The other day I noted that Rudy came out in support for Alabama flying the Confederate flag above its Capitol building based of a federalist viewpoint:
“One of the great beauties of the kind of government we have, which is a national/federal government, is that we can make on a broad range of issues we can make different decisions in different parts of the country,” Mr. Giuliani said. “We have different sensitivities, and at different times we are going to come to different decisions, and I think that is best left up to the states.”
Well, according to the Hotline, he opposed South Carolina’s decision to fly the flag back in 1998:
During his visit, the mayor also praised Beasley, who is leading a controversial bid to permanently remove the Confederate flag from the capitol dome. Those involved in that effort, Giuliani said, took “a very courageous stand . . . at great political risk.” “There is disagreement in South Carolina,” the mayor said, noting that local Republicans tried and failed to have the flag moved to a Confederate museum, “and South Carolina has to work that out.”
This is interesting because it shows that Rudy held the right position 2 years before McCain came out in support of SC’s decision. Fast forward to 2007 and now McCain says that he supported the decision based out of opportunistic and ambitious reasons, but he opposes any effort to display the flag on government building. Conversely, Rudy now holds the view that it’s perfectly okay. As the Hotline asks, what changed?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Okay, hold up. Rudy opposed it, and then he supported it. McCain supported it and now opposes it? What am I missing?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I get the fact that Rudy changed positions from the article. What does McCain have to do with it?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Tommy,
I wanted to juxtapose McCain’s flip from Rudy’s flip. McCain explained that he said supported it in 2000 because he thought that was what would win him favor in South Carolina, even though he really didn’t support it. It was a dishonest position to take. Rudy, though, didn’t explain would caused him to change his position. For all I know, he might have a perfectly valid explanation, but I haven’t seen it.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Okay, thanks for the clearup. I wasn’t that familiar with the history on it.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I hate when issues like the confederate flag and government funding for the arts and even Don Imus enter presidential elections. They are important generic issues to many people to be sure, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the job of a president or how well he can serve once he’s in office. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think about flags and arts when a global war and national economy directly affect each and every person in this country. McCain and Rudy and any other candidate will never have one thing to do with what flag is hoisted above the Alabama state capitol, so why do we care what they think 10 years ago or now unless it’s to pidgeon hole them into making a statement that serves no purpose except to tick off 50% of the people, and will then be held against them years down the road by one of the two sides of the issue.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I don’t care about the issue. But it shows the willingness to pander to the masses. And it also shows the double standard the candidates face when one candidate does something and gets blasted by supporters of candidate b, but when candidate b does the same thing, there’s silence.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:13 am
It also shows all of our stubborness or unwillingness to acknowledge our candidates faults.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Tommy. . .Yeah I agree but show me a candidate who doesn’t pander to the voters. It’s just a part of politics. It often seems that when the other guy does it it’s shameful pandering, but when our guy does it it’s ok. That may be where that double standard you mention comes in to play.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
yeah. We all will turn blind eyes to our own insecurities about our own candidate, and lash out when attacked. I tried to refrain from it, but even I blew up earlier. Anyway, I’m going to bed, its 1:30am here.
For anyone interested, here’s fred’s new opinion journal that will be in the Wall Street Journal tomarrow:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009940
April 14th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Who cares? And I’m neither a Rudy guy or a McCain guy.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Steve. . .best response I’ve heard all night!
April 14th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Tommy,
Thanks for the FDT article. It’s a good read.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:56 am
jake, I was thinking about this yesterday. Are there any candidates in this race who have not pandered in some form? It seems to me that Giuliani (this confederate flag issue is an example), McCain (trying to make nice with the same religious conservatives he criticized in 2000 is an example), and Romney (this lifelong hunter and gun advocate thing is an example) have all been guilty of this. I guess Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich have not had the chance yet. And as to the second- and third-tier candidates, well I just don’t see them as mattering.
The guy who comes out the least phony in all this among those who I think can win in November is the one who probably gets my vote and support.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Yeah Republius I tend to agree with you. I hate seeing it but that’s just the way politics goes. Politics aside, Fred Thompson, at least at this very early stage in the game, seems the most genuine to me, but he hasn’t set foot on the campaign trail yet, so we’ll have to wait and see. (I base that opinion mostly on the Cavuto interview and Cavuto’s thoughts repeated somewhere else on this site tonight.) I suppose, with American society so divided and segmented in the name of diversity – African Americans, Mexican Americans, female Americans, tall Americans, long haired Americans, pocket protector wearing Americans – one must pander to each group in order to show they care for that group’s members. Ironically, it’s a very un-American thing to have to do.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:47 am
how is this flipping? In 1999 he said “there is disagreement and SC has to work that out”. In 2007 he said “we have disagreemnets, we are going to come to different decisions, but i think it’s best left up to the states”. It’s 100% consistent. In 1999 SC had to work it out and in 2007 the states have to work it out. He clearly disagreed with flying it in 1999 and still does in in 2007 if you read the statement, but he doesn’t think it’s something that the President or the Feds should get involved in. pretty simple if you ask me.
same thing with the hyde amendment where the fed govt under Bush does fund abortions and has funded them for the past 7 years. All Rudy said was that he would continue that policy. I agree he worded it horribly and came across bad, but substance-wise, I don’t think any GOP candidate would have a different policy or would end the funding tha the Bush Administration has been providing the past 7 years.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am
jim,
no rational person can come to that same conclusion. Sorry to burst your bubble.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:07 am
It appears to me that Rudy’s handlers may be trying to undo some of the damage of his liberalism slipping out.
