Does the * admin's puppeteering of Powell and Rice smack of racism to you?

It does to me. Just put them out there and make them dance and take the heat.

I think it is disloyal of the Admin to throw it's own people to the wolves, but it isn't racism. They've done it with other members of the team in the past. Tenent leaps to mind.

these two dangling for the sharks while Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Asscroft all remain bulletproof.

Push Powell in front of the UN to Lie - Puch Condi in front of the 9/11 commish to lie.

Just sayin'

well, cept for Bush. He was already an ass to begin with.

nobody does magazine covers calling his credibility into question. Nor Rummy/Wolfie

...not the administration.

has tossed these two to the wolves and used them as human shields

Most of whom were white.

but I do think that the admin has no problem putting these two in the hot seat and they don't make them drop out of sight the way they did with Rummy and Cheney.

If you are going to claim racism, then are you saying it was racist to put them in those senior jobs?

compassionate conservative BS

Plus Condi has a fucking oil tanker ship named after her.

It's a sham.

but now that the shit's hitting the fan the ones that aren't good ole white boys are taking the radiation.

I hate them!!!

Like his Pops floating Thomas up as an "eminent" jurist.

That's what I'm on about!

If we scream at them for not elevating minorities, then scream a them when they do, what does that do for our believability on the issue?

The Republicans don't give a fuck about minorities - we do.

and come over and shake hands with Kerry and shout "united we stand!"

"What? Me lie?"

and thousands have died.

This leads to my point.

Bush - "I didn't say it, Colin did"

Powell changed during the lead up to the Iraq war. He was vocally opposed to it, and who remembers the strange power struggle w/ Powell over the Pentagon? Powell was sticking to his story as a moderate 'pug, and I could at least respect that.

For a while, I felt that Powell was the only cool headed rational on in the entire administration.... Then one day that all changed and he became shrub's lapdog. Somewhere just before he went to the UN and made a fool of himself.

Since then, Powell has shown no spine and is a yes man for busco. It's sad really, I had some respect for the guy, but out of all of them, he disgusts me the most. The others are evil, but condi and powell are sell-outs to not only their race, but to the American people. In condi's case, I'd say she's a traitor to her sex as well for supporting those monsters.

I think it's more of a "modern" racism. The kind that has white people crossing the street so they don't pass a black person. That kind of subtle and deep racism. Racism without realizing it, something that I believe lives deep in our culture no matter what race you may be. (Including myself -- although I hate to admit it, but I'm trying to speak the truth here)

I believe the appointment of Condi and Powell was a play on the race card, but not necessarily "racism" in the good 'ole boy "classic" sense. It was a move to make them seem more liberal and and attempt to collect some more independent voters. They put them there, also as a tactic to nullify the liberal/Democratic argument that the GOP is a racist party. It gives them the ability to point out them out and say "See we aren't racist! we appointed black people! Look! Black People" Which they've done many times.

And that's modern racism for you, I think we need to change the definition of racism to reflect this. Just because they aren't putting people on the back of the bus or lynching them, doesn't mean that racism is non-existent.

So yeah, I do think it's racism to have appointed Condi and Powell, and I do think it's racism to hide behind that fact (using a more modern definition of racism), and I think it's racist of them to have used them as body shields hoping the media would fear the NAACP if the media directly attacked them. (A suspicion that I've had for a while)

So, yeah, I'd call busco a bunch of racists, and I would also call Condi and Powell "Uncle Toms" (I hate that term, but it gets to my point faster) for selling out to these racists who have, so clearly, abused Condi and Powell's color for their own devices and NOT to present a "color-less" cabinet. Because if color didn't matter to the GOP, then where are the Hispanics and Asians in high levels of power.

The GOP reminds me of a line from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn": "Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target" -- James T. Kirk

he said that at least the southern white was honest bout his racism and opposition to integration. The Northern white was more shifty and sometimes ignorant of his own racism.

Shrubbies are using this Northern White model to seem more compassionate. Then the trouble starts and the black people (women first, of course) are the ones taking fire.

