And while we’re on that subject, debates concerning illegal immigration are often loaded with racially-charged code.

And I think the Ashcroft example is a very good one for the “talking in code” idea. Ashcroft doesn’t explicitly condone racism, but he implicitly does by praising a racist publication for the “good work” they’re doing. The racists in the audience will hear this and think “this guy thinks like us; he’s on our side.” To the non-racists, he can simply say “I didn’t actually say that, and that’s not really what I meant.”

Still living four decades in the past are we? What happened to most of those Democrats who voted against the civil rights act, hmmm? They split off from the Democrats, and ultimately joined the GOP, where they still remain today. They may have been Democrats then, but they’re Republicans now.

Uncle:

It’s a good thing you went into accounting instead of political science, that’s all I can say. Clearly, the whole idea of code words is a complete mystery to you. The whole point is that the words and phrases, taken at face value, seem relatively benign, but that a certain constituency will read much more into them. Specifically, they will read in things that resonate with them, but that you can’t openly say.

Does this make everyone who uses such phrases a racist? No. Does it even mean that everyone who does use them is intentionally appealing to racists? No. But when it’s part of a larger pattern of behavior, it makes one raise an eyebrow.

Of course, we’ve been through this before, and apparently subtlety in political rhetoric is invisible to you. No, Bush didn’t mean for people to get the impression that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or that they actively worked with al-Qaeda. It was mere coincidence that he constantly conflated all three of those things without ever explicitly linking them…

I would suggest you go look at the political affiliations of those that voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act and then check back with us, ‘K?

Or is this one of those “words mean what I want them to, rather than what they actually do”, whereby all those Democrats who voted against the Act were magically transformed into Republicans?

Why I you “still waiting” for code words when I’ve already listed them here and here?

States Rights:

During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, states’ rights again become strongly associated with Southern racial politics, with proponents of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws denouncing federal interference in these state-level policies. In 1948, pro-segregationist Strom Thurmond broke with the Democratic Party and formed the States’ Rights Democratic Party, also known as the “Dixiecrats”. Some observers pointed out that a plausible solution to the dilemma posed by “civil rights” vs. “states’ rights” would have been the passage of civil-rights laws on a state rather than a federal level; when few if any such laws were actually introduced during this time (though many were proposed, and passed, later), critics proclaimed the states’ rights movement to be a smoke screen for continuing racial discrimination and segregation.

Other racially-charged code “welfare queens,” “crime in the streets,” etc. To some extent, even “urban,” which has become a euphemism for “black” (or, more frequently n—-r, as in “urban music”).

Of course, virtually all politicians use code words of some form or another, and Bush himself is most likely to use evangelical code words, but the use of racially-charged code words is almost exclusive to the GOP.

As for Barbour, just because you’ve never heard of him doesn’t mean he’s obscure. He was the chairman of the Republican National Committee during the Republican Revolution (1993-1997), worked as Reagan’s Director of White House Office of Political Affairs in the 1980’s, was chairman of Bush’s campaign advisory committee in 2000, and is currently the governor of Mississippi.

As for my statement on tokenism, it is racist if it’s demonstrably false. It’s ultimately a question of whether or not the Bush administration intentionally selects minority nominees so that they can cry racism when people try to block them, even when there’s no evidence that race is a motivation for blocking the nominee (Examples). If you think race didn’t enter into the Bush Administration’s collective mind when putting forth these specific candidates, I’ve got some Enron stock to sell you.

(And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Rice is a “fine person for the job,” particularly not her current job, and this has nothing to do with her race or gender…)

Last note: Your two link limit really sucks sometimes.

“Then what else was he doing?”

Dunno. But you assuming what he means doesn’t make it so. And I hadn’t clicked all those links yet, got a bit busy. but one rep I’ve never heard of doesn’t denote institutional, codeword pandering.

Now, i did find the CCC thing troubling but again it’s specific people and not institutionalized.

Tom:

“Except that most of my individuals are prominent within the party,”

Never heard of barber and I see nothing inherently racist in Ashcroft’s quote, and I’m no fan of Ashcroft. He must have been using code words.

“Your ignorance of the entire history of the civil rights era is not my problem.”

Then, for the third time, give me the list of codewords (they have a racist to english dictionary, or something?) or some other proof.

“Tokenism doesn’t disprove instutional racism”

I find that statement racist. Sure, Gonzales i have issues with because he’s nuts but he is qualified. Rice is a fine person for the job. I doubt it’s because she’s black.

I also noticed that you ignored my list of the GOP as a party doing racist things.

Then what else was he doing? Answer the question Uncle — give me a reaosn to think that holding the vote at night and going agaisnt the wishes of the sponsors and not having an on the record vote was anything other than an attempt to protect senators in his party who where pandering to racists?

However, Kevin did walk lock-step in with posting a list that is mostly meaningless. And neither of you have condemned it.

