I recently accused liberals of being racists. That accusation lead to a number of different exchanges, most of which can be found in the comments section of the blogs in question (I encourage you to read them). However, there is one conversation that is hidden, that was performed behind the scenes. That conversation had originally started over at one of my online liberal friend’s blog who had brought up the same topic. Eventually, the conversation moved to emails (because I didn’t know if my liberal friend was mad at me, so I didn’t want to post on his website anymore without knowing he was ok with it - we have now kissed and made up ). Well, that conversation has finally ended and I must say, we covered a wide range of topics. We covered a little history, and went over the accusation that Republicans are racists as well. The liberal in question was very intelligent, and completely civil throughout the whole discussion. Although I strongly disagree with some of his beliefs, I respect him and do not question his sincerity.

Since it’s a weekend, and most people don’t read blogs on weekends anyway, unless they have absolutely nothing else to do. I thought I’d give those people a chance to read more on liberal racism, along with all the other topics we discussed. If they are that bored…:-) I will cut and paste the emails as they were sent, in order. With each email being seperated by dashed lines at the top. I will put an HP at the top for my responses, and Liberal for his responses. Remember, if you want some history on how this conversation started, please visit this blog, and read the comments section (the liberal in question is Brian).

Please click here to read .
—————————————————————–
HP

I don’t think you are being fair to what I wrote.

You write,

“Are some liberals guilty of condescension? Yeah. And so are some
conservatives. And some Jews. And some Baptists. And some Quakers. And
some real estate brokers. And some lacrosse players. And some
numismatists”.

My examples of liberals are not just ’some’ liberals. These are mainstream
liberals. Reid is set to be the next senate leader of the Democrat party.

I quoted this article
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040804.shtml

Who used John Kerry, the last presidential nominee for the whole democrat
party.

Liberals are notorious for implying Republicans are racists…yet base
that primarily on examples of the past or on fringe Republicans(with the
exception of Lott).

I am doing more than that. I am using *todays* leaders of the Democrat party.

–
Hispanic Pundit
www.hispanicpundit.com

—————————————————————–
Liberal

As a point of reference, I go with the definitions that a racist need only
go along with a system that discriminates (”geez, it never occurred to me to
put a want ad in the NYTimes AND the Amsterdam News), while a bigot is
someone with an unsupportable prejudice (”don’t promote any blacks to
manager”). I am saying that you will find many, many more bigots among the
ranks of Republicans than you will among the ranks of Democrats. Look at the
intimidation and disenfranchisement of black Florida voters in 2000 and 2004
by politicians who remain in office — that is to say _current_ and
_mainstream_ Florida Republicans. In 2000, McCain was on a roll, til he got
to S.C., where somebody spread the rumour McCain had an illegitimate
daughter with a black woman. And he lost S.C. You suppose that wasn’t
pandering to bigotry among S.C. Republicans? The point isn’t the identity of
whoever spread the rumor, it’s that there were enough bigots there that it
was effective. If there were enough “fringe” Republicans to throw that vote,
what exactly is “fringe” anymore?

I read Mr. Williams’s piece. There are two ways to interpret what Kerry
said. Was he condescending or just inept? You choose to believe that what he
really thinks is that those poor darkies just cain’t help being shiftless
and irresponsible, so let’s make allowances and not hold them accountable. I
choose to believe that he means that if you have social inequity (do you
want to argue that we have social equity?), it’s tougher for those who’ve
been given the short end of the stick. If you think everybody has the
strength of character to overcome hardship, you don’t know much about
people.

As for W nattering about accountability, how can you take him seriously when
he avoids being accountable for anything himself? Isn’t that the obverse of
what you object to? Holding minorities to higher standards than he’s willing
to submit to? I don’t care what W says — what does he DO? The gap between
rhetoric and action has never been wider for any politician since Strom
Thurmond.

Again, I think you’re rehashing D’nesh D’Souza’s line. You and Mr. Williams
seem upset that some liberals are condescending, and I think you’re both
reacting so strongly that you assume it’s ALL condescension. The problem I
see with that is that if you can’t get past how someone says something to
see what they’re actually doing, you’re ripe for manipulation.

i cc:d mitch because he’s a busybody.

—————————————————————–
HP

You know, I have always been of the belief that a lot of the things
Republicans get accused of being racists on are not true acts of racism
but a simple misunderstanding in ways of looking at the world.

And your examples you provided could not be more clear of that. I will go
through them one by one.

> Look at
> the
> intimidation and disenfranchisement of black Florida voters in 2000 and
> 2004
> by politicians who remain in office — that is to say _current_ and
> _mainstream_ Florida Republicans.

What do you think about this,

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682

Here are the more relevant points,

“In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas
of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter
intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of
intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission
was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were
Democrats). For example, “Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll
workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other
barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote.” But the report
found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to
disenfranchise voters. “Moreover,” it said, “even if it was foreseeable
that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this
alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred,” let alone
racial discrimination.”

Those damn racist Democrats!!!

But here, lets move past this and lets for the moment *assume* that there
were some *minor* intimidation or lack of energy to investigate these
crimes. Does that necessarily prove the Republicans are racists? No, I
don’t think so. It is a fact that a majority of blacks are Democrats and
in a highly partisan election, like that in 2000 and 2004, it is perfectly
reasonable to assume Republicans were simply playing politics as opposed
to any dislike of blacks or minorities in general. Now as despicable as
that may be, it is politically motivated NOT race motivated. I have no
doubt in my mind that had those disenfranchised voters been Cuban voters
in a different section of Florida, every Republican would be shouting for
a closer look at the circumstances. Or had those disenfranchised voters
been in a very devout evangelical Christian area of Florida, with a high
concentration of white men, Democrats would not have been so eager to
investigate either. Would that mean Democrats are against Christians, or
white men, of course not, it means they too would be playing politics.

