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

[Destino]

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.

Political capital has to be earned before it is spent. How credible are democrats on the topic of reduced spending? They aren't. Republicans have spent decades opposing issues popular amongst the black community while democrats have dominated that community. They have the political capital built up to survive issues like this while republicans do not.

Take a quick tour of the free republic boards after a terrorist incident or immigration blow up and you'll see why the GOP is still viewed as harboring what could be easily argued as racist or otherwise bias beliefs. Republican politicians may talk a good game but in this day and age we can see for ourselves what the core of the party has to say.

[Zguy28]

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?

No, I don't. At least not among the majority of Repubs who are neo-cons.

[Ellis]

I'm not Republican and I happen to like M. Steele.

[Burgold]

I'm not Republican and I happen to like M. Steele.

I think he's a pretty good politician too. Seems generally reasonable and should be good for the party. I do get the sense that even though he was given a position of importance and power he is still kind of an outsider, but that impression may be from this board and other wonkish experiences.

[DjTj]

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

Funny how in these days, you would never see a vote break down like that ... Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois certainly deserves a lot of credit for helping to pass the Civil Rights Act.

But even your numbers show that the majority of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. The House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, and the sponsors of the Bill were Democrats. The President who signed the Bill was a Democrat. Barry Goldwater, the Republicans' 1964 candidate for President, had voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Most importantly, however, was the shift that happened after the Civil Rights Bill was passed. The Democrats opposed to Civil Rights all had to make a choice. Strom Thurmond, a Democrat since he entered the Senate in 1954, switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights vote. Robert Byrd, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stayed in the Democratic Party and would later vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

So while there were many Republicans at the time who supported Civil Rights, they were a dying breed, and as Nixon pursued his Southern Strategy, the Republican Party would come to embrace politicians like Strom Thurmond rather than men like Everett Dirksen.

[GhostofSparta]

I think he's a pretty good politician too. Seems generally reasonable and should be good for the party. I do get the sense that even though he was given a position of importance and power he is still kind of an outsider, but that impression may be from this board and other wonkish experiences.

See, I agree that Mr. Steele is a good politician. I think what he lacks is leadership skills. And when you're essentially the head of your party, you must have leadership skills.

[Burgold]

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.

....

Well, of course, but I'm in an overdramatic mood today. I'm viewing the world in black and white.

[aREDSKIN]

Political capital has to be earned before it is spent. How credible are democrats on the topic of reduced spending? They aren't. Republicans have spent decades opposing issues popular amongst the black community while democrats have dominated that community. They have the political capital built up to survive issues like this while republicans do not.

Take a quick tour of the free republic boards after a terrorist incident or immigration blow up and you'll see why the GOP is still viewed as harboring what could be easily argued as racist or otherwise bias beliefs. Republican politicians may talk a good game but in this day and age we can see for ourselves what the core of the party has to say.

How "credible" are the Dems really when you have the current Democratic Leader of the Senate and a former Democratic PRESIDENT making inflammatory & derogatory comments about a democratic presidential candidate as reported in the new book? You offer a obscure website, with anonymous posters to bolster your position hardly convincing. The "real" feelings about the dems constituency had been tarnished by these reported quotes. The veil has been briefly blown away. The black voting block is just that to a vast majorityof dems a voting block and nothing more.

[GhostofSparta]

Funny how in these days, you would never see a vote break down like that ... Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois certainly deserves a lot of credit for helping to pass the Civil Rights Act.

But even your numbers show that the majority of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. The House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, and the sponsors of the Bill were Democrats. The President who signed the Bill was a Democrat. Barry Goldwater, the Republicans' 1964 candidate for President, had voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Most importantly, however, was the shift that happened after the Civil Rights Bill was passed. The Democrats opposed to Civil Rights all had to make a choice. Strom Thurmond, a Democrat since he entered the Senate in 1954, switched to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights vote. Robert Byrd, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stayed in the Democratic Party and would later vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

So while there were many Republicans at the time who supported Civil Rights, they were a dying breed, and as Nixon pursued his Southern Strategy, the Republican Party would come to embrace politicians like Strom Thurmond rather than men like Everett Dirksen.

