Is the DNC's support of Rev. Al for president knowing his race baiting past similar to the RNC hypothetically supporting a presidential run for a racist like David Duke? Let's see the Democrats' response to this.
After the 1st debate in S.C., Terry McAuliffe came on This Week and stated that right now the DNC "supports all 9 candidates." Why does Rev. Al get a free pass when he has a horrible record with race relations in NYC. He may have a new suit & a new perm., but I don't think Al is much different than he was a few yrs. ago. Democratic leaders are afraid to confront him on his horrid past because he's black. They just can't admit it.
He's a terrible racist, plain and simple. The DNC's show of support is hardly surprising, as they are systematically undoing years of racial healing.
If the DNC specifically said "We support all 8 white candidates, but blackie needs to take a hike" would you still be upset? Maybe, but so would the entire black population.
Sorry I did that while on the phone at work...basically with guys like Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott why would you need Big Al?
Totally, Republicans are hardly on steady ground when it comes to race relations. Basically, they can't say anything.
I guess the same can be said for Dems then, seeing as in how they have the dis-Honorable Senator Byrd in their ranks.
Indeed, neither camp has room to talk. Our whole freaking country has no room to talk. This whole thread is ridiculous.
No camp can say they have good records, but the dems have an extensive history of undermining race realtions, via affirmative action, quotas, and the like. For the dems, it always comes down to race.
who started the thread? sharpton's not a serious candidate. i didn't know terry m. had said that but if he did i don't agree. i'd allow sharpton to participate, but i wouldn't say the DNC supports him.
He may have a new suit & a new perm, learned skills for successful management, stopped draft dodging, alcohol and cocaine abuse, etc but I don't think GWB is much different than he was a few yrs. ago. Right?
Maybe you should. The Dems rely on the blacks of America to be poor and destitute, so they will have their votes. What would happen if blacks, God forbid, started making better wages and got better jobs? The Dems don't want to risk that, so they will try to keep the African Americans of this country on their teat. Give them handouts, and money and jobs no longer factor in. The Dems are doing their best at keeping them down.
Interesting perspective, but its thought out. I would disagree with the conclusions - cuz the poor and destitute usually don't vote at all. I wouldn't exactly say the dems are doing their best to keep them down either. Maybe some career political scientists, but hardly 40-60% of the population. I'd say the majority of regular dems have sympathy for the large mass of "little guys" and don't mind having the government try and take care of them - black, white or yellow.
Sorry DJ, i know it's very broad. But I do think a lot of this exsists in Democratic circles. And you're right about all people liking certain handouts. But i get a sense they are being used to African Americans them in a certain economic range.
It's very broad. And it's not like Republicans are bending over backwards to help them out, either. The whole country is used to them being in a certain economic range.
Al isn't even remotely comparable to David Duke. A better comparison might be Pat Buchanan, who got to speak at the 92 Rep. convention.