Onto your next example…you write,

>In 2000, McCain was on a roll, til he got to S.C., where somebody spread
the rumour McCain had an illegitimate
> daughter with a black woman. And he lost S.C. You suppose that wasn’t
> pandering to bigotry among S.C. Republicans? The point isn’t the identity
> of
> whoever spread the rumor, it’s that there were enough bigots there that it
> was effective. If there were enough “fringe” Republicans to throw that
> vote,
> what exactly is “fringe” anymore?

Ahh, but you forget to mention that Republicans, especially in South
Carolina, are a very religious groups of people. They will generally stop
supporting *ANYONE* who drifts from religious principles, especially those
tied to marriage.

In the senator or governmental elections of 2002, I remember reading that
Democrats picked up a seat because it was discovered that the Republican
in question had had marital affairs. Or in the senate race in Illinois,
the original Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, of Barack Obama (who
eventually won the senate race) had to drop out because it was discovered
he had abnormal sexual relationships with his already divorced wife of
several years (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/). And
this in Illinois, a state that is overall less conservative than S.C. The
list goes on and on. It is a fact that Republicans are much less forgiving
on sexual misbehavings than Democrats are. For example, if Bill Clinton
had been a Republican, he would have had more to worry about from fellow
Republicans than from Democrats. While both parties are equally guilty of
sexual misbehavings, Republicans generally don’t tolerate it. Republicans
would have hung Bill Clinton out to dry had he been one of their own.

Does that mean Republicans are anti-White too? No, of course not. It just
means they place a very high emphasis on their religious values, and
expect their candidates to do the same.

I think alot(most!) of charges that Republicans are racists have no
foundation at all, and are supported by the persons a prior assumption
that Republicans are racists. Of course Republicans disenfranchised black
voters because Republicans hate blacks. It couldn’t possibly be politics.
Of course the voters in SC didn’t like Mc Cain because he was with a black
girl, it couldn’t be because he had sex outside of marriage. These charges
are only sustainable through liberal eyes, eyes that a priori assume the
Republican is racists. For those that have no such bias (like myself) it
is as clear as day why they acted as they did.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not blindly supporting the Republican party,

and saying they do no harm. There certainly are clear acts of racism in
the Republican party both now(I am reminded of the nomination of a known
racist in a Lousiana race - but even with that candidate many Republicans
tried to get the Republican name taken off, he had simply attached it by
the deadline, and it couldn’t be removed - or something like that) and in
history. I am just saying that the differences are not as extreme as some
people make it out to be. I would say that overall the Republican party
has a very competitive record(maybe even better) on race issues compared
to the Democrat party.

http://hispanicpundit.com/index.php?p=425
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts2000928.shtml

Now, onto the heart of your response. You write,

>
> I read Mr. Williams’s piece. There are two ways to interpret what Kerry
> said. Was he condescending or just inept? You choose to believe that what
> he
> really thinks is that those poor darkies just cain’t help being shiftless
> and irresponsible, so let’s make allowances and not hold them accountable.
> I
> choose to believe that he means that if you have social inequity (do you
> want to argue that we have social equity?), it’s tougher for those who’ve
> been given the short end of the stick. If you think everybody has the
> strength of character to overcome hardship, you don’t know much about
> people.

So you do understand the different ways something can be interpreted,
based on that particular parties underlying beliefs(presuppositions). Lets
try and use that benefit of the doubt equally with both parties, shall we.

As for blacks in prison, I do agree with the general principle that
hardship is hard to overcome, afterall I did grow up in Compton with
divorced parents. I just don’t think one can make the overall
*generalized* statement that ‘its not their fault’, as if those inmates
had nothing to do with it. Everybody, unless extremely mentally retarded,
has *some* say in the decisions they make. You may say a set of
circumstances is more prone to lead people to crime than other
circumstances, but to overgeneralize that to all black inmates in prison,
and say that it is not their fault, is to go to far. Their becomes
absolutely no room for personal responsibility.

But what Walter Williams is trying to address here goes above that simple
example, even above the black power sign Kerry made to the group. It is a
difference in the way liberals, especially the elites(Howard Dean, John
Kerry, etc, those rich northeastern liberals that have probably never seen
a black peasant until they became politicians)that control the Democrat
party, view minorities. When a Democrat gives a talk to minorities it is
different than when he gives a talk to other groups. It is a fact, good or
bad, that Democrats view minorities as “victims in need of a paternalistic
government to come to our rescue”.

And this parent child view comes out in different forms. That is why Reid
*assumed* Thomas is dumb. He has offered no proof why he believes that.
And you can’t tell me that this view is not common in liberal circles. In
fact, it is primarily those black people that disagree the strongest with
liberals that are always classified as dumb, or not educated enough to
hold their positions.

To use Ann Coulters(someone who I read for humor, above all else) way of
putting it,

“Liberals at least give white Republicans credit for being evil. Rumsfeld
is a dangerous warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz is part of an international
Jewish conspiracy, Dick Cheney is “Dr. No.” But Dr. Rice? She’s a dummy.”

To state it another way, traditionally, it was believed that blacks made
it *despite* their race, liberals now emphasize they made it *because* of
their race.

Here, let me try to explain this a different way. This is how Angela
Onwuachi-Willig, a professor at the University of California-Davis School
of Law, puts it,

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0501020489jan02,1,3308914.story
————————————–

” I am a card-carrying Democrat, and in all likelihood, I will die one. My
liberal politics simply prevent me from ever jumping ship.

