The Lone Wolf Argument Doesn’t Hold Up When It Comes To Republican Racism
Electing the first black President was always going to shake things up, or, rather dig things up, but I really wasn’t prepared for the in-your-face racism spewing out of Republicans. Subtlety is not their strong point – and neither is technology. If Michael Steele truly wants to “rebuild” the GOP his first order should be to ban all Republicans from blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking since they don’t begin to understand how the technology works.
And here’s our latest (but certainly not our last) example:
On Wednesday, Shay— (vice chairman of the Young Republicans and the leading candidate to be elected its chairman on Saturday) a 38-year old army veteran, mother and event planner from Louisiana who has been endorsed by her governor, Bobby Jindal—was holding court on her Facebook page, initiating a political conversation by posting that “WalMart just signed a death warrant” by “endorsing Obama’s healthcare plan.” At 1:52, a friend named listed as Eric S. Piker, but whose personal page says his actual name is Eric Pike, wrote “It’s the government making us commies… can’t even smoke in my damn car… whats next they going to issue toilet paper once a month… tell us how to wipe our asses…”
Two minutes later, Piker posted again saying “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Eight minutes after that, at 2:02, Shay weighed in on Piker’s comments: “You tell em Eric! lol.”
Stay classy, Audra. But in typical fashion the story doesn’t end here. First comes the standard denial, but what actually happened condemns her pleas of innocence far more than her tasteless response. Audra Shay got called out by other Republicans on her facebook page which resulted in – are you sitting down? – her de-friending them.
Cassie Wallender, a national committeewoman from the Washington Young Republican Federation, then wrote: “Someone please help a naïve Seattle girl out, is Eric’s comment a racist slur?” She answered her own question one minute later: “Okay, why is this okay? I just looked it up. ‘It comes from a term baracoons (a cage) where they used to place Africans who were waiting to be sent to America to be slaves.’ THIS IS NOT OKAY AND IT’S NOT FUNNY.”
This was followed soon after by the Chairman of the D.C. Young Republicans, Sean L. Conner, who wrote “I’m really saddened that you would support this type of racial language. ..wow! Thanks Cassie for standing up…”
Shay was silent on this exchange, but soon word started spreading throughout the Young Republican circuit, open to GOP members under 40. Significantly, Shay then “de-friended” Wallender and Conner—in the world of Facebook, that means cutting off relations—after calling her out, but kept Piker as a “friend” (subsequently, it appears their profiles are no longer linked).
“If Audra really did find these remarks to be “outright disgusting,” then why was her response to immediately de-friend those who made statements against Eric’s blatant racism?” Wallender wrote yesterday in a letter to the Young Republican National Committee. “I was blocked for stating that Eric’s racist comment was “NOT OKAY. And it is not funny.” Please take a moment look at the entire screenshot linked above, and ask yourself: which comment would lead you to de-friend someone, mine, or Eric’s?”
How old is she? Twelve? Of course, Shay is just the latest racist scandal plaguing the Republican Party. It really is becoming the norm, and the GOP must bring its fringe in line or jettison them. Let’s review, shall we?
Taken by themselves, the exchanges on Shay’s page might be dismissed as an isolated ugly incident. But there’s a pattern emerging from the fringe of the GOP grassroots. Three weeks ago, former South Carolina State Election Director and Richmond County GOP Chairman Rusty DePass “joked” on his Facebook page that first lady Michelle Obama was descended from a gorilla which had gone missing from a local zoo. Days later, Tennessee state legislative aide Sherri Goforth emailed out an image labeled “Historical Keepsake”—showing august portraits of all the presidents of the United States, ending with a pair of googly-eyes peering out from a black background to symbolize President Obama. When confronted, the aide to State Senator Diane Black said only that she regretted sending the image to the wrong email list and from her government address. She was “reprimanded” by her supervisors but not otherwise punished (a forced furlough at Memphis’s National Civil Rights Museum would have been an inspired penalty). And of course, all this has taken place after Chip Saltzman’s bid to be RNC Chairman was derailed by his decision to mail out a parody CD featuring the song “Barack the Magic Negro.”
Keep in mind, these are not just everyday morons; these are leaders in the GOP. And I haven’t even touched the racism/sexism directed at Sotomayor. Is this really all the Republicans have left? It would appear so since the Republicans (Wallender and Conner) who rightly called her out were then labeled as RINOs. Guess they weren’t “Conservative” enough.