You’ve got him coming out for legislative efforts to save Terri Shiavo and coming out for the Confederate Flag. I know Rudy’s a smart man but it must get confusing to have to pander to so many groups you don’t agree with.
What I’m wondering is if Rudy loses and runs 3rd party will you Rudyites follow him or stay Republican?
April 14th, 2007 at 5:34 am
minnesota conservative,
I happen to be quite rational, and I came to the exact same conclusion as Jim. While Rudy is personally opposed to flying the confederate flag, he thinks it is an issue that should be left up to the states. This is exactly what he stated in 1999, and exactly what he stated in 2007. I’m not sure how you can interpret “There are differences in South Carolina, and South Carolina has to work those out” any other way, unless you have such a problem with Rudy that you refuse to comprehend his words.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:07 am
econ grad stud Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am
screwed that up…REPOST:
econ grad stud Says:
Do you really get the impression that Rudy would go third party? It may be cute to say so bc of his tenuous relations with social conservatives, but I think we all know that Rudy is running as a Republican or bust.
If you want to say that you don’t think “Rudyites” are really Republican, or that they are for Rudy more than for any principle(s) of the Republican Party, then cut the BS and just say so. Your attempt at implying so in this passive-aggressive nature, is, frankly, p*ssy.
In spite of the disingenuous snarkiness of that comment, I’ll answer it: no, I would not follow him. Unless Ron Paul were our nominee.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Actually, if you read that article very closely, Giuliani never says he opposed the Confederate flag. That’s an unjustified inference IMHO.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Rudy’s a politician, just like Bush, Clinton or Delay. If you trust them not to betray you for their personal advantage, you’re naive.
Some Rudy supporters are personality driven supporters who see Rudy as a super hero. These voters are personally loyal and would follow Rudy out of the GOP. What I want to know is if the run of the mill Rudy supporter would do the same.
I’d imagine Rudy supporters would have better insight into that than me.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary.I think Thompson`s cancer will
keep people for voting for him and the republican brand is just damaged.
No one on the right has a chance. Just pray that some democrat can take out Hillary
because winning in 2008 wiil be tough for the gop.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
econ grad,
Look, I probably shouldn’t have dropped the “P” bomb on you (though you did not take my bait and were civil in your response – youre a more composed man than I).
The reason I reacted to your comment was that, arguably, the question could be asked of other candidates just as easily (e.g., by those who label McCain supporters “McCainiacs” or Romney supporters “Romneybots”), and it seemed like you were using a double standard against Rudy supporters. I don’t see that happening with any of the big three: as the most loyal supporters of each candidates say often on this blog, they will vote for whomever is the nominee, even though they have a clear preference right now for the primaries. This applies to me, too.
I’ve been quite dissappointed with Rudy the last few weeks. I still support him, but not as ferverently — he seems to be playing “prevent defense” now to hold his lead, instead of staying on the attack and not trying to triangulate on social issues. I could respect him even though I disagreed with his seemingly far left views, bc I was so confident he would be good on judges. Without judges, for me, my enthusiasm will be severely deflated.
I am not going to turn myself into a human pretzel to explain Rudy’s latest opacity. But, you mention that politicians will be politicians, and say what’s necessary to get elected. I think the less assured Rudy is the result of a politician doing just that, against his instincts, and hope he reexamines this new “strategy” (if it is that). He is still awesome on economic issues and the war, and I believe the most, if not only (I could be wrong on this, I admit – not trying to argue that point here, just explain my support) electable GOPer for ’08. But, if I weren’t confident he was a solid conservative, I wouldn’t support him based only on “electability.”
I grant that he does harm (rather, does not actively help) to the social conservative cause, but IF – BIG IF – I felt he were going to select legal conservatives, I’d be an enthusiastic supporter. I still think he will. I’m just less confident than I was a few weeks ago. Most likely, he is sending conflicting messages by this attempt at prevent defense. At least I hope. If I really do have doubts next Feb., then I may still support him, but I’d really have to not have other viable options and I’d have to hold my nose while doing so. And, it would have to be as a Republican, the best and only way to enact conservative principles.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
talking about Rudy … “being confident he would be good on judges”… just look at his police commissioner. Enough said.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I suspect Hillary won’t get the nomination, it will be either Edwards or Obama. I don’t care who the GOP nominates, they are all a bunch of losers.. Brownback showed some independence in coming out against the surge …but he flip flopped all over the place supporting this assine war. I could support Chuck Hagel but am fairly skeptical of any politician owning voting machine companies. Bottom line, we must get Bush and his cronies out. And in jail!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
The reason I asked about a 3rd party run for Rudy if he lost the primary was because he seems to be the candidate with enough popularity for it to plausibly be an option. However the Unity ’08 thing going on it is plausible that another losing Republican candidate could run 3rd party.