Far from it, I think the list is a good idea. And you implicitly do too, in complaining that Senators should be on the record. Why would we condemn such lists? We actually do think that the Senators on the list are guilty of, at minimum, giving a wink to their racist constituents. Does this make those Senators themselves racists? No, but it means they’re willing to tolerate racism (or, at best, aren’t willing to go on record against it), which I don’t think is acceptable; I’m surprised you’d think otherwise.

Also, people can oppose programs that benefit minorities without being racist.

I never said they couldn’t. But when coupled with all the other footsie they play with racists, and when it’s noted that these same people generally won’t put forth alternate solutions to fix racial inequalities, it says something, and I’m pretty sure it’s not a good something.

And your links are to individuals. I’m sure anyone can find individuals with Ds after their names engaged/affiliated with racists.

Except that most of my individuals are prominent within the party, and there are many of them, and the GOP consistently refuses to condemn what they do unless absolutely forced (by public shame) to do so. Dean’s confederate flag remarks drew immediate fire from both sides of the political aisle (and the racism of the remark itself was suspect at best). Not so with most of the GOP links I provided. I’m sure we could come up with plenty more, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep the blinders on.

I don’t doubt that there are racists in the Democratic party. And I don’t hesitate to say that we neither want them nor need them.

I still await these code words and proof of institutionalized racism in the GOP.

Your ignorance of the entire history of the civil rights era is not my problem.

Gonzales and Rice might disagree.

Tokenism doesn’t disprove instutional racism. And in any case, my contention isn’t that the GOP actively engages in racism; rather that it coyly and tacitly tolerates it (and in local races, even encourages it).

If you point out cases where the Democrats are guilty of this, I will be first in line to condemn them for it. It’s too bad Republicans (and, apparently, Republican-leaning independents) don’t have similar scruples.

And while i think frist’s actions were inappropriate, it doesn’t mean he was pandering to racists.

Then what in God’s creation was he doing? Pandering to other Senators who were pandering to racists? That’s better how?

I’m glad that the Senate passed this. I would prefer the Senate worry about making laws and what not, but given the time and expense, I think its justifiable.

“Obviously you and Alexander share a disdain for apologies. Perhaps, the great granddaughter of a lynched sharecropper, who was on the Senate floor, would have appreciated the gesture.”

Your attempt at villifying my intent is way off base. even if your accusation was correct, it would be irrelevant. The apology, while symbolic, won’t accomplish a thing. And it doesn’t excuse you for equating non-sponsorship with bigotry. I think you owe some folks a symbolic apology.

Tom:

You are correct that neither of you equated that as pro-lynching. However, Kevin did walk lock-step in with posting a list that is mostly meaningless. And neither of you have condemned it.

Also, people can oppose programs that benefit minorities without being racist. And your links are to individuals. I’m sure anyone can find individuals with Ds after their names engaged/affiliated with racists. I still await these code words and proof of institutionalized racism in the GOP. Gonzales and Rice might disagree.

Kevin:

Dodging what? Your dodge of not addressing my assertion that equating non-sponsorship with racism is shameful and despicable? pot meet kettle.

And while i think frist’s actions were inappropriate, it doesn’t mean he was pandering to racists.

That’s a dodge, Uncle, and you know it. There is no good reason for doing that and you know it. Pandering to racists is the only reason to go to such lengths to protect his caucus members. Some republicans did not want to have their name associated with an apology for not trying to stop lynchings of minorities. And frist let them get away with it. It is immoral and disgusting and, at best, chaep pandering to racists.

Jay:

Forgetting the Southern Strategy and the embrace of former segregationists, and the refusal to stigmatize Trent Lott for his racist comments, how about we just go with a party line vote allowing comments calling all blacks drug users as appropriate for the House:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1249-2003Apr9&notFound=true

or how about the GOP leadership refusing to allow a House Vote to condemn the CSC — a racist group:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/ccc-m25.shtml

Or how about the former head of the RNC refusing to ask that same CSC to remove his photo form their home page — a photo of him at their bar-b-que, I might add, standing with one of their field directors.

All very recent examples of GOP leadership acting in a racist manner. So, gee, wonder where the idea that the GOP panders to racists comes from. must be the darn ol’ liberal media.

Where did Kevin or I ever equate lack of co-sponsorship with being pro-lynching? And it’s not just about the co-sponsorship, as you and others seem to imply. If a Senator refused to co-sponsor but went on-record with a “YES” vote, there would be no problem there, either. The problem is the refusal to co-sponsor coupled with the refusal to go on record in any other way.

Jay G:

Let’s see, aside from the current issue at hand, we could start with their opposition to pretty much any program that primarily benefits minorities; their deference to the notoriously racist Bob Jones University; their deft use of code words to appeal to racists (there are plenty of people still alive who remember that “states’ rights” originally referred to the states’ right to engage in racial discrimination without federal interference, and to defy federal civil rights legislation); local GOP candidates unabashedly schmoozing with white supremacist groups; the Attorney General praising a racist, neo-Confederate magazine; etc.

