PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 406/1528 EXP: 5382396 For next: 49848
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6274 days Last activity: 6116 days
| #1 Posted on 18.12.02 2200.10 Reposted on: 18.12.09 2200.19 | A quote, from the man himself:
"How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" Clinton told CNN outside a business luncheon he was attending. "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy."
The inference here, of course, is that Republicans got a majority in the South by using racist or veiled racist policies. Which also infers that all, or most, voting Southerners are racists.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Read the whole thing here. Promote this thread! | | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 715/4700 EXP: 28695051 For next: 640030
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #2 Posted on 19.12.02 0553.35 Reposted on: 19.12.09 0553.46 | Gee I am shocked, positively shocked, that Bill Clinton of all people played the race card.
What a tool. | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 707/2042 EXP: 8314835 For next: 41853
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6477 days Last activity: 2732 days
| #3 Posted on 19.12.02 1038.34 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1039.10 |
Originally posted by PalpatineW The inference here, of course, is that Republicans got a majority in the South by using racist or veiled racist policies. Which also infers that all, or most, voting Southerners are racists.
Change that "all, or most" to "many" and I'll wholeheartedly agree with the statement. Racists (closeted or otherwise) are not a majority, but they're a sufficiently large potential-voter-bloc to make a difference in a close election.
I spent four years in Raleigh, North Carolina, and got to witness a few campaigns down there. Jesse Helms's now-infamous "white hands crumpling a pink slip" ad was singled out by the national media, but it paled beside some of the rhetoric that was broadcast "below the radar" on local radio. Two years later, I'm not sure that I've ever heard anything more chilling than some of Pat Buchanan's down-South radio ads during his Presidential campaign. This is not a new phenomenon. | redsoxnation
Scrapple Level: 165
Posts: 1253/7534 EXP: 58188967 For next: 746838
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 3923 days Last activity: 3923 days
| #4 Posted on 19.12.02 1052.27 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1059.02 |
Originally posted by vsp
Originally posted by PalpatineW The inference here, of course, is that Republicans got a majority in the South by using racist or veiled racist policies. Which also infers that all, or most, voting Southerners are racists.
Change that "all, or most" to "many" and I'll wholeheartedly agree with the statement. Racists (closeted or otherwise) are not a majority, but they're a sufficiently large potential-voter-bloc to make a difference in a close election.
I spent four years in Raleigh, North Carolina, and got to witness a few campaigns down there. Jesse Helms's now-infamous "white hands crumpling a pink slip" ad was singled out by the national media, but it paled beside some of the rhetoric that was broadcast "below the radar" on local radio. Two years later, I'm not sure that I've ever heard anything more chilling than some of Pat Buchanan's down-South radio ads during his Presidential campaign. This is not a new phenomenon.
Pat did lose Southern Primaries. The irony is the one state that Brother Buchanan had success in was in the Northeast. | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 708/2042 EXP: 8314835 For next: 41853
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6477 days Last activity: 2732 days
| #5 Posted on 19.12.02 1108.33 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1109.52 |
Originally posted by redsoxnation Pat did lose Southern Primaries. The irony is the one state that Brother Buchanan had success in was in the Northeast.
Well, yes. I'm not implying that either
a) racist politics == automatic success in the South b) lack of racist politics == automatic failure in the South or c) that we don't have lots of racists up North as well.
But anyone who pretends that racism isn't still a major problem in the South, or that politicians won't pander to racist demographics is kidding themselves.
| Jaguar
Knackwurst Level: 116
Posts: 1193/3284 EXP: 16936918 For next: 387227
Since: 23.1.02 From: In a Blue State finally
Since last post: 1903 days Last activity: 1903 days
| #6 Posted on 19.12.02 1111.18 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1114.02 | 1) I agree with Vsp. I live in North Carolina, and that is how white male (mostly conservative, but in some places liberals as well) run their campaigns. I don't think I saw any really bad Elizabeth Dole ads, but then again I was so sick of the whole thing that I stopped paying attention long before November.
