Republican Congressional Leaders Skipping Selma Anniversary

Another tone deaf action from leading Republicans.

Coretta Scott King,John Lewis,

This weekend, President Obama, former President George W. Bush, and countless numbers of other Americans will gather in Selma, Alabama to mark the 50th anniversary of one of the most significant events of the Civil Rights Era, but there won’t be any representatives from the Republican leadership in either the House or the Senate there:

Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders.

None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred.

“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”

Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed.

“Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”

Black leaders in Congress pressured Scalise to attend the Faith and Politics Institute event after news reports revealed that the Louisiana Republican gave a speech to a group connected with Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke when Scalise was still serving in the state Legislature. Scalise said late last month that a scheduling conflict would keep him from Selma this year but that he hoped to attend in 2016.

McCarthy has attended in the past but won’t make the trip this year. Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will also miss the event.

Still, a number of rank-and-file Republicans are attending. Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, is a co-sponsor of the event along with Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama. Scott is the first African-American Republican elected from the South since the end of Reconstruction.

Roby’s office said Thursday 23 Republican House and Senate members are registered to attend the pilgrimage.

Roby and Scott pressed a number of their GOP colleagues to attend the event in Alabama, which is expected to draw more than 100 members of Congress.

When I heard this report, immediately after I finished shaking my head in amazement at this latest example of political cluelessness on the part of the GOP, I was reminded of the 50th Anniversary of the March On Washington back in 2013, which was also marked by ceremonies and a large public gathering attended by many prominent public figures. Back then, both Speaker John Boehner and then Majority Leader Eric Cantor declined invitations to speak publicly at the event. As with that event, it seems short-sighted and stupid for Republican leaders to ignore something like this, or to ostensibly turn it into a partisan even by default. The events that occurred in Selma 50 years ago were a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement, a seminal event in post-World War Two American history. It makes as little sense for national leaders from either political party to ignore a significant anniversary of that events as it would for them to ignore the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, which of course no Republican would do. The fact that nether Boehber, McCarthy, Scalise, nor McConnell is showing up, or at least sending some kind of official representative, is pretty pathetic.

To be fair, it’s worth noting that there will be Republicans at the event this weekend. As noted. former President George W. Bush will be speaking and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott will be there as well, to pick just two examples. However, the lack of any kind of representation from Republican leadership will be conspicuous, and it will cause some people to make conclusions about how much Republicans actually care about the minority community in this country. Whether the conclusions that they will draw are fair or not, Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for reinforcing the stereotype of a party that would rather pander to white Americans that reach out to minorities.

 

FILED UNDER: Congress, Race and Politics, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. al-Ameda says:

    I read somewhere (recently) that 85% of white voters in Mississippi voted Republican in the last election, so this does not surprise me at all. The Civil War is winding down, however it is in many ways still being fought

    All it took was the election and re-election of a moderate Black president to motivate Republicans to take this non-action.

  2. James Joyner says:

    Yeah, this is just bizarre. From a sheer optics standpoint, you’d think both Boehner and McConnell would go. Won’t make much difference in terms of voting behavior but ugh.

  3. Hal_10000 says:

    Won’t make much difference in terms of voting behavior but ugh.

    True, but … the reason Republicans can’t draw even double digits in the black community is because of decades of stuff like this. They ignore these sort of events, never campaign in the black community and then say, “well, we’re not going to get any votes anyway”, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Say what you want about Rand Paul, but at least he’s making an effort to not continually slap the black community in the face.

  4. C. Clavin says:

    Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for reinforcing the stereotype of a party that would rather pander to white Americans that reach out to minorities.

    Frankly, I think a lot of this stuff is overblown.
    But…
    If I belonged to a party that was trying to reach out to minorities, I would definitely see this as a missed opportunity.
    I do wonder if the Right-Wing Entertainment Complex that spent weeks whining about Obama not going to the thing in France a while back…will denigrate Republican leadership for not attending this. Well…not really…I know full well they won’t.

  5. gVOR08 says:

    shaking my head in amazement

    I too shook my head, but not in amazement. Rather at the sad predictability of it.

    They’ve made a rational political calculation. One that does not redound to the credit of Republican voters.

  6. gVOR08 says:

    @C. Clavin:

    If I belonged to a party that was trying pretending to reach out to minorities, I would definitely see this as a missed opportunity to put on a show.

    FTFY, C.

  7. Rafer Janders says:

    Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for reinforcing the stereotype of a party that would rather pander to white Americans that reach out to minorities.

    It’s not a stereotype, it’s a fact.

  8. The Obvious says:

    If Republican lawmakers came to the Selma anniversary, they would be booed, even if they were fairly liberal on racial matters. (To restate the obvious, the civil-rights groups are run by Democrats, and most African-Americans are Democrats to begin with).

    In the past, when GOP officials came to such events, they were criticized for their mere presence.

    So for them, this is a case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    Even Republican lawmakers who are critical of racial profiling and police abuse (like Rand Paul) or support affirmative-action (like some other GOP officials) get a very hostile reception from the civil-rights groups (the Congressional Black Caucus has baselessly accused Sen. Paul of racism; while his libertarian ideology may be strange or unrealistic, there is no evidence that he is a racist, and he was genuinely disturbed by situations like that in Ferguson.).

  9. gVOR08 says:

    @The Obvious: “Obviously” Republican politicians are the real victims here.

  10. al-Ameda says:

    @The Obvious:

    If Republican lawmakers came to the Selma anniversary, they would be booed, even if they were fairly liberal on racial matters. (To restate the obvious, the civil-rights groups are run by Democrats, and most African-Americans are Democrats to begin with).

    You are assuming that Republicans would be treated as they have treated President Obama for the better part of 6 years – disrespectfully.

    I have no reason to believe that those attending the Selma Commemoration would disrespect the legacy of Selma that they are honoring, by behaving as Republicans have done for the past 6 years.

    (down votes accepted, but not welcome)

  11. superdestroyer says:

    @James Joyner:

    What would be the political optics of going and either ending up pandering to a demographic group that will never, ever vote for you, or making a verbal gaffe that creates a massive backlash, or being booed while trying to give as neutral a speech as possible.

    When one is faced with a no win situation, the best thing to do is to avoid the situation.

  12. Neil Hudelson says:

    hether the conclusions that they will draw are fair or not, Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for reinforcing the stereotype of a party that would rather pander to white Americans that reach out to minorities.

    To be clear…for the most part it’s fair.

    People keep saying it’s a missed opportunity and has bad optics.

    It’s not a missed opportunity.

    The Republican leaders are dealing with a base that would see their participation as treason against the party. Don’t believe me? Wait 10 minutes. Superdestroyer will be along to confirm it.

  13. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    Well, nevermind about having to wait for Superdestroyer to prove my point…

  14. C. Clavin says:

    @gVOR08:
    Much more accurate…thx

  15. superdestroyer says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    Ok, how does a conservative Republican appeal to a group where 70% support race-based reparations, more than 90% support race-based quotas and affirmative action, and where de-policing is actively discussed?