Tags: racism, Republican Party
Nice try, but not even close.
The RNC chair, the real leader of the Republican Party is African American. The people you quote as so called leaders next week will be insignifcant nobodies to you. You escalate those you want to profile in a negative way.
Facebook is an online social network of individuals not the communications network of the Republican party.
The truth is Republicans, conservative or not do not let race enter to their opinions just like most Americans. Liberals are the one consumed by race and class yet their policies do nothing to help those they attach themselves to so conveniently.
Guess who has been hurt the most by Obama’s FUBAR economy? It isn’t Republican conservatives.
Get some better attack pieces, that one was pretty weak.
Mike Protack
Yeah, because comparing Obama to Osama is so much worse than referring to BusHitler.
Guys, please stop embarrassing yourselves.
Wha????
Name one national Democratic leader who has said BusHitler, not some unnamed commenter.
How is this even a controversy? What was said was racist, period. The candidate to chair the Young Republicans (backed by Jindal), found the comment funny, and when called on it she de-friended the people who called it out not the one who made the remark.
I’m sorry but Republicans are going to be in a world of hurt until they find a way to purge these type of people from their leadership.
Indeed — it is tough to make the Southern Strategy die when you won’t even recognize that it is about all of the GOP strategy you have left.
What is the difference between a pilot and a bus driver?
There is no such thing as auto-bus driver.
Is the GOP defense now that some Democrats said mean things about Bush therefore it’s o.k. to say racist things about Obama?
Well, it is the Democrat position that any negative comment about Obama is racist.
No it isn’t, actually.
Only racist comments about Obama are racist. Racial epithets are racist.
Mr. Shallow Bench has learned a new term (FUBAR) and now uses it in every conversation. How 3rd grade is that?
Protack – keep denying the GOP racism. It’s going to come back to bite you in the ass big time!
If things are so perfect on the left side. Then rather than nit pick racists on the right. Why not just focus on making perfection better. The statements are clearly those of an ignorant angry intolerant person. Labeling them as somehow representative of the republican party is akin as perhaps taking statements by Al Sharpton as representative of the democrat party. I take them both for what they are. self serving, ignorant and incorrect. Not just politically incorrect but incorrect period. In the extreme. If you want to run down a list of possbile racists in positions of political power, don’t just look under the R banner. Expose it where you find it and eventually it dries up and blows away. But shelter it and cover it up and it will consume you as the food source you have become. Stand alone, courageous, self assured, confident about yourself and your positions. There really are no new things under the sun just things that have been forgotten and thought new again. I appalaud you in some of your efforts and i encourage you to look at things a little differently. Keeping to your side eliminates a lot of talent from playing on your team.
“Well, it is the Democrat position that any negative comment about Obama is racist.”
RWR – Are you suggesting that the word “coon” isn’t a racial epithet? I need to know whether you are dodging the issue or just ignorant.
I wonder no one condemned this in ’96 or this in ’93? Oh, that’s right, Clarence Thomas is a Republican.
Robert Byrd, former KKK recruiter – still holds office and is third in line for the presidency. Plankeye much?
From “A Senator’s Shame: Byrd, in His New Book, Again Confronts Early Ties to KKK”. Washington Post. pp. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105_pf.html. Retrieved on 2006-10-03.: “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times… and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened. ” — Robert C. Byrd, [6]”
Where are the apologies for those mentioned in the initial post (Shay, DePass, Goforth, etc)?
In the absence of such retractions, don’t raise Byrd–it does nothing to your case.
Strange, apologies didn’t save Senator Lott’s seat for something far more innocuous than any of the above.
I didn’t bother reading the second quote box, and missed that one — of course the term is racist.
However, that doesn’t set aside the fact that the position of the Democrats and the leftosphere that any criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist.
Well, you guys are quick to forgive Byrd. But then again, the KKK operated as teh official paramilitary terrorist wing of the Democrat party for decades, so we shouldn’t be surprised.
On the other hand, voting Republican was one basis for being targeted by the KKK — even if you weren’t black.
wikipedia has the following information:
Lott didn’t lose his seat over his racist comments, he lost his role as Senate Majority Leader tied to those comments. He resigned his seat five years later.
“Lott’s resignation from the Senate came just two days before the federal indictment of his brother-in-law trial lawyer Richard Scruggs.[2] Scruggs eventually pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a Mississippi judge by promising him a federal judgeship appointment using his influence over Lott.”