I think the biggest threat isn’t from the major candidates but from the third tier.
At this time my pick for most likely 3rd party run by a GOP candidate is Tancredo for the Constitution Party. After that it’s Ron Paul for the Libertarian Party.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:55 am
sbt,
if u insist on killing threads, pls do so in your natural habitat at Kos or Moveon.
Thanks. And, dont let the door hit you on the way out…
April 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I just don’t see any of the Big 3 selling out the GOP. Don’t have a chance to win, anyway…including Rudy or anyone else on a third ticket.
Ron Paul made a deal with the GOP years ago: he’ll caucus with them in Congress, and not run Libertarian, if they won’t put up a primary challenge. Not sure that translates into Presidential considerations, but “Principled Paul” is, as you stated earlier, a politician like all the rest. Don’t see him upsetting the applecart for such a long shot.
Tancredo is a party guy, too. Recently, I heard him talking about making sure GOP district in Colorado has a strong “sucessor” should he pursue his presidential candid. much farther.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:02 am
oops, should be “much further” as opposed to “much farther.”
April 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Here’s a warning to all the regular posters here:
It seems like the election season is beginning to pick up speed, because the trolls are starting to appear.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I am inclined to agree with you, mjs. I just don’t see any of the Big 3 bolting to form a 3rd party.
It isn’t Giuliani’s style. He has an extremely tight organization and puts forth the bare minimum effort and discipline.
McCain has had plenty of opportunity to ditch the GOP in the past. He could have even run as Kerry’s VP if he had wanted to. Considering how close the race was, Kerry might of won. McCain hasn’t done it yet — bolted the party, I mean.
Romney is already working his tail off. He would have to work even harder if he were to succeed as an independent. Third party candidates lose. Mitt plays to win. The last one to win was Abraham Lincoln.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a third party candidate. He was in a 3-way race, but with two Democrats.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
About the whole flag issue, it’s not one any candidate really should get into, because it can only harm them. This issue just gets me mad in the first place. I can see how people can get offended by it, but to reort to the name calling that the left seems to do won’t do us any good when it comes to the flag issue. Nobody on our side has resorted to it yet, but lets hope they don’t because it will hurt them in the long run.
Examples:
“BUSH WINS! ‘I can’t believe that some uneducated southern redneck’s vote counts as much as mine’ Anonymous Upper West Sider, 9/20/04.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus200412130838.asp
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/1999-11/18landau.htm
Rudy G., by marrying his cousin among his THREE marriages, has wrapped up the Southern Bush Redneck vote. They really identify with this type behavior.
http://www.topix.net/forum/state/ny/TIT541VM1MRVVO88R/p4
Insult the Hicks – They will never vote for a party that believes in the equality of Blacks, foreigners and gay people. The current conventional wisdom that the Democrats need to “get in step” with America’s “values” is completely wrong. Every dime the DNC spends trying to sway the redneck vote is a dime wasted. In fact, it’s time to start name-calling back-think “Massachusetts Liberal” hurt? Try “Texas Dipshit.”
Promote Urbanization – City dwellers vote for Democrats. Country bumpkins vote Republican. The answer? Make more city dwellers.
Scam the Right Wing Press – Along with every high-level nominee should come a steady stream of easily disproved false documents and anonymous allegations. Have a guy who likes to sleep around? Kill the issue with a decoy bimbo willing to ruin her name for a few thousand bucks. Drug problem? Release a phony police report. When the charges are retracted, excoriate the “rabid right wingers” for their blatant lies.
http://www.buffalobeast.com/62/cynical.htm
April 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
That’s where the flag thing always winds up, and it just alienates the whole Confederate vs. Union thing that happened one hundred and fifty years ago. Racism is a horrible thing, but not one the GOP should involve itself in, because we always come out on the losing end.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Here’s my favorite one:
http://freepressed.com/true_patriot-dixie.htm
Let the Repugs have the southern redneck vote!
By True Patriot
Let’s face it, they deserve each other.
If white, working-class guys with confederate flags in their pick-up trucks are too stupid to figure out that they are nothing more than tools of the GOP, being exploited for their votes and hard labor to enrich and empower elite (they hate elitists) Republican law makers and CEOs, then I say screw-em.
We don’t need them and pandering to them only slows the social progress this nation has advocated since its inception.