    There is no way that the more conservative party in the U.S. can appeal to the most liberal demographic group. Trying to appeal to blacks is a lose-lose situation for conservatives because it always results in either pandering to major political gaffes.

  16. Modulo Myself says:

    The reason they aren’t going to Selma is because the base believes this is justice:

    We spoke with one African-American man who, in August 2014, had an argument in his apartment to which FPD officers responded, and was immediately pulled out of the apartment by force. After telling the officer, “you don’t have a reason to lock me up,” he claims the officer responded: “N*****, I can find something to lock you up on.” When the man responded, “good luck with that,” the officer slammed his face into the wall, and after the man fell to the floor, the officer said, “don’t pass out motherf****r because I’m not carrying you to my car.”

    That’s the GOP, right there. Not all of you are the muscle in the operation. Most of you are the paperwork, the money, the employee, or the satisfied consumer. For about thirty years, it was necessary to offer a veneer of deniability. White Republicans were more sophisticated then. Now you’re the most simplified reduced humans imaginable. It’s of no importance to offer the pretense of equality. In fact, this pretense is enough to trouble Republicans now, because any contrary word is a problem.

  17. Tillman says:

    @The Obvious:

    (To restate the obvious, the civil-rights groups are run by Democrats…)

    Man, I hope this becomes your calling card. 🙂

  18. Tillman says:

    @superdestroyer:

    There is no way that the more conservative party in the U.S. can appeal to the most liberal demographic group.

    There might be a reason for that, SD. Conservatives want to “conserve” the past against the raging currents of social change. What is “in the past” for the black community is not the rose-colored, white picket-fenced backyard of nostalgia it is for today’s old white dude. Today’s Old White Dude (I’ll call him Todd*) heard about the civil rights movement over occasional TV, radio, and newspaper segments as something “happening over there” and “something Rhonda up the street is really happy about.” Then they kept chugging along in their Todd world. Sure, some laws changed that Todd’s uncle was really upset over, but Todd didn’t give it much mind. And maybe Todd’s mom was really concerned over this latest repeal, but Todd didn’t see what the fuss was about. And Todd kept chugging along in his Todd world.

    See, now Todd looks around and like his uncle and his mom, he sees stuff that really upsets him. He’s conservative: he wants to conserve the life that he led in the environment he led it in. The problem is for this particular batch of conservatives that they’ve chosen the super-racist-and-sexist ’50s-’70s (and some new ones in my generation really like the ’80s-’90s for some reason) to conserve. Not all of them have, just this particular batch you’re so worried about.

    * Though really a dude can be male or female, but old white women are usually adorably racist in a senile way if at all and old white men tend to be characterized more aggressively

  19. Moosebreath says:

    And yet, Republicans regularly tell us that they are the ones who truly embody MLK’s vision.

  20. Grand Old Predjudice says:

    To paraphrase a great Republican Leader…

    Heck of an outreach there, to Brownie…

  21. superdestroyer says:

    @Tillman:

    I noticed you skipped over the first part. How does any form of conservative party appeal to a group who believes that government benefits, government jobs, government contracts, admissions to universities, and admissions to magnet high schools could be given out on the basis of race. You can talk about conserving the past or wanting a simplier time but if the future is reparations, quotas, hate crimes, and thought crimes, then what can a conservative party do to exist and appeal to groups who believe they will always benefit from thought crime legislation and never be the victim?

  22. Barry says:

    @Hal_10000: “True, but … the reason Republicans can’t draw even double digits in the black community is because of decades of stuff like this. They ignore these sort of events, never campaign in the black community and then say, “well, we’re not going to get any votes anyway”, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Say what you want about Rand Paul, but at least he’s making an effort to not continually slap the black community in the face.”

    No, that’s the start. Then they go back into their offices, and work like sled dogs to f*ck over blacks in particular.

  23. Barry says:

    @gVOR08: “If I belonged to a party that was trying pretending to reach out to minorities, I would definitely see this as a missed opportunity to put on a show.”

    Which gives you an idea of just how far the party is; even making a Potemkin PR display would endanger them with the Tea Party.

  24. Rafer Janders says:

    @superdestroyer:

    How does any form of conservative party appeal to a group who believes that government benefits, government jobs, government contracts, admissions to universities, and admissions to magnet high schools could be given out on the basis of race.

    For two hundred years in America it was de facto policy and often de jure law that government benefits, government jobs, government contracts, admissions to universities, and admissions to magnet high schools should be given out only to white people. Now let that process be opened up, let it be suggested that these benefits should be available to all, black, white, yellow, brown and puce, and suddenly there’s a lot of squealing….

  25. Neil Hudelson says:

    @superdestroyer:

    1. Maybe find out, through dialogue, why they support such actions.

    2. F*cking show up at Selma.

    Those are two first steps. That wasn’t hard at all.

  26. Gustopher says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Ok, how does a conservative Republican appeal to a group where 70% support race-based reparations, more than 90% support race-based quotas and affirmative action, and where de-policing is actively discussed?

    Where do you get your numbers? I mean, the estates of a lot of former slaves are still waiting for their forty acres and a mule, but 70% supporting reparations?

    Anyway, as to the main thrust, I will play along. A conservative can do well in that environment by hitting the following points.
    – We agree with our liberal colleagues on many of the challenges but not the solutions
    – equality of opportunity, results flow from that
    – repair education in cities with vouchers and private schools
    – strengthen the family! (Entirely meaningless)
    – bring jobs to the cities with targeted tax breaks
    – break a culture of dependence by tying welfare with more job training, paid for with block grants to the states

    And, a bonus policy that no one seems to be advocating, but would play well — break a culture of dependence by having government support taper off as people earn more rather than cut off suddenly. Too many people are in a trap because of harsh means testing, where they can only make so much before they lose insurance for their kids, day care support, etc. You should never be in a spot where you lose money by working more.

    If they can work in being appalled by some part of the Ferguson report, so much the better. And then tie it into a reaction to some liberal policy.

    It’s really not that hard. Treat people with respect. Acknowledge that the problems they are facing are real. Offer up the same old Failed Republican Ideas.

    Oh, hell, go all out — Republicans led the fight against segregation in the South, but we’ve rested on their laurels for too long, schools are still segregated based on where the parents love and that’s why we need vouchers and private education. And tax breaks for the wealthy.

  27. Gavrilo says:

    Are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid attending? That’s a serious question. I can’t find any info on that.

  28. Barry says:

    @The Obvious: “Even Republican lawmakers who are critical of racial profiling and police abuse (like Rand Paul) ”

    You’re leaving a lot of stuff out of Rand’s record. Or is he like MLK, who made only one speech, with only one line.

