Gay Patriot Header Image

DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
HARRY REID SHOULD RESIGN

Is there anyone left in the white Democratic Senate Leadership that isn’t a former KKK Grand Dragon or a KKK-wannabee?

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (DEMOCRAT-NV) in 2008:

Obama had an advantage because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect” — until he wanted to use it.

Recall what brought down then-Senate Majority Leader (REPUBLICAN-MS) Trent Lott:

Trent Lott resigned his post as Majority Leader in 2002 after praising Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential candidacy during a birthday celebration for the 100-year-old South Carolinian.

That was it.  Lott was praising an old man, who yes, was a racist about the same time that a majority of Americans were.  But Lott was kicked to the curb, because he is a Republican.  Democrats, meanwhile, have fostered racism throughout the past 30 years and their Senate Leadership (at least) is chock full of ’em.

And of course Obama accepted Reid’s apology — he is a Democrat.  But recall what Obama said after the Don Imus racism controversy:

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

To be a Republican racist is a mortal sin, to be a Democrat racist means you are the leaders and statesmen of the Party.  Disgusting.

HARRY REID SHOULD GO NOW.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

42 Comments

  1. Your last paragraph says it all. All they care about is numbers: so many blacks, so many white, so many seniors, etc. But do they really care about these people? NO!

    Comment by Rosalie — January 10, 2010 @ 12:59 pm - January 10, 2010

  2. I’ve said it before: the Democrats are the party of people who think in racial terms and who want to keep racial divisions going.

    The earliest Democrats, like Thomas Jefferson and friends, put slavery in the Constitution, then fought for it in the Civil War, then created Jim Crow after the Civil War. In the 1960s, Democrats made the switch from racial demagoguing in favor of whites to racial demagoguing against whites – but they remain the people in America who are obsessed with race, promote racial thinking and quotas in American life, and are always ready with a racial put-down of somebody.

    As a white liberal Democrat in the 1980s and 1990s, I heard my “progressive” cohorts make plenty of racist statements – putting down whites (e.g., the hick Southerner stereotype) when in public, but putting down blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. when in private or among “just us chickens”. They must think everyone else is as racist as they are – so they go to great lengths to discern racism (that often isn’t really there) in their political opponents, while lightly skipping over their own.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - January 10, 2010

  3. How long ago did Harry slip up and let his true self our of the closet? Was it 2008? Way to go state run media. Way to go all you investagative “journalists”.
    I’d like someone to get George Allen and Trent Lott on a panel to discuss the true racists in the Democrat party. That might be instructive.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 10, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - January 10, 2010

  4. As a fan of Don Imus, you are absolutely correct. Actually Harry Reid is worse than Don Imus.
    FIRE HIM!!!!! or IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE GOOD!!!

    Comment by PatriotMom — January 10, 2010 @ 1:39 pm - January 10, 2010

  5. I say let Harry stay – twisting in the wind. He provides comic relief.

    What we don’t need is for the Dems to replace him with someone less incompetent.

    And let’s be frank – Reid’s statement is accurate. His sin was opening his trap and saying what we all know, deep down, to be true. That’s why we’re so uncomfortable with it.

    To borrow a word from Congressman Bobby Rush – if Obama were more “authentic”, it’s hard to imagine that he would have been elected. (In 2000, Cong. Rush said Obama wasn’t black enough or authentic (1)).

    To a lot of people for whom race is a big deal, Obama is “articulate and clean” (tm Joe Biden).

    1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-trice-05-jan05,0,6132899.column

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 10, 2010 @ 2:03 pm - January 10, 2010

  6. Now here’s a question: If that’s what Senator Reid says about blacks- who comprise twenty times the voter block that gays do- when he thinks no-one’s within earshot…
    …if that’s the kind of thing he feels safe in saying, among the leadership of the Democratic Party…
    …what do you think he’s saying about y’all?

    Comment by DaveP. — January 10, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - January 10, 2010

  7. He should resign because he said something stupid and offensive from which we can extrapolate “racism”? Wrong reason. This is playing the Left’s game, and debasing conservatism. We stand for free speech. I agree he should resign, but for corruption and lying and mutilating the legislative process, not for “insensitivity.”