I agree it's uncommon to see people agree on controversial issues like that today. And yes, the majority of supporters were Democrats, but they were also the majority at the time. The stats showed a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill. As for people/regions switching sides after this, that wasn't my point. You said that the Republican party didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their past on Civil Rights. I merely pointed out that, back in the '60s, the Republican party was a bigger supporter of Civil Rights than the Demcrats. By your argument, this information should allow them the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to change the parameters of your argument, then fine. But when I present you information based on your first argument and you dismiss it out of hand, that weakens your stance.

[aREDSKIN]

Well, of course, but I'm in an overdramatic mood today. I'm viewing the world in black and white.

Damn monochromatic.

[RedskinsTime]

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.

....

Bingo.

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

No. According to voter registration, 96% of all Black Americans voted for President Obama. That's a significantly higher percentage of Blacks in this country that are even registered as Democrats. This vote, regardless of popular acceptance or not, was racially driven from the outset. President Obama was not the most qualified candidate, based on past history, even in his own party but he won the nomination on the strength, in large part, to the minority vote. Even today, if you look at popularity pools, the gallup pool reflects a 50% approval rating. Now, of those who approve of the Job President Obama is doing, 84% are Democrat and fully 76% of those Democrats are minorities.

No, I would say that these numbers suggest just the opposit of what you believe. This suggests that President Obama was elected based on the color of his skin, more so then any other factor.

[LaxBuddy21]

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.

This right here is one of the huge problems with politics right now. You are judging what an individual said in the context of a group. Just because he is liberal and sided with the democrats does not mean he is not a racist POS that hates anyone and everyone not white. I dont think there is anything wrong with what he said but he should certainly not get a pass because he claims to be a Democrat. So if he claims to be a Republican, all of a sudden these are horrible racist comments? Makes no sense at all! Until we stop judging these idiots we vote in office by the letter next to their name and start judging them based on their own merits and their own opinions, we are going to be stuck in this mess we are in now with corrupt politicians owing everyone and their mother favors. The battle for elections is never one person vs another. Its one party vs another and the parties could stick almost anyone they want on the ballot. Same thing when issues are discussed in Congress. Its not two sides looking for the best solution, its two sides jockying for position and power! Stop making judgments based on political affiliation!

[Burgold]

There were many pundits who predicted a election booth effect where they said that people who would espouse one thing in the daylight would vote differently when no one could see what was happening. That didn't happen. The polls of the day and the election results were remarkably similar. That is a hopeful thing. As for Hillary vs. Obama that was a dead even race. Hillary had much more baggage and far more negatives, but was a better policy wonk. Obama had a similar gameplan, an incredibly well organized campaign, and the knack for inspiring people who were feeling really down about the state of the country. That's why Obama edged it out.

Obama won because of and in spite of his race, but also because there was a tremendous Bush fatigue and anti-incumbancy anger. There were also a bunch of dems who believed that Hillary might lose to McCain because McCain was well liked and Hillary was well hated.

[Burgold]

Stop making judgments based on political affiliation!

Ummm... did you read my take on Reid's statement? I called it without reservation the wrong thing and bad thing to have done.

aredskins comments about, "Oh woe is me and my Republican counterparts. We're always victimized and treated so unfairly (sniff, sniff, blow)" was whiny

[Thiebear]

I used Reids own words in 2002 in agreeing WHY the then current head of the senate should step down. It matched his scenario.

The news agencies should also.

[ccsl2]

See, I agree that Mr. Steele is a good politician. I think what he lacks is leadership skills. And when you're essentially the head of your party, you must have leadership skills.

That says more about those who picked him to lead the party...why did they pick him if he had no leadership skills?

[Zguy28]

Well, of course, but I'm in an overdramatic mood today. I'm viewing the world in black and white.