  29. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Ok, how does a conservative Republican appeal to a group where 70% support race-based reparations, more than 90% support race-based quotas and affirmative action, and where de-policing is actively discussed?

    First – I’m pretty sure your numbers are nonsense. Perhaps you can provide some links?
    But in any case…you appealto groups by showing up at things like this and opening up avenues of dialogue.
    You certainly will never appeal to them by staying home and only caring about what rich white guys care about….which is what Republicans do now.

  30. Gustopher says:

    @Gustopher: That bonus policy really is ripe for the picking.

    There are a lot of programs that are means tested such that if you earn below $X/year, you qualify for children’s health insurance or day-care vouchers worth several thousand dollars, but if you actually earn $X+1 you do not.

    There’s a huge drop in effective income, which discourages people from working more — they have to suddenly work a lot more before they can break even. It’s a trap. People cannot afford to work more.

    Tapering support off as income rises would let people get off it, and would likely save a lot of money, and shorten the time people are on public assistance — although added complexity of administration might actually wipe out any savings.

    This could be a conservative policy — start tapering by cutting benefits downwards rather than expanding partial benefits upwards.

  31. James P says:

    Attending the event would not gain the GOP one single vote. Failure to attend will not cost the GOP one single vote. Why should they bother to attend? There clearly are more productive uses of their time.

  32. michael reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:

    Sure you can do it, I can do it, anyone familiar with the issues can do it, but Republicans can’t do it, because the GOP is in thrall to people like superdestroyer who would attack any effort to reach out to minorities.

    Racists don’t want black people in their party, even if it means losing elections.

  33. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    Why should they bother to attend?

    No reason at all. Clearly, modern conservatives have more productive things to do. Accruing power for themselves and their masters, raking in cash from lobbyists, and working at the behest of foreign leaders and corporations.

    I see you are a Palin fan. How is she doing since she abandoned her sworn duty and the sacred trust of Alaska’s voters in search of the paydays that can be had by a D list celebrity? Surely driving around in a limo getter hammered (with her grandchild in the car) is more important than doing the job she swore to do.

  34. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    You’re right, the GOP should remain exclusively white in a country where the electorate is turning brown. Brilliant! Winning!

  35. KM says:

    @James P:

    There clearly are more productive uses of their time.

    Yeah, that tanning booth ain’t gonna man itself, you know. Keep on glowing, Boehner!

  36. anjin-san says:

    Yeah, that tanning booth ain’t gonna man itself, you know.

    Ding, ding, ding… we have a winner!

  37. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    All you have to do is read your comments and you’ll figure out exactly why Republicans cannot appeal to minority populations.

  38. @James P:

    Attending the event would not gain the GOP one single vote. Failure to attend will not cost the GOP one single vote. Why should they bother to attend?

    Indeed. What would be the point of celebrating the struggle for expanding our democracy to include a substantial part of the citizenry who had been systematically denied access to based rights.

    But, of course, as was noted above:

    the civil-rights groups are run by Democrats

    Sigh.

    Your comment underscores the entirety of the the problem (i.e., who cares about civil rights, or democratic values?). All that matters: how many votes will it get me?

  39. Gustopher says:

    @michael reynolds: They’ve got the hard line racist vote locked up. It’s not going anywhere — I mean, really, is Superdestroyer going to start voting for Democrats even when the One Party Government comes thundering down around him? (Will we allow voting in the FEMA Reeducation Camps? Crap, I can’t find anything one way or the other in the memos… Oh, well, we will find out soon enough, I guess)

    The moderate racists, the people like my entire family (who will be shipped off to live in a box car in Ohio, surrounded by snarling dogs and an all black division of MPs keeping the peace after the emergency is declared, according to page 37 of The Secret Plan For The Subjugation Of White America), chuckle about their racism but aren’t too concerned with gestures. They refer to black and brown people as “Democrats”.

    That just leaves the persuadable in the mushy middle, and the left. The Republicans won’t make inroads into the left, but if they can make themselves presentable, they won’t be shunned by people who are friends of the left. Lots to gain, nothing to lose.

    (Well, ok, not lots to gain, since there will be no Presidential elections in 2016, and all registered Republicans and white people will be rounded up for quarantine because of the “bovine flu” according to page 93 of the plan. Have you remembered to register as a Collaborator and Race Traitor? Go to healthcare.gov and register using the secret link. The deadline is June 1st, but Obama will probably extend it like he did with ObamaCare — he really is the most lawless president ever)

  40. @Doug:

    When I heard this report, immediately after I finished shaking my head in amazement at this latest example of political cluelessness on the part of the GOP,

    The thing is: I don’t think this is tone-deafness or political cluelessness. I simply think it is a combination of a) they don’t care, and b) see all of this as a vote calculation as per James P.

  41. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    I see the Palin-bot is back.

    Attending the event would not gain the GOP one single vote.

    Maybe, maybe not. That’s unknowable. So give us all a break and stop pretending you do.
    What most intelligent people do know is that changing the image of a party driven by xenophobia…an image that has been reinforced over and over and over again for a really long time…will never be accomplished at one event. It’s hard work…but it’s much easier if you actually believe what you are selling. As I typed earlier…I think this stuff is over-blown. But if someone was really and truly interested in reaching out to minorities…this would be a really important opportunity to take advantage of.

  42. stonetools says:

    Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for reinforcing the stereotype of a party that would rather pander to white Americans that reach out to minorities.

    To be honest, I prefer that the Republicans not even pretend that they are interested in black and minority voters or in black history. If I have to deal with racists at all, I much prefer the honest, upfront variety to the backstabbers.
    Have we stopped pretending we are in a post-racial America yet?Chief Justice Roberts, are you paying attention?

  43. MarkedMan says:

    James, your befuddlement as to why the leadership doesn’t attend seems sincere, but given Lee Attwater’s admission that Republican leaders made a conscious decision to court the racist vote, is it really believable that Boehner et al just don’t perceive the optics?

  44. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: On what basis are you claiming the GOP is driven by xenophobia. Do you have any evidence at all to substantiate this.

    I think you would have a VERY hard time calling me xenophobic. The fact is you just like to engage in baseless slander.

  45. James P says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Exactly.

    Nobody who would be offended by the GOP not attending this rally would ever vote Republican anyway, so what precisely would be the point?

    Why would any GOP office holder want to attend an event when there would be absolutely zero political benefit for them? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Attending could make the event look bipartisan. Not attending makes it look more partisan and therefore lessens its overall impact.

    The point is there is absolutely nothing to be gained for the Republican party (electorally speaking) in attending this event so why bother?

  46. James P says:

    @anjin-san: [“Accruing power for themselves and their masters, raking in cash from lobbyists, and working at the behest of foreign leaders and corporations. “]

    Foreign contributions? I think you have them confused with the Clinton Foundation.