    Comment by rrpjr — January 10, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - January 10, 2010

  8. rrpjr, the problem is that tp a Democrat, corruption and Caesarism just aren’t bugs: they’re features, ones to be deliberately selected for in the primary process. Look at Jefferson, at Frank, at Pelosi- hell, at any random five Democrats on the national level- and tell me I’m wrong.

    However, by their own rules, vapid charges of ‘racism’ or ‘bigotry’ are more than enough to run a longserving politician out of office. Either they follow their own, longstanding rules… or they make manifest that racial bigotry is completely acceptable- if you’re a Democrat.

    Comment by DaveP. — January 10, 2010 @ 2:20 pm - January 10, 2010

  9. Dave: I agree, so let’s see this argument be made. Unfortunately all I see are distinctions being scumbled into the same old calls of “racism”, and resignation over “insensitive” comments which may or may not have been “racist.” This is a golden opportunity for distinctions to be made, that is, for a true moment of clarity over who and what party values free speech and who operates according to a double standard. To simply call for Harry Reid’s resignation over infelicitous comments — as the Left routinely does — is playing a losing game of equivalence. It not only does a disservice to our values, but to America, and furthermore is not the smart way to fight the Left.

    Comment by rrpjr — January 10, 2010 @ 2:35 pm - January 10, 2010

  10. […] Washington Monthly Brutally Honest: World take note… racist remarks are excused as … GayPatriot » DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADERHARRY REID SHOULD RESIGN Lt. Col Allen West Responds to Racist Reid’s Comments – The John … Racist Reid? […]

    Pingback by Harry Reid: What’s not to like? WH Negro, almost white, doesn’t shuck-n-jive unless he wants to; YOU ARE A DISGUSTING RACIST, REID! « VotingFemale Speaks! — January 10, 2010 @ 2:49 pm - January 10, 2010

  11. […] Gay Patriot: “To be a Republican racist is a mortal sin, to be a Democrat racist means you are the leaders and statesmen of the Party.” […]

    Pingback by UrbanGrounds | Sen. Harry Reid Calls Obama a Negro — January 10, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - January 10, 2010

  12. […] The Washington Monthly Brutally Honest: World take note… racist remarks are excused as … GayPatriot » DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADERHARRY REID SHOULD RESIGN Lt. Col Allen West Responds to Racist Reid’s Comments – The John … Racist Reid? Racist […]

    Pingback by Oreo Eleanor Holmes Norton defends Harry Reid; says it’s Ok, he is a Socialist « VotingFemale Speaks! — January 10, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - January 10, 2010

  13. Reid probably should resign, but he won’t. From a strictly political perspective I hope he doesn’t. This only adds to the anger and disillusionment the Dems are facing going in to the November elections. Far better would be for Reid to be defeated this cycle.

    The earliest Democrats, like Thomas Jefferson and friends, put slavery in the Constitution

    Let’s no go overboard here, ILC. Jefferson did nothing of the sort and in fact his opposition to slavery (hypocritical though it was since he owned slaves and probably fathered kids by at least one) threatened passage of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson didn’t attend the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 because he was serving as Minister (Ambassador) to France. It was James Wilson of Pennsylvania who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise because of Southern threats to scuttle any Union plans due to Northern objections to slavery. As for the slave trade, 10 states already banned it and had no problems with this ban being placed into the new Constitution but Georgia, North & South Carolina threatened to walk if this happened. They compromised by allowing the trade to stay in place for 20 years (till 1808) when after such time Congress would have power to regulate or ban it (the latter was chosen). It is historically inaccurate and anachronistic to accuse the modern Democrat Party of being beholden to slavery in the 1700s when the fore-runner to the DNC, the Democratic-Republican Party wasn’t even founded until 1792 with slavery not even being a major issue until much later, by which time the DRP had split into different parties. It is also ironic for a modern Republican to issue such criticism when today’s GOP has many ideological similiarities to the old Democratic-Republican Party as far as smaller Federal government, states rights, strict constructionism, etc.

