The Democrats’ Self-Righteous Subterfuge:
Accusations of Republican Racism, Sexism, “Homophobia”
Accusations of Republican Racism, Sexism, “Homophobia”
When then-Congressman Barbara Boxer and a handful of her Democratic female colleagues heard uncorroborated allegations that a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court had talked about pubic hairs on a soft drink can with a female co-worker, they marched across Capitol Hill, protesting the Senate’s treatment of that woman (who could not back up her allegations). Seven years later, when a female nurse accused a Democratic president of rape, Mrs. Boxer showed no interest in the accusation–or the media’s treatment of Mrs. Broaddrick or any other woman leveling accusations against Bill Clinton (the aforementioned Democrat).
She didn’t raise a ruckus when her fellow partisans trashed those women, even though each and every one of them (unlike Ms. Hill) could corroborate their allegations.
No wonder Democrats, who urged Republicans to “drive out Trent Lott” as Senate GOP Leader in 2002 for his racially insensitive praise of Strom Thurmond at the latter’s 100th birthday party, do not ask their party to drive Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Mr. Crumpit) for his bizarre and patronizing comment about Obama’s skin color. The reason they’re not so concerned: “but Lott was a Republican. Reid is a Democrat.”
Guess they just hold Republicans to higher standards.
Some might say that given his history with the segregationist group “Council of Conservative Citizens,” Lott’s statement had been part of pattern. Well, Reid too has a pattern of denigrating intelligent African-Americans, having disparaged the writing skills of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Nowadays, more often than not Democrats (and their allies in the media) bring up racism, sexual harassment and “homophobia” not so much out of concern for the supposed victims, but as a means to attack Republicans as intolerant. Note how often Republicans are tarred as “anti-gay” for holding the same position on gay marriage as the Democratic President of the United States.
Michelle Malkin asks:
Many conservatives (myself included) put pressure on him to resign. Where are the “progressive” Democrats who will apply the same standards to Reid?
Michelle, they’re few and far between because for many of them, it wasn’t about race, but about politics. They just wanted to show how much better Democrats are than Republicans.
And that’s the subterfuge. They claim it’s about treatment of minority groups so that can show how much better Democrats are than Republicans. But, if it were really about such treatment, Obama would be leading the calls for Reid’s ouster while Barbara Boxer would have been at the forefront of efforts to impeach Bill Clinton. Gay groups have refused to back Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential contest.
When evidence surfaces showing Democrats engaging in behavior which would have earned them excoriation if they belonged to the opposing party, it’s is just dismissed understandable and forgivable human imperfection. For Republicans, however, it’s a sign of serious moral failing worthy of ongoing opprobrium, forgivable only by a change in partisan affiliation (see e.g, David Brock and John Dean).
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Isn’t it strange…. and I am not about to discuss the insensitive comments of Trent Lott… that someone who is a Mormon apparently, can get away with such offensive remarks.
I bring up the fact that someone noted that Reid is a Mormon because the racism is quite relevant. Up until recently Mormons treated blacks as being somewhat lesser than themselves. Put the Reid remarks in the context of his “religious” upbringing and they take on a whole new meaning.
This is the kind of remark that should be taken as racist. Even if I agreed that this man does not talk a “Negro dialect” I see no good reason for making that kind of remark, especially when it is repeated in a public place.
It is the hypocrisy of the situation. I assume that Anita Hill was lying through her teeth in regard to judge Clarence Thomas, especially when there was no evidence to support her own racist remarks against the judge.
Clinton is another kettle of fish because everyone knew before the first time that he was elected that he had lecherous tendencies. In the aftermath of that first round people should have been more savvy and determined to not vote for someone who was obviously quite lecherous. However, it seems that people just voted and turned a blind eye to the many scandals surrounding Clinton.
He was lucky to survive the indictment, which was not about whether he had a relationship with Monica, but the fact that he committed perjury – he lied under oath… and that is an indictable offense.
Well, the fact is that the thin-skinned present president is himself a racist. He has made some really offensive remarks over the past year. Members of his staff have also made offensive racist remarks. The LSM just do not care to make a song and dance about these very offensive remarks.
These feminists are also quite obvious in their own misogyny, and it is quite absurd that they get into a hissy fit if a Republican says anything, then give the President and his cronies a pass for their own racist remarks.
Comment by StraightAussie — January 10, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - January 10, 2010
Spot on, Dan.
It is this noisome double-standard that repulsing a greater and greater portion of the country each day. It’s truly pathetic.
Cordially,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — January 10, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - January 10, 2010
Excellent point. Speaking of which, can anyone point to any instance in which Democrats actually hold one of their own accountable? Cus I can think of a dozen instances or more when Republicans have held their own accountable. Hell, Democrats even re-elect men who drown their mistresses and have sex with boys. There is no accountability because liberalism is not based in values (indeed, “liberalism” isnt even “liberal” anymore) its about power.
Democrats have cobbled together a coalition of “victims”. Tthey get and maintain power by keeping people down. By keeping them in perpetual victimhood. And doing that requires big, bad, racist, sexist, homophobic, Republican bogeymen.
The minute these perma-victims realize that they are capable, and can make their lives better, the Democrat plantation ceases to exist.
Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 10:15 pm - January 10, 2010
The more the sun shines on this party the more we know. We listened all these years how horrible Bush and the Republicans were and are, how much was it real or made up? It is obvious these people do not care about us, right or wrong it’s amazing. Makes you wonder what we can’t see.
Comment by jann — January 10, 2010 @ 10:23 pm - January 10, 2010
I notice you had to qualify the word “president” with the word “present” to distinguish the current thin-skinned racist Democrat president, from the former thin-skinned, racist Clinton and the thin-skinned, racist Carter before him.
Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2010 @ 11:27 pm - January 10, 2010
Liberals, with their newly emboldened conviction of infallibility, are succeeding to boggle even the consciousness of history. It’s not they are incapable of discerning fact from fiction…they just plain out refuse to.
I offer as example the exchange I had earlier with 2 nouveau Progressives:
Progressive Thinker #1….
BS Ms Cheney, the most disgusting virulent racism I have heard comes from right wingers. People I know intimately. The Liberals I personally know don’t say racist things even at our most relaxed, as they simply don’t believe it. Get a grip.
Yours Truly…..
Though I don’t doubt what you’ve seen … I do wonder why you would remain intimate with those clearly offending your sensibility. What chains you to them…. convenience, obedience or allegiance?
Progressive Thinker #2……..
Or we can have friends with whom we dont agree on every issue with. It’s a pity that you can not share a friendship with someone who disagrees with you on one or all political issues. It shows just how narrow minded you may be, how high up you hold your nose, and how lonely you truely are.
Yours Truly…..
Disagreeing with some one over senate appropriations while having a cup of Jo is one thing… however, “intimacy” with those I know to be disgusting virulent racists is outta the question. If that’s the kind of camaraderie you espouse to, then yes: 3 nights-2 days, single occupancy in Condado suits me just fine….. and no I won’t meet you for coffee on the corner…. so don’t ask.
Comment by Spartann — January 11, 2010 @ 1:59 am - January 11, 2010
It’s really simple: the double standard. Part of it is projection / deflection, i.e., blame the other guy for your sins. But even more basic to it is the crude tribalism: always be shooting arrows, no matter what they are, at those who are not in the tribe. They do it (a double standard) because they can get away with it. Because they own the lamestream media.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2010 @ 3:02 am - January 11, 2010
You really need to temper your gnostic hostility that you have toward religion. Romney, like Harry Reid, are liberal Mormans. Liberals, Republican or Democrat, are given a free ride when they make unintelligent or caustic comments toward others. It been that way since 1955. It has never been about religion except to LGBT individuals.
Comment by RJLigier — January 11, 2010 @ 4:43 am - January 11, 2010
What a totally cringe worthy statement, like, I don’t even imagine why you would say that. I find some of these people to be so stupid, like if you are a politician you have to know that whatever you say will one day come out. I mean just earlier in the week Micheal Steele says the “Honest Injun” statement and its like…do you not realize what you are doing? I thought these people had media savy people around them or at least someone who could be like….yea lets not say that…
I mean in Reid’s case it seems like Obama has atleast forgiven him and stands behind him, but that doesn’t make the statement any less stupid. He was already going lose his seat, now its just going to be a prolong death march.
As far as why Democrats are not called Anti-Gay if they don’t support same sex marriage as compared to Republicans who are called it. I think its because most of the time, the same Democrats will support other gay issues. They will vote for civil unions, or domestic partnerships, hate crime legislation, and so on. Some Republicans are very much against other gay issues, like civil unions or hate crime legislation, so it comes off as a broad attack on gay people. I am not saying its right, but I would say thats why it is.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 11, 2010 @ 10:51 am - January 11, 2010
note the absence of Tano… there really is no apologizing for this…
Comment by Retcon — January 11, 2010 @ 10:52 am - January 11, 2010
I thought this already came up during the campaign? Someone pointed out Obama spoke differently to all-black groups than otherwise. It’s not a new thing for someone to say. Heck I have even noticed black friends of mine doing this depending on who they are around, and they’ll joke about it openly. Well of course it’s one of those things THEY can point out, but I try to refrain from bringing up. I don’t think it’s necessarily racist of me to, but maybe it’s rude.
I guess in the end I’d rather neither side engage in the ridiculous over sensitivity and making a whole business out of being insulted and playing the victim. But then that means only one side does it and will always win those arguments. There has got to be a better response than sinking to the Left’s level.
Comment by plutosdad — January 11, 2010 @ 11:57 am - January 11, 2010
hmmm. well we know what Reid and Democrats think and say about people of color behind closed doors. Just how far do the go when talking about gays in private? All you gays out there KNOW they have nothing nice to say about you when no one is looking.
They think you sh*t but anything to sucker you out of your money and vote
Comment by Tony P. — January 11, 2010 @ 12:29 pm - January 11, 2010
The Reid statement was more bizarre than anything else, but if he were a Republican, there’d be hell to pay. And, no one, save conservatives linked on Instapundit, note that he’s a Mormon, something which seems only relevant when LDS members are Republicans.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 11, 2010 @ 12:36 pm - January 11, 2010
Try this:
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 11, 2010 @ 2:53 pm - January 11, 2010
TGC, great list. It rightly begins with Jefferson. I would note that the Democrats today are still peddling racism in American life. They have always been, and still are, the party of people who think in racial terms and want to keep racial divisions going.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2010 @ 4:15 pm - January 11, 2010