  47. Neil Hudelson says:

    @James P:

    Saying that elected leaders in a country shouldn’t celebrate a seminal moment in our nation’s history, because that moment belongs to the blacks, and they don’t vote for you….I don’t know, that kinda sounds like xenophobia, doesn’t it?

    Do you even try to sound rational? You are like my racist (former) barber who calls African Americans “n*ggers” and then got mad when I called him a racist. You really don’t understand how language and communication works, do you?

    @Steven L. Taylor: Exactly.

    So language comprehension all around is just not your strength.

  48. James P says:

    @Neil Hudelson: Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners. Everyone associated with the march on Selma was a US citizen so the term xenophobic is not applicable. You don’t know the definition of xenophobia is, do you?

    I do understand communication – that’s why I, unlike your barber, never use racist language.

  49. @James P: Because one would like to think that something like celebrating the hard-fought struggle for expanded voting rights would be about more than winning votes.

    By your logic, btw, neither Bush nor Obama should be going since neither of them is ever going to compete for a vote ever again.

    For that matter: why is the event even being held?

  50. Neil Hudelson says:

    @James P:

    It’s the unseasoned fear of things perceived to be foreign or strange.

    Yes…I don’t know how I could’ve thought your words sounded xenophobic.

  51. michael reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:

    I agree, that’s how logical people would look at it. But a coward like Boehner? He won’t risk the attacks from the far right. They’re all scared to death of the Tea Party folks. It would take a leader to say, Hey, let’s not define the party by what we hate, let’s sort of stick the crazies in a box and expand our message. So far only Jeb Bush has gone down that road, and we’ll have to see if it works.

  52. Loviatar says:

    And you know what the sad things is, black Protestants and hispanic Catholics are some of the most conservative people to walk the face of the earth. Any type of real outreach by the Republicans could easily peel off a quarter to a third of the brown vote every election. As it is all they can get from the born tanned are the crazies and the grifters.

  53. Anjin-San says:

    @James P:

    I said “foreign corporations”

    Read much?

  54. Mikey says:

    @michael reynolds:

    So far only Jeb Bush has gone down that road, and we’ll have to see if it works.

    I can tell you I know quite a few conservatives and a couple Tea Party types and they all think Jeb is an irredeemable RINO. If they’re at all representative of the larger conservative movement, and I think they are, we know he won’t have the “base.”

  55. stonetools says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    Calling a xenophobe xenophobic is the real xenophobia.

  56. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    Yes, you’ve learned not to say ni–er. Congratulations. The problem is that a simple change of word choice doesn’t really work, which is why everyone has figured out that the GOP is the party of racists, despite Republicans’ careful (and dishonest and cowardly) efforts to mask their actual beliefs.

    See, if you assert that your message cannot possibly be of interest to a group of people solely because of their skin color, that’s racist. It assumes that an entire population’s politics is solely a reflection of their race and that they are incapable of forming independent judgments.

    See how that works? It’s not even subtle. Even a Republican should be able to figure that out.

    If black people can never be attracted to your ideas, how to explain Herman Cain and Ben Carson?

  57. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    On what basis are you claiming the GOP is driven by xenophobia.

    Seriously?
    The party that wants to deport 12 million immigrants?
    That thinks everyone should speak English?
    That actively works to suppress minority voting.
    That is against marriage equality?
    That thinks profiling is a good idea?
    Yeah…you’re right…Republicans aren’t xenophobic.

  58. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    You don’t know the definition of xenophobia is, do you?

    It’s apparent you don’t know the meaning of Xenophobia…which, yes…can refer to foreigners…but also is unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar.

  59. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: Again, xenophobia means fear of foreigners. Consult a dictionary. For better or worse Al Sharpton and Eric Holder are not foreigners.

    1) The party that wants to deport 12 million immigrants?

    IT’s not feasible. They’re not immigrants – they’re illegal trespassers.

    2) That thinks everyone should speak English?

    Si! Absolutmente si! Creo que es muy importante que todo el mundo habla Ingles esta en las mejores interstests de etranjeros que aprenden Ingles. es el lenguaje del exito. Su no puede tener exito en este paes si usted no habla la idioma Ingles.

    3) That actively works to suppress minority voting.

    Truly absurdand slanderous contention – unworthy of a response.

    4) That is against marriage equality?

    Uh, yeah! Duh! OF COURSE I’m against homosexual marriage. It’s unnatural. Homosexual marriage is “foreign” to the US – it is traditional marriage which is not “foreign” so going by your very broad definition of xenophobic, proponents of homosexual marriage are the xenophobes.

    5) That thinks profiling is a good idea?

    Of course it’s a good idea. I think a 22 year old Yemeni exchange student is more likely to hijack a plane than a 78 year old grandmother from Sweden. I’m not willing to die for the sake of political correctness. OF COURSE I support profiling.

  60. Neil Hudelson says:

    @James P:

    xenophobia
    [zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-]
    Spell Syllables
    Examples Word Origin
    noun
    1.
    an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

    Is there something about RWNJ’s that they love to be publicly proven wrong multiple times in a day? I think it’s sexual repression, and this is how they express latent masochistic urges.

  61. KM says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    my racist (former) barber who calls African Americans “n*ggers” and then got mad when I called him a racist.

    Because “racist” has a negative social connotation that applies to HIM. He was aware it’s not a socially acceptable status anymore and thus understands it’s not a nice thing to be do be called. So they lash out at you for “insulting” them. Doesn’t matter if they blatantly are or not, they don’t want you to inpune their honor. How dare you call them a name – all they were doing was calling someone else a name?! They completely don’t get why people keep calling them that…

    For a non-racist example of this ironic kind of lack of personal self-awareness, please see phenomenon of overweight, unattractive men complaining about overweight, unattractive women (“No Fat Chicks!!”)

  62. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Again, folks, D F T F T

    Thanks

  63. @HarvardLaw92: You have a point.

  64. Loviatar says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Is that

    D F T Fin’ T

    or

    D F T Fat T
    .

    Do you know something we don’t?

  65. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    Why would any GOP office holder want to attend an event when there would be absolutely zero political benefit for them? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Ladies and gentlemen: The party of principles!

  66. de stijl says:

    In defense of the Republicans, it’s not easy swinging a billy club if you’re out of practice, let alone properly controlling a police dog. Plus, you need a heck of a lot of upper body strength to operate and aim a fire hose.

  67. stonetools says:

    @James P:

    I think your candor is refreshing, frankly. When people speak about a “post-racist society” , I will just reference your posts.

  68. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Loviatar:

    It’s D F T Fk’ing T 😀

  69. DrDaveT says:

    @gVOR08:

    If I belonged to a party that was trying pretending to reach out to minorities, I would definitely see this as a missed opportunity to put on a show.

    Exactly. I mean, how bad is it when you can’t even bring yourself to pretend to care? I don’t think there’s any danger of anyone misconstruing their absence as anything but what it is.

