If You Are a Racist Politician, You Just Might Be a Liberal
Saturday, January 9, 2010 21:35
Hey, can you do me a favor? Can you remind me just which American political party is the one that’s always portrayed in the media and during debates as the one filled with horrible, filthy racists and elitests? I don’t see any Republicans making the news lately for absolutely beyond-the-pale outrageous statements aimed towards President Barack Hussein Obama.
No, I’m not even talking about former KKK kleagle Robert Byrd. Not this time, at least.
Let’s start with the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he of the vow towards creating the “most ethical Congress in history.” Apparently, he has some theories as to why and how Obama became the 44th POTUS.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered an apology on Saturday to President Barrack Obama after making off color race remarks.
Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, was quoted in a new book as having said that Obama did not have a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” and that he was popular because he is “light skinned”.
Not to be outdone, though, former Democrat President Bill Clinton — he of countless scandals, alleged corruption, and his own rhetorical stylings of being the “first black president” — apparently longs for the good old days of segregated country clubs or perhaps even the plantation lifestyle.
[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.
A lot of the liberal mentality, as held by the masses that populate the coasts and other urban areas, is genuinely rooted in a (misdirected) means towards promoting equality and justice for all persons, of all faiths and colors. Make no mistake, though: the ruling class that these liberals elect, though, share no such dream. They know that they only way they can maintain power is to promote policies that actually incentivize poverty and welfare and inhibit increased distribution of prosperity. Given that the unfortunate racial makeup of these downtrodden communities, one cannot help but wonder who the true racists are.
Grokodile says:
January 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
So, you would dismiss Teddy, who was fuming about Clinton’s apparent statement?
As for Harry, are you suggesting that the way a man speaks, or the way a man looks, has no effect on the electorate? Or are you just chafing at the fact that an old man doesn’t speak in today’s terminology?
I’m sure you know there is a huge difference between talking about racial issues and being racist. It’s perfectly acceptable to hold a mirror up to liberals, no question, but let’s not cloud the issue by ignoring the meaning of the comments made.
TSL says:
January 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
No, not at all. My contention is that *all* such instances should be unacceptable, and that there is an unfortunate double-standard in politics and the media where only one side of the aisle is held accountable for such actions. Trent Lott had to resign as a leader for less, why wasn’t Harry Reid forced to do the same (or, hold neither accountable…at least that’s consistent also)?
Thanks for the comment, come back anytime!