The constant portrayal of Tea Party participants as a bunch of racists is nothing new coming from the left. I remember years ago how the left would dare Republicans to elect someone to represent their party and how it would never happen. Regardless of the reason behind it, Michael Steele was made the head of the RNC. As expected, his critics politely moved the goal posts back and continued to basically portray Steele as a “sellout”.
Like chairmen before him, Steele has made some very interesting to very dumb mistakes. Much of it has to do with the fact that he is a moderate trying to appeal to a more conservative base. That right there is enough to cause a great deal of friction. Many of his critics know this, otherwise they would not have been praising Obama for also being a “moderate” who could both challenge and inspire his party.
In a recent interview on The Young Turks internet radio show, Congressman Steve Cohen made the following comments about the Tea Party movement:
“The tea party people are kind of like, without robes and hoods.”
“They have really shown a very hard core angry side of America that is against any type of diversity.”
He later suggested that members of the Tea Party movement would not tolerate anybody who was less than a “George Wallace clone.”
Now I find it pretty interesting that the Congressman would use George Wallace as an example, especially since Wallace was himself a Democrat.
I also find it pretty interesting that the one who has been standing on the doorsteps of school choice in this country has not been conservatives or the Republican party, but Democrats. While Obama is free to send his children to an expensive private school in D.C., many of his core supporters are not given the same opportunity through vouchers to get their kids out of a failing school system. In 2008, “…52% of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38% of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school”, but most of them repeatedly vote against school choice for their own constituents. But again, those who oppose Obama’s policies are nothing more than little George Wallaces.
Do I also need to remind readers that despite all the talk about how the stimulus was supposed to help put Americans back to work…
“Latinos and blacks have faced obstacles to winning government contracts long before the stimulus. They own 6.8 and 5.2 percent of all businesses, respectively, according to census figures. Yet Latino-owned business have received only 1.7 percent of $46 billion in federal stimulus contracts recorded in U.S. government data, and black-owned businesses have received just 1.1 percent.” (link)
Yet despite all of this, Obama still enjoys a healthy support from Black voters. So if this stuff was wrong and downright racist under Bush, why must we now exercise patience and understand when Obama contributes to the same policies?
The Republican party has a whole boat load of problems that they need to deal with. However, I have not had one Democrat/Progressive/“Don’t want to identify, but I’m down with Democrats at the end of the day” individual explain to me how more Black faces in a party makes them less “racist”.
If you ask me, the “kick me” sign belongs on the backs of those who see this going on, but are too afraid to call it out.
The “Kick Me” Sign Never Gets Old
by Duane on April 6th, 2010 at 9:58 amThe constant portrayal of Tea Party participants as a bunch of racists is nothing new coming from the left. I remember years ago how the left would dare Republicans to elect someone to represent their party and how it would never happen. Regardless of the reason behind it, Michael Steele was made the head of the RNC. As expected, his critics politely moved the goal posts back and continued to basically portray Steele as a “sellout”.
Like chairmen before him, Steele has made some very interesting to very dumb mistakes. Much of it has to do with the fact that he is a moderate trying to appeal to a more conservative base. That right there is enough to cause a great deal of friction. Many of his critics know this, otherwise they would not have been praising Obama for also being a “moderate” who could both challenge and inspire his party.
In a recent interview on The Young Turks internet radio show, Congressman Steve Cohen made the following comments about the Tea Party movement:
He later suggested that members of the Tea Party movement would not tolerate anybody who was less than a “George Wallace clone.”
Now I find it pretty interesting that the Congressman would use George Wallace as an example, especially since Wallace was himself a Democrat.
I also find it pretty interesting that the one who has been standing on the doorsteps of school choice in this country has not been conservatives or the Republican party, but Democrats. While Obama is free to send his children to an expensive private school in D.C., many of his core supporters are not given the same opportunity through vouchers to get their kids out of a failing school system. In 2008, “…52% of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38% of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school”, but most of them repeatedly vote against school choice for their own constituents. But again, those who oppose Obama’s policies are nothing more than little George Wallaces.
Do I also need to remind readers that despite all the talk about how the stimulus was supposed to help put Americans back to work…
“Latinos and blacks have faced obstacles to winning government contracts long before the stimulus. They own 6.8 and 5.2 percent of all businesses, respectively, according to census figures. Yet Latino-owned business have received only 1.7 percent of $46 billion in federal stimulus contracts recorded in U.S. government data, and black-owned businesses have received just 1.1 percent.” (link)
Yet despite all of this, Obama still enjoys a healthy support from Black voters. So if this stuff was wrong and downright racist under Bush, why must we now exercise patience and understand when Obama contributes to the same policies?
The Republican party has a whole boat load of problems that they need to deal with. However, I have not had one Democrat/Progressive/“Don’t want to identify, but I’m down with Democrats at the end of the day” individual explain to me how more Black faces in a party makes them less “racist”.
If you ask me, the “kick me” sign belongs on the backs of those who see this going on, but are too afraid to call it out.