But if you were to ask two of my closest friends their opinions about my
politics, they would tell you that I, along with almost 90 percent of
African-Americans who voted for Democrats in 2004, am a fool. My friends,
you see, are part of a growing number of black liberals turned
Republicans. No, they are not sellouts. They do not deny the existence of
racism and racial stereotyping. Rather, they see it clearly. As they have
explained their newfound politics to me, “Angela, it’s merely a matter of
which racism you prefer. Do you want it in your face? Or do you want to be
ignored by people who cannot see their own racism, or worse, do not care
to remedy it?”
————————————–

That is what I am talking about. The ‘racism’ of conservatives is of a
different type. I am a Mexican American Republican in the state of
California. A state home to some of the most anti-immigration Republicans
this country has ever seen. When I go to some of these Republican
conventions, I have witnessed *some* Republicans who hate illegal
immigrants so much that you get the feeling they hate all Mexicans in
general.

But it’s a different kind of racism. When you dialogue with these people,
you realize that it’s not the Mexicans they hate, but the gang members,
the drug dealers, and the broken families and welfare dependency of *some*
people. Their racism is in connecting Mexicans in general with those
people. As if that is predomenantly what we bring to this country. If you
can seperate the two, and show that several Mexicans are law abiding,
America loving people, these conservatives sing a different tune. And
conservatives, unlike liberals, do believe that what we need to succeed,
like *all* other Americans white, black or red, is competition instead of
government, pro-free trade, more merit based, and more Laissez Faire
economic policies. You may disagree with their solution, but it is a fact
that conservatives think we need the *same* solutions all Americans need.
We are not some special group of people, that commit crimes that are not
our fault, that need the big hand of government to hold our hand, or a
group of people that without government intervetion, we’d simply be
nothing. A group of people that make it *because* of affirmative action
and what not.

And don’t make the assumption that these liberal elites are necessarily
pro-immigration either. Or would not also become anti-immigration if they
saw immigrants in general turn against their central beliefs.

Liberalism, traditionally, has been more or less alligned with the
liberalism of Europe. Europe liberalism is generally very
anti-immigration. Pro-immigration is overall a very unique American trait.
And like most unique American traits (like our foreign policy, for
example) those traits usually are more at home, *and central*, to
conservative views and beliefs than liberal beliefs.

I think liberals are currently pro-immigration, not as a central belief,
but more out of convenience. Immigrants tend to be overall supportive of
liberals central beliefs and legislation. But as soon as immigrants start
being a burden, or more important, anti-immigration starts to be somewhat
beneficial to liberals, we will see a very different picture from liberals
in general.

Evidence of this can’t be more convincing than seeing what one of the
favorites of liberals, Hillary Clinton, is now doing. She is becoming as
anti-immigration as the best of them.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm

I think this racism[the original liberal racism charge] is harder for liberals to see than the racism of the
past. The reason being that it manifests itself differently than it has in
the past. Liberals tend to see racism now as just that belief and desire
for minorities not to succeed. Since these liberal elites (probably) do
want minorities to succeed, they conclude they can’t be racist.

But that is to ignore my analogy. I said that liberals see minorities as
parents view children, not as a KKK member views blacks. Do parents want
their children to succeed? Of course they do, but they still view their
children as mentally inferior to them who need their guidance to succeed.
Liberals want us minorities to succeed, but they don’t view us as mentally
equal to them. And I believe that current day affirmative action, along
with many other liberal beliefs and legislation, only encourages that
stereotype.

Now, if you want to move past this ad hominem attacks on different
candidates, and get down to the real issues. I have no problem discussing
why I think conservative policies are more beneficial than liberal
policies. As a matter of fact, that was the topic of a long blog of mine.

http://hispanicpundit.com/index.php?p=415

–
Hispanic Pundit
www.hispanicpundit.com

—————————————————————–
Liberal

> You know, I have always been of the belief that a lot of the things
> Republicans get accused of being racists on are not true acts of racism
> but a simple misunderstanding in ways of looking at the world.
> And your examples you provided could not be more clear of that. I will go
> through them one by one.
>
>> Look at
>> the
>> intimidation and disenfranchisement of black Florida voters in 2000 and
>> 2004
>> by politicians who remain in office — that is to say _current_ and
>> _mainstream_ Florida Republicans.
>
> What do you think about this,
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005682
>
> Here are the more relevant points,
>
> “In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas
> of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S.
> Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter
> intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of
> intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.
>
> Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission
> was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were
> Democrats). For example, “Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll
> workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other
> barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote.” But the report
> found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to
> disenfranchise voters. “Moreover,” it said, “even if it was foreseeable
> that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this
> alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred,” let alone
> racial discrimination.”
>
> Those damn racist Democrats!!!
>
> But here, lets move past this and lets for the moment *assume* that there
> were some *minor* intimidation or lack of energy to investigate these
> crimes. Does that necessarily prove the Republicans are racists? No, I
> don’t think so. It is a fact that a majority of blacks are Democrats and
> in a highly partisan election, like that in 2000 and 2004, it is perfectly
> reasonable to assume Republicans were simply playing politics as opposed
> to any dislike of blacks or minorities in general. Now as despicable as
> that may be, it is politically motivated NOT race motivated. I have no
> doubt in my mind that had those disenfranchised voters been Cuban voters
> in a different section of Florida, every Republican would be shouting for
> a closer look at the circumstances. Or had those disenfranchised voters
> been in a very devout evangelical Christian area of Florida, with a high
> concentration of white men, Democrats would not have been so eager to
> investigate either. Would that mean Democrats are against Christians, or
> white men, of course not, it means they too would be playing politics.
>
> Onto your next example…you write,

The relevant section from the US Commission on Civil Rights’ actual report,
in contrast to relevant sections from a WSJ opinion piece, is “the
Commission found a strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) occurred in Florida. The VRA was enacted in
1965 to enforce the 15th Amendment’s proscription against voting
discrimination. It is aimed at both subtle and overt state action that has
the effect of denying a citizen the right to vote because of his or her
race.”