    Now as far as the Democrat Party of the Civil War, Reconstruction & Jim Crow Eras, have at it.

    Comment by John — January 10, 2010 @ 4:07 pm - January 10, 2010

  14. Did Harry Reid also say
    “why did Barack marry such a dark skinned woman? The lite skinned negros usually go for white women, you know like Tiger Woods.”

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 10, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - January 10, 2010

  15. What does Janene Garofalo think? Is this racism straight up?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 10, 2010 @ 6:43 pm - January 10, 2010

  16. Let’s no go overboard here, ILC.

    I didn’t, John. You correctly note that Jefferson’s opposition to slavery was, hypocritical and “hypothetical” as you put it.

    It is historically inaccurate and anachronistic to accuse the modern Democrat Party of being beholden to slavery in the 1700s when the fore-runner to the DNC, the Democratic-Republican Party wasn’t even founded until 1792

    A claim that contains its own refutation: The years 1792 throu 1799 are several years in the 1700s, are they not? And Jefferson, Madison, etc. who founded that party, did in effect (or speaking loosely) put slavery in the Constitution. Because:

    Georgia, North & South Carolina threatened to walk if [slavery were not allowed]

    …and should have been allowed to. Wilson may have proposed the three-fifths compromise, but so what? Madison (Jefferson protege) and others who later predominately went to the Jefferson faction, argued for it. Jefferson’s political heirs were also key to the later pro-slavery compromises.

    It is also ironic for a modern Republican to issue such criticism

    No idea what you’re talking about, John. (Do you mean that I’m a Republican? I’m not, and never have been.)

    Long story short: What I said about the Democrats being the party of slavery and racial thinking, stretching all the way back to its origins in the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson, was right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - January 10, 2010

  17. […] racially insensitive remarks to the treatment of then-Majority Leader Senator Lott’s controversial remarks delivered to Senator Strom Thurmond back in 2002. But as we all know here, as long as Reid continues to […]

    Pingback by Just what exactly is a “Negro dialect,” Senator Reid? « Sister Toldjah — January 10, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - January 10, 2010

  18. P.S. Even if I’m not a Republican, I notice that the Republican Party was founded by abolitionists and for the purpose of abolition. They ended up tilting things a bit more in favor of the Federal government (vs. the States and the People) than I would like. But on abolition, their hearts were in the right place. It is trickier to trace them back through early American history, but if you absolutely had to trace them back, you might consider them the political heirs of Alexander Hamilton, who favored both abolition and a strong Federal government.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2010 @ 7:00 pm - January 10, 2010

  19. Haven’t you guys heard? This is the most ethical and transparent….

    Comment by Spike — January 10, 2010 @ 7:51 pm - January 10, 2010

  20. What’s the matter? Couldn’t dig up Trent Lott’s actual quote to post alongside Reid’s so your readers could judge for themselves? Or maybe you didn’t want to, since the good, clean summary of it makes your argument so much simpler. Not defending Reid here, just pointing out the (surprise, surprise) willfully disingenuous way you try to make a point. Here’s what Lott said:

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

    Thurmond ran as the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in the 1948 presidential race against Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey. He carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state of South Carolina, of which he was governor at the time. (BTW: that’s not a “majority” of Americans, Bruce)

    During the campaign, he said, “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.” (That wasn’t not a majority of the country in 1948 either)

    Thurmond’s party ran under a platform that declared in part, “We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.” (Nor was that)

    Oh, and where’s your outraged post on “Honest Injun?”

    Comment by william — January 10, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - January 10, 2010

  21. william – I have more than a little Indian blood and I’d rather be known as an “Honest Injun” than Senate Majority Leader Reid.

    I repeat: I think Dingy Harry should stay.

    Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Boxer, Obama, Biden, et al are the face of the Democrat Party. The last thing we need is someone to replace Reid and grease the skids for healthcare “reform” and all the other crap still in the pipeline.

    I confess to feeling some schadenfreude – watching the Dems skate around this but these gaffe wars are asinine.

