How Black Republicans Feel About What Reid Said

From Frances Rice, NBRA:

Wielding a sharp racial sword, Democrats ruthlessly destroy the careers of Republicans on racial matters, accepting no apologies. Yet, using a glaring double standard, those same Democrats quickly give a pass to any Democrat, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who again displayed egregious racism.

Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English. “Slap at Thomas stinks of racism,” was the headline of the New York Daily News’ December 7, 2004 editorial.

Now, Reid has described then-Senator Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” With this racial slur, Reid denigrates not only Obama, but also the entire population of black Americans as being uneducated Negroes who cannot speak standard English, the same type of disgusting remark he made over five years ago about Justice Thomas, a graduate of Yale Law School. A tribute to Justice Thomas [link in original] that includes details about his stellar career is posted on the NBRA website. Read the rest

It strikes me that Al Sharpton said Reid’s comments disturbed him but that it was not the same as what Lott said. Lott was praising a 100 year old man and he made the comment that if Thurmond had been elected in 1948 we would not have these problems. It is only speculation as to what Lott meant but he apologized all over for offending people. Though Diane Feinstein says no Democrats jumped up and down about it she was actually one of those who did as did Barack Obama. How is it that Reid’s apology allows him a pass and Lott’s did not?

I remember Barack Obama saying that he could not be accountable for his association with a man who did despicable things when he (Barack) was only 8 years old. When Strom Thurmond ran for the presidency in 1948 Lott was 7 years old.

How can we hold him accountable for what he said about a guy who ran for president under segregation when Lott was only 7 unless we can now believe that Obama is guilty by association with Ayers?

What Lott said was wrong depending on what he meant. He never explained that. What Reid said was wrong unless he can tell us not what he meant, that has been explained, but whether he also holds those beliefs. If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.

The other thing that people miss in this is the implication of what Reid said and that is that Obama is attractive because he is not your typical black guy (before you lefties call that racist remember you gave Obama a pass on the typical white person remark).

The explanation is that Reid was saying that Obama was attractive to Americans because he is light skinned and does not speak negro. Does this not mean he believes that the racists in America will not vote for a dark skinned person who speaks negro, whatever that is.

Americans will vote for a person who can lead regardless of color (and as has been shown with Obama and Carter, they will vote for someone who can’t lead regardless of color). And since the left bashed Bush daily about his manner of speech we have to assume that speech is not a big issue with regard to getting elected.

I wish Reid were held to the same standards as a Republican but that is never going to happen as long as liberals continue to excuse racism from the left. So, since he will not be forced to step down, it will be just as much fun watching this brain damaged moron bumble his way through life and it will be even more fun watching him be removed by the voters.

Barack Obama said it would be up to Republicans to drive Lott out. They did but as Obama showed by accepting Reid’s apology, he does not hold Democrats to the same standard.

Maybe when it is all said and done Obama can have a beer summit with Reid and invite Robert Byrd to explain racism and the history of the Democrat organization known as the KKK.

Might be a bit much to ask since Reid and Byrd might expect Obama to serve the beer. After all, a few years ago he would have been getting Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy coffee

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “How Black Republicans Feel About What Reid Said”

  1. Darrel says:

    Frances Rice, NBRA, quoted above:

    “Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English.”

    DAR
    That’s a lie. What Reid actually said:

    “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t–I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.” WSJ

    And he’s right of course. While searching around I see the above citation is parroted all over, word for word, by the endless line of know nothing ninnies who don’t know how to check things, or to think, and don’t care. The claim is not true.

    Bigd: “The explanation is that Reid was saying that Obama was attractive to Americans because he is light skinned and does not speak negro. Does this not mean he believes that the racists in America will not vote for a dark skinned person who speaks negro,…”>>

    DAR
    Bingo. There are so many racists around, the vast majority of them in your camp, that it is something to take into account when considering a candidate.

    Duh.

    D.

    • Adam says:

      Of course conservatives don’t know what Lott meant about Thurmond and “all these problems” he would have prevented but they do know exactly what Anita Dunn meant when she called Mao one of her “favorite political philosophers.” Convenient?

      • Blake says:

        Calling Mao a “favorite political philosopher” is what it is- shamelessly communistic, as is praise of Chavez, Castro, or Stalin, and it is not just
        Mzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Dunn that thinks this.
        This bankrupt thinking is rampant in the White House (or should we call it the Kremlin West now?)

  2. Adam says:

    “Democrat organization known as the KKK.”