Yeah, US Commission on Civil Rights found no evidence that Jeb or any of his
minions did anything wrong. On the other hand, all it did was spend three
days on public hearings and it sifted through some official documents, but
conducted no actual investigation. In other words, they relied almost
entirely on public testimony (”We did not trade arms for hostages”,” “I did
not have sex with that woman” — so much for public testimony). Gosh, in the
face of that, it’s a wonder Jeb didn’t just break down sobbing from the
pressure and admit he kidnapped the Lindberg baby.

>
>>In 2000, McCain was on a roll, til he got to S.C., where somebody spread
> the rumour McCain had an illegitimate
>> daughter with a black woman. And he lost S.C. You suppose that wasn’t
>> pandering to bigotry among S.C. Republicans? The point isn’t the identity
>> of
>> whoever spread the rumor, it’s that there were enough bigots there that
>> it
>> was effective. If there were enough “fringe” Republicans to throw that
>> vote,
>> what exactly is “fringe” anymore?
>
>
> Ahh, but you forget to mention that Republicans, especially in South
> Carolina, are a very religious groups of people. They will generally stop
> supporting *ANYONE* who drifts from religious principles, especially those
> tied to marriage.

Republicans are well-meaning and misunderstood, and liberals don’t get cut
any slack. Got it.

> In the senator or governmental elections of 2002, I remember reading that
> Democrats picked up a seat because it was discovered that the Republican
> in question had had marital affairs. Or in the senate race in Illinois,
> the original Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, of Barack Obama (who
> eventually won the senate race) had to drop out because it was discovered
> he had abnormal sexual relationships with his already divorced wife of
> several years (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/). And
> this in Illinois, a state that is overall less conservative than S.C. The
> list goes on and on. It is a fact that Republicans are much less forgiving
> on sexual misbehavings than Democrats are. For example, if Bill Clinton
> had been a Republican, he would have had more to worry about from fellow
> Republicans than from Democrats. While both parties are equally guilty of
> sexual misbehavings, Republicans generally don’t tolerate it. Republicans
> would have hung Bill Clinton out to dry had he been one of their own.

Ryan deserved what he got because he was a hypocrite, dishing out the
“family values” crap and then getting caught trying to peddle his wife to
the first comer (pun intended) at a sex club.

And your conjecture about what would have happened to Clinton if he’d been a
Republican is incredibly shaky. Other Republicans knew that Jesse Helms,
that old segregationist, had a child with a black woman, other Republicans
knew that Mister Family Values, Henry Hyde, had had affairs, other
Republicans knew that Nancy Reagan was two months pregnant when she married
Ron. Your horse can be forgiven for excessive farting if he keeps winning
races. And that’s true in any political party.

> Does that mean Republicans are anti-White too? No, of course not. It just
> means they place a very high emphasis on their religious values, and
> expect their candidates to do the same.
>
> I think alot(most!) of charges that Republicans are racists have no
> foundation at all, and are supported by the persons a prior assumption
> that Republicans are racists. Of course Republicans disenfranchised black
> voters because Republicans hate blacks. It couldn’t possibly be politics.
> Of course the voters in SC didn’t like Mc Cain because he was with a black
> girl, it couldn’t be because he had sex outside of marriage. These charges
> are only sustainable through liberal eyes, eyes that a priori assume the
> Republican is racists. For those that have no such bias (like myself) it
> is as clear as day why they acted as they did.
> Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not blindly supporting the Republican party,
> and saying they do no harm. There certainly are clear acts of racism in
> the Republican party both now(I am reminded of the nomination of a known
> racist in a Lousiana race - but even with that candidate many Republicans
> tried to get the Republican name taken off, he had simply attached it by
> the deadline, and it couldn’t be removed - or something like that) and in
> history. I am just saying that the differences are not as extreme as some
> people make it out to be. I would say that overall the Republican party
> has a very competitive record(maybe even better) on race issues compared
> to the Democrat party.

That was the sound of my jaw bouncing off the floor. To reiterate a point
that Mitch made — if it wasn’t for liberals (of all colors and persuasions,
working together), it’s entirely possible that blacks still would not be
able to vote. If it wasn’t for liberals, women possibly still would not be
able to vote. If it wasn’t for liberals, we’d all — including children —
be working 6-day weeks, for sub-subsistance pay.