That's right Rumsfeld, Cheney - hide behind Condi

Who said about Chicago: "Southerners should come to Chicago to learn about hate."

He said this after he was hit in the head with a brick while protesting Chicago's segregation. (And the city, where I live, is still heavily segregated) It was his second and last march in Chicago, I believe, and he had never been actually hit with any thing before or since.

It's unfortunate that as we as a culture and nation get closer to the heart of our racism, the issue of racism becomes more and more muddy.

I really think that our Civil War should be required study in High School. I mean a whole year long class devoted to it. People have the misunderstanding that just because someone is a Northerner, they can't be racist. Which is not true at all, there were a few riots and mass cases of AWOL in the Union Army after Lincoln made his case for Emancipation. Those "unionists" quit the army because they said in many letters "I ain't fighting for no darkies, I'm fightin' to preserve the union." The North was, and is to this day, racist.

Malcom and MLK were right about Northern racism, it's crafty and sneaky, and if you really want to learn about hate... learn from a Northerner.

People need to know that we "freed" the slaves and then abandoned and betrayed them.

Not just for the "freed" slaves, but also for what whites did to whites during that period.

The "Reconstruction" was bad for everybody except for Northern white business. They raped the South in rebuilding contracts and shoddy work... and ignored the indentured servitude of the freed peoples.
Nobody "won" in Reconstruction, and much of the South's distrust of the North today has more roots in Reconstruction than in the Civil War itself. Although, Southerners will say it's the Civil War, but they would be wrong and they know it.

Reconstruction gave us the 1950's and 1960's racial issues, you can draw a direct line to it.

Or to put it simply... when you see or hear the term "Reconstruction" think "To the victor goes the spoils of war" Because that's all that happened.

rather then an opportunist who spoke against blacks several times.

he wasn't "black loving" but at the same time he wasn't completely an opportunist.

His speeches in the IL state legislature show his true colors. He was, deep down, an abolitionist. However, he also understood the necessity of compromise in politics, and knew that the Nation was not prepared culturally and legally for abolishing slavery. You can see this tug of war in his speeches, and in his run for President.

He did seize upon the "opportunity" of slavery even though he campaigned against it for a number of reasons.

1) He felt slavery was wrong, and the time was right to do something about it.
2) He was getting killed in the polls and needed support, since the abolitionist movement was gaining speed, he choose them to rebuild his political base for his second run at the White House. And he did that early on, a year before he had to start running against "Little Mac" McClellan
3) He needed to redefine the war into something that Americans could grasp, because with all the defeats of the Army of the Potomac, the nation was beginning to think that they should just let the South go. By ennobling the war into a morality argument, and tapping patriotism, he managed to keep it going and "preserve the union at all costs"

So yes, Lincoln was an opportunist. But then all good politicians are, and from what we can see of Lincoln, he was an opportunist for all the right reasons, unlike most politicians today.

He's a complex character in American History, just like FDR. And I don't think you can boil Lincoln down to a quick sound byte or one liner about him, because I think it's dishonest to our history as Americans.

Keep in mind, that if this were the 1870-1880's we'd all probably be Republicans -- who were the liberal social party at the time. Democrats were the corrupt Conservatives. It was in the 1890's to 1900's that the pork jumped ship from the Democrats and into the GOP because the Democrats' name was so tainted they couldn't run with that name. If you look up the history of the GOP w/ Google, you'll find this split and defection where the two parties switched. The disaffected liberals in the Republican party decided to take over the Democratic party because they were forced out by the pork.

So in my view... I consider Lincoln to be a Democrat in today's sense. I think that, were he alive today, he'd be in our party, and would be somewhat similar to our "new" firebrands (Dean and all) Albeit, probably more dignified and less "down and dirty".

But we have a real myth about the guy thanks to elementary school books and the media. He was a person warts and all, not the great emancipator saint this country has canonized.

