February 2, 2006
Julian Channels His Inner Harry...
...So what else is new?
Assuming we can believe World Net Daily -- although they're not usually a good source, in this case I do believe them, as Julian Bond has made many such statements in the past -- Bond went off on another one of his psychotic rants yesterday:
Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."
"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.
Another couple of lowlights:
He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.
And a blast from Julian Bond's past:
In July 2001, Bond said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."
The calculation is simple; repugnant to basic human decency (as repugnant as white-on-black racism), but still simple: Democrats have not won the white vote in a national election in decades. From a 2003 Jack Lessenberry article in the MetroTimes, an "alternative" newspaper in Detroit:
Here’s a safe political prediction. Even if Democrats’ wildest dreams come true, even if they win next year’s presidential election, President George W. Bush will win a solid majority of white people’s votes.
How do I know that? Because Republicans always win the white vote for president. The last time Democrats carried a majority of the white vote was in 1964, when this was a vastly different world.
Democrats have their own explanation why that is:
How did this all happen? Republicans always have been mostly the party of the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots," at least since Abraham Lincoln was shot [by a Democrat, by the way -- the Mgt.]. But for a long time, because of Lincoln and the virulent racism of Southern Democrats, Republicans competed for what black votes there were.
That all changed for good in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson committed his party to the support of civil rights for African-Americans. Barry Goldwater, that year’s Republican presidential candidate, opposed a major civil rights bill. Immediately, blacks deserted his party forever. And the Deep South became Republican.
But this is political nonsense, and Lessenberry needs to retake his history class. In that same 1964 election, a very popular Southern governor and virulent white supremacist was also running for president: Georgia Gov. George Wallace ran strongly in the South as well as a couple of midwestern states (Wisconsin and Indiana)... in the Democratic primary. You might think that someone like Wallace's fellow Southern governor Strom Thurmond would have supported him; you would be be wrong: Thurmond chose 1964 to reject the Democratic Party and also to reject George Wallace and turn instead to the blatantly non-racist Barry Goldwater.
It's possible Lessenberry is actually aware of the terrible problem with his "racism" explanation of the split between the two parties, because he makes a feeble attempt to paint Goldwater as a racist, noting that he "opposed a major civil rights bill." What he fails to mention is that Barry Goldwater supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act all the way through the Senate debate on it... until the Democrats, in a betrayal, changed the bill to make illegal not only government racism but also private-party racism.
At that point, many supporters dropped off, including Goldwater. But surely it's possible to think of another explanation for opposing the federal government outlawing private racial discrimination other than being a racist oneself: a belief in individual liberty, for example, including the liberty to be wrong. Democrats have been hurling this smear at Goldwater for decades -- despite the fact that if you look at Goldwater's legislative history, he was always a champion of individual rights, whether the individual was white, black, Hispanic, or any other race.
And this history points the way to the real reason the parties began to split on race, as the Claremont Institute notes:
Some Republicans seem to think that the Southern white allegiance still hangs on some vague racial prejudice. This would mean that the main strength of the party — the white vote in the South — is actually a liability to Republicans.
But the South is no such liability. Studies have shown quite clearly that the region is strongly Republican because of issues like abortion, gun rights, and national defense. Racism or a desire for segregation plays no real role in the Republican advantage, in the South or elsewhere. Indeed, the chorus against Lott proves one thing: racism is simply illegitimate in America.
The fact is that starting in 1964, the Democratic Party veered hard Left -- and began to pander to special interest groups against the general interest of the majority. The particular beneficiaries of this pandering were blacks. Again, we're not talking about civil rights here; Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at the same level as non-Southern Democrats. Anybody motivated by race in 1964 and 1968 moved to Wallace, not to Goldwater and Nixon, neither of whom was a racist.
(Nixon's "Southern strategy" was never to play to racism to steal the South from the Democrats but rather to play to traditional values that were being denounced by Democrats and leftists in the streets, such as patiotism, Capitalism, sexual morality, and democracy.)
And ever since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Goldwater, Democrats have been unable to win national election unless they hold the Republican white vote to 55% and win the black vote by at least 90% and win the non-white Hispanic vote by at least 65%. Kerry, for example, only held the Republican white margin to 58%, not 55%; and he only got 88% of the black vote and only won the non-white Hispanic vote by 53%.
Had Kerry gotten 45%, 90%, and 65%, he would have won the election. But without a massive margin of black and Hispanic votes, he -- in fact, any Democrat -- loses, because the Democrats are so uncompetitive in the white vote.
The Hispanic vote is very much in play, and unless the Democrat is himself a Hispanic, he has to appeal to that demographic the same way he would try to appeal to whites: by identifying various issue that are important to Hispanics and taking positions that resonate with them. But there is only one way the Democrats can guarantee, year in and year out, that they get such gigantic, 90%+ majorities among blacks; and that is to appeal to the most blatant black-on-white racism possible.
