Why is it always the race card?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too.  He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it).  If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma.  (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

People who treat blacks like victims who can't succeed on their own are the ones who are really acting like racists.  That's how Democrats initially started winning the black vote in the 1930s, and they're still doing it.  One of FDR's slogans used to advertise the New Deal to blacks during his presidency was, "let Jesus lead me and welfare feed me."  Since then Democrats have played this to their advantage another way by suggesting that Republicans who call for welfare reform and cracking down on fraud in the system are using racist "dog whistles" and "code words."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

So you think he should have ignored gross examples of incompetence and waste like this? I'm sorry, but welfare reform is much needed, and was even more so back then.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:


A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.

Yeah but to be brutally honest, the Democrats have nothing in common anymore with their 19th century counterparts.

I'm not saying they do.  But doesn't the history matter?  And it wasn't just 19th century Democrats; segregationist Democrat Fritz Hollings of South Carolina was serving in the Senate as recently as 2004.  In 1993, he made a comment about black potentates from Africa at the Law of the Sea conference getting "a good square meal in Geneva" instead of eating each other, suggesting that cannibalism was normal for them.  He has also referred to Mexicans as "wetbacks" and to a fellow Senator who was Jewish as "the Senator from B'nai B'rith."  Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan who filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was serving in the Senate as recently as the time of his death in 2010.  In a 2001 interview on Fox News Sunday, he repeatedly used the term "white nig**r."  Al Gore Sr., a former Democratic Senator from Tennessee and the father of former Vice President (and the Democrats' 2000 presidential nominee) Al Gore, was also a strong segregationist who helped lead the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  None of them (or any other high-profile segregationist Democrat except Strom Thurmond) ever became Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

We did in many ways, but that doesn't mean that we owe them anything.  It is much more important to realize that blacks have overcome their oppression of the past (even if there is still more that needs to be done) and are people who can succeed on their own rather than just "victims".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too.  He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it).  If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma.  (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.

Terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queen" may have been code words at one point, but probably not in 1980.  By then, racism was no longer widely accepted by society (as evidenced by the firing of Howard Cosell from ESPN three years later after he infamously called a black football player a "little monkey.")  Even now, you could reform welfare and give states all the rights you want, but slavery and segregation are never coming back, and rightly so.  It's also worth mentioning that most of the closest Reagan states in 1980 were in the South.  To assume that all Southerners are racist (either at that time or now) simply because of the actions of their ancestors is wrong.  Also, Reagan initially supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating he thought "it should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." (A Call to America, p. 304)  He also was the president who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday.  (He may have initially opposed it, but so did Dr. King's family.) 
Oh, and about states' rights: it was never a legitimate argument for segregation in the first place because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that Congress may pass any legislation necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too.  He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it).  If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma.  (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.

Terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queen" may have been code words at one point, but probably not in 1980.  By then, racism was no longer widely accepted by society (as evidenced by the firing of Howard Cosell from ESPN three years later after he infamously called a black football player a "little monkey.")  Even now, you could reform welfare and give states all the rights you want, but slavery and segregation are never coming back, and rightly so.  It's also worth mentioning that most of the closest Reagan states in 1980 were in the South.  To assume that all Southerners are racist (either at that time or now) simply because of the actions of their ancestors is wrong.  Also, Reagan initially supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating he thought "it should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." (A Call to America, p. 304)  He also was the president who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday.  (He may have initially opposed it, but so did Dr. King's family.) 
Oh, and about states' rights: it was never a legitimate argument for segregation in the first place because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that Congress may pass any legislation necessary to ensure equal protection under the law.

So you really think that there was no strategic reasons for the way Reagan campaigned? I don't believe that Reagan was racist, but he knew what he had to do. Yes, in that election, states in the south were the closest, so they were the most important for Reagan and Carter to win. His speech in Mississippi was a means to tap into white resentment over the civil rights movement that was still lingering in the region.

It's pretty disingenuous to believe that racism was wiped out only 15 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Legislation changes laws, not the way people think and feel. And if you live in the south, it becomes crystal clear that resentment between white and black still exists.

It does?  I know one native Southerner who lives in my hometown (not in the South) and she is not racist from what I've seen.  I have relatives who live in the South who are also by no appearances racist.  Granted, they're not natives, but it's still worth mentioning.  To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.  In fact, some people would say that the South is now less racist than the rest of the country.  "Oh, well, the racism just went underground."  Yes, and I'm a pink marshmallow Venusian.  Come on, you guys, do you really have to get into the crazy consipracy theories like that?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

And you claim these perceptions of "health risks" have nothing to do with racism or - at the very least prejudice?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Are you suggesting that we'd see 100% employment if welfare was eliminated? We know this isn't the case, because unemployment existed before welfare programs were created(and indeed exists today in third/second world countries without welfare programs.)

As to subsidies and incentives, the various tax credits targeted at the working poor actually increase their incentive to work, increase their earning and enable greater savings.

To assume that all Southerners are a bunch of racist, brown-shirt, cross-burning Klansmen in white sheets and pointy hats is wrong, bigoted, and untrue.  I think most of them had probably moved on from racial issues by the time Reagan made those statements.  The demographics had changed and younger generations of voters who were less racist started voting, and this is precisely one of the factors that helped Reagan in the South in 1980, as well as his strength with religious conservatives.

Objectively wrong:http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

In 1980 ~60% of Americans did not support the legality of interracial marriage. It was no doubt an even higher percentage in the South.

Yes, but racism wasn't widely accepted by society anymore by that time.  Where's your evidence that the percentage was higher in the South?  And besides, just because someone doesn't believe in interracial marriage doesn't mean he/she is racist.

....ummmm...and pray tell what other reasons would there be for people to "not believe" (whatever that means) in interracial marriage?

Yes.  Many good, well-meaning people have been against it because of false perceptions of health risks to the children of interracial marriages.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no evidence of any health risks to mixed race children, indeed it would imply a healthier population if there is mixing of genes from parts of the world far away from each other. Anyone who thinks it has health risks is a racist. But maybe they are nice about it, who knows.

Aren't we all of mixed race?  The health risks from interracial coupling. Oh dear. Where do folks pick that sort of crap up?  I mean, it's ludicrous on its face. Heck, about 80% of the Mexican population is a mix of White and Asian, and they seem to be in excellent health. And even if you thought that, just why would one actually want to put it in writing?  That would be like putting in writing some of my more unfortunate trysts. No, just no.

Most of those people weren't necessarily racist, but there used to be concerns that interracial marriage presented health risks to the children of those marriages.  That evidence has since been proven false.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

That's my point.  Blacks can be racist too but I think it has more to do with just plain ignorance.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The race card is pulled by us Republicans too...for example: "You want to end the war? Israel will die. YOU MUST HATE JEWS!", and of course, "Affirmative Action is apartheid against white people!".

go join the libertarian party already.  after your recent conversion is their any Republicans issue/value you have that libertarian don't have.

I feel that I have more of a right to be a Republican than most Republicans since I don't just have conservative views that I want implemented in the future, I literally want to go back to the old platform we had in the Bob Taft era. That, plus instead of going to Republican clubs and eating rubber chicken in West Palm, I spent my summer helping out the Republican Congressional candidate in his office-something most local Republican activists are too lazy to do. Do not lecture me on how "Republican" I am. As it has been pointed out, your argument is the same if I said "go back to Israel."

It amazes me how long and winded these types of posts become, when all any rational person has to do is simply ignore it. These racists will only learn and adapt when others stop feeding into their debates and arguments. Shun, ignore and make these people feel as small as they are.

That, and my revived Christianity was what turned me away from my former racism and white nationalism. I still hold some of it, sadly, but I am making progress. I just think this-I should love all people the way God does.

Woah there, everyone who can add something to the conservative cause should be welcomed in the Republican Party, libertarians, neocons, social conservatives, deficit hawks, the lot.

True, I don't disagree at all with that. But for me to be told to leave the party by someone who is not even active in the party at all is an insult.

Wow.  That is exactly how I feel sometimes.  I feel like if I come public about some of my views (as a Republican), I will be labeled an RINO or a squish because I believe in the Republican Party as the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, that an electable "moderate" (half a loaf) is better than an unelectable conservative (no bread), that the GOP must not forget its heritage as the Party that was founded to fight to end slavery and for freedom and equality for blacks, and that our message needs to be tailored better based on our audience.  My greatest fear, especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, is that establishment Republicans like myself who want to return the Party to its former greatness will be ostracized as RINOs and squishes and be told, "You don't belong here, go be a Democrat."  I agree that all conservatives and Republicans can contribute something to the conservative movement, and our party needs to regain its "big tent" status to survive.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I abhor racism.  And it is ignorant and bigoted to assume that southern African whites are all (or even mostly) racist.