The Coretta Scott King "memorial" reminded me of the opening paragraph in Ann Coulter's August column "Commander in Grief".

"To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn."

When you think you've cornered the market on Goodness, as the far-left does, then obviously your opponents must be motivated by Evil. What else could it be? "We're so Good, and they don't agree with us."

It used to be that liberals could just debate with those on the right, and let God fill out the Good/Evil box on the report card, but those days are gone. They know better. Maybe it's a product of desparation. Whatever it is, it's unattractive.

I couldn't agree with you more RBMN!

Oh, please people!!! Given the Wellstone memorial, did you really expect dignity from a largely leftward-leaning group of eulogists? Better yet, given the wholesale embrace by the dems of Moore, Sheehan, et al., do you ever expect to see dignity again from the left?

This story will disappoint Jimmah, Bubba and Revvvvvv-rend Lowery...

"Black Republicans Returning to Their GOP Roots

ARLINGTON, Va. -- When the 33rd Annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gets underway in Washington, D.C., this week, the new National Black Republicans Association (NBRA) will be there in force, marking the first time a black Republican group co-sponsored what is perennially billed as America's premier conservative event."

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/8/113649.shtml?s=po

-----

I heard several black callers on talk radio shows today expressing anger over the uncivil and disrespectful comments of the afore-mentioned losers. Rock the Vote, indeed.

It's funny to see you right-wingers acting as if you care about some civil rights pioneer (always one who is dead or safely past his or her prime.) You are exactly the people who, a couple of generations ago, would have been cheering J. Edgar Hoover when he was sticking a microphone under Dr. King's bed. And who opposed the MLK Jr. holiday a decade ago. Don't pretend to be something you're not.

Clown, I almost thought you were intelligent in a sarcastic kind of way.

"J. Edgar Hoover when he was sticking a microphone under Dr. King's bed"
And he was working for...Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. A regular John Birch type of guy.
And which president signed that MLKjr. holiday into law? That commie bastard Reagan.
You should go get another double soy lahte and try again.

"You are exactly the people who, a couple of generations ago, would have been cheering J. Edgar Hoover when he was sticking a microphone under Dr. King's bed."

Says one of those lefties who thought "libertarian" was an intestinal condition until John Ashcroft was confirmed...

Oh please, you guys are a regular bunch of Ayn Rands when it comes to money issues. But when the topic is government spying on citizens without a warrant, in violation of federal law? Or a couple of gay dudes who want to get married? Let's just say I'm not impressed with the fervor of the libertarian beliefs around here. "Authoritarian" is much closer to the mark.

"But when the topic is government spying on citizens without a warrant, in violation of federal law?"

Which federal law? Article 2 of the Constitution?

" Or a couple of gay dudes who want to get married?"

Enh. People differ (as do Democrats; ask some of your black colleagues how they feel about the issue. If you have any). I personally think gays should be able to enter into domestic contracts - but marriage is a religious thing. If two gay guys can find a church that can theologically justify gay marriage, then mazel tov. I don't see it, and probably won't attend that church, but I (unlike most liberals) support GENUINE civil liberties, as opposed to manufactured entitlements.

Jeez AC,

Let's remember that when the civil rights pioneer was in her prime, it was the left, the Democrats, who opposed the civil rights legislation in Congress. Gore (the elder). Byrd, the Klanner. It was Kennedy who bugged MLK. So perhaps the left's chops aren't so good on this issue.

"It's funny to see you right-wingers acting as if you care about some civil rights pioneer."

The Bush administration appointed two blacks to prestigiuos Cabinet posts. Yet some of the more renown black activists (i.e. Belafonte, Bond) refer to Condi Rice and Colin Powell has "house negroes" or "tokens".

Do you honestly believe MLK and his wife would have agreed with those assessments? Or would they have been proud of the fact that two black individuals were appointed to a Presdiential cabinet based on their qualifications?

One of the problems with the right at the moment is that electoral success has attracted a bunch of me-toos who don't know what they're talking about, like Tele.

Everyone knows the Democratic Party (which to Tele = "the left") doesn't have clean hands when it comes to the history of civil rights. Southern conservatives voted solidly Democratic for decades after the Civil War, because the Democrats were the party that collaborated with slaveholders before the war and opposed civil rights laws afterward.

