Getting out of the American navel gazing and naming of opposition figures, it's pretty much a universal issue in terms of geography and time.

George Romney was not born in an US territory, but was born to American parents (albeit exiles). While his Presidential candidacy did not last very long, he could have been a case from the past to set a precedent. I'm not aware of one, though.

So you're giving credit to the Republican Party for providing votes for the passage of the Voting Rights Act, DF? I think is it an understatement to say that was a very different party back then. I am not sure if there were any Republicans in the South in Congress at that time (because belonging to the Republican Party was anathema to Southerners). Southern Democrats were almost universally opposed to Civil Rights, but Lyndon Johnson led the fight for civil rights. And the Republican Party decided to move ideologically towards those Southern Democrats who became disenchanted with the Democratic Party's support of civil rights.
So, yeah, when Southern bigots belonged to the Democratic Party and there were Rockefeller Republicans, you might get more votes for a civil rights bill from Republicans. And of course the country as a whole has moved away from at least outward demonstrations of bigotry. But the Republican Party now has those former Southern Democrats in their party (or at least their descendants) and it has had move to appease their views on race, religion, values, etc. Dredging up what the Republican Party did 50 years ago is about as apposite today as praising the current Republican Party for Lincoln freeing the slaves. And there is no doubt that your taking the statements of one member of the Democratic Party (from the South btw) as indicating that the Democratic Party is as bad or worse than the Republican Party on the subject of race is, well, absurd.

Personally I don't think it was racist no matter which party the speaker is a member of. Yes, it's crass, but racist ? Really ?

I think it's a little sad that both parties in the States have now been reduced to this kind of shallow politics where they have teams of people looking out for ambiguous remarks made by the other side that can be spun as offensive to particular groups. It happens here too, although not to the same extent. It seems like both Democrats and Republicans are competing to see who can portray themselves as the bigger victim these days, and it's a little pathetic.

Sassenach wrote:Personally I don't think it was racist no matter which party the speaker is a member of. Yes, it's crass, but racist ? Really ?

I think it's a little sad that both parties in the States have now been reduced to this kind of shallow politics where they have teams of people looking out for ambiguous remarks made by the other side that can be spun as offensive to particular groups. It happens here too, although not to the same extent. It seems like both Democrats and Republicans are competing to see who can portray themselves as the bigger victim these days, and it's a little pathetic.

Well put!

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Personally I don't think it was racist no matter which party the speaker is a member of. Yes, it's crass, but racist ? Really ?

I think it's a little sad that both parties in the States have now been reduced to this kind of shallow politics where they have teams of people looking out for ambiguous remarks made by the other side that can be spun as offensive to particular groups. It happens here too, although not to the same extent. It seems like both Democrats and Republicans are competing to see who can portray themselves as the bigger victim these days, and it's a little pathetic.

Well put!

I'm perfectly willing to get back to discussing issues. But, if issues alone are the focus of our politics, Democrats would not fare as well as they are. They have made victimhood a science.

as I said from the start, it COULD be considered racist and MIGHT have been intended as such but it is a somewhat common saying. Rude and crass, no doubt, but not necessarily racist. That being said, the person who said it and his history of racist comments makes this particular example much more likely to have been intended as such but again, it's not a slam dunk "yes it was" either!

GMTom wrote:as I said from the start, it COULD be considered racist and MIGHT have been intended as such but it is a somewhat common saying. Rude and crass, no doubt, but not necessarily racist. That being said, the person who said it and his history of racist comments makes this particular example much more likely to have been intended as such but again, it's not a slam dunk "yes it was" either!

But, if the exact same thing were said by a GOP party chief about Obama . . . the media would chirp about "racism" all day long.

oh, no doubt about that!
...but I don't play those games, it does seem to be a favorite game of the liberal media however!

The left probably is more guilty of this kind of thing than the right. Republicans are catching up fast though. I can understand why both sides see the need to resort to this kind of cheap shot politics, but it's pretty dismal and depressing to have to witness it.

Sassenach wrote:The left probably is more guilty of this kind of thing than the right. Republicans are catching up fast though. I can understand why both sides see the need to resort to this kind of cheap shot politics, but it's pretty dismal and depressing to have to witness it.

Sass, I hear similar words sometimes, and usually it is not just a common expression, it is a common expression of racist and anti-immigrant sentiment. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it having a 'black' girlfriend (mixed-race really, but many don't see the distinction), but I don't know that I could say that Harpootlian wasn't at least tapping into racism.

Mind you, I think playing partisan games with it is a bit depressing. If DF is confident he'd win arguments on issues alone, why not do that?