AH challenge:more liberal america

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The best thing about King: the day off from work"

(Gasp!)

Tell, would you rather have a lunatic like Malcolm X (pre-Hajj) becoming the embodiment of American blacks' desire for equal rights?

King, though he had self-control issues re: sex, was a genuinely good, principled human being. He opposed Vietnam, true, but he wasn't doing it from a pro-Viet-Cong/semi-Communist prospective like many anti-Vietnam types (incl Bill Clinton--"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! Viet Cong are gonna win!"). He viewed it as symptomatic of a counterproductive US foreign policy. He denounced the Communists too.
 
By the way, Mikhail Gorbachev didn't WANT the USSR to fall, he wanted to make it more efficient. The massacres of protestors in the Baltics and in the Caucasus shows that deep down, he was a killing-happy bureaucrat like most Soviet leaders. He also tried to cover up the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which was extraordinarily irresponsible.
 
Matt Quinn said:
Tell, would you rather have a lunatic like Malcolm X (pre-Hajj) becoming the embodiment of American blacks' desire for equal rights?

Hell, no. Malcolm X was a stark raving lunatic. I'd rather have a man like W.E.B DuBois (pre-Commie days) embody that dream. Or even Booker Washington.
 
-----Actually, two of those are, in my opinion, the LEAST honorable politicians of the 20th Century. I am, of course, talking about the Kennedy's, arguably THE least honorable men to serve in Washington. Not only did JFK have absolutely NO moral standards (whether good or bad), but he was a horrible President as well. His brother, was no better, although he, obviously, was never President.

To further narrow the field, I meant Americans, as this entire thread is about America. That leaves us with Truman, Stevenson, Eisenhower, and King. I don't like Truman. He fired MacArthur, my favorite military officer of American history (I don't care whether it was warranted or not. In the end, MacArthur will be proved right). Stevenson was, although a nice man, a little too "red" for my liking. He was a good person, but he would have ruined this country had he been President. Eisenhower was a politician, pure and simple. He was a master politician and administrator and a relative do-nothing as President.

As for King, the last man on your list, I have only a tiny inkling of respect for him. He was made of the same moral fiber as the Kennedy's. You're talking about a man who slept with white prostitutes and plagarized his doctoral thesis. His constant criticizing of the US government's foreign policy, especially during the Vietnam War, really got on my nerves. The best thing about King: the day off from work.

There you go. Out of the Americans on that list, it is my opinion that Barry Goldwater is the most honorable.-----



I'm leaving this beaut for someone else on the board, I dont have my gloves and shovel today.Plus I have responded to this before on other threads-anyone else?
 
---Hell, no. Malcolm X was a stark raving lunatic. I'd rather have a man like W.E.B DuBois (pre-Commie days) embody that dream. Or even Booker Washington.----


Fortunately African-Americans dont let white people with your views chose our leaders-there were plenty of them around then to based on Goldwaters vote.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
Fortunately African-Americans dont let people of your ilk chose our leaders-there were plenty of them around then to based on Goldwaters voter.

And what, exactly, is my "ilk?" If you want to say something, just come out and say it. Don't allude to it.
 
--And what, exactly, is my "ilk?" If you want to say something, just come out and say it. Don't allude to it----


Check my post again, I edited to better reflect what I meant.
 
On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.
 
Paul Spring said:
On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.

Well put. I agree and this was what I've been trying to get across, albeit somewhat less eloquently.
 
lol, well that's much clearer. "white people with your views." Again you're just hiding what you really want to say, so come out and say it.
 
---It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.---


Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well? I'm sure that Mr Goldwaters strategy in Dixie was to be a balm for all those poor frustrated libertarians down there. :rolleyes:
 
Michael E Johnson said:
Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well?

I'd be interested to hear how the views of the people who voted for him reflect whether or not he himself was personally racist....
 
The article below ,that's packed with FACTS,addresses what the Barry Goldwater and GOP "legacy" actuaclly is-in regard to African-Americans since 1964 election-MEJ


The Hutchinson Report
Money Down a Sinkhole in GOP’s Ad Push For Blacks
©Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The Republican National Committee didn’t say how much it would spend on its new ad and promo campaign on black radio stations and newspapers to woo black voters. But whatever it spends it’ll be money wasted. President Bush’s efforts to reach blacks have failed miserably and for good reason. He has repeatedly turned down requests by the Congressional Black Caucus, and civil rights leaders to meet. For the past thirty years, they, and not the black conservatives that Bush and the Republicans delude themselves speak for blacks, have fought tough battles in the courts and the streets for voting rights, affirmative action, school integration, an end to housing and job discrimination, and police abuse. They are the ones who accurately capture the mood of fear and hostility the majority of blacks feel toward Bush.