> http://hispanicpundit.com/index.php?p=425
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts2000928.shtml
>
> Now, onto the heart of your response. You write,
>
>>
>> I read Mr. Williams’s piece. There are two ways to interpret what Kerry
>> said. Was he condescending or just inept? You choose to believe that what
>> he
>> really thinks is that those poor darkies just cain’t help being shiftless
>> and irresponsible, so let’s make allowances and not hold them
>> accountable.
>> I
>> choose to believe that he means that if you have social inequity (do you
>> want to argue that we have social equity?), it’s tougher for those who’ve
>> been given the short end of the stick. If you think everybody has the
>> strength of character to overcome hardship, you don’t know much about
>> people.
>
> So you do understand the different ways something can be interpreted,
> based on that particular parties underlying beliefs(presuppositions). Lets
> try and use that benefit of the doubt equally with both parties, shall we.
>
> As for blacks in prison, I do agree with the general principle that
> hardship is hard to overcome, afterall I did grow up in Compton with
> divorced parents. I just don’t think one can make the overall
> *generalized* statement that ‘its not their fault’, as if those inmates
> had nothing to do with it. Everybody, unless extremely mentally retarded,
> has *some* say in the decisions they make. You may say a set of
> circumstances is more prone to lead people to crime than other
> circumstances, but to overgeneralize that to all black inmates in prison,
> and say that it is not their fault, is to go to far. Their becomes
> absolutely no room for personal responsibility.
>
> But what Walter Williams is trying to address here goes above that simple
> example, even above the black power sign Kerry made to the group. It is a
> difference in the way liberals, especially the elites(Howard Dean, John
> Kerry, etc, those rich northeastern liberals that have probably never seen
> a black peasant until they became politicians)that control the Democrat
> party, view minorities. When a Democrat gives a talk to minorities it is
> different than when he gives a talk to other groups. It is a fact, good or
> bad, that Democrats view minorities as “victims in need of a paternalistic
> government to come to our rescue”.

Again, you identify some rich liberals as condescending — which is a given.
Why do you project that to all liberals? I butt heads with Republicans all
the time, and I hate — HATE — W, but even when I’m sputtering in
incoherent rage I’m not fool enough to say “all Republicans are bigots”
because it’s just not true. I don’t see how anyone can make such a sweeping
generalization. To say all Democrats patronize blacks is absurd.

>
> And this parent child view comes out in different forms. That is why Reid
> *assumed* Thomas is dumb. He has offered no proof why he believes that.
> And you can’t tell me that this view is not common in liberal circles. In
> fact, it is primarily those black people that disagree the strongest with
> liberals that are always classified as dumb, or not educated enough to
> hold their positions.

I for one, don’t think Thomas is dumb. I think he’s a sad example of
mediocrity. And I come to that conclusion after reading many of his
opinions — not the NYTimes’ or WSJ’s opinions of his opinions — what he
actually wrote. The guy can barely construct an argument that doesn’t
undermine itself with logical inconsistencies. That doesn’t make him dumb,
but neither does it recommend him for the highest court in the land. And
lest you think I’m picking only on Thomas, Scalia is worse. Not because I
disagree with him — I disagree with O’Connor all the time, and I have
nothing but respect for her — no, Scalia is a miserable jurist because all
he does is build edifices of scornful rhetoric on the foundations of his
contempt for anyone who disagrees with him.

> To use Ann Coulters(someone who I read for humor, above all else) way of
> putting it,
>
> “Liberals at least give white Republicans credit for being evil. Rumsfeld
> is a dangerous warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz is part of an international
> Jewish conspiracy, Dick Cheney is “Dr. No.” But Dr. Rice? She’s a dummy.”

I have never heard a single person — left, right, black, white — call
Rice dumb. And even if someone has, so what? W is accused of being a moron
all the time, and nobody suspects he’s black.

> To state it another way, traditionally, it was believed that blacks made
> it *despite* their race, liberals now emphasize they made it *because* of
> their race.

And that is just wrong. Again, I accuse you, and Mr. Williams, and D’Souza,
of projecting your insecurities on an entire group undeserving of the
dishonor.

> Here, let me try to explain this a different way. This is how Angela
> Onwuachi-Willig, a professor at the University of California-Davis School
> of Law, puts it,
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0501020489jan02,1,3308914.story
> ————————————–
>
> ” I am a card-carrying Democrat, and in all likelihood, I will die one. My
> liberal politics simply prevent me from ever jumping ship.
>
> But if you were to ask two of my closest friends their opinions about my
> politics, they would tell you that I, along with almost 90 percent of
> African-Americans who voted for Democrats in 2004, am a fool. My friends,
> you see, are part of a growing number of black liberals turned
> Republicans. No, they are not sellouts. They do not deny the existence of
> racism and racial stereotyping. Rather, they see it clearly. As they have
> explained their newfound politics to me, “Angela, it’s merely a matter of
> which racism you prefer. Do you want it in your face? Or do you want to be
> ignored by people who cannot see their own racism, or worse, do not care
> to remedy it?”
> ————————————–
>
>
> That is what I am talking about. The ‘racism’ of conservatives is of a
> different type. I am a Mexican American Republican in the state of
> California. A state home to some of the most anti-immigration Republicans
> this country has ever seen. When I go to some of these Republican
> conventions, I have witnessed *some* Republicans who hate illegal
> immigrants so much that you get the feeling they hate all Mexicans in
> general.
> But it’s a different kind of racism. When you dialogue with these people,
> you realize that it’s not the Mexicans they hate, but the gang members,
> the drug dealers, and the broken families and welfare dependency of *some*
> people. Their racism is in connecting Mexicans in general with those
> people. As if that is predomenantly what we bring to this country. If you
> can seperate the two, and show that several Mexicans are law abiding,
> America loving people, these conservatives sing a different tune. And
> conservatives, unlike liberals, do believe that what we need to succeed,
> like *all* other Americans white, black or red, is competition instead of
> government, pro-free trade, more merit based, and more Laissez Faire
> economic policies. You may disagree with their solution, but it is a fact
> that conservatives think we need the *same* solutions all Americans need.
> We are not some special group of people, that commit crimes that are not
> our fault, that need the big hand of government to hold our hand, or a
> group of people that without government intervetion, we’d simply be
> nothing. A group of people that make it *because* of affirmative action
> and what not.