  70. James P says:

    @DrDaveT: It depends on what type of minorities. If they are liberals who are part of the grievance industry like Sharpton and Holder, screw them.

    However, if they believe in economic opportunity, hard work, and family values then they are a natural constituency for the GOP.

    I don’t see people in terms of color – I see them in terms of ideology.

    I like black (and white) conservatives.

    I have no use for black (or white) liberals.

    I want to appeal to conservatives whatever their color or race might be.,

  71. DrDaveT says:

    @James P:

    It depends on what type of minorities. If they are liberals […]

    In this case, the minority in question is “those people we enslaved, then oppressed, then segregated, then discriminated against”. Ideology is irrelevant to whether that history, and various important historical steps toward improving it, merit public participation. In this context, saying that you don’t see people as black or white is tantamount to saying you simply don’t care what was done to blacks in America.

    If you really want your party to publicly state that they are only sorry about slavery in those cases where the slaves’ descendants turned out Republican, please be my guest. Spread that message far and wide.

  72. Nonsense says:

    African-American Republican Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) decided to show up at the ceremony, and liberals are already busy trashing him as a result, saying he has civil rights leaders “rolling over in their grave.”

    But at least he’s not a leader of the Republican Party, who would be trashed more fiercely if he attended the event.

    Given how disrespectfully Republicans who attend these events get treated, I don’t know why any of them would ever attend. It’s smart for them not to attend, not tone-deaf.

  73. James P says:

    @DrDaveT: I’m not sorry about slavery. Why? Because I never owned a slave. I’m not sorry about the Holocaust either because I”m not a Nazi.

    My party is the party which ended slavery.

    The GOP was founded as an abolitionist party. I have NOTHING for which to feel sorry.

    Care to guess who my favorite SCOTUS justice is?

  74. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. Why anyone expected different is what makes me wonder.

  75. DrDaveT says:

    @James P:

    I’m not sorry about slavery.

    I guessed that.

    Why? Because I never owned a slave.

    Neither did I. That doesn’t prevent me from regretting that it ever happened, or for sympathizing with its victims, or from wanting to help to undo as much of the harm as possible.

    Seriously, do you only say “I’m sorry for your loss” to people in cases where you personally murdered their relatives?

    The GOP was founded as an abolitionist party.

    Indeed. The irony is palpable.

  76. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @James P: You have an Alzheimered old man paired with a caricature of a woman as your… whatever. What you think or pretend to think… whatever. You had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened 150 years ago, yet you take credit for that. How’s about taking responsibility for ANYGDTHING in the last 6 months?

    Never mind, Republicans don’t do responsibility anymore.

  77. James P says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    [“You had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened 150 years ago, yet you take credit for that.”]

    You’re right. I had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I also had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. Therefore, I don’t feel any white guilt.

    I didn’t feel the need to vote for an unqualified nit-wit community organizer simply because he is black in order to prove I’m not racist.

  78. James P says:

    @DrDaveT: [“happened, or for sympathizing with its victims, or from wanting to help to undo as much of the harm as possible.”]

    1) its victims have all been deceased for well over 100 years. There is nobody alive today who has been a slave. Therefore, there are no victims.

    2) What harm? Again, there is no slavery. Nobody alive today has ever been a slave so I fail to see any harm.

  79. HarvardLaw92 says:
  80. HarvardLaw92 says:

    People, please D F T F T 😀

    Thanks

  81. James P says:

    If McCarthy wants to waste his time that’s on him. It’s pretty predictable that the GOP would capitulate. This will not win the GOP one single vote. McCarthy is dumber than I thought if he thinks this will help the GOP.

  82. David M says:

    This seems like a smart decision by the GOP, when they will need to significantly improve their minority vote share just to be competitive in 2016.

    They are so incompetent, they can’t even help their 2016 nominee, the only chance they really have to make any significant policy changes.

  83. DrDaveT says:

    @James P:

    There is nobody alive today who has been a slave. Therefore, there are no victims.

    OK, you had me going there for a while, but the DNFTFT folk were clearly right. Nobody could possibly really believe that, and my bad for falling for the bait.

  84. Slugger says:

    Thank you to all who faced the police and their dogs fifty years ago. You represent the true ideals that make us proud to be Americans. I honor your courage. I stand with you against the oppressors.

  85. @DrDaveT: It is entirely possible that he is engaging in performance art. However, having seen him in action on FB, I have the terrible feeling he is what he is.

  86. James P says:

    @DrDaveT: The DNFTFT folk??????? Sorry, I speak English, not in abbreviations.

  87. David M says:

    @James P:

    Do
    Not
    Feed
    The
    F-ing
    Troll

  88. James P says:

    @James P: OH, I get it, troll.

    Yes, that’s the word liberals use when someone disrupts their echo chamber and makes arguments they can not counter. I suppose that definition would apply to me.

    That’s the difference between me and folks like you. While I reside mostly at places like Red State and Free Republic I sometimes go to liberal sites like these.

    People like you folks wouldn’t have the nerve to go to a place like Red State or Free Republic because you know full well you’d get your a$$ kicked. I’m not even remotely intimidated by going onto a post where I am outnumbered 20-to-one because I know I can defend my arguments.

    When you make a troll reference it only confirms that to me.

  89. David M says:

    @James P:

    You made several factual claims in the other thread that clearly were not true. If you are not a troll, I would expect an apology and an acknowledgement of what the correct numbers were.

  90. CB says:

    @Nonsense:

    African-American Republican Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) decided to show up at the ceremony, and liberals are already busy trashing him as a result, saying he has civil rights leaders “rolling over in their grave.”

    Well then f### them, but that doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do. I respect the man more for it, and I’m one of those dirty goddamned liberals. What does that say to you?

  91. James P says:

    @David M: I have made no claims which were factually untrue. I have expressed opinions which run counter to yours. An opinion is neither true nor false. No apology is either warranted or given.

    The way liberals define troll is someone who expresses opinions which differs from theirs. Under that aegis I qualify. It is intended as a derogatory term, but I take it as a compliment because it is an indication that I have made an point which can not be effectively countered, hence the ad hominems.

  92. CB says:

    @James P:

    I’m not sorry about the Holocaust either because I”m not a Nazi.

    But if you we’re a German citizen, it would be seared into your consciousness. Because cultures tend to carry with them generational trauma, and the smart ones try to learn from it. Is this stuff really so hard to understand?

    Troll harder!

  93. MBunge says:

    I think we need to come up with a new term. Most trolls know they are trolls and that’s what makes them trolls. I’m not sure folks like James P have that level of self-awareness.

    Mike

  94. MBunge says:

    @James P: I have made no claims which were factually untrue.

    And this is what I mean. Trolls normally put more effort into it than that. Their online bad boy persona is important to them. They’re trying to get a reaction. But how can you get anyone’s goat when you get caught in an obvious bit of ignorance and your response isn’t to evade or attack or divert, it’s just to straight up pretend it didn’t happen? That’s not infuriating. It’s just pitiful.