But Bush has done more than cold shoulder black leaders and elected officials. He refuses to prod Congress to free up the billions he promised in his State of Union address last January to combat AIDS in Africa. He refuses to support tougher hate crimes legislation, and has been mute on the fight against racial profiling. He backed the white students in their effort to torpedo the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program, and he tried to ram rod Congress to confirm a wave of racially insensitive, ultra conservative appointees to the federal appeals court. His appointments of Colin Powell, Condeleezza Rice, Rod Paige, and Alphonso Jackson to high-ranking administration posts have not resulted in his promised racial remake of the Republican Party.

The devil’s bargain that GOP presidential contender Barry Goldwater struck with the South in 1964 assured the unshakeable loyalty of white Southerners. Goldwater blasted civil rights demonstrations, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights bill, and promised to slash big government. This open pandering to Southern fury over integration resulted in the wholesale stampede of Southern whites into the Republican Party. The Democratic Party became the hated symbol of integration, and civil rights.

Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the elder Bush excised Goldwater’s naked race-baiting appeals, but railed against welfare, crime in the streets, permissiveness, and quotas. This was racial code speak and Southern whites got the point. Before Secretary of State Colin Powell mildly dissented from his bosses’ opposition to the University of Michigan’s race-based affirmative action program, he criticized his former bosses Reagan and the elder Bush for not showing more sensitivity on racial matters. This has resulted in a huge and consistent vote bonanza for the Republicans in the South since the 1960’s. It won’t change in 2004. Polls show that white males by big margins favor Bush over any Democratic challenger and that includes North Carolina senator John Edwards.

The GOP, however, does not repeatedly fumble on its periodic public relations stab at bagging more black votes because of a cold, calculated, and obsessive political hunt for white male votes. Many Republicans still swallow the myth that blacks are cradle-to-grave Democrats, and believe that no matter what they do it won’t change. Though the few places that the GOP has done more than mouth platitudes about diversity and minority outreach and softened its hard line hostility to civil rights and social programs, and made a real effort to reach younger voters most notably in 2002, it has scored some successes. In 2002, it elected two black GOP lieutenant governors in Maryland and Ohio. Also, Bush’s pet programs of faith based charities, school vouchers, minority business and homeownership, increased funding for historically black colleges, and his approval of an African-American Museum could resonate with more than a handful of blacks. Polls have shown that many younger blacks are more politically conservative, if not down right indifferent, and hostile to the Democrats, whom they lambaste for tucking the black vote in their hip pocket and saying and doing as little as possible on racial issues for fear this will stir up white among the NASCAR dads by reinforcing the old perception that Democrats tilt toward minorities.

Despite this slight political window opening for the GOP, not a single black Democrat or black critic of the Democrats has yet broken ranks and called on blacks to back the GOP. And of the nearly 4000 blacks that the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black think tank, lists on its roster of black elected officials only 50 are Republicans. That number isn’t likely to get much bigger in 2004.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican Party had a once in a lifetime chance to snatch the political and ideological blinders from the eyes of Republican leaders and bury the notion that the GOP is nothing more than a cozy, good ole’ white guys club. Republicans have so far badly squanders that chance. A few splashy ads and promos on black radio and newspapers won’t change that. It’s just money down a political sinkhole.


About The Author: Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a noted author of nine books about the African American experience in America. His numerous published articles appear in newspapers and magazines across the country as well as some of the most popular web sites on the Internet. He is a radio host and TV commentator. Mr. Hutchinson has received several awards for his writings Visit his news and opinion website: thehutchinsonreport.com.
 
Here is another one-sorry but its got more of those uncomfortable facts :eek:



Armey Needs A Lesson In The Republican Party's Racial History
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

In a letter to NAACP president Kweisi Mfume House Majority Leader Dick Armey accused the organization of "racial McCarthyism." He specifically cited the NAACP's attack on Bush for indifference to the Texas dragging murder of James Byrd by three white supremacists and for inciting racially-divisive protests over Florida voting irregularities. Armey asked Mfume for a meeting. But if he is serious about easing racial polarization, he could start by looking at his own party's shameful record on race. In 1964 the Republican party was practically defunct in the five deep South states. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater set out to change that by riding the first tide of white backlash. He opposed the 1964 civil rights bill, railed against big government, and championed states rights. At the Republican convention nearly all the Southern delegates backed him. Despite his landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater deeply planted the seed of racial pandering that would be the centerpiece of the Republican's "Southern Strategy" in the coming decades. The strategy was simple: court white voters, ignore blacks, and do and say as little about civil rights as possible.