    If only the Republicans would have never joined the KKK then we wouldn’t have all these problems today…

    • Big Dog says:

      Seems to me that you have your history wrong Adam. KKK was from the Dems.

      Darrel, the color of people’s skin makes no difference. Many Republicans wanted Powell to run and they support LTC West.

      It is philosophy.

      Now blacks, they will not vote for whites. 95% voted for Obama. Must be that they are all racists and won’t vote for white people.

      Sounds as silly as what you said but we have proof on my side and speculation on yours…

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Now blacks, they will not vote for whites. 95% voted for Obama.>>

        DAR
        Oh, really?

        Black vote:

        1992 Bill Clinton 83% v. George H.W. Bush 10%

        1996 Bill Clinton 84% v. Bob Dole 12%

        2000 Al Gore 90% v. George W. Bush 9%

        Bigd: Must be that they are all racists and won’t vote for white people.>>

        DAR
        They’ll vote for white people. They avoid the party that works against their interests and has racist tendencies.

        Bigd: we have proof on my side and speculation on yours…>>

        DAR
        I just took what you have “on your side” and beat it with the truth stick. Try again.

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          So when I make this claim it is wrong but when you make the claim that whites won’t vote for a black guy with dark skin it is a presumption and is OK? There are plenty of dark skinned blacks in office all across this country and they got there because white people voted for them.

          The Democrats keep blacks on a plantation so how is that working for them?

          Bill Clinton was the first black president so that does not count…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “So when I make this claim it is wrong>>

          DAR
          Yeah, when you say blacks “will not vote for whites,” you’re wrong. Totally.

          Bigd: “…but when you make the claim that whites won’t vote for a black guy with dark skin..”>>

          DAR
          I never made that claim. Reid pointed out that it is a consideration, which everyone knows is true. Why is it true? Racists. Which party has a problem with racists?

          Bigd: The Democrats keep blacks on a plantation so how is that working for them?>>

          DAR
          It makes sense that they would avoid the party that works against their interests and has racist tendencies. Guess you’re out of luck until that changes.

          You could always try distracting from this fact by making a big mock TA DOO out of some innocuous, in private, off the record, paraphrase, and all true (and everyone knows it) comment by senator Reid. How’s that working out for you? I think it’s backfiring.

          D.
          ————–
          George Will agrees with me as he beats Liz Cheney with a truth stick, ABC, “This Week”:

          “WILL: I don’t think there’s a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.

          CHENEY: George, give me a break. I mean, talking about the color of the president’s skin…

          WILL: Did he get it wrong?

          CHENEY: … and the candidate’s…

          WILL: Did he say anything false?

          CHENEY: … it’s — these are clearly racist comments, George.

          WILL: Oh, my, no.”

          Link

  3. Big Dog says:

    Frances Rice used what the New York Daily News said with regard to Reid’s comments:

    Or perhaps Russert – like many of his colleagues in the elite media – simply regards it as self-evident that Thomas is a wrong-thinking Negro, incapable of writing decent English.

    Rice never said that this was a quote from Reid.

    What Reid said could be interpreted as that according to the paper in which it was written.

    Adam, it is pretty clear what Dunn meant because she described exactly what Mao was to her. Lott did not say would not have problems IF WE HAD BEEN SEGREGATED.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Rice never said that this was a quote from Reid.”>>

      DAR
      The claim he repeated is:

      “…Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English.”

      How is that not saying Reid said this?

      The claim is false. And your citation from him is repeated, word for word, cut and paste all over dishonest blogs across the land. So all of you ninnies who don’t know how to check your facts, actually think Reid called Thomas “an incompetent Negro,” when he did not.

      Are you proud to be part of such a group of liars?

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        It is not a quote and the paper cited equated what was said to that. I guess it does not matter since Reid slurred Obama when he tried to “compliment” him and you let that go.

        What he said was a slur of that nature.

        It is sort of like when you all claim that the invasion of Iraq was only for WMD when the 19 or so reasons contained three related to WMD. Your infer it was all about WMD.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “What he said was a slur of that nature.”>>

          DAR
          When you charge that someone has “shameless slurred” someone, it’s important to get your slur straight or you end up slurring that person. That’s what you have engaged in, in this case.

          Bigd: “the 19 or so reasons contained three related to WMD. Your infer it was all about WMD.”>>

          DAR
          You assume all of the 19 had equal weight. That’s ridiculous.

          It was *overwhelming* about the WMD, and thus overwhelming a war based on a bogus reason.