But let's be clear. Beginning in 1948, when Truman began to desegregate the military and Humphrey split the party with a civil rights plank in the platform, that all began to change. LBJ's civil rights, voting and anti-poverty legislation accelerated the process and forced Southern racists to bolt the party. They now have a new home: the Republican Party. No one's saying that all Republicans are racist. Far from it. But it's the shift of cultural conservatives in the South from the "D" to the "R" that provides the margin for victory for Republicans to win the White House. You're lucky if you can get 10% of the black vote in any given election.

So please, do me a favor and stop with the "but Byrd was in the KKK" argument. Cause it's stupid.

How did this go from Coretta King and Martin who just wanted to see Black people wanting to be able to vote and run for office and exercise most of the civil rights we have .... to....guys that want to bury their units into each other and call it "marriage"?

Only angryclown could make that connection....guy you got to get back on your meds.

The two things are different. One is exercising a franchise properly and the other is exercising any hole for lust and call it a civil right....

...only in angryclowns universe...

No wonder the Repubs. win all the time with as mediocre candidates they can palm off. The other side has convinced themselves that NOTHING in the world is more important that two guys can do the wild thing and call it "marriage".

Thanks Greg, you've made my point much better than I ever could.

And what exactly was the point? That Republicans don't support civil rights? Or that we are racists?

So please, do me a favor and stop with the "but Byrd was in the KKK" argument. Cause it's stupid.

Yeah, inconvenient facts are stupid.

While the Clown is correct about the Southern Dems switching teams, he neglects to note a great many moderate ones doing the same for the simple reason that the left has gone so completely insane they are no longer supportable.

AC said:

"You are exactly the people who, a couple of generations ago, would have been cheering J. Edgar Hoover when he was sticking a microphone under Dr. King's bed."

Then he said:
"They now have a new home: the Republican Party. "

Byrd still sits on your side of the aisle, clown. The brother of the AG who approved the microphone sits on the same side of the aisle. Still representing the same party now as then.

"No one's saying that all Republicans are racist."

Funny, I thought that is what you were implying with your first comment.

Perhaps you need pictures, Tele. The point is not that all Republicans are racist or that no Democrats are. That would be a stupid argument and Angryclown is not stupid.

The fact that you spend your time pointing to a former racist on the Democratic side or an African American on the Republican side makes it clear that you don't understand what you're talking about. The point is that most blacks vote Democrats and most white racists vote Republican.

You get to be the anti-tax party, you get to be the pro-life and pro-defense party. You just don't get to pretend you're the civil rights party. Cause you're not.

"The point is not that all Republicans are racist or that no Democrats are."

No racist Democrats. Not a single one. Nope. Al Franken doesn't hire blacks because he's racist. It's because (as everyone knows) Jews and blacks don't like each other.
You are a laugh riot, Clown.

"You just don't get to pretend you're the civil rights party. Cause you're not. "

Even when the Rice/Giuliani ticket moves into the White House in '08?

"Byrd still sits on your side of the aisle, clown. The brother of the AG who approved the microphone sits on the same side of the aisle. Still representing the same party now as then."

Quite right, with the exception of the late Strom Thurmond (and maybe the retired Jesse Helms) there don't appear to be any "Dixiecrats" who switched parties over the Civil Rights issue. They either left like George Wallace to start a third party (and then returned) or remained Democrats until the day they died.

As far as the oft-repeated claim that the Civil Rights issues is what moved the South from the D to the R column, bologna. Poliblog did a story about three years ago where he went through Presidential and Senatorial races (click on my name for the link) and found that the facts show that the South didn’t start to trend Republican until about 20-30 years (a generation later) after the civil rights movement was over and done with. If anything moved the new generation of Southerners into the GOP column, it’s probably cultural issues like support for the military, religion, abortion, and the changing economic climate in the South from an agrarian to an entrepreneurial system.

Um, Kerm, you understand I was making the opposite point, right? You may want to read more slowly.

Sure Mitch, the wingnuts will nominate a pro-choice Northerner. Rudy's probably have a shot to win the White House, but his odds of winning many Republican primaries are pretty low. I'll also be interested to see how many of your voters stay home if there's a black woman on the ticket.

Thoroughly Wasted blathered: "As far as the oft-repeated claim that the Civil Rights issues is what moved the South from the D to the R column, bologna. Poliblog did a story..."

Oh, well, *Poliblog* did a story.

So where did all the white racists go, Thorley, if they're not boosting the Republican tally? You think they're bucking the red tide in the South and voting Democratic out of nostalgia?

Oh wait, I bet I know. They disappeared, right? There really aren't any white racists anymore.