    Mike

  95. anjin-san says:

    Justice in America…

    Ferguson Judge Who Imposed High Fines Owes Over $170K In Taxes

    A Ferguson, Mo. judge accused of imposing high fines and harsh punishments on residents who couldn’t afford to pay owes the US government more than $170,000 in back taxes, The Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.

    Ronald J. Brockmeyer, 70, was identified in a scathing report issued by the Department of Justice on Tuesday that accused the city of racial biases in its justice system.

    Brockmeyer allegedly fixed traffic tickets for himself and his friends while forcing others who came through his court to pay high fines, according to The Guardian. Those who were unable to pay were reportedly jailed by Brockmeyer, the newspaper reported.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ronald-brockmeyer-ferguson-judge-taxes

  96. superdestroyer says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    I guess you have not noticed that there is no such thing as a dialogue when it comes to african-american activist or the CBC. There is only listening while they rant. If any conservative points out any statistic that does not support the POV of black activist, those conservatives will immediately be called racist. Why do you think activist like Coates or CBC members like Rep. Lewis keep calling for race-based reparations to be studied? Because they will be in charge of the study and they know what the final result will be.

  97. Wiley Coyote says:

    @al-Ameda: I read somewhere over 90% of Blacks voted for Obama, so what’s you’re point?
    .
    Also, if not for Republicans, the Voting Rights and Civil Roghts Acts would not have passed. More Democrats voted against them than Republicans.

  98. Wiley Coyote says:

    @al-Ameda: Republicans have been doing what they were elcted to do, no more, no less than what Democrats did to Bush.
    .
    “Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” — Thomas Jefferson

  99. @James P:

    I’m not sorry about slavery. Why? Because I never owned a slave.

    […]

    The GOP was founded as an abolitionist party. I have NOTHING for which to feel sorry.

    and

    @Wiley Coyote:

    Also, if not for Republicans, the Voting Rights and Civil Roghts Acts would not have passed.

    There is a profound amount of poor reasoning here. As in both cases, both comments seek inoculation against criticisms of the Republican Party on issues of race as a result of actions undertaken in the 1860s and 1960s, respectively and yet, both do not want to be tarred by the bad actions of the past (this is especially true in James P’s situation.

    And of course, on the voting rights issue one cannot simultaneously take credit for legislative votes in the 1960s while ignoring the racial component of the current voter id debate (and the legislation passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in particular).

  100. @James P:

    I’m not sorry about slavery. Why? Because I never owned a slave.

    This deserves special attention, because of the deep absurdity of it all. There is a collective responsibility citizens of a country have for acts such as slavery (among others, such as the treatment of Native Americans).

    We are, after all, the sovereign source of power that animates the government. Beyond that, the slave labor force in question was a key engine for economic development in the US and, moreover, the exploitation of African-American labor even after slavery very clearly redounded to the white population in an unjust and disproportionate manner. If one cannot see that then one is willfully blind.

    BTW, “I never owned a slave” is elementary school level reasoning on this topic. By this argument all of the injustice linked to slavery was wiped out the day the last slave-owner died. To believe such thing requires a rather poor understanding of history (to put it mildly).

  101. @MBunge:

    I think we need to come up with a new term. Most trolls know they are trolls and that’s what makes them trolls. I’m not sure folks like James P have that level of self-awareness.

    I suspect that calling him a troll feeds his ego.

    As noted above: I have encountered him on FB and think that he believes his positions and does think that if he is getting under your skin that he is “winning” (which, I suppose, is a troll-like characteristic).

    As with most conversations like this one, there is little doubt that he is not persuadable, and hence the only reason to engage him is for others who are reading but not commenting, not to actually prevail in an argument.

    Troll or not, he is recalcitrant in his positions, absurd as they often are (see, e.g., the slavery bit).

  102. Mikey says:

    @Wiley Coyote: The part you’re missing (or deliberately ignoring) is: every Southern Democrat who voted against it would be a Republican today.

  103. David in KC says:

    @Mikey: it’s willful self denial of the evolution of the parties since the 50s and 60s. A very shallow and dishonest comparison of the parties then and now.

  104. al-Ameda says:

    @Wiley Coyote:

    Also, if not for Republicans, the Voting Rights and Civil Roghts Acts would not have passed. More Democrats voted against them than Republicans.

    The Civil Rights act? You’re probably mistaken.

    Actually, the House Democrats voted 153-91 in favor, while House Republicans voted 135-35 for the bill, that is .. more Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans. In the Senate the vote broke out Democrats favoring 46-21, Republicans 27-6.

    The real split was regional, with Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans strongly opposed and Northern politicians of both parties strongly favored the bill.

  105. al-Ameda says:

    @Wiley Coyote:

    Republicans have been doing what they were elcted to do, no more, no less than what Democrats did to Bush.
    “Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” — Thomas Jefferson

    Really? Did Democrats shut down government twice (and nearly a 3rd time) during Bush’s presidency? Did Democrats attempt to leverage a default on federal debt in order to realize their political demands? If so … you’re right, if not (and you’re definitely not right) then I might see your point.

  106. David in KC says:

    @al-Ameda: not sure how you get a down vote for facts, but then again, apparently reality has a liberal bias or something.

  107. anjin-san says:

    I never owned a slave either. Nor did I participate in the Mexican-American War, in which California, where I live, and much of what is now the Western United States was stolen from Mexico in a war of naked aggression and conquest (if you don’t believe me, read US Grant’s autobiography, he was there).

    In spite of the fact that these events took place long before I was born, I keep the ugly history of how black folks have been treated in this country in mind when I look at issues such as race, class, injustice, and crime today. When I see illegal immigrants in California, I remember that the wonderful real estate that I have enjoyed living my entire life upon was stolen from their forebears.

    Understanding the world today, and the problems it faces requires historical context, and an honest appraisal of where we have gone wrong (and done right) as a nation. The jingoistic, cartoon bubble view of America prevalent on the right baffles me. If we want to be great, we need to roll up our sleeves and do the difficult work of actually being great. We need to confront the challenges of injustice, inequity, and apathy that our society faces.

    Just as James P. was not a slave owner, neither was he one of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, fought in France in 1918, and so on. Conservatives tend to be eager to embrace American exceptionalism, happily basking in the glow of our grandparents accomplishments, claiming for themselves honor that they did not earn. At the same time, they wash their hands of the unpleasant aspects of our history and the current state of our society without a second thought.

  108. @anjin-san: Amen and amen.

  109. Another Mike says:

    @anjin-san:

    Conservatives tend to be eager to embrace American exceptionalism, happily basking in the glow of our grandparents accomplishments, claiming for themselves honor that they did not earn. At the same time, they wash their hands of the unpleasant aspects of our history and the current state of our society without a second thought.