Oddly enough, your problem is that you’re too optimistic and trusting — of
the wrong group of rich people. You’d rather hang out with someone who’d
stab you in the back _regardless_ of your color, than with someone who’s
working to your benefit because you _suspect_ they’re saying something nasty
behind your back _because_ of your color.

“You get the feeling” those rabid anti-immigration Republicans aren’t
_really_ bigots. You ever ask? You know anybody who has asked one of those
rabid anti-immigration Republicans? You ever try to buy the house next door
to a rabid anti-immigration Republican? You ever tried to date their son or
daughter? There’s what people say, and what people do. You have a lot of
faith that bigots will just become the nicest people if you just abide by
the law. I disagree. Our old neighbors got pissed at my parents for selling
their house to a doctor. Why? Because the MD was Hispanic. You want to
believe our old neighbors and the doctor quickly became the best of friends
because he wasn’t a gangbanger? Go ahead, but I’m skeptical.

Maybe old-line conservatives want less government regulation and more fiscal
responsibility, but they’re not running anything. I’m telling you that
modern conservatives couldn’t give a crap about either of those two
principals, and the proof is that the two great conservative gods — Reagan
and W — expanded government and were/are among the most fiscally
irresponsible leaders we’ve ever had. Modern “conservatives” are more
concerned with who everyone else gets to have sex with, and they’ve hijacked
the Republican party. And their agenda is a free market and laissez-faire.

There’s no such thing as a free market. The free market is a utopian pipe
dream and laissez-faire is an invitation to the wolves to come on in and
chew on your ass. People do not always behave honorably and some people will
never behave honorably. Liberals understand that, and want a system where
everyone gets a fair shake. That starts with “all men are created equal” —
a liberal idea, and moves through the right to the right to assembly — a
liberal idea, to a free press — a liberal idea, to universal sufferage — a
liberal idea. “Free market” and “laissez-faire” sound like the _same_
solution for everyone, but it’s not. Them there is code words for the rich
fucking everybody else. Together they mean taking away the barriers against
behaving dishonorably. It means rich versus poor, and guess which groups are
disproportionately in that latter category?

So you have a choice: allying with one group, some of whom are condescending
because of your color, or hanging out with another group, some of whom will
get over their bigotry for the opportunity to screw you for a dime, unless
they take you under their wing…

…hey, I just ranted myself into a question for you: Do you identify with
Republicans because you want the opportunity and the freedom to be a
colorblind scourge on your fellow man?

> And don’t make the assumption that these liberal elites are necessarily
> pro-immigration either. Or would not also become anti-immigration if they
> saw immigrants in general turn against their central beliefs.
>
> Liberalism, traditionally, has been more or less alligned with the
> liberalism of Europe. Europe liberalism is generally very
> anti-immigration. Pro-immigration is overall a very unique American trait.
> And like most unique American traits (like our foreign policy, for
> example) those traits usually are more at home, *and central*, to
> conservative views and beliefs than liberal beliefs.
>
> I think liberals are currently pro-immigration, not as a central belief,
> but more out of convenience. Immigrants tend to be overall supportive of
> liberals central beliefs and legislation. But as soon as immigrants start
> being a burden, or more important, anti-immigration starts to be somewhat
> beneficial to liberals, we will see a very different picture from liberals
> in general.
>
> Evidence of this can’t be more convincing than seeing what one of the
> favorites of liberals, Hillary Clinton, is now doing. She is becoming as
> anti-immigration as the best of them.
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm
>
> I think this racism is harder for liberals to see than the racism of the
> past. The reason being that it manifests itself differently than it has in
> the past. Liberals tend to see racism now as just that belief and desire
> for minorities not to succeed. Since these liberal elites (probably) do
> want minorities to succeed, they conclude they can’t be racist.

Yeah, it’s pretty sad that someone who tried to secure health care for more
people in a country in which 40 million don’t have any, got denigrated as
liberal for it, which is such an albatross they actually have to pander to
Republican racists, for which they get called racist, while the Republicans
she’s pandering to are assumed will cease to be bigoted as soon as
minorities stop listening to all that hippety-hop or whatever they call it
and start shopping for clothes at Saks.

> But that is to ignore my analogy. I said that liberals see minorities as
> parents view children, not as a KKK member views blacks. Do parents want
> their children to succeed? Of course they do, but they still view their
> children as mentally inferior to them who need their guidance to succeed.
> Liberals want us minorities to succeed, but they don’t view us as mentally
> equal to them. And I believe that current day affirmative action, along
> with many other liberal beliefs and legislation, only encourages that
> stereotype.

Whoa. Do you have kids? Do you really consider them mentally inferior? Do
you want to explain what you mean by that, because I find that really
disturbing.

Aside from that, you assume that all liberals behave that way, and I
continue to object to the generalization as unmerited. You are just wrong. I
don’t know who you’ve been rubbing elbows with, but really, you need to meet
more liberals.

—————————————————————–
HP

>
> Yeah, US Commission on Civil Rights found no evidence that Jeb or any of
> his
> minions did anything wrong. On the other hand, all it did was spend three
> days on public hearings and it sifted through some official documents, but
> conducted no actual investigation. In other words, they relied almost
> entirely on public testimony (”We did not trade arms for hostages”,” “I
> did
> not have sex with that woman” — so much for public testimony). Gosh, in
> the
> face of that, it’s a wonder Jeb didn’t just break down sobbing from the
> pressure and admit he kidnapped the Lindberg baby.
>

You forgot to mention two pertinent facts. 1. The civil rights commission
is headed by fiercely partisan Democrat Mary Frances Berry, who happens to
be a black female. 2. The Florida election officials that deserve the
harsh criticism above were predominantly *Democrats*.