    We lament the banal, substance-free rhetoric that passes for political debate among our elected leaders yet everyone in the country lands on them with both feet should some unfiltered phrase or poorly-chosen word slip out. It’s no wonder serious and complex problems are unaddressed with anything more than pap and bromides.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 10, 2010 @ 9:17 pm - January 10, 2010

  22. A claim that contains its own refutation: The years 1792 throu 1799 are several years in the 1700s, are they not? And Jefferson, Madison, etc. who founded that party, did in effect (or speaking loosely) put slavery in the Constitution. Because: “Georgia, North & South Carolina threatened to walk if [slavery were not allowed]”

    Yet since the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was over 5 years before the Democratic-Republican Party was even founded, and the Constitution itself was finally ratified 2 years before the DRP’s birth, it’s just a bit of a stretch to make such a link dontcha think?

    Wilson may have proposed the three-fifths compromise, but so what? Madison (Jefferson protege) and others who later predominately went to the Jefferson faction, argued for it. Jefferson’s political heirs were also key to the later pro-slavery compromises.

    You are forgetting that Jefferson wasn’t even at the Philadelphia Convention so why do you keep trying to link him to it? As for Madison, he too was a hypocrite on slavery like Jefferson, but to make the connection that you try to do here just to try and score a political point makes a mockery of history. If Madison is guilty of supposedly “adding” slavery to the Constitution (which he most certainly did NOT), so is Wilson for proposing the Three-Fifths Compromise. And btw, so are every single member of the Convention that signed the document, North and South, of all political leanings. As far as “political heirs” of Jefferson goes, the Dems may like to push that for PR purposes but it is serious to fall for that completely. It is more accurate to say that both the modern GOP and the DNC have elements of the old DRP in them. I gave you some on this already that fits more with the GOP. And as for the later slavery compromises (I’m assuming you are talking about the pre-Civil War acts of the 1830s-1850s), don’t forget that the DRP was gone after the 1824 elections. Slavery didn’t come to dominate American politics till after that period until after the Civil War.

    No idea what you’re talking about, John. (Do you mean that I’m a Republican? I’m not, and never have been.)

    Ok, my bad. I’ll amend that to “conservative” or someone who holds to generally conservative views.

    Long story short: What I said about the Democrats being the party of slavery and racial thinking, stretching all the way back to its origins in the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson, was right.

    On the contrary, you are flat wrong in making such an accusation at least in stretching it back to Jefferson’s time.

    Comment by John — January 10, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - January 10, 2010

  23. 18: Indeed, which is ironic since the modern GOP claims to favor a smaller Federal government. This is why I argue that in theory at least both parties are the heirs of Jefferson AND Hamilton to varying degrees.

    Comment by John — January 10, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - January 10, 2010

  24. Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Boxer, Obama, Biden, et al are the face of the Democrat Party. The last thing we need is someone to replace Reid and grease the skids for healthcare “reform” and all the other crap still in the pipeline.

    Very good point. You’ve convinced me.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 9:38 pm - January 10, 2010

  25. […] GayPatriot » DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADERHARRY REID SHOULD RESIGNPingback by Harry Reid: What’s not to like? WH Negro, almost white, doesn’t shuck-n-jive u… […]

    Pingback by Harry Reid Racist | AXI — January 10, 2010 @ 10:16 pm - January 10, 2010

  26. Couldn’t dig up Trent Lott’s actual quote to post alongside Reid’s so your readers could judge for themselves?

    Oh yes, let’s, silly William.

    Obama had an advantage because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect” — until he wanted to use it.

    Versus:

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

    The last, which does not mention race, says nothing about race, and has nothing anywhere in it that states that black people are inferior, is “racist”, according to William, Barack Obama, and the entire Obama Party.

    The first, which clearly mentions race, describes Obama on the basis of race by referring explicitly and in a derogatory fashion to skin color, and clearly states that the “Negro dialect” is inferior, is NOT racist. At all. Not a bit of racism anywhere to be found in the statement, according to William, Barack Obama, and the rest of the Obama Party.