Republicans wouldn't win any elections if they weren't able to count a little better than you, Thorley.

Oh, I get it. Clever use of a double negative to completely convolute your point. Your a regular James Joyce, Clown.

"Oh, well, *Poliblog* did a story."

Right. One you haven't read, and have no real basis to evaluate, beyond knee-jerk prejudice. Poliblog is a pretty solidly-written site.

"So where did all the white racists go, Thorley, if they're not boosting the Republican tally?"

Clown, that's a good question. Is there still a "white racist" political movement? Segregation has been a dead issue for 40 years. I suspect it's about as big an issue as the Gold Standard, all in all.

"You think they're bucking the red tide in the South and voting Democratic out of nostalgia?"

Nostalgia? Nope. But of whatever residue of racist voters remains, I suspect that a fair chunk don't vote, quite a few vote for marginal parties, quite a few more are union members (among the most racist people I've personally met in the past twenty years are union snuffies who are died-in-the-wool DFLers), some are Buchananites (and we marginalized him in the GOP), and yeah, probably some Republicans.

"Oh wait, I bet I know. They disappeared, right? There really aren't any white racists anymore."

Sounds like a fine job for an enterprising journalist. Unless it'd be simpler to just assume that everyone south of the Ohio River is a kloset klansman.

"Republicans wouldn't win any elections if they weren't able to count a little better than you, Thorley."

And we'd win a few more if we did more of the counting. Milwaukee and Seattle, for starters.

"Perhaps you need pictures, Tele. The point is not that all Republicans are racist or that no Democrats are. That would be a stupid argument..."

No pictures needed Clown. You are the one who first tried to argue :"It's funny to see you right-wingers acting as if you care about some civil rights pioneer ... You are exactly the people who, a couple of generations ago, would have been cheering J. Edgar Hoover when he was sticking a microphone under Dr. King's bed. ... Don't pretend to be something you're not."

When that statement is false on it's face. Some of the same characters are still there on the left.

"Angryclown is not stupid."

Objection! Conclusion not supported by the evidence!

Kermit, Thorley, Tele: You are foolish people.

Mitch: You expect me to take the word of some blog, mediated by the defective mind of Thorley Winston, in an argument? When none of you would credit the word of the New York Times or CNN on the time of tomorrow's sunrise? Whether there's a "white racist political movement" is entirely beside the point. White racists know which party is closer to them on the issues they care about and vote accordingly. As do African Americans.

BTW, a certain sassy Texan said she misses you. "There's nobody to return my serves anymore."

"You expect me to take the word of some blog, mediated by the defective mind of Thorley Winston, in an argument?"

Thorley's actually mighty sharp. He's one of you and Slash's type, ifyaknowwhatImean.

" When none of you would credit the word of the New York Times or CNN on the time of tomorrow's sunrise?"

Trust but verify.

"Whether there's a "white racist political movement" is entirely beside the point. White racists know which party is closer to them on the issues they care about and vote accordingly."

You're painting with a hopelessly broad brush. I can honestly say that every genuine redneck died-in-the-wool racist I've met in the past ten years has been a DFL union member.

In any case, I'm suggesting that the number of people for whom race is a pivotal issue is vanishingly small, whatever their party, in this day and age. At least, among whites.

" As do African Americans."

It'll change.

"BTW, a certain sassy Texan said she misses you. "There's nobody to return my serves anymore."

Yeah, how'd the party go? I miss sparring with the Texan, too. But a certain pot-smoking, trophy-wife-trawling, cut-rate dotcom CEO sorta put me off the whole scene.

Maybe before I come to NYC (one of these days) I'll resub.

It was pretty good. The Texan's a hoot, as is Flick. A married couple of lefties, one of whom is Canadian. (You've had spirited arguments with him, IIRC). And Spense, a good fellow and plus-size funnyman.

Didn't know you felt that way about the CEO. Interesting.

We used to be cool - and then, probably back last winter, he dropped a little poison-pen screed during one of me and Slash's little rhubarbs that basically fscked the whole thing for me. Never quite the same after that. Also got kinda tired of the ladies from the Boston peanut gallery, if you know what I mean - but that was minor. The CEO bit - pfft.

Didn't need the aggravation.

Clown,

Not as foolish as you who, tried to paint the entire right wing as being bigots. Which is what your first statement did.

Now I was just a youngster in the 60's and far away from racial strife, but was not then an opponent of civil rights. Nor am I now. Despite your implication to the contrary.