Compare these two comments and then think about which one received more media coverage...I bet you don't even know about the first one:
Did Congressman Charles Rangel step over a line when he incongruously compared President Bush to Birmingham's former Police Commissioner Bull Connor, the Democrat who came to personify anti-black bigotry? Not at all. He merely threw down a gauntlet, challenging other race-bating demagogues to see if they could match him for the sheer absurdity of his incendiary rhetoric.
It didn't take long for them to rise to the challenge. NYC Councilman Charles Barron bellowed that the comparison is "an insult to Connor." Al Sharpton intoned that "we've gone from fire hoses to levees" (New Orleans levees were damaged not by Katrina, but by the Bush Administration in order to harm black people, according to the Calypso Louie crowd). Another Congressman(!), Major Owens, declared, "Bull Connor didn't even pretend that he cared about African Americans. You have to give it to George Bush for being even more diabolical."
So here is the Left showing their true colors. They love to throw out the race card anytime they can. They say Bush hates black, make up stories about blowing up levees, yet:
1. Bush spends over $60 billion a year more than Clinton on programs for poor Americans.
2. The number of blacks living below the poverty line dropped 1% between the middle of Clinton's Presidency and the middle of Bush's.
3. There are more black business owners than in any time in history.
None of that matters, just keep saying Bush and all Republican's are racist, even though it is liberal programs thought and attitude that will keep minorities a permanent underclass.
So, none of you even heard what Rangel said, but I bet you heard this:
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
Before you liberals run your mouth about things you know nothing about, try listening to the phone call.
It has been proven that the comments were taken out of context, and if you listen to the audio Bennett referring the the ridiculousnessss of the argumentnt in a book called "Freakanomics"
Which one did you hear about in the media?
The one calling the President of the United States a racist, or the one of someone using an analogy to show how stupid some people's points of view are on abortion?
Don't forget about other liberals offensive comments that have never been talking about with the enthusiasm that Bennett gets:
1. Dick Durbin comparing the military to Hitler's army and Pol Pot.
2. Wolf Blitzer saying.."They are so poor, so black."
3. Howard Deans joke saying that all cleaning and wait staff in a hotel are black.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Another example of the double standard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Just one thing. I'm from Birmingham and a Democrat, and saying Bull Connor was a Dem just because all white ultra-conservatives were Dems at that time (except maybe Strom Thurmond) is ignorant. I'm sure you're smarter than that. Choose a different line of argument next time.
You must have gotten a good batch of weed this time...don't see me calling Connor a Dem...even if I did that really is not the point of the post..
Sometimes it is just really hard to follow a liberals thinking.
I say we must have a higher set of standards.....Which doesn't have to be very high compared to the low bar set by the Dems.
Game, isn't Newspaper Wack's sarcastic tone so typically the left's condescending attitude towards us, the "unwashed masses"?
Anyway... The fact is the Democratic party was dragged kicking and screaming to the civil rights movement. Also, the Democratic party was responsible for many of the segregationist laws throughout the south where the party had a stronghold for many decades. It was the that GOP lead the fight against Jim Crow laws.
I think the Democratic party should apologize to African Americans for it's racist history, ie: Sen. KKK Byrd. But because the party doesn't love African Americans, it loves the black vote, I won't hold my breath.
The party still can't explain why W has a more diverse cabinet than did their hero, BJ Clinton.
"Even some Democrats grumbled during the presidential campaign that Bush had more African-Americans and Hispanics among his closest advisers than did Democratic challenger John Kerry" - USA Today
BTW. The first black Member of the House was Joseph H. Rainey, Republican, South Carolina 41st Congress. Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, Republican from Mississippi, was also from the 41st Congress.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30378.pdf
http://www.sclagop.org/should_democrats_apologize_to_blacks.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm
very good points that can not be explained and that get me mad..
Dems can just say they care about blacks,give them a small hand-out to keep them quiet, then forget about them.
The right actually does something for all people. Bush's appointments are more diverse than Kerry's or Clinton's, Republicans passed the Civil rights bill of 1964, yet because Libs just keep saying Republicans don't care about blacks, that is good enough for blacks and the MSM.
I understand Bill Bennet's comments were taken out of context, and from what I hear, he's anything but racist.
That said, I think he made a huge mistake with his comments. To make the point that abortion would lower the criome rate is most likely true but had he simply left the word Black out of it, it would have made the same point.
I believe he was directly commenting on a theory from freakanomics
First: I heard about the Rangel comment on "The O'Reilly Factor," the "biggest name in cable news." How much better coverage could you ask for? :-)
I think too much is being made of Bennet's comments. I think it was unwise of him to say what he did, whether its true or not.
Now as to your number 2 bullet, I believe you have your facts wrong. It looks like you are doing what Bill O'Reilly and others have done in comparing the the poverty level at the end of Clinton's first term, 13.7%, to the poverty level at the end of Bush's first term, 12.7%. But a closer look at the numbers show:
Beginning of Bush 41 term:
12.8%
End of Bush 41 term:
15.1%
Therefore beginning of Clinton's first term:
15.1%
End of Clinton's first term:
13.7%
End of Clinton's second term:
11.7%
Therefore beginning of Bush's first term:
11.7%
Bush end of 2002:
12.1%
Bush end of 2003:
12.5%
Bush end of 2004:
12.7%
As this shows, the poverty level fell 3.4% under Clinton and has increased 1% under Bush 43.
Jim...you have done well..almost.
I'm glad you admit Bennett's comments are being overblown..
I'll say he should have thought things through a little more...but that should not envoke the outrage it did.
One problem with your stats is 9-11...I believe that spiked the poverty level a good 1%...and no I have no proof on that one, just my opinion.
I wasn't trying to argue about the poverty level...just listing as many examples as I could showing how stupid it is to say GWB is a racist. Anyone who says something like that is dishonest, a political hack, and not worth listening too...however, they get a free pass because they are liberal and attacking a conservative...
Jim,
You have to admit there is a double standard in this area...conservatives are held to a higher standard...and the Left is held to really no standard...
While I am not ready to admit a double standard, I recognize you have presented some valid points which could support your assertion.
However, I present the poverty level data, not so much to refute your point here (because it is not by itself on topic) but to demonstrate how "statistics" are often twisted to show something opposite of the truth. And the ones you've cited here are currently being used to support Bush's record on poverty when they are deliberately mis-leading. I do not lay the "deliberately" blame on you, because you've no doubt gotten the "talking points" from one of the usual sources. :-)
I would say that the two items that you present here for comparison are not at all equivalent. A better comparison would be to compare Bennet's statement to when Martin Luther King, Jr. said that if all white babies were aborted, white-collar crime would be reduced. (Don't go looking for the quote, please. I made it up to provide an example of a comment that would be more on the level of the Bennet statement.)
Dick Durbin did NOT compare the military to Hitler's army. He read a letter about the conditions in a cell in Gitmo and said that if one read this description they might think it is describing conditions in a Nazi prison.
This is NOT comparing the US military to Nazis.
I bring this up to show how falsehoods are used to try to make a point.
your right...what Rangle said and what Bennett said are not equal...the Rangle comment is much worse.
This is just this weeks example.
When Trent Lott made a comment during a 90 year old mans birthday party it was front page news for weeks, but when Robert "KKK" Byrd says in a book that the KKK was like a brotherhood it is not even reported.
This is one of those issues that when a liberal tries to debate it, it just looks sad.
I'm sure there will be a new example this week.
I added to my point in a blog above...
It just amazes me how FOS Jim comtinues to be, when you have beat him with the facts every time, Game. Good Lord, you are a patient man.
Post a Comment