    Again, the Obama Party is the party of racism. You support, endorse, and fully practice racist beliefs. You believe that light-skinned black people are superior to dark-skinned black people, and state that the “Negro dialect” demonstrates intellectual inferiority. This is coming from the leadership of your party, and is fully endorsed and supported by your party and its members.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 10, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - January 10, 2010

  27. Democrats ACT like they are for the people, the little guy. That’s why the press gives them a pass.
    Kennedy can murder a woman in his car leave the scene of an accident.
    Patrick Kennedy can smack a tsa agent while trying to board a plane.
    Sen Byrd can be a member of the KKK he’s a leader in the Democrat party and you never heard a peep.
    Rep Conyers breaks many labor laws.
    J Jackson calls NYC hymietown.
    C Mckenny smacks a capital hill cop and gets a slap on the wrist.
    Sen Shumer calls a flight attendant a “bitch” because she asks him to follow instructions to turn off his blackberry.
    Geithner doesn’t pay his taxes, and he gets a promotion.
    B Clinton abuses an intern and all he gets is embaressed.
    The list is long and detailed.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 10, 2010 @ 10:35 pm - January 10, 2010

  28. ouch, ndf, what a smackdown. i’m in pain, i really am.

    seriously, though, bruce: what’s up with presenting such a preposterously rosy version of lott’s statement? scared it will force some nuance into your argument? your assessment of lott is one that not even your beloved psychopath malkin would embrace, judging by the link to her embedded in the most recent whine-post on the topic of harry reid.

    and again, seriously, since we’re talking hypocrisy, where is the right’s outrage over “honest injun?”

    Comment by william — January 11, 2010 @ 12:20 am - January 11, 2010

  29. or for that matter, where was the right’s outrage over “barack the magic negro”? nowhere. you were all laughing.

    Comment by william — January 11, 2010 @ 12:25 am - January 11, 2010

  30. or for that matter, where was the right’s outrage over “barack the magic negro”? nowhere. you were all laughing.

    Yup — at liberals like yourself who had coined the phrase in the first place suddenly having an aneurysm over it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2010 @ 1:14 am - January 11, 2010

  31. it’s just a bit of a stretch to make such a link dontcha think?

    Nope. I obviously don’t think that, John, or I wouldn’t have said it. The modern Democratic Party proudly sserts its continuity with Jefferson. Ever heard of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner? Shouldn’t we believe the Democrats’ own account of themselves?

    You are forgetting that Jefferson wasn’t even at the Philadelphia Convention so why do you keep trying to link him to it? As for Madison, he too was a hypocrite on slavery like Jefferson

    Already explained at several points. Jefferson, Madison, etc. were allies who later (but still in the 1700s) formed a faction or political grouping, the ancestor of the modern Democratic Party. The opposing faction, the Federalists whose key player was Alexander Hamilton, were notably further along in the anti-slavery way. All that is simple historical fact and I do not understand your objection to someone stating it.

    It is more accurate to say that both the modern GOP and the DNC have elements of the old DRP in them.

    Nope. It is more (or most) accurate to say that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, and, as I put it earlier, that “It is trickier to trace [the GOP’s political ancestry than it is for the Democratic Party], but if you absolutely had to… [one] might consider them… heirs of Alexander Hamilton, who favored both abolition and a strong Federal government.”

    Ok, my bad. I’ll amend that to “conservative” or someone who holds to generally conservative views.

    I don’t fit myself in with that either. If you qualify it with “libertarian”, as “libertarian conservative”, I’ll go along. “Classical liberal” (as opposed to left-liberal) also works. “Capitalist” (in the political sense, the opposite of “Communist”) and “radical for capitalism” also fit me. The latter is where some conservatives part company with me; for example, pro-Bush “compassionate conservatives” disown me, and I them. My support for gay marriage is a further point of difference.