I used to think the Democrats needed to woo conservative, white-male voters in the South in order to win.
I used to agree that if Democrats pulled too far to the left it would deliver the South to the Republicans and spell electoral disaster.
But if you just look at Al Gore’s performance in the 2000 election, two things becomes obvious: 1) The Democrats aren’t in jeopardy of losing the South. It’s already gone with the wind. 2) So what.
Gore lost all 13 Southern states (Florida with the help of the Supreme Court) and still got 500,000 more popular votes than Bush. If he had won just one of the northern or western states like New Hampshire or Nevada that Bush took by a narrow margin, he would have had more electoral votes as well and we would have Gore in the White House right now instead of Stupid.
Now, I’m not saying we should completely give up on the South. There are millions of progressive minded people that live in the South and the Democrats can’t leave them stranded in the land that time forgot.
That’s why Dean’s comment that he wants to bring confederate flag-flying southerners into the Democratic tent was so troubling to me. While I agree with his more nuanced stance that we should focus on our shared values rather than our differences, we should never compromise when it comes to the core American values of tolerance, social justice and civil rights.
Southerners that embrace the confederate flag and the regressive values it stands for should never be welcomed into what is supposed to be a progressive Democratic party.
I know, I know, the ‘rebel flag don’t mean racism, it’s just a proud reminder of our heritage.’ And what heritage is that? Slavery and religious fundamentalism? Oh, and of course, treason. That one seems to always get overlooked but it’s called the rebel flag for good reason.
The simple fact is people that believe the Civil War was really the War of Northern Aggression show a fundamental lack of understanding of history and the founding fathers’ intent when they began this American experiment in democracy 200 years ago.
And they’re never going to get it. So I say leave them to their monster truck rallies and delusions of lost state’s rights.
We have no use for them.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Here’s one from a Romney blog. I know that it’s not everyone, but it’s just an example of how this thing still alienates each other:
Posted by: Erik | December 01, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Religion should have nothing to do with politics. Our government was clearly defined as secular by the Founders. Religious values, being based on nothing but religious texts, should also have nothing to do with politics.
It is a sad state when people have to appeal to religion just to get some ignorant redneck’s vote…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/12/romney_in_08_he.html
April 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Going a bit deeper than the above referenced superficial article, wrt to the flag issue:
I am deeply ambivalent. Frankly, I don’t get how people can say it’s not steeped in symbolic racism. And, I’m from Texas, born and raised. The southern pride argument just doesnt fly with me…the symbolism wrt slavery outweighs it.
But, I realize a) my opinion is not the only one b) much to my surprise, there really are ppl in the south who really do see it as solely a matter of southern pride. Horribly insensitive, IMO? yes. Violative of 13th A as a “badge of slavery?” Probably not.
As much as I cannot empathize with them (and granted, some of them are quite content with both messages the flag sends), and as insensitive as I think it is to fly it at the state capital, etc., this is the quintessential issue that should “left to the states.”
April 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I don’t disagree with you. I am using these as example that by going down this route will only alienate people.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Most people in the south are either clueless about the heritage thing, or disagree with it. It’s more of a teenage-identity crisis thing that insecure people wrap themselves in. I don’t believe its so much about racism as it is about people’s own identification to feel good about themselves through identification. By calling them racist, it only makes them mad. I don’t understand the reasons why they have to choose such a blatantly offensive symbol to represent them, but to stoop to the Democrats usual talking point of insulting their intelligence only causes a greater divide.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
You see, it’s normal today for politicians to refer to “getting out the redneck vote”. That in itself is offensive too. Granted, its nowhere near as offensive as the flag itself, but by making this an issue, it always comes back to the redneck vote. I don’t support the flag, but I don’t appreciate being lumped together with rednecks just because I live in the south, drive a truck, dip Copenhagen, and vote Republican.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Just for the record. . .Lincoln was considered a third party candidate in 1860. The Republican Party had never won before that, and had only started running nationally in 1856 with John Fremont. Lincoln’s third party run was “third” after the large but divided Democratic Party and the then-defunct Whigs who could not support Lincoln and, along with Fillmore’s “Know-Nothing” American Party, formed the Constitutional Union Party and ran John C Bell of Tennessee for president. The divisions within the Democratic Party combined with enough votes for the Constitutional Unionists by former Whigs in the South allowed Lincoln’s third party to win with less than 40% of the vote.
(sorry – the political history major in me can’t let these things go by without a response.)
April 14th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Yes, I’m aware that a small percentage of people still use this as a symbol of their racist, intolerant views, but by alienating those who are either insecure, or (for God knows why) consider their heritage of independance, calling them “the redneck vote” just reinforces their insecurities.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
jake Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Just for the record. . .Lincoln was considered a third party candidate in 1860. The Republican Party had never won before that, and had only started running nationally in 1856 with John Fremont. Lincoln’s third party run was “third” after the large but divided Democratic Party and the then-defunct Whigs who could not support Lincoln and, along with Fillmore’s “Know-Nothing” American Party, formed the Constitutional Union Party and ran John C Bell of Tennessee for president. The divisions within the Democratic Party combined with enough votes for the Constitutional Unionists by former Whigs in the South allowed Lincoln’s third party to win with less than 40% of the vote.
Jake might just have proved my point, in some fashion. By dividing a party among regionary divides, Lincoln was able to win the White House because the Democrats split their vote. Alienating regions over a decisive issue such as this one will only split their votes. And trust me, they don’t like know “goodfornuthin’ carpetbaggers” telling them anything about what’s right and wrong.
(no problem Jake- this is just the psychology major in me going off on some tangent that most are probably just shaking their heads about)
April 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
LJ
The “right” position for someone from outside the state is deference to the State for what flags it wants to fly where.
McCain flip-flopped in 2000, lied about it and thus showed us that the straight talk express meant telling the MSM in New Hampshire what they wanted to hear, ie criticizing other republicans, especially of the conservative Christian variety. We call his kind of talk “crooked talk express” down here.
I favored taking the flag off the top of the Capitol Dome;s place of authority and to move it to the State House Grounds below which is essentially an outdoor museum, complete with Confederate, WWI, WWII and other war memorials as well as a memorial to slavery.
But no sonner had the Black caucus agreed to the the move, as did the SC NAACP, did the national NAACP pitch a fit since now the flag was more visible. They launched a boycott that continues.
I’ll have to hear more from Rudy to make a judgment.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
oh, I see that this really doesn’t make sense to most reading it, since my first comment is awaiting moderation.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Gamecock, I feel like the right decision for me, as someone who does not live in a state that raises the Confederate flag at any public building, is to say that I am against flying a flag that offends black people as a vestige of those who supported slavery. And because race is such a sensitive issue and slavery such a blight on our nation’s history, I say this after concluding that in my own mind it serves the greater good to take such a position, even though certainly there are folks who will be offended if the flag is not allowed to fly.
Are there not symbols of southern pride we can utilize that evoke a lot less angst?
As a political matter, it didn’t help Senator George Allen – even in a southern state – when folks found out he used to fly a Confederate flag. So I am not sure the politics are even that tough in the modern age. And Giuliani is going to get creamed with this among black voters, who already question his record due to the unfortunate police shootings where black innocents died under his watch in New York City. That is just what we need, a GOP nominee who can be caricatured as racially insensitive or even racist.
Of course the ultimate decision is for those states. That goes without saying, and so anyone who reverts to that as an answer over the controversy is dodging. Just because one doesn’t get a vote does not mean they are not entitled to an opinion and perspective. That would be absurd. Neither you or me get to vote in Congress on funding the troops in Iraq, but that does not mean we aren’t entitled to a position on the matter.
This is a lose-lose proposition. You have to have guts to stake out a position. But those who don’t really have a position and invoke federalism have no guts, in my view. Giuliani is pandering here, just like McCain did in 2000. McCain has learned his lesson, but Giuliani has not learned from McCain and continues to campaign at a frenetically clueless clip.
For goodness sakes, the Confederacy invoked federalism as a defense of slavery. Why in heavens would someone invoke federalism with an issue whose genesis is so close to that of slavery? Republicans fatally hurt themselves with black voters for multiple generations by invoking federalism as a reason not to support the original Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. At some point states need to be told that they are wrong, even if they have a legal right to be so, and even if that stings folks from the solidly conservative south. We are a national party that is trying to grow a majority. Invoking states’ rights over an issue that reminds folks of slavery and Jim Crow is not the way to grow the party. When is the south going to get over the Civil War and join the modern world?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Republius said,
“As a political matter, it didn’t help Senator George Allen – even in a southern state – when folks found out he used to fly a Confederate flag. So I am not sure the politics are even that tough in the modern age. And Giuliani is going to get creamed with this among black voters, who already question his record due to the unfortunate police shootings where black innocents died under his watch in New York City. That is just what we need, a GOP nominee who can be caricatured as racially insensitive or even racist.”
That’s my whole point. In todays world, for the GOP, this is a no win situation. I agree that something has to be done, but anybody that does it is going to get slaughtered.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The State House grounds are an outdoor museum. That museum has a slavery memorial. Slavery offends me. See the problem with this white guilt politically correct offense meme? Would I, as a white person, not vote for someone due to a symbol they placed at a building when their opponent favored POLICIES that I abhorred?
No
Neither would blacks.
Allen was elected statewide in Virginia three? times with large numbers of black votes. He had Confederate flag in his office.
The imagined level of offense taken by Blacks at the viewing of confederate flags at public buildings by whites is really an insult to the intelligence of most Blacks. It is, in a word, racist per se.
All humans should be as opposed to slavery, no matter their race, and are. If you are saying that you, white as you are, are not offended, but that you imagine blacks are, then what does that say about your thinking?
They know the difference between racists that fly it and seek to harm them and a symbol of history, a history that includes the flying of American flags over more slaves and territory than the confederacy ever had.
Blacks have crosses in their homes. The Klan also appropriated the Cross.
This is 2007, not 1857, 1867 or 1967.
We should not treat blacks as children.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Aesthetically the Confederate Flag is quite pleasing. It’s a color reversed cross of St. Patrick and cross of St. Andrew. This was appropriate because many white Southerners were descended from the Irish or the Scots.
The history of the flag is abysmal. It was used as the banner of a rebellion that took hundreds of thousands of lives. After the rebellion it was used as a symbol of white supremacy and anti-black terrorism.
The flag is history and it belong in museums and on display by private citizens. It’s shameful for the government to fly a shameful flag with no redeeming qualities.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
It is a cool-looking flag.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Gamecock, since you are not black I fail to see where you have any business speaking for their perspective on this. Certainly Republican attitudes like yours are why 9-out-of-10 blacks refuse to support our party.
And your examples are ridiculous bordering on offensive and ignorant. Black people hang crucifixes, not mere crosses; they hang religious symbols, not symbols of hate and intimidation. George Allen lost the one election where the Confederate flag became an issue – so the issue hurt him once it was raised (no pun intended). Polling data shows that black people overwhelmingly oppose flying the Confederate flag because it offends them as a vestige of slavery.
You are just making another clueless and parochial conservative argument in support of a racially insensitive policy, as with federalism, in the name of southern pride.
Actually, we should call it southern pridefulness because with this issue it spills over into being a sin.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Rudy is now a loyal Republican. He would never run third party.
However, doesn’t it seem like Rudy is winging it when it comes to the campaign? Whereas Romney is ultra-prepared and McCain knows what he knows (Iraq and not much else), doesn’t it seem like Rudy is just speaking off the cuff most of the time?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Republius
I am human. As are Blacks. With brains.
Use yours.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I actually like candidates who are more open and honest. It’s a breath of fresh air, as long as you don’t put your foot in your mouth. I don’t care for cue card politicians, for the most part. However, Rudy needs to think sometimes before he blurts out whatever comes to mind.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Republius
What is my “attitude”? Listen and learn from your elder
I was a liberal democrat party official for years. I participated in the lies told to blacks to get their votes. I was won over to conservative values and principles, one of which is to treat Blacks as equals. I watched the dems become the racists. Read my FIRST MSM column from a few months ago:
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/b5adfcb2-9a05-4797-80ba-67b385534486
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.
No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priority
By contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.”
Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.
Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.
This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.
Face down the PC crowd
I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.
King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.
Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
Mike
DeVine
——————————————————————————–
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and blogs as “Gamecock” at http://gamecock.townhall.com, Race42008.com and Redstate.com. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.
This is Gamecock’s first column in, and as a freelance columnist to the Main Stream Media after 5 years as Legal editor for The Champion DeKalb County(Ga) legal organ weekly newspaper in Decatur/Metro Atlanta and three years as a blogger.
Link to Observer Column: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16468980.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
April 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Republius
see below for my “attitude” in my first MSM column in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.
No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priority
By contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.”
Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.
Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.
This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.
Face down the PC crowd
I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.
King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.
Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
Mike
DeVine
——————————————————————————–
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and blogs as “Gamecock” at http://gamecock.townhall.com, Race42008.com and Redstate.com. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.
This is Gamecock’s first column in, and as a freelance columnist to the Main Stream Media after 5 years as Legal editor for The Champion DeKalb County(Ga) legal organ weekly newspaper in Decatur/Metro Atlanta and three years as a blogger.
Link to Observer Column: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16468980.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
April 14th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Gamecock, I see that you cannot rebut the arguments against flying the Confederate flag substantively and must revert to getting personal, which is not surprising. Your Bull Connor Democrat position on this issue is transparent and indefensible as a matter of principle.
And, as a political matter, “Rednecks for Rudy” is not the way for the Mayor to go.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
HA!!!!
Bull Conner Democrat? Someone should remind the dems who their favorite law enforcement officer was.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As I was trying to explain earlier, “Rednecks for Anybody” is not a good way to go. It’s offensive in itself. By calling people rednecks, you lump people together in a derogatory manner. Don’t pander to the southerners, but don’t go around calling them a bunch of rednecks either.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Two offensive gestures don’t make a right.
(I hope you can see that I was speaking with some irony earlier, but I don’t know how to make little symbols to show emotions or whatever)
April 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Republius, you don’t “see” on this issue.
see my position here:
Republius, pay special attention to how Blacks are treated in the Prager story.
This was my first MSM column.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.
No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priority
By contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.
“Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.
Face down the PC crowd
I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
MikeDeVineObserver community columnist
Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and blogs as “Gamecock” at http://gamecock.townhall.com, Race42008.com and Redstate.com. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.
This is Gamecock’s first column in, and as a freelance columnist to the Main Stream Media after 5 years as Legal editor for The Champion DeKalb County(Ga) legal organ weekly newspaper in Decatur/Metro Atlanta and three years as a blogger.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
April 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Republius
Maybe you missed my earlier post on the substance. I favored taking the flag off the StateHouse Dome (a position of authority) and outting it on the StateHouse grounds, ie a museum. It is a relic of history. I don’t favor hiding history.
You presume to think that one cannot objectively assess “offense” based on race. That is racist per se. One does not have to have dark skin to understand that slavery was wrong, the reasons for the Civil War, that the Klan have appropriated the flag and the cross, and that Blacks know the difference.
I also do not favor trying to get Black votes the way democrats do and the way I helped them do it for 15 years as a liberal activist and dem party chair and official. I do not want to treat them like victims and paralyze myself due to misplaced white guilt.
I share the positions of blacl conservatives like Steele and McWhorter.
more later
April 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
For small government conservatives I don’t see why it’s a stretch to say the government of South Carolina or any state shouldn’t waste taxpayer money on divisive symbols. How are the tax dollars spent to display the Confederate Flag working for Black South Carolinians?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
or for any South Carolinians, really?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
How many black votes would the republican party get by acting like democrats?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Why do you assume that looking out for taxpayers is acting like a Democrat?
April 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Reply to comment #61
Ask the members of the SC Black Caucus that voted to take the flag off the Dome and out it on the grounds’ museum?
econ grad, Do you favor de-funding all museums?
btw, I was a phi beta kappa summa cum laude econ grad before law school! congrats
April 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It’s a common position for Republicans to oppose offensive items in Art galleries or museums. Conservatives seemed to like it when Rudy tried to defund Crucifixes in urine jars and Virgin Mary made out excrement. When should black voter be forced to pay for objects which glorify a terrorist campaign against them?
The Confederate flag isn’t placed in a museum by the way. It’s placed in front of the Capital in an adjacent area still on state property. Why does the state waste taxpayer money displaying and keeping up a symbol of terrorism?
April 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I know where this “Rudy as a Third Party candidate” stuff started. About 3 months ago, there was a Libertarian Party guy from Florida flaoting the idea all over the Blogs that the LP not run a Presidential candidate for 2008, and instead formally endorse Rudy Giuliani.
We also have an emerging group called Libertarians for Giuliani. But the LP has about 3 or 4 top Presidential candidates so far, (Millionaire Sports oddsmaker Wayne Root, Comedian Doug Stanhope, et.al.). So, I don’t think the Libertarian Party endorsing Giuliani is a viable option.
But we Libertarian Republicans, most of us, will be supporting him.
So, note it’s Libertarians in the GOP; Not Libertarian Party Libertarians.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I am going to break one of my own rules here and use Nazi Germany in an analogy. (Rule-of-thumb: Whoever first evokes Hitler and/or Nazi Germany is losing the argument.) What if some state decided they wanted to incorporate a Swaztika into their state flag? There are still a substantial number of people who laid their lives on the line to defeat that symbol. My father is one of them. Suppose the state was New York which has a fairly decent sized Jewish population?
My personal feeling on the matter is that it would be a stupid, bone-headed, insensitive thing to do. However, it is entirely up to the people of the State of New York what flag they chose to fly, not me. If they choose to show the world what a bunch of louts they are, then so be it. It is a free country.
Just like the clothes you wear advertises to the world what sort of person you are, so does the flag advertise to the world what sort of people it symbolizes. The Wyoming flag has in its heart three figures. Two men representing agriculture and mineral extraction stand on either side and facing the central figure. Between the men and the central figure are two pillars with the words, “Livestock, Grain” next to the farmer, and “Mines, Oil” next to the miner. The person in the center facing out is placed above the two men. It is a woman dressed in robes carrying a banner high above the two pillars mentioned above. The banner reads, “Equal Rights”.
Now, what are the people of Wymoming advertising to the world?
If a symbol on a flag is viewed by the world as representing intolerance, biotry, and slavery; then maybe it is time to change the flag.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Note to Gamecock: The Civil War is over, and your side lost, thank goodness. So there is no such thing as the Confederate States of America any longer, except as a historical relic. Slavery has been abolished by the 13th Amendment; equal protection and due process have been extended to the states by way of the 14th Amendment; suffrage may not be denied because of race or previous condition of servitude based on the 15th Amendment; and the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act have been passed and renewed in order for the government to treat citizens in a truly color-blind fashion. But many in the south still chafe under all of this, so they fly the Confederate flag in defiance – even, if not especially, over government buildings. How bitter and sad.
Flags flying over government buildings should represent jurisdictions that are germane. In addition to the Confederate flag being offensive to most blacks and many people of other ethnic origins because it reflects the vestiges of Jim Crow racism and slavery, there is no such thing as a Confederacy any longer and so no government building is under its auspices.