Why do you think the investigation was so short? Could it be that maybe
the evidence was so *weak*? That would be the logical assumption given the
data above. But no, you want me to conclude, based on the evidence above,
in some conspiracy theory that it really was because of some racists
Republicans, who were behind all this…

Sorry, but my intelligence won’t allow me.

As for the Mc Cain thing, my point still stands.

> That was the sound of my jaw bouncing off the floor. To reiterate a point
> that Mitch made — if it wasn’t for liberals (of all colors and
> persuasions,
> working together), it’s entirely possible that blacks still would not be
> able to vote. If it wasn’t for liberals, women possibly still would not be
> able to vote. If it wasn’t for liberals, we’d all — including children –
> be working 6-day weeks, for sub-subsistance pay.
>

I would say that there are evolving definitions of the term liberal. I am
currently referring to *todays* liberals, specifically those liberal
elites like John Kerry, Howard Dean and all the others that control the
Democratic party, not yesterdays liberals. For example, with MLK, I wrote
before,

“I wouldn’t classify MLK in the liberal camp. For one, he was strongly
religious, and argued for equality through the government *based on*
religious principles, something that is more alligned with my camp, than
yours. Secondly, he was more merit based than racial based, something
again, alligned more with my camp than yours. In fact, I don’t see one
thing he taught that a conservative wouldn’t agree with, but I can give
you several things he taught that a liberal would disagree with.”

Now that doesn’t necessarily mean I would classify him as a conservative
either. MLK, along with several ‘liberals’ of yesterday, are on a
different level from modern day liberals and modern day conservatives.

Or to give another example, the ‘liberals’ who gave women the right to
vote. It is a fact that most (all?) feminists before the 1960’s were
pro-life. Yes, this includes Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and
Mary Wollstonecraft.

So again, simply because modern day liberals use the same *term* to
describe themselves as the liberals of the past, that does not in anyway
imply they are the *same*. I am referring to *today’s* new and evolved
liberals.

> Again, you identify some rich liberals as condescending — which is a
> given.
> Why do you project that to all liberals?

These are not just ’some rich liberals’. These are the *leaders* of the
Democratic party. John Kerry was the person representing the Democratic
party in the last election. Senator Reid is stated to be the next senate
leader for the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is a favorite among
liberals. I firmly believe this is a common characteristic among all
modern day liberals, so I am using their leaders as examples.

In addition, everything I’ve attributed to Reid, or Kerry, or overall in
my attacks on liberals, is very common amongst all modern day liberals.
This is not some crazy thought from one or two particular liberals, this
is part and parcel of modern day liberals.

> I for one, don’t think Thomas is dumb. I think he’s a sad example of
> mediocrity.

*snip*

And
> lest you think I’m picking only on Thomas, Scalia is worse. Not because I
> disagree with him — I disagree with O’Connor all the time, and I have
> nothing but respect for her — no, Scalia is a miserable jurist because
> all
> he does is build edifices of scornful rhetoric on the foundations of his
> contempt for anyone who disagrees with him.

Well your the exception. Many on your side do think Thomas is dumb. This
is so common amongst liberals that many don’t even question it. Thomas is
dumb, Scalia is a conservative wacko, but brilliant, end of story (That’s
also how Reid put it).

> And that is just wrong. Again, I accuse you, and Mr. Williams, and
> D’Souza,
> of projecting your insecurities on an entire group undeserving of the
> dishonor.

I am perfectly content to leave it up to you, and Mitch Wagner reading
this discussion, to analalyze if I have in anyway mischaracterized modern
day *mainstream* liberalism.

> Oddly enough, your problem is that you’re too optimistic and trusting –
> of
> the wrong group of rich people. You’d rather hang out with someone who’d
> stab you in the back _regardless_ of your color, than with someone who’s
> working to your benefit because you _suspect_ they’re saying something
> nasty
> behind your back _because_ of your color.
>

That’s another topic, I’ve already stated that, in addition to being
racist, I *also* don’t agree that liberals are “working to your benefit”.
In other words, I am looking at the liberals like liberals look at
conservatives. They are racists fucks who *also* hurt minorities with
their policies.

> “You get the feeling” those rabid anti-immigration Republicans aren’t
> _really_ bigots. You ever ask? You know anybody who has asked one of those
> rabid anti-immigration Republicans?

Yes, I am fairly involved in the Republican party in California. I know
several, and my experience is pretty dead on with how I described it.

As for your economic rant, there wasn’t anything there for me to respond
too. It was, in my opnion, just that, a rant.

> Yeah, it’s pretty sad that someone who tried to secure health care for
> more
> people in a country in which 40 million don’t have any, got denigrated as
> liberal for it, which is such an albatross they actually have to pander to
> Republican racists, for which they get called racist, while the
> Republicans
> she’s pandering to are assumed will cease to be bigoted as soon as
> minorities stop listening to all that hippety-hop or whatever they call it
> and start shopping for clothes at Saks.

For the record, I don’t believe that because someone is *generally*
against illegal immigrants that that necessarily makes one a racist.
Racists are those who are soo anti-immigration that they start to
personally hate Mexicans in general.

I used Hillary Clinton as an example to show that liberals, even the best
of them, don’t have a pro-immigration belief at their *core*. It’s more
*convenience* than anything else.

>
> Whoa. Do you have kids? Do you really consider them mentally inferior? Do
> you want to explain what you mean by that, because I find that really
> disturbing.
>

You know what I meant. I don’t mean mentally *retarded*, I meant it in the
sense of ‘in need of guidance’, or ‘can’t make it without their
parents’,or as Kerry would say, ‘not responsible for their actions in the
same sense parents are’.