    On the contrary, you are flat wrong

    Nope. Sorry.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2010 @ 1:52 am - January 11, 2010

  32. Wiki on the Democratic Party:

    It is the oldest political party in continuous operation in the United States and it is one of the oldest parties in the world…
    The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions…
    Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party…

    Now sure, there were some anti-slavery Democrats (who later left to join the Republicans) and some pro-slavery Whigs (who later joined the Democrats). But historians consider the Jefferson faction, the Democratic-Republican party and the Democratic party to be continuous. My original claim was that as such, the Democratic party has always been the chief party in America of people who think in racial terms and support racial divisions. I stand by the claim.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2010 @ 2:08 am - January 11, 2010

  33. Who could forget Dodd praising Robert Byrd:

    ”I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.”

    Lott lost his job, Dodd (presently) still has his.

    Didja forget that one, William?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 11, 2010 @ 7:00 am - January 11, 2010

  34. Face it, william’s jsut upset that the Democrat party is still the party of racists and homophobes, but their plantation blacks defend their white masters.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2010 @ 7:42 am - January 11, 2010

  35. While I agree that the DNC has a good argument for tracing its origins back to the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson & Madison, since it is the sole surviving splinter faction from the 1824 election, it is disingenuous at best to make the connections you are attempting to do. Slavery was not an issue upon which the DRP was founded, nor was it an issue that drove wedges between political parties of the late 1700s and very early 1800s. Again, I’m speaking solely of the politics of the era of Jefferson, Madison & Hamilton. To make the leap you are doing in scoring a cheap political point against the modern DNC by tarring both Jefferson & Madison over something neither had a hand in (at least not more so than ALL the Founders) makes a mockery of history. In doing this you are also, ironically, borrowing a portion of a tactic the extreme Left uses to discredit ALL the Founders as nothing more than rich, white, male, racist, sexist, blah, blah, blah. The DRP had economic and political differences with the Federalists. Slavery was not among the major issues dividing these early parties. There were Federalists who supported slavery and those who opposed it, just like there were Democratic-Republicans who supported and opposed it. Ditto for the Whigs.

    Both the DNC and GOP have evolved over the years, straying in some ways from their origins, and both have elements of Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism in them to varying degrees. The modern DNC may have a claim of lineage to the DRP, but cannot say it holds to all of that defunct party’s original views. Don’t believe me? Okay, let’s look at the major differences between Jefferson and Hamilton and how they might apply to today’s political landscape:

    1. Which modern party supports a strong central government and which one favors a smaller Federal government, at least in theory? Jefferson held the latter view while Hamilton held the former.
    2. Which modern party claims to favor states rights, at least in theory? Jefferson favored states rights while Hamilton did not.
    3. Which modern party favors strong government oversight of banking? Today’s issue is somewhat different than what Jefferson and Hamilton argued about regarding the establishment of a Bank of the United States, but a reasonable argument can be made from their positions on that issue. Jefferson would probably oppose strong Federal oversight of banking today while Hamilton would probably support it. One can also surmise that both Jefferson AND Hamilton would be less likely to support Federal involvement in private business that we see today, though for differing reasons.
    4. Which modern party holds to a broad interpretation of the Constitution and which one favors a narrow, or “strict”, approach? Jefferson argued for a narrow interpretation which favored states rights while the Hamilton favored a broad view that favored the national government at the expense of the states.

    Jefferson & Madison are as much a part of the GOP’s political heritage, in philosophy at least, as Hamilton is part of the DNC’s. Neither modern party can be said to be “pure Jeffersonian” or “pure Hamiltonian”. The issues of their time differ from those of ours even though elements of their disagreements can be found in modern political discourse.

    Comment by John — January 11, 2010 @ 9:42 am - January 11, 2010

  36. I have never tried to defend Lott. He rambled and stuck his foot deep down his throat when he said “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Those few words were pure kerosene for those who were looking to catch on fire.

    Lott and all of his helpers could never figure an effective way to spin it. He took himself down and the Democrats have their treasured model of the black despising Republican for the foreseeable future.

    On the other hand, Biden and Reid obviously know a clean, articulate black man when they see one. Apparently, when your party owns the votes of a huge majority of a race, you are allowed to pick your tokens on your terms.

    Now that Obambi is flaming out and his teleprompter can not seem to save him, anyone who criticizes him is a racist of, well, at least Trent Lott proportions. Robert Byrd would agree. Reid says so, too.