    It seems like a very healthy attitude to have. No use beating yourself up over something you had no part in. Each generation has its own challenges to deal with and its own mistakes to avoid, not that any generation has actually succeeded.

  110. @Another Mike: Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

  111. stonetools says:

    @Another Mike:

    I’m not expecting conservatives to beat themselves up over US History. I do expect them to recognize what happened, learn from it, and make amends to those who were wronged. Is that too big an ask?

  112. anjin-san says:

    @Another Mike:

    No use beating yourself up over something you had no part in.

    I’m not beating myself up over slavery, or for that matter, Bloody Sunday, which took place when I was in kindergarten. That being said, I am informed by this history, and what I have learned and the insight I have gained has contributed to my being an advocate for gay rights, among other things. When I think about our country, I think both about it’s brilliant accomplishments and the unhappy side of our history and our society. Yes, we’ve done great things, and yes, we still have much work to do. Pounding our chests and shouting “USA #1” will not get us there. It is simply an indulgence in vanity.

    I am beating myself up the injustice and inequity that people of color face in our society right here in 2015. This is happening on my watch. The Iraq war happened on my watch. The interesting thing is that conservatives, equipped with the “healthy” attitude you advocate, don’t seem to have lost a minutes sleep over these events.

    Each generation has its own challenges to deal with

    Fair enough. Can you tell me what conservatives are doing to rectify the injustice and inequity that black folks in America continue to face to this day? Because I am not seeing it.

  113. Another Mike says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Yes, it seems I’ve read that before. It is really the conceit though that is so irksome. The idea that some folks understand things about history that other don’t, when really it is just a tendency to linger over the darker things.

    It’s you telling your children that their grandfather was an industrious, hard-working man who never failed to support his family even in the worst of times, and then your brother butts in and tells you not to forget to tell the kids that he was also an abusive man who drank too much and was even arrested once for running moonshine.

    Kids don’t need to know that. Maybe when they are older and can approach it from a more mature perspective, they can learn their ancestors, as mere mortals, also had blemishes.

  114. @Another Mike: But we aren’t talking about kids here when we speak of understanding and owning up to US history. Your analogy, even if we accept the notions inherent in your tale, makes not sense for this conversation.

    The idea that some folks understand things about history that other don’t, when really it is just a tendency to linger over the darker things.

    Well, a) some folks do understand history better than others, and b) sometimes far more is to be learned from the complete tale than a whitewashed version.

  115. anjin-san says:

    @Another Mike:

    from a more mature perspective, they can learn their ancestors, as mere mortals, also had blemishes.

    Why then do adult conservatives, supposedly possessed of a more mature perspective, so often wish to hold onto a whitewashed version of both American history and contemporary society?

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people who don’t want to “dwell” on the more unpleasant aspects of our history also seem to struggle to even acknowledge that the more unpleasant aspects of our present even exist.

  116. James P says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: [“There is a collective responsibility citizens of a country have for acts such as slavery”]

    Utter crap! This is the rambling of a collectivist. I have no responsibility for anyone but myself and I certainly have ZERO responsibility for what happened 150 years ago. I do not owe anyone anything because I have never taken anything from anyone.

    In Galt’s Gulch (where I live) it is every man for himself. Simply because you were born in the same country I was does not mean that I owe you a damn thing. Every man for himself – that’s my philosophy.

    I am not my brother’s keeper. There is no collective responsibility — not in a free country anyway. My ancestors were in Ireland at the time of slavery so I don’t see how I am even remotely responsibility for harms done against other people’s great great great grandparents.

    This is the type of reasoning that gets in incompetent nitwit community organizer elected president. Because you have white guilt (something with which I am not afflicted) you voted for a complete boob simply because he’s black so you can assuage your guilt and convince yourself you’re not a racist.

    We are not one country – we are 320 million INDIVIDUALS. I am one of those INDIVIDUALS. I owe nothing to anybody and nobody owes me anything. Pay for your own “free” stuff.

  117. James P says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Voter ID?

    That has NOTHING to do with race. IT has to do with your party trying to register illegal aliens and dead people to vote. BY opposing voter ID you are telegraphing that voter fraud is the only way you can win elections.

    Unless only black people are required to produce ID and white people are exempted from the requirement, there is absolutely no racial component whatsoever to voter ID laws. — none, zilch, nada, zip, zero.

  118. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    I’m afraid that the very limited novelty that you presented upon your arrival has been more than exhausted 🙂

  119. @James P: No doubt everything you have ever done was done solely by your own individual power, ability, and initiative. The past, let alone the actions of other have nothing to do with you.

    You created yourself. You invented the language. You built society and the economy. Bravo. You are amazing.

  120. anjin-san says:

    @ Steven L. Taylor

    Encountering people who did not outgrow Atlas Shrugged by the time they were 25 is always depressing.

  121. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    That has NOTHING to do with race. IT has to do with your party trying to register illegal aliens and dead people to vote. BY opposing voter ID you are telegraphing that voter fraud is the only way you can win elections.

    Of course it’s about race. Why is it that Republicans do not care at all about Absentee Ballot voting – where actual voter fraud may easily take place?

    We know why, and it has nothing to do with actual voter fraud, it has to do with suppressing voter turnout among legal Democratic voting constituencies.

  122. HarvardLaw92 says:

    People – if you keep feeding trolls, they never leave.

  123. superdestroyer says:

    @Loviatar:

    The idea that conservative Republicans can appeal to church going blacks or Catholic Latinos is laughable. Those church goers believe in high taxes, transfer payments, ethnic and racial set asides, no snitching, and separate-and-unequal treatment by the government. There is nothing politically conservative about a two demographic groups where more than 50% of children are born to unwed mothers and where long term planning is actively discouraged.

  124. superdestroyer says:

    @anjin-san:

    If you look up his political donations, it is obvious that Judge Brockmeyer is a Democrat.

    http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

  125. TheoNott says:

    @James P:

    1. Do the words “disparate impact” have any meaning to you?

    2. Produce evidence of illegal aliens or dead people voting in any amount greater than a 1/10000 total votes.

  126. An Interested Party says:

    In Galt’s Gulch (where I live) it is every man for himself. Simply because you were born in the same country I was does not mean that I owe you a damn thing. Every man for himself – that’s my philosophy.

    Sorry, sweetie, but our country doesn’t roll like that…feel free to move to Somalia if you want to truly live the life of “every man for himself”…

    The idea that conservative Republicans can appeal to church going blacks or Catholic Latinos is laughable. Those church goers believe in high taxes, transfer payments, ethnic and racial set asides, no snitching, and separate-and-unequal treatment by the government. There is nothing politically conservative about a two demographic groups where more than 50% of children are born to unwed mothers and where long term planning is actively discouraged.

    Wow…at the risk of violating any of this site’s policies, I must say that you really are a racist pig…

  127. James P says:

    @TheoNott: [“1. Do the words “disparate impact” have any meaning to you?”]