In 1968, Richard Nixon picked the hot button issues of bussing, and quotas, adopted the policy of benign neglect and subtly stoked white racial fears. He routinely peppered his talks with his confidants with derogatory quips about blacks. He enshrined in popular language racially-tinged code words such as, "law and order," permissive society" "welfare cheats," "crime in the streets," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived" and "lack of family values."

Ronald Reagan picked up the racial torch by launching the first major systematic attack on affirmative action programs, and gutting many social and education programs. He refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, attempted to reduce the power of the Civil Rights Commission over employment discrimination cases, and opposed the extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Reagan Attorney General, Ed Meese complained that the bill discriminated against the South.

In 1988, Bush, Sr., made escaped black convict Willie Horton the poster boy for black crime and violence and turned the presidential campaign against his Democrat opponent, Michael Dukakis into a rout. He branded a bill by Ted Kennedy to make it easier to bring employment discrimination suits a "quotas bill" and vetoed it. He further infuriated blacks by appointing arch-conservative Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush and Reagan's thinly disguised racial salvos were too much even for Colin Powell. In his autobiography, My American Journey, the general called Reagan "insensitive" on racial issues, and tagged Bush's Horton stunt, "a cheap shot." Republican presidential hopeful, Bob Dole waltzed through his failed campaign against Clinton in 1996 making only the barest mention of racial issues. He flatly rejected an invitation to speak at the NAACP convention. In 1998, the Republicans had a golden opportunity to loudly denounce race baiting, extremist groups when it was revealed that Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, and Georgia representative Robert Barr had cozied up to the pro-segregation, states rights, Council for Conservative Citizens. They, and that included Armey, were stone silent on the Council. Before, during, and after his campaign, Bush repeatedly promised a total racial makeover of the Republican Party. His appointments of Condeleezza Rice, Powell, and Rod Paige to top level posts supposedly is the signal that he means what he says. But those appointments, and photo-ops at inner-city schools, can't easily wipe away the rotten taste Bush left when he spoke at racially-archaic Bob Jones University, ducked the Confederate flag fight, and racial profiling, refused to support tougher hate crimes legislation and promptly ignited a racially-destructive battle by appointing ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft as attorney general. Undoubtedly there's much more to Armey's extended hand to the NAACP than a burning urge for racial reconciliation. He can do the math. Republicans have lost Congressional seats in every midterm election since 1994. In 2004, 20 republicans and 13 Democrats are up for re-election in the Senate. If black voters are convinced that the Republicans are bent on doing everything they can to damage their interests they will again angrily march to the polls in big numbers. This could wipe out the razor thin edge Bush and the Republicans have in the Senate.

It's no accident why blacks have given the Democrats 80 to 90 percent of their vote since the Goldwater rebuff in 1964. They give them near monolithic support not because they are madly in love with their polices, but because the Republicans have blown every chance they've had to prove that they are friends and not mortal enemies of civil rights. This is a point Armey did not mention in his letter to the NAACP.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the President of The National Alliance for Positive Action. website www.natalliance.org email:ehutchinson@natalliance.org
 
LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...
 
---LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...----


This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.


PS If you are capable of having your views challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-Hutchinson just happens to be among the most succient.
 
Last edited:
Michael E Johnson said:
This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.

This is complete bullshit. Explain to me how Ronald Reagan or George Bush's racial policies in any way indicate that Barry Goldwater himself was personally racist.

And, BTW, the Hutchinson Report in no way backs up your argument. It's like KKK in terms of credibility. Neither are truthful because each have their own racist agenda. Thus, they are not valid sources of information.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
PS If you are capable of having your viwes challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-hutchinso just happens to be among the most succient.

I challenge you to find me one unbiased website (i.e. no NAACP, no National Alliance) which argues that Barry Goldwater was personally racist and had no morals.
 
--This is complete bullshit. Explain to me how Ronald Reagan or George Bush's racial policies in any way indicate that Barry Goldwater himself was personally racist---

If you actually READ the articles they both note that the Republican party's racial strategy started with BARRY GOLDWATER. Also as you should know I never said that Barry Goldwater was racist-just his strategies ,policies and of course the people who supported him. I'll let any THINKING people use their own judgement to determine what that says about how honorable he really was :rolleyes:
 
:p --I challenge you to find me one unbiased website (i.e. no NAACP, no National Alliance) which argues that Barry Goldwater was personally racist and had no morals.---


Once agian not necessary as whats being argued here isnt about him personally but about WHAT HE ACTUALLY STOOD FOR accomplished.OR in othe words to make it crystal clear for you-THE FACTS. As far as what he really believed have you ever heard of that old saying that actions speak louder than words?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top