The KKK were supported by the Dixiecrats, a label commonly tied to the very same ‘Democrats’ that Delaware liberals regularly and vocally oppose.
And yet you still embrace Byrd — an old-time Dixiecrat from way back.
When a Republican apologizes for their racist comments I will graciously accept it – and write a big ol’ post.
Still waiting…
The difference with Byrd — although you’ll never get this — is that not only has he profusely apologized for his past associations, but he also does not as a matter of routine put racist tendencies on display. He doesn’t walk or talk like a racist — whereas these people on Facebook have them both downpat.
And isn’t interesting that none of our repub commenters see fit to even think that what these folks had to say was anywhere near being unacceptable.
I also find it interesting that Republicans can’t find anything recent. They talk about Byrd’s KKK membership 70 years ago and Dixiecrats. It doesn’t help your cause if all the stuff you talk about is before the Civil Rights Act.
Yeah — the Civil Rights Acts that WE PASSED.
And Byrd’s KKK membership seems to have gone on as recently as 40 years ago — at least based upon his behavior in filibustering every single piece of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
He has also voted against every African-American ever nominated for the Supreme Court.
And he has used the word “nigger” on national television in a news interview.
But to you he is an honored elder statesman.
And cassie — I called it racist. No more needs be said.
So what part of this:
The difference with Byrd — although you’ll never get this — is that not only has he profusely apologized for his past associations, but he also does not as a matter of routine put racist tendencies on display.
don’t you get? We all know that he was a Dixiecrat who belonged to the KKK. You do get to rejoin polite society if you really do appear (at least in public) to have understood how wrong you were. Unlike Trent Lott who had the very bad misfortune to publicly long for the good old days. Ever since the unreconstructed Dixiecrats found a home in the Republican Party, they’ve taken their issues and created an entire political strategy out of it — called the Southern Strategy. You may also rejoin polite society when it looks like you’ve abandoned all of that mess.
Byrd is a starry old nooge who is long past his time. But, unlike the very racist White Rhymes With Right, Byrd is not calling for the repeal of anti-discrimination laws.
Rhymey With Whitey has no room to whatsoever to criticize even an old ex-klansman like Byrd when Rhymey is fighting for every Klansman’s wet dream: bringing back the Jim Crow laws and the right of private individuals to discriminate for whatever reason they want.
Go iron your white sheet, Rhymey.
Go f*ck your mother, anonone.
And I mean that in the most offensive, disrespectful way.
I’ve specifically stated that I oppose any law that allows government to discriminate against any individual for any reason — or that requires discrimination by any private party. That makes you a liar.
Yes, in Rhymey with Whitey’s dream world, private hospitals, restaurants, ambulances, grocery stores – any private business – could discriminate in any way that they wanted to. And the state would be required to enforce those right-to-discriminate laws by force. Rhymey wants to return to the days of “Whites-Only” businesses.
And note that Rhymey With Whitey hates to have his pointy-headed sheet lifted up.
“…his first order should be to ban all Republicans from blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking since they don’t begin to understand how the technology works.
A friend of mine (a conservative and engineer) makes around $200k-per-year designing and selling software for major corporations, saving them millions. Maybe you should inform his employer, SAP, that he ‘doesn’t understand how the technology works.’
Yeah — that gay bar could hire only gay bar tenders. That black-owned business could choose to give preference to black employees.
And folks like me could (and would) choose to boycott any business that did engage in such discrimination, making it unprofitable to discriminate.
Essentially, I’m advocating a pro-choice position for everyone.
And the only laws that the state would be required to enforce are neutral laws regarding trespass, vandalism, etc.
And by the way — I’d like to apologize to everyone except anonone for my outburst.
Even to anonone’s mother, despite her having given birth to anonone.
Essentially Rhymey With Whitey advocates the denial of essential services to other human beings on the basis of prejudice and bigotry.
He can’t imagine a better symbol of freedom and liberty than dying black people being dragged away by police from private “whites-only” hospitals. Or black people being evicted from their homes by sheriffs because the new landlord doesn’t rent to negroes. To Rhymey With Whitey, that is a “pro-choice” position.
Or Mormons being evicted from their homes because their gay landlord doesn’t like their position on Prop 8.
Or black business owners laying off their white employees first because of higher rates of black unemployment.
In other words, freedom of association free of government coercion.
Wow this this thread get krazy….
You hit a raw nerve there, P!
The
raciallysocially conservative migration to the Republican party during the late 60s is well documented. If certain people are unable to recognize that fact, then there’s nothing left for anyone to do except label those deniers as dense and unrealistic.But….nice try!
“They were who we thought they were!
– Denny Green
Rhymey With Whitey fantasized:
“Or Mormons being evicted from their homes because their gay landlord doesn’t like their position on Prop 8.
Or black business owners laying off their white employees first because of higher rates of black unemployment.”
Rhymey really thinks these scenarios would be really good things. He loves the idea of families and children being tossed into the street by cops because the landlord doesn’t like the color of their skin. To him, that’s freedom!
I love hitting nerves, VC! And, callerrick, that is the lamest comment I ever read because it doesn’t deal with all the Republican mishaps with technology – and, boy, have there been A LOT!
My cousin was one of the founding members of Amazon, and that doesn’t mean a thing in this discussion. Care to try again?
Love the idea? No.
Prefer it to the regime of government control established in the name of misnamed “civil rights” laws? Yes.
Every person has an absolute right to be free of discrimination by government. No individual has the right to be free of discrimination by other individuals acting in their private capacities.
RWR, will you please stop pretending everyone is starting on a level playing field. They’re not, and you know it.
Who is pretending? I know I don’t start on the same spot on the playing field as a Kennedy.
But the lack of a level playing field is no legitimate basis for the sort of government coercion that currently exists in the name of the misnamed “civil rights” laws that seek to control private behavior rather than ensure the rights of individuals vis-a-vis government.
I’ll defer to A1.
Rhymey With Whitey was kicked out by the the slime mold sharing his rock for saying:
“No individual has the right to be free of discrimination by other individuals acting in their private capacities.”
Rhymey With Whitey would rather the states enforce discrimination by private individuals and businesses than anti-discrimination laws. Can you imagine?
“You are hereby sentenced to 5 years in jail for attempting to enter a clearly-marked “whites only” private hospital.”
“But, your honor, my child was dying and it was the only hospital around.”
“Doesn’t matter. No individual has the right to be free of discrimination by other individuals acting in their private capacities. Take her away. And let that be a lesson to you.”
Aren’t you supposed to be leading a cross burning tonight?
My hero. 🙂
Now I could be totally wrong on this, but I think RWR means more of a woman suing the catholic church to be a priest, or (here is a twist) a white man suing to get inducted into the NAACP.
The actual offense in that case would be trespassing, not “attempting to enter a clearly-marked “whites only” hospital.”
You do believe in trespassing laws, don’t you?
But in any event, the market would work to prevent that scenario from happening — after all, no doctor worth going to would practice at such a facility. In addition, there are other laws that would come into play in such a scenario that would require treatment in an emergency situation.
Rhymey With Whitey wrote:
“The actual offense in that case would be trespassing, not “attempting to enter a clearly-marked “whites only” hospital.”
You do believe in trespassing laws, don’t you?”
Well, excuuuuuse me for not having thought out the legal fine points of your private U.S. apartheid wet dream. Is this better:
“You are hereby sentenced to 5 years in jail for trespassing in a clearly-marked “whites only” private hospital.”
“But, your honor, my child was dying and it was the only hospital around.”
“Doesn’t matter. If you were white, you’d been alright. Take her away. And let that be a lesson to you.”
And as far as the rest of your racist bigoted garbage, everyone knows that many towns have only one local hospital and many small towns are vastly white.
I am sure that Doctors that attended your private “whites-only” medical schools would be more than happy to work in your private “whites-only” hospitals.
And as far as “there are other laws that would come into play,” we already have those laws. So go back to ironing your pointed little hood. You really are pathetic.
Not “my” all-white hospital or medical school — those would be run by Democrats, as they always have throughout American history.
And having lived in such rural communities, I know that those hospitals are usually operated by (Catholic) religious groups that would not engage in the sort of discrimination you suggest — especially given the Catholic history of desegregating their schools before public schools were and excommunicating desegregation opponents.
And I repeat — there are laws that require medical treatment in emergency situations that would trump everything else.
I do, however, find it interesting that you aren’t pro-choice here. I guess the only choice you believe in is abortion.