    Reid is the ringmaster of The Price is Right circus the Senate has become. I don’t know if he should resign for his paternalistic slave owner chatter, but he should be tried for the high crimes he plotted and led on the Constitution. Then he should be sent to be Bernie Madoff’s prison wife.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 11, 2010 @ 10:14 am - January 11, 2010

  37. […] John Bresnahan … Reid: barry has no “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one … GayPatriot » DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADERHARRY REID SHOULD RESIGN Twitter Tweets about Obama as of 11. januar 2010 « Obame and … Reid It And Weep (Wizbang) […]

    Pingback by Joe Biden’s Racial Attack on Rev Jesse Jackson « VotingFemale Speaks! — January 11, 2010 @ 10:15 am - January 11, 2010

  38. I’ll believe that he will when hell freezes over. Oh.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - January 11, 2010

  39. Just to say:
    1. Lott wasn’t just praising an old man. Lott was saying very clearly that this country would have been better off with the segregationists in charge. You can believe this – that’s fine. But don’t ‘whitewash’ his intent by making Lott a civil rights activist. There is a difference between what Lott and Reid said.
    2. Reid was actually speaking something that could be considered a fact. Obama’s skin color (the ‘light skinned’ part) was helpful to Obama’s win. And his enunciation also helped. Reid is saying Obama wouldn’t have won if he didn’t look and sound like he did.
    3. If Bush had supported Lott then he would have still been Majority Leader. The Dems didn’t get rid of Lott – the Republicans did.

    Comment by aubrey — January 11, 2010 @ 7:01 pm - January 11, 2010

  40. So it’s ok to make comments about race if you’re a democrat, got it aubrey.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2010 @ 8:38 pm - January 11, 2010

  41. Reid was actually speaking something that could be considered a fact. Obama’s skin color (the ‘light skinned’ part) was helpful to Obama’s win.

    Remind me, aubrey. What happened to Ferraro when she made the same observation? Nice of you to gloss over the use of the word “Negro”. I have some selected notes from a few reference materials that might help:

    [b]Negro[/b]

    Wikipedia:

    During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some African American leaders in the United States objected to the word, preferring Black, because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse. During the 1960s Negro came to be considered an ethnic slur.

    The term is now considered archaic and is not commonly used, and is widely considered a racist slur.

    Thefreedictionary.com:

    Ne·gro (ngr)
    n. pl. Ne·groes Often Offensive

    Merriam-webster.com:

    sometimes offensive

    Dictionary.babylon.com:

    (derogatory in modern usage)

    Encarta dictionary:

    an offensive term for a black person

    Unless, of course, you’re a rich, old, liberal Senate Majority Failure douchenozzle, then it’s perfectly acceptable.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 11, 2010 @ 8:45 pm - January 11, 2010

  42. ThatGayConservative, you are right to point out the subtext to a word like ‘Negro’ when used in a contemporary political setting.
    I agree that Reid’s comments were sad, even despicable.
    However, there is still a difference between the content of Lott’s and Reid’s statements.
    Lott did not merely wish an old man ‘happy birthday’. He claimed that the country would have been better off if we had followed Thurman’s segregationist policies.
    Reid’s comments, while obviously lacking in even some basic social graces, highlight an unfortunate aspect of American politics. That race matters. As an Obama supporter, Reid was pointing out (again, in an horrific choice of words) that Obama had a better chance of winning than if his complexion was darker.
    His choice of using the ‘Negro’ term, as ThatGayConservative has pointed out (by using Wikipedia nonetheless), is insulting. But that is the extent.
    It is just unreasonable to me to equate the 2 men’s comments.
    And Lott was ‘kicked to the curb’ not by the Democrats – but by other Republicans.
    You would need to ask Bush why he withdrew his support. Was it because Lott refused to apologize for his assertion? Was it because Bush had other fish to fry with Lott? Did Bush have someone else in mind for Senate Majority Leader?
    This article just seemed a little melodramatic to me.
    Too willing to play the victim card.

    Comment by Aubrey — January 12, 2010 @ 11:48 am - January 12, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.