Yeah, it’s all in our collective imagination, I’m sure.

Drake:

Assuming they haven’t already, yes. But then, since neither is a Senator any more (and one of them isn’t even alive any more), it would have no official standing.

Even though this passed “unanimously by voice vote, not a single senator is on record for a yea or nay, or even a no vote.

FWIW, while I have yet to post on it, I read ALexander’s bill Celebrating Black History Month. As far as lynchings and other forms of terrorism perpetrated to an oppresed group of peoples, his bill leaves a lot to be desired. Acknowledging the terrorism perpetrated towards African American’s is NOT the same as offering the gesture of an apology. The two together would honestly, do his political career the best.

Quite frankly, refusing to offer up two freakin little words, “we’re sorry”, should not cause him any undue stress, particularly at a time when hate crimes are on the rise. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions, as well as the remaining holdouts, will be remembered. Is that a threat? Nope, it’s politics. He, and the rest, have squandered a bunch of political capital, IMO.

Was the GOP preparing memos detailing how minority appointments should be held up because of their race? Oh, wait, that was the Democrats.

Was the GOP claiming that their voters in minority areas were too stupid to comprehend a simple ballot? Nope, Democrats again.

Dude, they’re all on record supporting it.

No, nobody’s on record opposing it. There’s a difference. If I abstain from voting or sponsoring, I’m not on record at all.

Jay G:

I said recent history. Byrd’s record on civil rights over the last couple of decades is excellent, and he has repeatedly renounced and apologized for his white supremacist past — in both words and in actions.

But hey, you should love the fact that Byrd’s in the Senate, because it lets you divert attention to the Democratic party’s past of institutional racism instead of having to actually address the GOP’s current kowtowing to racists.

Benign? Calling non sponsors pro-lynching is benign?

No, the resolution is benign, and I think you knew that’s what I meant. And while I might be inclined to agree that calling the Senators that failed to co-sponsor “pro-lynching bigots” goes too far, it’s not at all out of line to point out that they’re kowtowing to bigots. Which is the only conceivable reason why they might fail to cosponsor this.

As to the question of “why bother” with this? I’ll let Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) answer:

“While the South has every right to take pride in the tremendous advancement in race relations that has occurred in recent decades, true reconciliation and progress cannot be achieved without an honest recognition of the wrongs that have occurred.”

As opposed to the Democrats, who only have a fucking Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle in their ranks in the Senate.

Or did you have a point OTHER than a simple bash at the GOP?

Kevin, can you tell me the last time (if ever) “co-sponsorship” was made into an issue?

Dude, they’re all on record supporting it. It passed unanimously, even though only 6 were present on a voice vote. Clearly, we have 94 more racists in the senate, right? I mean if 15 are racists because they didn’t have a staffer make a phone call then the 96 that didn’t show up are equally so, right? Clearly, the didn’t support it by default enough.

Your point about frist proves our point: Why would Senators not want to go on record supporting thsi bill, and why would Frist cover for them, unless they did not want to have to go home and face voters with a YES or NO attached to their name on this bill? And why would a Senator be worried about having a YES next to his name on a bill like this?

And the Senate is an institution — the memebrs ar enot apologizing for their behavior, they are apologizing for the institution’s behavior.

Benign? Calling non sponsors pro-lynching is benign? Sure, it’s a simple gesture that shouldn’t be controversial but the hateful rhetoric from the left that non-support = pro-lynching or that they are bigots is disgusting.

What’s sad to me is how conservatives get worked up about relatively benign stuff like this, but actively push borderline-unconstitutional measures like “national day of prayer” bullshit. But see, prayer is patriotic, whereas admitting that we were ever wrong about anything merely shows weakness, and we can’t have that.

I don’t know that a current senator did anything to warrant apologizing for lynching. And, as I said at the bottom, the senators can do it on their own.

“It makes me sad that you would fall for the apologists for this kind of disgusting behavior.”

It makes me sad that you would peddle this hateful propaganda.

Senators can put their names as co-sponrs on a bill even after it has been passed. Yet these 15 refuse to do so. All it takes is an intern and a phone. And yet the still refuse to do so. And Frist refused to allow a roll call vote on the bill. To pretend that that has nothing to do with racism is insulting and intellectually dishonest. At least some of those fifteen did not want to have their names associated with a bill apologizing for the senate’s past blocking of anti-lynching laws. They did not want to have to be seen either voting yes or no on the matter. And Frist covered for them. Period. End of story.

It makes me sad that you would fall for the apologists for this kind of disgusting behavior. The Senators had a choice — put their name on the bill, put their name beside the vote and do something, however small, to wipe a bit of dirt of the country’s history, and they chose not to. You can rationalize it all you want, but that is a disgusting comment on them and what they think their political survival requires: sucking up to racists.