That was a great reply

:toast:

Its refreshing to have a sane conversation about racism today, be able to look at our cultural history and contrast that to modern times. And have a conversation such as this with out it descending into a "I'm not a racist! How dare you accuse me of being racist" quagmire, or have someone try to steer away from racism in American culture because its too painful to look at directly.

This is a hard conversation for me to have, as a white male, people often don't want to hear what I have to say on the issue, or believe because of my "white-ness" I don't have the authority to speak on the issue because I'm not repressed by a ruling group. Ah, the glory of the Internet and the anonymity that comes with it!

So, thanks for bringing up the topic, and hearing my view on it. You've done a good job of keeping it on track and commenting/asking the right things... if you're not a journalist, perhaps you should consider it as a possible job. ;-)

(on edit):
One other thing I'd like to say... This issue is really important to me, and I don't see a difference between color racism and this surge in anti-homosexual activities. (We don't seem to have an 'ism' for that yet)

If the GOP had their way, they'd turn homosexuals (expecially male homosexuals) in to a position of servitude just like Africans in the south of the 1940's. Back of the bus, blind eye lyncings, 2nd class status. And that not only makes me sick to think of it (I'm straight), it also is an insult to my nation and the ideals on which it is founded.

as a front!

Thanks for the kudos.

your views are important, never let anyone tell you different!

:toast:

Smirk thinks it insulates his administration from criticism because no one can say anthing bad about a minority in government.

It is shameless. Absolutely shameless.

This is important. Its our Nation they be running. The Prez should be looking beyond party affiliation etc. He/she should be looking for the competent, then color/sex/challenged/.

Rice is an incompetant and it resulted in many deaths etc. The only way she can escape the guilt is by going into denial. Clarke and others have come forward... she did not LISTEN to the warnings.

When the republicans have their media events, they parade all kinds of minorities on the stage, but the shots of the audience show almost exclusively whites? "Party of inclusion" my ass.

who happen to be frothing neo-cons.

It's a shame.

Playing race and sex cards in politics will always be a lose-lose situation.

What we really need is to move our culture to a place that is colorless and sexless. Am I advocating that people shouldn't be proud to be of a "race" or sex? No, I'm saying that our view of others should have nothing to do with "race" or sex. I use "race" in quotes because I believe it's a logical fallacy. There is only ONE race, that of Homo Sapiens, and there are two sexes, male and female (not counting the rare hermaphrodite).

So we need a colorless culture if we are going to live up to our ideals of freedom, equality, and opportunity. Once we start collecting into groups based on sex, race, religion or creed, then "isms" will fester and grow and things won't be equal and fair for all citizens.

It shouldn't be a big deal that the GOP appointed Condi and Powell. But it is for a number of positive and negative reasons. Because we still live in a world where "colored" minorities are given the shaft by the "white" majority. And so, the NAACP and it's allies (and like thinking groups) still have a lot of work to do, coaxing the "sleeping serpent" out from under the table.

the March on Washington, in your opinion?

BTW - I like Malcolm X's "the Farce on Washington"

It's hard to find some one practicing MLK's point when he said "Judge me not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character" (paraphrasing there)

MLK was indeed a dreamer, and we need people like him. His dreams inspired millions to change the country, or at least try.

Malcom was a realist, and we need people like him. His realism showed millions what must be done, and how hard of a fight it would be.

MLK inspired us, and Malcom toughened our resolve, IMO, they should live forever in very high places in our culture. Both were people that we needed, and both rose to the occasion admirably, and both are spinning in their graves at the mess we've created out of their work.

Their messages were simple, yet somehow, we've lost the point. I can't put my finger on exactly where, but I think the rise of our disposable culture has something to do with it.

to clean up their messes.

Of course, the use of Sleezy Fetid Colon as shield smacks of crass political calculation, like naming the grossly unqualified Clarence Thomas to the Judicial Arm of the Coup (foremrly the Supreme Court) simply because he was under the Bushevik Thumb and would OBEY fat Tony Scalia in all things.

Par for the course for Bushevik Totalitarians.