          D.
          —————–
          “This isn’t an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam’s WMDs
          and the threat of their imminent use.”
          –Sen. Carl Levin

          “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…” –Tony Blair, September 2002

          “George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that “The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if [Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.” –GW Bush

          Those conditions were about disarmament of WMD.

          “I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.” –Tony Blair

          “But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.” –April 10, 2003, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer saying “what this war is all about.”

          etc.

          • Big Dog says:

            Yes Darrel, as opposed to these people who discussed WMD in Iraq. Note the party of all and the dates of the first bunch. Can’t blame Bush for any of them:
            “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

            “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

            “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
            –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

            “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
            –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

            “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
            Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
            — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

            “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
            -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

            “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
            — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

            “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
            Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

            “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
            — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

            “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
            — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

            “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
            — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

            “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
            — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

            “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
            — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

            “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
            — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

            “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
            — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

            “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

            “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
            — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

            • Darrel says:

              Unable to respond to my rebuttal of whether the Iraq war “was all about WMD,” you now to try to distract and change the subject to whether a lot of people were misled into thinking he had WMD.

              Amazing.

              D.

            • Big Dog says:

              Right Darrel. Pay attention son. Look at the dates of the quotes. They were BEFORE Bush was in office.

              So who misled them?

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “Look at the dates of the quotes. They were BEFORE Bush was in office.”

              DAR
              Wrong, times 12.

              Bigd: “So who misled them?”

              DAR
              Don’t care.

              D.
              ————-
              Bigd: “Your infer it [Iraq] was all about WMD.”

              DAR
              Let’s ask Bush’s spokesperson:

              “But make no mistake… we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”
              -–Ari Fleischer saying WMD is “what this war is all about.”

            • Big Dog says:

              You mean Ari who needed money so he wrote a book?

              BFD

              And Darrel, I am not wrong times 12. If you look at the original post you will see this:

              Note the party of all and the dates of the first bunch.

              THE FIRST BUNCH. I included ALL of them so as not to be misleading.

              When I wrote the second part I figured you had enough sense to see where you had erred.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “And Darrel, I am not wrong times 12.”>>

              DAR
              Wrong exactly 12 times.

              “Look at the dates of the quotes. They were BEFORE Bush was in office.”

              Twelve of them are during Bush’s term. Someday I am quite certain you are going to learn English and how it works.

              D.
              ———-
              “This isn’t an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam’s WMDs
              and the threat of their imminent use.”
              –Sen. Carl Levin

              It was about WMD. And the part that wasn’t about WMD, was about oil. Both parts, a flop.

            • Darrel says:

              In your article, which you sent around to a lot of people, you make the claim:

              “Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.”

              What “racist remark” did Reid make about Justice Thomas?

              Is it honest to say he made a “racist remark,” about Justice Thomas, if he did not?

            • Blake says:

              You are still an idiot on this subject, D- why don’t you take a clensing breath and see where your sanity went to, OK?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Lott did not say would not have problems IF WE HAD BEEN SEGREGATED.”>>

      DAR
      Strom Thurmond ran on the platform of SEGREGATION. Lott said:

      “I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

      Link.

      • Charlie H says:

        Bingo. Lott endorsed Thurmond’s racism and expressed regret that the rest of the country rejected it. He took pride in Thurmond’s racism. He still does.

        • Blake says:

          What BS- you do not know, and CANNOT kknow exactly what Lott inferred-
          The facts are that in 1955, the out of wedlock birthrate among Blacks was less than 20%-
          Blacks just WISH that was the rate today- now it is closer to 70%-
          Perhaps Lott was referring to that aspect of the world then- I am speculating, of course, which is no different than what you do- except my speculation is based in facts, while yours is baseless.

  4. Adam says:

    Trent Lott: “When Thurmond ran on a platform of continuing racial segregation in the South and Jim Crow laws we voted for him and we are proud of it!”

    I guess Mississippi needs at least one thing to be proud of. Puke.

  5. Adam says:

    “Seems to me that you have your history wrong Adam. KKK was from the Dems.”

    Seems to me that you stopped reading the history book somewhere in the middle.

  6. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.”

    DAR
    What “racist remark” did Reid make about Justice Thomas?

  7. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.”

    DAR
    What “racist remark” did Reid make about Justice Thomas?

  8. Big Dog says:

    We discussed this at length. The article told us what Reid discussed and what it was perceived as.

    Is it honest to defend Reid while saying Limbaugh should not have a team after quotes attributed to him were shown not to have been said by him?