For some reason this reminded me of that video of the guy from a Chamber of Commerce objecting to the term "black hole" because it was racist. :hysterical: :doh:

[aREDSKIN]

Ummm... did you read my take on Reid's statement? I called it without reservation the wrong thing and bad thing to have done.

aredskins comments about, "Oh woe is me and my Republican counterparts. We're always victimized and treated so unfairly (sniff, sniff, blow)" was whiny

I pointed out a double standard that many clearly see and agree with. Some refuse see it and some just reconcile it as ok because the offending individual "supports" our positions/POV etc. Not whiny at all just a matter of fact observation. Do you approve of Clinton's reported comments??

[ccsl2]

No. According to voter registration, 96% of all Black Americans voted for President Obama. That's a significantly higher percentage of Blacks in this country that are even registered as Democrats. This vote, regardless of popular acceptance or not, was racially driven from the outset. President Obama was not the most qualified candidate, based on past history, even in his own party but he won the nomination on the strength, in large part, to the minority vote. Even today, if you look at popularity pools, the gallup pool reflects a 50% approval rating. Now, of those who approve of the Job President Obama is doing, 84% are Democrat and fully 76% of those Democrats are minorities.

No, I would say that these numbers suggest just the opposit of what you believe. This suggests that President Obama was elected based on the color of his skin, more so then any other factor.

You would have a legit argument if blacks made up more than 12% of the population. Obama was voted it because quite a few white poeple voted for him. So are you saying white people voted for him because he was black???

[GhostofSparta]

That says more about those who picked him to lead the party...why did they pick him if he had no leadership skills?

Beats me, maybe they thought he did have it but were proved wrong. Maybe they just wanted a black guy as their public face. Maybe he had better supporters and organizers when they elected him. Maybe he had blackmail over his opponents. I have no idea.

[LaxBuddy21]

Ummm... did you read my take on Reid's statement? I called it without reservation the wrong thing and bad thing to have done.

aredskins comments about, "Oh woe is me and my Republican counterparts. We're always victimized and treated so unfairly (sniff, sniff, blow)" was whiny

Your response had to do with Republicans having been racist hateful people throughout history or whatever but that has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of one person. You are passing judgment on both sides based on party history and not based on that persons history or his personal beliefs. You are doing what so many others do and make it about the parties instead of the people who actually make the decisions.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You would have a legit argument if blacks made up more than 12% of the population. Obama was voted it because quite a few white poeple voted for him. So are you saying white people voted for him because he was black???

I'm saying that minorities (doesn't have to be black) were overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama, to the point that a larger percentage of minorities voted for President Obama then make up the Democratic Party as a whole. I'm saying that even now, if you look at his popularity numbers, the overwhelming majority, from a percentage stand point, in favor of the job he's done are comprised of minorities.

Clearly, this was a racially driven election and continues to be so.

There is no arguement here. The numbers are what they are so for you to say, "You would have a lagit if" is somewhat inaccurate. I'm not argueing anything. I'm stating the facts as they are. The facts do support the fact that this election is racially driven and that it continues to be so.

[Burgold]

I pointed out a double standard that many clearly see and agree with. Some refuse see it and some just reconcile it as ok because the offending individual "supports" our positions/POV etc. Not whiny at all just a matter of fact observation. Do you approve of Clinton's reported comments??

Clinton can be a coarse idiot too. Again, I think that Reid was dumb in this instance also.

And LAX I would never say all Republicans have been racist throughout history. I said it about conservatives :rimshot:

And yes, it is a ridiculous charge. Clearly, there must be a handful of recorded time that didn't try to block social change.

(Don't know why I'm in such a devilish mood today)

[Burgold]

I'm saying that minorities (doesn't have to be black) were overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama.

I think this inarguably true. At the same time, it was shown that the majority culture was far less inhibited by the issue of race than many believed and THAT is a good thing. A hopeful thing. And an anti-racist thing.

Rooting for is so much better than rooting against.