    YEs, it’s a liberal buzz phrase used to justify government meddling. DOes it mean anything in real life? No, of course not, but libs use it as an excuse.

  128. James P says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I know, you’re part of the Elizabeth Warren/Barack Hussein Obama wing of thinking that says “I didn’t build that”.

    Well guess what? I DID BUILD THAT.

    It is true that I did travel on government built roads to attend the schools that I did, but beyond that the government played absolutely ZERO role in my succeeding to the degree that I have.

    I credit God, my family, and my own hard work. Government and the collective played absolutely no role. Heck, I never even attended public school so how you can attribute government to anything I have achieved is simply behind me.

    What is wrong with a belief in a every man for himself society? I understand this is not reality, but my ideal is to live in Galt’s Gulch where everyone assumes responsibility for themselves. I am not my brother’s keeper.

  129. @James P: I suppose it depends on what “that” is.

    I am certainly impressed by your technical skills in getting these electronic signals to me all by yourself. And again: thanks for the invention of English, among other things. Amazing stuff.

    Bravo again.

  130. anjin-san says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    In reality, AAPNET was built by Francisco d’Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld, with funding by Midas Mulligan. The stories about it being a government project are a damn lie.

    Interesting enough, I have never run into a conservative who could tell me who the hero of Atlas Shrugged is. Yes, James P, I am calling you out.

  131. @anjin-san: It is just all so ridiculous. Sigh.

  132. James P says:

    @anjin-san: That’s entirely subjective. Most people would say John Galt.. Others would say Dagny or Hank. Rand might say the hero is anyone who reads the book and chooses to follow the path of Galt.

    I say it’s Howard Roark (yes I realize that was The FOuntainhead) because Roark pre-butted Obama and Warren 60 years before they said “you didn’t built that” when ROark insisted that he indeed did build that.

    I guess Ayn Rand and Howard Roark were 60 years head of the curve!

  133. James P says:

    @anjin-san: [“In reality, AAPNET was built by Francisco d’Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld”]

    That can’t be because we all know that it was in fact Al Gore who invented the internet! 🙂

  134. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    So what you are trying to say is “I don’t have a clue”

    Got it.

    That can’t be because we all know that it was in fact Al Gore who invented the internet!

    Well, we do know he never made that claim, so it seems you are simply flinging scat. That does seem to be the extent of your skill set.

    Let’s look at what Robert Kahn and Vin Cerf have to say about Gore. They seem to take him pretty seriously. You may not be aware of any of this, as it is not fiction.

    Al Gore and the Internet

    By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

    Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
    Internet and to promote and support its development.

    No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the
    Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
    people in government and the university community. But as the two people
    who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
    Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a
    Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
    our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of
    time.

    http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt

    I guess Ayn Rand and Howard Roark were 60 years head of the curve!

    Well, Rand was first in line for government benefits when she needed them.

  135. KM says:

    @James P:

    What is wrong with a belief in a every man for himself society? I understand this is not reality, but my ideal is to live in Galt’s Gulch where everyone assumes responsibility for themselves. I am not my brother’s keeper.

    So you’re cool with somebody leaving you and yours to die alone in a car accident instead of calling 911? If you had a heart attack right now, it’s ok for everyone to walk on by and not try CPR? Is it ok for me to ignore if your children’s lives are in danger because you weren’t 100% on the ball? I most sincerely doubt you really believe in “every man for himself”. You mean “I care only about myself – help me and @#&* everyone else!!” And if you call yourself Christian, you are most certainly your brother’s keeper. Remember God’s response to that little bit of BS Cain tried to pull; Jesus was NOT a fan of that nonsense but specifically commanded his followers to give a crap about their fellow man.

    Funnily enough, every idiot I’ve ever met that claims they’re residents of the Gulch would never be allowed in by the book’s criteria. They’re neither inventors nor industrialists, not brilliant creators nor solid Makers. They’re always piddling self-important little middle-management types, low-level cubical peons who can’t do a damn thing on their own or Taker wannabes who dream of a place where they’re economic superstars like little kids dream of being the NFL. Every single one of them would have been turned out on their ass by Galt – I have no doubt you’d be the same.

  136. gVOR08 says:

    @KM: Please include Paul Ryan, who gives out copies of Atlas Shrugged, despite having spent his entire adult life on the government teat.

  137. al-Ameda says:

    @gVOR08:

    Please include Paul Ryan, who gives out copies of Atlas Shrugged, despite having spent his entire adult life on the government teat.

    I’ve come to believe that Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged because she was attempting to bore a generation of American college students (like me, a Boomer) to death.

    I remember back to 1970, I, and almost every student I came across, had a copy of Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. To this day I wonder if anyone actually read one of those novels from beginning to end – I know I did not get past the first 50 pages of Atlas Shrugged.

    I still very much enjoy the fact that Rand availed herself of evil socialist (Medicare and Social Security) programs in her later years.

  138. gVOR08 says:

    @al-Ameda: I think I got most of the way through Atlas Shrugged in High School. Much as I hate to admit it, too long ago for clear memory. I do recall even in HS going WTF, nobody talks like this, no one acts like this, and what these supposedly super rational people are doing is nuts.

  139. James P says:

    @al-Ameda: [“To this day I wonder if anyone actually read one of those novels from beginning to end”]

    I read it from beginning to end when I was twelve years old.

  140. James P says:

    @KM: [“I most sincerely doubt you really believe in “every man for himself”. “]

    Then I most sincerely doubt you know the first thing about me because I really and truly do believe in every man for himself.

    I believe in personal charity and compassion (that’s why I tithe to my Church – so it’s not an issue of greed). What I don’t believe in is government.

    Government coopts “compassion” in order to grow an deprive us of liberty. I don’t ever want government to “help” anyone with anything. If it were up to me I would ABSOLUTELY eliminate (I didn’t say cut – I said eliminate) Medicaid, Food Stamps, EITC, public housing, public schools, etc. People need to learn to fend for themselves.

    I consider it an obligation as a Christian to help those who are less fortunate but I also consider it an obligation to disempower government whenever and wherever possible. Government is at its basis a malevolent entity. It uses programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps to create dependency. That is not compassionate – it is cruel.

    I support myself – I fail to see why everyone else can’t do the same. I don’t live in public housing – I didn’t go to public schools…………why should anyone else need them?

    Yes, I would get rid of 95% of what government does. Entrepreneurs can purchase the interstate highways and operate them for a profit. We can have private fire fighting services. We can have private schools. The only thing for which we need government is a military and a criminal justice system. Beyond that we can do without government.

  141. Grewgills says:

    Seriously, stop feeding the troll. Let it wander off back under its bridge and then hopefully we can go back to more rational discussion.

  142. anjin-san says:

    Nature abhors a vacuum. Jenos goes missing, another peanut head takes his place.