Rhymey With Grimy wrote:
“(Catholic) religious groups that would not engage in the sort of discrimination you suggest”
What planet do you live on? Catholics are all about discrimination. Know any female priests?
Not “my” all-white hospital or medical school
Yours, Rhymey With Whitey. All yours. Nobody else here, repub or dem, is supporting your bigoted U.S. apartheid fantasy.
“No individual has the right to be free of discrimination by other individuals acting in their private capacities.”
The discrimination of racial or other bias is, by definition, aimed at groups, not individuals.
Reading your “reasoning” here, the Catholic Church definitely dodged a bullet when you decided not to join the priesthood.
Anonone — apartheid was a legally required system of segregation, implemented at the directive of government.
What I suggest is the exact opposite — no discrimination by government or mandated by government, merely the private choice of individuals and groups to associate or not associate based upon the criteria of their choice.
I morally oppose racial discrimination in virtually every situation (along with most other sorts of discrimination, too) — but question whether the government has the right to use force to impose that moral belief on others . It might shock you, but that is my position on most moral issues, too.
And let me put some questions to you.
Should an older black woman be able to refuse to sell her home to a single white man because she would prefer that her home in a historically black neighborhood continue to be occupied by a black family?
Should a historically black college/university be permitted to give special preference to black students?
Should a black-owned business be permitted to give preferences to black applicants/employees in hiring/promotion/layoff decisions?
My answer is yes to all of the above — even though all are currently illegal under the misnamed “civil rights” laws of this country. Even though i consider such discrimination to be immoral, I see where others might hold a different set of values and should be free to live out those values.
News flash: Nobody, most of all here, remotely gives a shit about your position on anything. WE get it: Racism is A-OK with you, or rather private citizens and corporations engaging in it are A-OK.
Your understanding of racial issues must be those of a callow youth, because only dolts or callow youths fail to understand that yesteryear’s Dixiecrats are this year’s Dixiecans. Whether they call themselves Rs or Ds doesn’t make much difference, except to asshats like you.
Please jerk off on your own site and stop spilling your seed here.
No, racism is not “A-OK” with me. it is wrong and I am opposed to it..
The question is whether or not government has any business trying to regulate or eliminate it. You know, the whole “imposing moral values” thing that I hear so many liberals go on about. I’m just taking a pro-choice position.
And it is a pity that you don’t have the integrity to answer the questions I set forth above, in which I offer situations in which black individuals and institutions would be acting (arguably) for the benefit of the larger black community. Ought the government step in and prohibit such activities in the name of non-discrimination and so-called “civil rights” (real civil rights exist only in relation the relationship between citizen and government, not between individual citizens or groups thereof).
Rhymey With Grimy wrote:
but question whether the government has the right to use force to impose that moral belief on others
Except, of course, you obviously believe that the government has the right to use force to enforce the “moral belief” of private individuals and businesses to discriminate against other people. For example, in your private U.S. apartheid, the government would evict people from their homes because their skin is not aligned with the landlord’s “moral belief” and enforce denying people medical care because the doctor or pharmacist doesn’t like their religion or “moral belief.”
Rhymey With Grimy also peeked out from his white hood to say:
I morally oppose racial discrimination in virtually every situation
No, you clearly support racial discrimination when anybody else decides it is okay for them, which makes you a supporter of racial discrimination.
What twisted ugly views you hold.
you obviously believe that the government has the right to use force to enforce the “moral belief” of private individuals and businesses to discriminate against other people.
No, I believe that the government has the right to enforce the property rights of private individuals and businesses, even when I don’t like the way in which those property rights are exercised or the reasons for exercising those property rights.
And I find it interesting that someone who is so “pro-choice” on abortion (which is, objectively, the taking of an innocent human life) rejects the “pro-choice” argument on other issues in which the harm is less than the taking of a human life.
By the way — care to take on my questions above? Should black individuals and institutions be permitted to engage in racial discrimination when directed towards what they view as the benefit of the large black community, or should government impose its own view to prohibit such discrimination?
No, I believe that the government has the right to enforce the property rights of private individuals and businesses, even when I don’t like the way in which those property rights are exercised or the reasons for exercising those property rights.
Which is exactly one of the arguments that slave owners made.
What twisted ugly views you hold.
So now you are against private property rights because of slavery? There is a human right to be free. There is a civil right to equal treatment by government. But there is no right to equal treatment by private individuals and groups.
Quit with the strawman argument.
And care to answer my questions above?