2) People have been saying this for days before Clinton. "Lott has seen the 'segs' as part of his constituency. But he knows now that the cost of winking at them is very high, not so much among blacks as among white moderate voters and among national GOP leaders." - Time Magazine Dec. 23, 2002
-Jag
Oh and Grimis, not to pick on you but the whole thing is about race. So Clinton didn't really play, "the race card". | DMC
Liverwurst Level: 74
Posts: 735/1180 EXP: 3651295 For next: 2266
Since: 8.1.02 From: Modesto, CA
Since last post: 6919 days Last activity: 6913 days
| #7 Posted on 19.12.02 1143.32 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1147.38 | I don't think racism had much to do with Republicans gaining political control in the south. First off, think what you will about Trent Lott, but Republican strategies are not *racist*. Many blacks stand against racial quotas, that is really the only major issue being tacitly thrown about here. To imply it is *racism* to take that stance on affirmative action is just wrong. You need to carefully nuance this statement and say that "many white racists in the south support Republicans because *the southerners believe* that Republican ideals fit their racist ideals." They more or less believed the same thing about the Democratic party for decade after decade, probably even long after "Dixie-Crat" elements in the party were marginalized. Racists are just stupid like that.
Second, there are so many other issues which make the Republican agenda of the past 30-40 years much more appealing to the conservative demographic of the south, religion and family value issues likely being the main ones. So for Clinton to suggest that Republicans win in the south because of perceived racist views alone is just flat out stupid.
DMC
(edited by DMC on 19.12.02 0946) | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 727/4700 EXP: 28695051 For next: 640030
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #8 Posted on 19.12.02 1212.27 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1216.12 |
Originally posted by Jaguar Oh and Grimis, not to pick on you but the whole thing is about race. So Clinton didn't really play, "the race card".
DMC made the same point I was going to. Calling Republicans "racists" is in fact playing the race card, plain and simple. | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple Level: 119
Posts: 782/3467 EXP: 18396230 For next: 533116
Since: 2.1.02 From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 137 days Last activity: 137 days
| #9 Posted on 19.12.02 1255.02 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1259.05 | Can you really consider his statement "Playing the race card" when the topic at hand is all about race in the first place?
It's not like they were talking about something completely different and Clinton just threw some race-related stuff in there for fun. | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 659/1761 EXP: 6572230 For next: 78460
Since: 1.8.02 From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 206 days Last activity: 163 days
| #10 Posted on 19.12.02 1309.58 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1310.14 | I have to wonder if the way to stop all of this racism (alleged or otherwise) is to stop screaming about how racist people are, and ignore race ALL TOGETHER when dealing with people as "communities." I am trying to see what good this debate (on the national scale) is doing to promote equality. Can't think of a thing! | calvinh0560
Boudin rouge Level: 52
Posts: 147/518 EXP: 1062337 For next: 21511
Since: 3.1.02 From: People's Republic of Massachusetts
Since last post: 4004 days Last activity: 188 days
| #11 Posted on 19.12.02 1919.17 Reposted on: 19.12.09 1919.35 | Originally posted by Pool-Boy I am trying to see what good this debate (on the national scale) is doing to promote equality. Can't think of a thing!
It good for the democratic party. And we all know that what’s good for that party it good for the nation
(edited by calvinh0560 on 19.12.02 2020) | PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 408/1528 EXP: 5382396 For next: 49848
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6274 days Last activity: 6116 days
| #12 Posted on 21.12.02 2336.44 Reposted on: 21.12.09 2338.55 |
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreeze Can you really consider his statement "Playing the race card" when the topic at hand is all about race in the first place?
It's not like they were talking about something completely different and Clinton just threw some race-related stuff in there for fun.
I'd look at it this way, Frosty. Clinton is exploiting this for political gain in a dishonest fashion. I know this is politics, so that's fine, but I don't think we can take him seriously as any sort of anti-racist advocate. The issue here really isn't race; the issue is fostering the impression that the Republicans are all racists. If you look at the record, you'll find racists on both sides of the aisle. If Clinton was really interested in "healing the country" or any other such B.S., then he would call out racists from both parties. My point here is that he is not giving the issue of racism an honest treatment. He is using it almost as a buzzowrd to stir up a very visceral reaction. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |