pretty much anyone who accuses anyone of racism with the intent of hurting that person's reputation, the first person is a scoundrel. it is the cheapest move in the political book. especially when plenty of racism is perfectly justified. like i always say, people should stop acting as a group if they do not want to be judged as a group. you dont see me identifying myself as a southern christian white and thinking accordingly. we need to move past tribalism and be individiuals. by and large politicians are demagogues, and preach things they know to be untrue to people they know are stupid enough to believe them. the cheapest and easiest scam of this sort is to toss around accusations of prejudice against some opressed group. because there is nothing an opressed group likes more than to be told they are being oppressed by somebody other then themselves.
I don't think anything more true has been written on this forum. However, thepoint of my original post was to try and understand why a party that claims not to be racist, continues to get away with demonizing personal attacks against two of the most accomplished african americans in the nation. I'm not talking about attacking their politics, but about attacking their integrity, how they got where they are, etc.
Interesting. Weren't you are the initial accuser on this thread? :wink: Clearly racism exists across the board, Republican and Democrat . . . black and white. Its a universal thing and everybody knows it. Politicians just like to point the finger at their enemies and point out any flaws that are apparent. They will also point out any lack of honesty, patriotism, intelligence, prudence, trust, temperance, or propriety. It's just the nature of politics. The Democrats use of a funeral to make a political point is no different than sliming a Silver Star Viet Nam veteran because they don't like his politics. Politics is dirty and getting dirtier and I think the public is tiring of it and party partisanship in general. 2008 should be interesting. Will ruthless political tactics be adopted by the parties after Rove's success or will they go for kinder and gentler? Most of the voting citizenry is female, you know. And the republican women voted for Sir William of Smooth twice.
Ahh... hmm...Yeah, but still. (As Bill Simmons said, the greatest 3 word comeback in the history of arguments):grin:
maybe that is true. but democrats get more mileage out of calling people racist. for the most part they are the party that panders to the minority vote. and i actually do not think everyone is that racist. in fact the only mainstream person i can think of who even slightly irritates me with racism is bill o'reilly. almost nobody is racist to the extent that it is worth criticizing. you are a little older than i am, so you have more perspective, but i would be suprised if thing really are getting dirtier. was there ever a time when politics was not a dirty game? i cant imagine any politician (or his handlers) really ever being above going dirty. after all, if you want to get elected, dirty politics is the way to go, or at least that it what i was told by the pro campaign guys who came in to speak to my classes at LSU.
I don't think it is any worse now. The difference today is TV, talk radio, the internet. There is so much access to politics now that the mudslinging is much more visible.
Well, of course. The minority you refer to are the blacks and they are a major component of the Democratic party. It isn't pandering for votes as much as catering to a part of your constituency. The Republicans pander the hell out of the Hispanic minority vote, you know. They want them to be constituents down the road. Politics has always been dirty, but a couple of things have changed. First, the gloves are off about a lot of things. It used to be a friendlier, more gentlemanly fight with less underhanded tactics and overt mudslinging. Secondly it is far more partisan. Party politics have overwhemed politicians responsibilities to their own constituencies. Advancing your party platform has become more important than advancing the best interest of the voters. Worse, party block-voting has hampered bi-partisan compromises and sometimes puts the good of the party ahead of the good of the nation. This is inexcusable behavior in elected officials.
Give me a break, Red. You make it sound like Karl Rove originated the concept of ruthless. Ever hear the names Carville or Begala? Carville makes Rove look like a choirboy by comparison.
I think few would agree. Got an example? I can give you a long list of Rove's. "Karl Rove's reputation for political dirty tricks is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian". -- Wikipedia.com
Quotes from James Carville (also taken from Wikipedia): "When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." "We didn't find the key to the electoral lock...we just picked it." - Remarking about the 1992 Election. "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." - referring to Paula Jones and her charge that President Clinton had sexually assaulted her. "Don't get mad. Don't get even. Just get elected, then get even." These are examples of quotes, but I think that we can safely say that they speak for the man's philosophy. In any event, Red, you can't just make it seem like Washington, politically speaking, was a squeaky clean place before Karl Rove got there. Methinks you're just bitter because that indictment against him that you were hoping for didn't materialize. Well, maybe the guy is just as good at covering his tracks as Bill Clinton was, hmmm?