> Aside from that, you assume that all liberals behave that way, and I
> continue to object to the generalization as unmerited. You are just wrong.
> I
> don’t know who you’ve been rubbing elbows with, but really, you need to
> meet
> more liberals.
>

Like I said above (and previously, the email that originally started this
thread),

These are not just ’some rich liberals’. These are the *leaders* of the
Democratic party. John Kerry was the person representing the whole
democratic party in the last election. Senator Reid is stated to be the
next senate leader for the Democratic party. Howard Dean was a favorite
amongst liberals in this last election. I firmly believe this is a common
characteristic among all modern day liberals, so I am using their leaders
as examples.

In addition, everything I’ve attributed to Reid, or Kerry, or overall in
my attacks on liberals, is very common amongst all modern day liberals.
This is not some crazy thought from one or two particular liberals, this
is part and parcel of modern day liberals.

If you disagree, I am perfectly content to leave it up to you, and Mitch
Wagner reading this discussion, to analalyze if I have in anyway
mischaracterized *mainstream* liberalism.

–
Hispanic Pundit
www.hispanicpundit.com

—————————————————————–
Liberal

in light of all that, it seems that your anti-liberal rhetoric can sometimes
be as sloppy and as objectionable as some of the liberal rhetoric you take
umbrage to. at. whatever. yes, it sounded like you think kids are retarded.
but that’s not what you meant. should i cut you some slack for that? or
should i be as inflexibly damning as you are when you hear kerry say “it’s
not their fault”?

when texaco managers got caught on tape discussing strategies for denying
blacks promotion, you can bet those weren’t liberals involved in the
discussion. when enron traders got caught on tape discussing how to fuck
grannies in california, you bet those weren’t liberals involved in the
discussion. when political operatives get caught discussing ways to bilk
indian tribes of their casino money, you can bet those weren’t liberals
involved in the plot. when traders on wall street get caught on tape talking
about ways to sell stocks they know are crap by lying to potential
investors, you can bet those aren’t liberals in the room. and another safe
bet — the people that expose those misdeeds and insist that someone be held
accountable for them are democrats and liberals.

my point is that many — not all — but many republicans are bigots who
actively pursue discriminatory practices (Texaco). most other republicans
are indeed colorblind, inasmuch as they don’t care what color you are as
long as they can screw you. i’m saying thats W and his crew, with their
“free trade” crapola and their privatizing social security — a big wet kiss
to their Wall Street buddies. i’m saying i can’t understand why you don’t
find those people as objectionable as the condescending assholes leading —
if you can call it that — the democratic party.

i’m saying that there are only three reasons for any “minority” (in quotes
because i include women and because traditional minorities will soon enough
be the majority) to ally with current republicans, and they’re all invalid:

1) because of moral values. the republican party natters about morals, but
has none. many individual republicans do, but the party has none.
furthermore, i — and many others on both the left AND the right — argue
that many of the moral values republicans hold are immoral.
2) because you’re upset about liberal condescension. i say that if you
really care that much about what other people think or say, then that says
very little for your independence.
3) because you want to be one of the people doing the screwing.

—————————————————————–
HP

I think again you are confusing people who happen to be Republican with
Republcans who happen to be people (LOL, you get the idea).

Are there some people who still overall hold prejudices who *happen* to be
Republican, sure, just as there are some people who still overall hold
prejudices who *happen* to be Democrat. Neither party is imune to that.

My criticism of the Democratic party has to do more with its *inherent*
ideology. The modern day liberal ideology has presuppositions that
naturally lead to prejudice beliefs. And these presuppositions pop (all
presuppositions eventually manifests themselves one way or the other)
their ugly head (maybe subconsciously) with liberals in general. I showed
this by using the current *leaders* of the Democratic party as examples.
But this is not unique to them, I gave examples that are part and parcel
of mainstream liberals.

So to bring up examples of conservatives who happen to be racist, is not
comparing apples to apples. For it to be apples to apples, you would have
to show how prejudice is *inherent* in the conservative philosophy.

Oh, and one more thing, the (supposed) prejudice in the Republican party
is much more extreme, it is overall reserved much more to a (very)small
percentage of Republicans(atleast that has been my experience). On the
other hand, the racism of the Democrat party is very mainstream, as I
demonstrated by using examples of the *leaders* of the Democratic party.

With that said, I think we’ve reached the point where we can agree to
disagree. I honestly believe in my convictions, and it’s obvious you
honestly believe in your convictions. We’ve both had the chance to defend
our viewpoints, and I think we’ve reached a point where both our points
have already been made, we’d just start repeating ourselves if we
continued.

For the record, I am not Republican because of liberal prejudice/racism. I
have other core issues that make me Republican (Vouchers, Abortion,
Economic disagreements with liberals) etc…I just happen to dislike the
holier than thou attitude from liberals, as if they are free or somehow
immune from prjudice or racism.

Thanks for the discussion, I must commend you for being very civil and
respectful. I hope I have treated you the same.

Btw, may I post our discussion (in full) on my webpage? I would like my
readers to see where the differences lie. I will let you have the last
word.

–
Hispanic Pundit
www.hispanicpundit.com

—————————————————————–
Liberal

i agree — we are miserable facsimiles of tucker carlson and james
carville. i’ll try to be more shrill in the future if you promise to be more
combatively self-righteous.

we started this in public, i have no objection to having the rest of it made
public.

respectfully yours,
b

——————–

THE END - comments appreciated