Thursday, November 03, 2005

Democrats: Racist, Anti-Free Speech

There was a time when I was a student and had the impression, correctly or not, that Democrats/Lefty types were the people who liked free speech and were against racist conduct. That impression was wrong of course, unless you ignore the Democrat label of the Southern politicians that did everything they could to keep blacks in their place, and simply call them conservatives.

Despite the occasional exceptions in both parties, that image was blown a long time ago. As a libertarian type conservative, I find plenty of warts in both parties, but there is no doubt based on recent conduct that the Democrats are despicable.

We start with an accomplished Lt. Governor from Maryland. Michael S. Steele is black. At least, that would be the conclusion one would draw from the color of his skin. But you see, he is also a Republican. Despite the fact that he has accomplished what he has, he is the subject of racist attacks. And who is defending these racist attacks? Democrats.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

You see, according to Democrats, it is OK to be attacked racially if you don't think the way they do. Ignoring the bigoted nature of the attacks, they include ridiculous conduct that should not be tolerated in politics at all, and at the very least should embarrass anyone who agrees with the attackers.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

"Welcome to Maryland, Mr. African-American. How do you think? Oh, well in that case, you have to ride in the back of the bus."

Is that unfair? Let's see what Maryland democrats have to say.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

You see, if a Republican made racial jabs at a democrat of color, that would be OK. Right?

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Well, it isn't pretty democracy, but it's just democracy. No racial attack is below democracy.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

As Marriott so eloquently put it, black people aren't individuals. They are a homogeneous group of people who all should think alike about politics, crime, religion, etc. Otherwise, they aren't really black. They are Oreos or master lovers. I'm glad Marriott can say that.

These attacks, as we know, are nothing new to established conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. Thomas was attacked just this week.

This level of discourse should be beneath any of the two major political parties in this country. I cannot believe that Democrats can stand by and even allow this to happen within their party. When Trent Lott made embarrassing comments during a birthday party, the Republicans rightly punished him. This type of self censorship, even with race, never happens in the Democratic party as I can see.

Besides, one has to wonder where "Republican policies are anti-black" comes from. Every major city controlled by blacks are controlled by Democrats. Usually, black Democrats. They are cesspools. The schools are awful. The taxes are high for poor service. The crime is high. Washington, D.C., Detroit, Atlanta, etc. are not the places one wants to live. When black people make money in those cities, they move to the suburbs. [Atlanta, to a degree, is on the rebound in city politics thanks to a new mayor, but the problems she inherited were great.]

How long does one have to keep repairing a product before they realize that the product is a lemon? This is what Democrats have sold the black community. A lemon of government dependence and social welfare. Anyone who opposes this fraud is attacked, and bigotry and racism are fair game. Welcome to Democratic politics.

For Democrats opposing free speech yesterday, see Unrepentant Individual.

Republicans voted in the affirmative 179-38, and Democrats voted against by a 143-46 margin. Now, I just wonder why Democrats vote so overwhelmingly against online freedom of speech? Can someone help me out on this? This seems like a pretty strange thing to oppose. After all, the things I read on DailyKos and DU are dangerously close to being obscene, and Democrats are always willing to defend obscenity on any level. Could it be that they’re trying to limit a medium they’re destined to lose? I’m quite sure that’s why they hate talk radio. The internet is like talk radio for the masses. I mean, are they so afraid of competing in the realm of ideas and the written word that they dare not let us plebes speak out?

Read it all.

2 Comments:

At 9:08 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

Very well said, counselor. I could not agree more.

You should get angry more often.

 
At 9:56 AM, Blogger spd rdr said...

Revolting.
But well said, counselor.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home