one of sideways thinking or backwards thinking that defies or limits possibilities and that's why it is dumb. I would like to think that the darkness of a man's skin is not defining. I know it is. I know we're not over our race hang ups, but we need to push the boundaries and not be snared by our old shortcomings, or limited by how we think people are.

Reid wasn't wrong, but he was dumb. He's supposed to be a leader. He needs to lead into the future. Not into the status quo.

All we proved, IMO, are that racial divides are still strong in this country.

[Burgold]

Although the interpretation that it's a "true" statement doesn't address the FACT that if ANYBODY else, who is not a liberal democrat, had said the exact same thing in the exact same context would have been treated VERY differently than Harry Reid has been. They would have been criticized, ostracized and belittled by the same group who are now defending Reid's comments. It's obvious, to those who REALLY want to see it, that there is a double standard here. Some will be ok with that double standard and reconcile it accordingly I know but it is pretty telling to see what side everyone is on.

What a bunch of crybaby nonsense. Conservatives by voting against the ERA, anti-segregation, many aspects of Civil Rights legislation, etc. have earned their reputation and have done little to proactively change it. Did you watch the Republican Convention last year, there were three non whites invited to the whole thing. That's embarrassing.

Actions speak loudly, and Conservative actions have largely been anti minority since the 1780's.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That quote is pretty hypocritical, coming from a guy who became a governor at age 32 -- after 2 years as state AG and no years at anything else. I'm sure people said the same thing about him at the time.

It strikes me as the bellyaching of a guy who was smart enough to see the legitimate threat Obama posed to his wife's candidacy -- and who was also smart enough to know that he couldn't really fight it without hurting his wife's campaign.

Until 2008, I don't believe either of the Clintons had lost an election or even a primary since 1980. I'm sure Hillary's impending fall from sure-thing to also-ran at the hands of Obama was a subject of just a little bit of bitterness for Bill on the campaign trail.

Perhaps, on the other hand, it doesn't change the fact that he never got called out on it and Reid is not getting called either. It's the difference between being a Dem and being a Republican in this day and age.

[Burgold]

All we proved, IMO, are that racial divides are still strong in this country.

Strong and yet weaker than most thought. That Obama was elected by a good sized majority in the most active election in decades (more voter turnout) speaks well to our color blindness.

[Ellis]

GhostOfSparta striketh DEEP.

[zoony]

I think what people want is an educated, articulate president. And I don't see that as racist.

If some white guy with a hillbilly accent "I'm gunna run fer dat dere presidents job" I don't think he'd be taken seriously, and I don't think it would be racist to point it out.

As for the light skinned thing, I've never given it much thought. It's surely a good point. Even Doug Wilder was light-skinned. I do wonder though if it is a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy among the black community?

[ABQCOWBOY]

What a bunch of crybaby nonsense. Conservatives by voting against the ERA, anti-segregation, many aspects of Civil Rights legislation, etc. have earned their reputation and have done little to proactively change it. Did you watch the Republican Convention last year, there were three non whites invited to the whole thing. That's embarrassing.

Actions speak loudly, and Conservative actions have largely been anti minority since the 1780's.

Actions do speak louder then words.

Democratic ties and racisam go back a very long way. That whole people in glass houses would seem to apply here IMO. Neither party is without blood on there hands here. It is naive to expect Conservatives to buy into this when it's weidly known that ties to the KKK and other racial policies have played a significant role in Democratic Politics going back many years.

Lets just go from the here and now and not try to throw anybody under the bus shall we? What do you say?

[aREDSKIN]

What a bunch of crybaby nonsense. Conservatives by voting against the ERA, anti-segregation, many aspects of Civil Rights legislation, etc. have earned their reputation and have done little to proactively change it. Did you watch the Republican Convention last year, there were three non whites invited to the whole thing. That's embarrassing.

Actions speak loudly, and Conservative actions have largely been anti minority since the 1780's.

LOL Nonsense. Your myopia is well documented here on ES. Sobeit.

[Ellis]

I can't stand Harry Reid and I've bit my tongue on this issue all week... but I gotta be fair with the man... Harry Reid, however sloppy his point was delivered, is right. And yes, it's basic sociology.

I won't defend what he said, I just won't attack him for it. He definitely gaffed though. He could have delivered his point more eloquently, adding detail to support his arguement. I will also add that had he been a Republican, he'd be packing his office right now which is complete BS. Dem's get a free pass on a lot **** they say.

[Burgold]

That's why I said "Conservative" versus Republican or Democrat. The conservative philosophy has been the trouble maker and for the last 50 years or so, it has been associated with Republicans who have tried directly and indirectly to reduce personal freedoms or impede the opportunity for all people to have an equal shot.

[zoony]

What a bunch of crybaby nonsense. Conservatives by voting against the ERA, anti-segregation, many aspects of Civil Rights legislation, etc. have earned their reputation and have done little to proactively change it. Did you watch the Republican Convention last year, there were three non whites invited to the whole thing. That's embarrassing.

Actions speak loudly, and Conservative actions have largely been anti minority since the 1780's.

I was very interested to learn of Clarence Thomas that he is actually so far liberal on matters of equality that he has come full-circle back around to the conservative side.

He views government help and affirmative action as insulting to the resourcefulness and intelligence of african americans.

So, these issues are never as cut and dry as they appear. I think you could make a strong case that Democratic-led social initiatives starting in the 1960s have led to a permanent lower class in this country, made up predominantly of minorities.

....

[Burgold]

LOL Nonsense. Your myopia is well documented here on ES. Sobeit.

Which one?

Were conservatives pro ERA?

Were they for integration?

Were they for women's voting rights?

Were they for emancipation?

Heck, were they for the Revolution itself?

When have conservatives championed an expansion of liberty for any minority group?

[Zguy28]

What a bunch of crybaby nonsense. Conservatives by voting against the ERA, anti-segregation, many aspects of Civil Rights legislation, etc. have earned their reputation and have done little to proactively change it. Did you watch the Republican Convention last year, there were three non whites invited to the whole thing. That's embarrassing.

Actions speak loudly, and Conservative actions have largely been anti minority since the 1780's.

Dude, Michael Steele isn't black. Didn't you know this?

[Burgold]

Dude, Michael Steele isn't black. Didn't you know this?

and do you see how much grief and how disliked Michael Steele seems to be in the Repub party and how many seem to want him removed already?