Hence, what Julian Bond does is actually crucial for Democratic campaigns: the Democrats must convince black voters anew each election cycle that Republicans are all vicious Nazis, David-Duke cheerleaders, and white-hooded nightriders out to lynch blacks and reinstitute Jim Crow. If they fail to accomplish that task, if their portion of the black vote drops below a critical level, then numerous states swing from the Democrats to the Republicans... and the Democrats lose. This is true both in presidential and midterm elections.
That's why the NAACP put on an ad in 2000 accusing George W. Bush of dragging James Byrd to death behind his pickup truck. That's why the Democrats never muzzle people like Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, Kweisi Mfume, Cynthia McKinney, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Major Owens, or Jesse Jackson, and indeed engage in the spectable every cycle of bending over and kissing race-baiter Al Sharpton's ring: the party believes that without catering to the most extreme of black opinion, from racial preferences to "reparations" for slavery, and without accusing every Republican of have a white robe under his bed, they will lose that massive majority on which they depend... and history suggests they're right.
Sadly, that means there is simply no chance that the Democratic party will change its racemongering for the forseeable future, because to do so would be political suicide. So what else is new?
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 2, 2006, at the time of 5:09 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/454
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Julian Channels His Inner Harry...:
» NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison (UPDATED) from Sister Toldjah
Right here in North Carolina: Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characteriz... [Read More]
Tracked on February 2, 2006 6:24 PM
» Julain Bond Takes On The Starbucks Fascistocracy from WuzzaDem
Welcome to Starbucks, what can I get for you? I'd like a large coffee, please. We don't have large sir. No large? What sort of Nazi establishment are you running here? It's just that we... This is an outrage! You [Read More]
Tracked on February 2, 2006 8:28 PM
» Julain Bond Takes On The Starbucks Fascistocracy from Ace of Spades HQ
Welcome to Starbucks, what can I get for you? I'd like a large coffee, please. We don't have large, sir. No large? What sort of Nazi establishment are you running here?... [Read More]
Tracked on February 2, 2006 9:15 PM
» Julian Bond -- Hateful Lying Bigot from Rhymes With Right
Can you believe that this frigging moron is at it again? Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the N... [Read More]
Tracked on February 2, 2006 9:56 PM
» More from the “non-partisan” NAACP from 4thelittleguy.com
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond has waived goodbye to whatever small amount of credibility he still had. His comments at the Fayetteville State University in North Carolina were fanatical and beyond outrageous. Anyone who gives any credence whatsoever to ... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2006 11:48 PM
The following hissed in response by: RBMN
I blame most of America's urban black misery on all those conservative Republican politicians who've run cities like Detroit, Newark, Gary, and East St. Louis, likewise sections of Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Cleveland into the ground over the years. Oh, they're not Republicans? They're Democrats? Oh, nevermind.
The following hissed in response by: thirdfinger
This kind of rhetoric sounds a lot like that of Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood, Usama Bin Laden, and others of that ilk ad nauseum. I'm sure that were he in another country, oh I don't know maybe Eygpt, he would add the Jews to the list of evil doers as well. Have you ever noticed that these guys always lecture and never debate.
The following hissed in response by: salt1907
Actually, Wallace's campaign was in 1968. I don't think he ran at all in 1964. But I agree with your analysis of Goldwater and the rest of your article.
The above hissed in response by: salt1907 at February 3, 2006 12:02 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Actually, Wallace's campaign was in 1968. I don't think he ran at all in 1964.
Salt, he ran in 1964 and also in 1968. In 1964, he ran as a Democrat and showed surprising strength in Southern states (including Maryland) and also in Wisconsin and Indiana.
In 1968, he ran again, this time as an American Independent Party candidate. This time, he actually won states in the race, taking 46 electoral votes.
But Strom Thurmond, clearly the most famous and most beloved governor in the South at the time, broke from the Democratic Party in 1964, not 1968; Thurmond was the one who started the mass movement of Southerners from the Dems to the GOP; prior to Thurmond, one simply could not be a Republican in the South and have any hope of political success. But Thurmond made it respectable to be Republican in the South.
And in breaking from the Democratic establishment, Thurmond pointedly rejected Wallace's insurgent campaign in 1964 for the Democratic nomination -- and he also rejected Southerner Lyndon Johnson's mainstream campaign for reelection... moving instead to the Republican Party, which had strongly supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And Thurmond supported and campaigned for Barry Goldwater, who had loudly condemned the Jim Crow laws that Wallace was fighting to preserve.
It is impossible for anyone honestly to paint the Thurmond revolt as racist; if that were his motivation in 1964 and 1968 (as we all agree it was in 1948), then Thurmond would have supported his friend George Wallace both times.
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at February 3, 2006 1:39 PM
The following hissed in response by: Gbear
Good thing Republicans aren't mostly Islamists! Whew
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved