Paul Admits 'Some Responsibility' for Racist Newsletters

[Dr. Shane]

Again, this is Lazarus' statement:

Quote:

I don't know what the fuss is about. Many GOPer's have said bad things about black people. I actually think is part of proving your bone fides as a republican.

This kind of stereotyping makes it sound as if racism is confined to the Republican Party almost as if they invented it. That fact is that the biggest hero in the Republican Party brought an end to slavery in the US while the biggest hero in the Deomcratic Party locked up entire race of American citizens.

All Lazarus has done is list a handful of Republicans. Some of the remarks he is interpreting as racist are really stretching things. To say calling Michelle Obama a "Yomama" is racist is really getting desperate if the purpose to to find racists hiding in the bushes. That would be like someone calling my wife a guanaco and then saying that is a racist remarks. His list by no means justifies the blanket stereotype he posted at the beginning of this thread. It appears that Lazaraus wants to make tar babies out of all the Republicans whenever the issue of race is dealt with.

My point is that racists are found in all walks of life. There are Democrats, Republicans, non-political people, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and the list goes on. To somehow create or nourish the idea that the Republican Party accepts and encourages racism is simply wrong. The national chairman of the Republican Party was black not too long ago.

[lazarus]

Textbook responses Shane. Deny the problem, then when evidence is presented deny the evidence. Then for good measure proceed to refute something that I didn't actually suggest.

Of course racism is found in all walks of life. Who said it wasn't?

Quote:

I believe that most black people vote for Democrats because most black people are poor and believe that Democrats are more likely to increase welfare benefits. The more money a black person makes, the less likely he or she is to vote for a Democrat.

Shane, I really have correct your sad ignorance. When folks get mad they say what they really think. This is healthy.

Here are the facts:

The 2009 census estimates show that of the nearly 50 million Latinos in the country, 28.2 percent are living below the poverty threshold compared with 23.4% for black people. That’s 742,000 more than the official poverty count of 13,346,000 poor Hispanics.

[lazarus]

So.......

What does it say about Ron Paul's character that he hasn't come clean about his newsletters? Does it really matter?

[Dr. Shane]

Deny the problem

[Dr. Shane]

Since it seems necessary, let me spell out what was so objectionable about Lazarus' comment so perhaps he can see what he said that was so wrong.

Quote:

I don't know what the fuss is about. Many GOPer's have said bad things about black people. I actually think is part of proving your bone fides as a republican.

"I don't know what the fuss is about."

This implies a preconception about the Republican Party. Why would a bunch of racists be upset about racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletter? Since all Republicans (or at least a large portion) are racist, why is there so much concern about Ron Paul?

"Many GOPer's have said bad things about black people."

This statement, by itself, is not offensive and is factually accurate. However placing it in the context of the sentence before it and the sentence after it, it is a broad statement about Republicans. The word "many" here, when read in the context of the two other sentences, actually reads "most".

"I actually think is part of proving your bone fides as a republican."

This statement says that the author of it believes that in order to "prove your bone fides" (which is necessary to get into Republican leadership) a person has to make racist comments. If that were true, what would it say about the Republican Party? What would it say about the party that freed the slaves and passed civil rights legislation in the '60s?

Remember, Bob Dole in his Presidential nomination acceptance speech in 1996 said that if there were any racists in the room that they needed to find the door. Why was Bob Dole concerned about that? Because of the racist shadow cast on the party by David Duke who never was elected to national office but had made quite a stirring in the early '90s. But remember, Duke had been a Democrat but switched in 1988. He was able to win one term to the LA House of Representatives but all other political endeavors failed and he had not been endorsed by the Republican establishment for that office.

America has changed fundamentally over the course of my lifetime. I was born in 1969. It was the middle of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. America elected a black President before my 40th birthday. That is nothing less than incredible. Most Americans do not have a racist bone in their bodies. However there is still a minority of Americans that do and many would never admit it because they don't even recognize it as racism. They are not found in any one segment of society. They are found every where. It is perfectly understandable why Republicans would be upset and concerned about racist remarks in Ron Paul's newsletters.

[lazarus]

I have not denied the problem.

Yes Sir. You are denying that many republicans have said bad things about black people. And then you question whether racist statements are actually racist.

Quote:

You have yet to take responsibility for what you said and apologize for it.

I certainly take responsibility for what I said and I certainly will not apologize for it.

Quote:

First, the census was done in 2010, not 2009 so you may want to check where those statistics came from.

In between a census, estimates are made. That's why the quote said census "estimate". The actual figures are slightly higher but basically the same.

Quote:

Second, I do not claim that the majority of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty. That would surprise me if it were true.

Oh yes you did. Two days ago you said exactly that. Your words below....

Quote:

I believe that most black people vote for Democrats because most black people are poor and believe that Democrats are more likely to increase welfare benefits. The more money a black person makes, the less likely he or she is to vote for a Democrat.

You are factually incorrect on both accounts. Where did you get your information?

[lazarus]

So all caps is shouting. What is 14pt/bold? Hysterical screaming? Enlarging the font does not make your arguments better.

Quote:

Remember, Bob Dole in his Presidential nomination acceptance speech in 1996 said that if there were any racists in the room that they needed to find the door.

Didn't see that in the speech but he said this "The Constitution of the United States mandates equal protection under the law. This is not code language for racism. It is plain speaking against it."

Why did Dole have to make the clarification he did about the meaning of equal protection? He knew his own party. When you have to resort to quoting Bob Dole in defending the GOP from racism it a sad day.

Quote:

This implies a preconception about the Republican Party. Why would a bunch of racists be upset about racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletter? Since all Republicans (or at least a large portion) are racist, why is there so much concern about Ron Paul?

Many republicans have made racist comments so I'm not surprised at Ron Paul's newsletter past. If you want to say that a large portion of the GOP are racist you can. If you want say that republicans are a bunch of racists you can but that it not what I said.

Quote:

It is perfectly understandable why Republicans would be upset and concerned about racist remarks in Ron Paul's newsletters.

I don't see his numbers taking a hit. Paul was 3% away from winning IOW. He only saw slippage in the "very liberal" group of voters. GOP's were not really that upset.

Check this out:

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:

''You start out in 1954 by saying, '[theN-word], [theN-word], [theN-word].' By 1968 you can't say '[theN-word]' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

''And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than '[theN-word], [theN-word].'''

Atwater, who would manage George H.W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book ''Southern Politics in the 1990's.''

The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.

The payoff has been huge. Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today's Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks.

[Dr. Shane]

You are denying that many republicans have said bad things about black people.

[Dr. Shane]

So all caps is shouting. What is 14pt/bold? Hysterical screaming? Enlarging the font does not make your arguments better.

I did not use all caps. The larger, bold font makes it easier for the reader to distinguish the dialog. Nothing more than that should be read into it.

[Woody]

Excellent synopsis Shane

[lazarus]

$31,969 is not below the poverty line but I think most households earning $50,673 and above would view those making $31,969 as being poor. My statement was not out of line with reality.

That is so ridiculous. So now you have your own definition of poor which just happens to fit the statistics you choose. Your statement is of course in line with reality because you have created your own reality.

There are a lot of teachers, firefighters etc. that are not middle class and therefore poor by your definition. You can't just make stuff up just to justify yourself.

Clearly you were factually wrong to suggest black people vote for Dems because they are poor. Salary does not significantly affect how African Americans vote. They don't vote for the GOP becasue the GOP has had a history of exploiting the white fear of black people. Lee Attwater admits it.

[Woody]

Quote:

They don't vote for the GOP becasue the GOP has had a history of exploiting the white fear of black people.

The way that many blacks behave such as you do - there is good reason to fear them. For the hatred that is spewed out is SO divisive that it is dangerous.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course it is unfair and prejudicial to judge an entire political party by the comments or philosophy of one man or even a handful of such men. That road is a two-way street. If the racists (past or present) in the Republican Party can justify stereotyping all, then black gangsters would also justify stereotyping all blacks. No reasonable person would accept that.

What I find interesting in this discussion is the idea that blacks vote Democrat because they receive government assistance is rejected. Yet, Lee Atwater is exposed as being a racist because he admitted that he wanted to cut government spending as a way to hurt black people. That leaves me scratching my head.

If black people don't vote Democrat because many receive government assistance, then why would cutting the federal budget be racist?

Regardless what Lee Atwater did or did not believe (he died almost 20 years ago), I think it is a big leap to say all Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats) that want to cut spending and balance the budget are racists. Let's remember, President Bill Clinton takes credit for balancing the budget at the end of his administration. Would that make President Clinton racist-in-chief?

Perhaps Atwater was a racist with a far-fetched theory of cutting spending and thus hurting black people. However I will point out that when he was alive (and perhaps even today) there were far more white people on the welfare roles than there were black people or other minorities (I was one of them). So if that was Atwater's brain child, it certainly doesn't say much for Atwater's brain power.

History tells us that blacks switched from voting Republican to voting Democrat when FDR created numerous federal government programs that benefited the poor class. Blacks are more religious than whites and morally they are more in line with the conservative religious right than with the liberal left. So if they do not vote Democrat because of government programs one must wonder why they do vote Democrat.

The fact that so many Republicans have been upset about Ron Paul's newsletter is one piece of evidence that shows Republicans, as a whole, are not racist. Ron Paul's dishonest reaction also shows that he fears the non-racist Republicans that do not approve of racist articles. So this whole controversy really does go to show that the Republican Party is not a home where racists can prosper. Unless, of course, one believes that cutting spending and making government smaller is racist. If that be the case, I guess the Republican Party can't get more racist because it does aim to cut spending and make government smaller.

[Bravus]

...why would cutting the federal budget be racist?

Because some states are much more racist than others, and the federal government is a moderating force. Remember what the civil war was about. And what 'states rights' was code for during the civil rights movement.

It doesn't have to be about charity.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree with the point that states' rights was code for racism in the past. Today, states' rights is code for legislating religion on a state level - specifically abortion and gay-rights issues. I grasp that.

But that fails to answer my question.

If blacks do not vote Democrat because of government programs, why would cutting government programs be racist?

So a person can argue that cutting government programs is racist and they may be able to make somewhat of a strong argument in so doing. But... the argument itself implies that minorities are concerned about such programs when they go into the voting booth.

After the 2000 election while they were still counting votes in Florida, I asked the Latina clerk at a local convenience store who she voted for. She told me she voted for Gore. I asked her why. She told me that Bush would take away her food stamps. Now I know that story is anecdotal but the fact is that one of the first things Bush did was increase funding to the food stamp program. Yet we still have people that believe Republicans are racist.

[lazarus]

The way that many blacks behave such as you do - there is good reason to fear them. For the hatred that is spewed out is SO divisive that it is dangerous.

Why so much self-hatred. I thought you were black!

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

The way that many blacks behave such as you do - there is good reason to fear them. For the hatred that is spewed out is SO divisive that it is dangerous.

Why so much self-hatred. I thought you were black!

Well black or white - I have to stand up for TRUTH.

[lazarus]

That leaves me scratching my head.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

[lazarus]

I have to stand up for TRUTH.

I guess that's how Herman Cain would put it.

[Woody]

Herman was maligned because of his race by the liberals. But I still liked him.

[lazarus]

For your edutainment:

[bonnie]

For your edutainment:

">