Showing a Confederate flag in a museum as a reflection of history is fine. But there is no reason to fly one over a government building since the Confederacy is no longer a going concern, and especially because doing such is so offensive to so many people. Flying a Confederate flag is simply a matter of in your face southern pridefulness in any context other than a historical re-creation, though a state and all private citizens have every right to do so if they wish. But those states and citizens who do so are not going to have my respect or support.
Facilitating a Bull Connor Democrat wing of the Republican Party is really a bad idea as both a matter of principle and politics, and any GOP presidential candidate who does so will lose my vote and receive my condemnation.
Let us be clear. On this issue John McCain got it wrong in 2000 but has it right in 2008. Rudy Giuliani had it right in 1998 but has it wrong in 2008. Martin Luther King, Jr., would not be for flying the Confederate flag; Juan Williams is not for flying the Confederate flag. Certainly there are matters of race that fall under the umbrella of political correctness, but the Confederate flag is not one of them and arguments to the contrary are disingenuous. Let’s see where the other GOP presidential candidates stand on this important matter of principle.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
marK,
Interesting analogy there with the Swastika. Allow me to poke some holes in it. The Swastika was originally a symbol of renewal and the cycle of life dating back several thousands of years. In fact, Japanese Buddhist temples today are still dilineated on modern day maps with guess what, the Swastika! The Germans took a beautiful symbol and twisted it around (literally) to symbolize their agenda.
So let’s say a state wants to incorporate Buddhist symbology in one of their flags (California maybe) or somehow we annex a buddhist nation, however it happens. If the flag incorporates the ‘original swastika’, then would that be permissable? I highly doubt it would fly well with Jewish populations, progressives and people of all stripes and colors, despite the true intent and meaning.
To many Southerners, the Confederate Flag does not represent slavery. When 95% of the Southerners back then never owned a slave, it is very misleading to associate them all with the inhumane practice. Many of my Southern friends have explained to me that the flag does not stand for slavery or racism, but people project racism onto the flag for their own agendas.
To broaden the issue further, how well does the American flag fly in regards to other nation’s esteem and respect? I can tell you once thing, flag manufacturers are making a killing off of the stars and stripes because of repeated immolations and protests. But because people think our flag represents imperialism, debauchery, and the great Satan, does that mean it’s true? I see very little difference with this and the Southern flag issue.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
barktwiggs, the main difference between the American flag and the Confederate flag is that America is a going concern. It is appropriate for a current government building to fly the American flag out of respect for jurisdiction. What is the rationale behind a government building flying a Confederate flag at present? And though you deny that the Confederate flag represents racism and slavery to sons of the south, you do not specify what it does represent for them. Do tell.
Since the Confederate States of American no longer exist, what is the purpose of flying that flag other than in a historical context? As a wish that the Confederate States of America did exist or would have won during the Civil War? As a symbol that the thinking behind the Confederacy still exists even if it does not rule? If so, this harkens to a past most believe was the least proud moment in our nation’s history and is by definition defiant.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Tommy (from way back in post #43). . .glad I could help. Actually there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the 1860 election in today’s political climate. The geographic/socioeconomic “divide and conquor” strategy is, unfortunately, nothing new in American politics. Neither, by the way, is negative campaigning, which was, back in those times, actually much worse than today’s relatively tame standards. McCain-Feingold aside, today’s campaign fairness as well as civil decorum and common decency were unknown concepts in those years. I’ve read some entertaining accounts of dubious campaign standards and practices which occurred back in the 1800′s. I just wish there were archives of a race41856.com blog from back then.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
That would be great. Most historical books I’ve read have illustrated the cut throat nature of political campaigns. Burr, for example. I’ve also read the book on Adams and one on Jefferson, that is quite an entertaining duo in political history. Of course, here in Tennessee or other favorite son is Andrew Jackson, and his campaigns were no picnics either.
April 14th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Republius
So you choose to ignore my posts and address a Gamecock you imagaine ion your mind.
Let me know when you want to have a conversation.
Mike
April 14th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Republius
Who is “my side”? I was not born in 1865.
I thank God the Union was preserved, had the portraits of Lincoln and King on my law office wall for a decade.
So what are you talking about?>
Do you READ what I write or just see gamecock and spew?
Listen
April 14th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Politicians have choices they can either cowardly duck a difficult question or answer it directly. In 1998 Rudy opposed the flag while Mayor in a place where that position was popular. Now Rudy has no opinion when he needs the votes of South Carolinians. The Confederate flag represents the rebellion of slave holders to preserve the institution of slavery. After they lost the flag came to represent terrorism against blacks.
While flying a terrorist symbol is the right of a state. A man of integrity ought to stand up and oppose placing symbols of terrorism.
For some reason I expect Gamecock wouldn’t want Rudy to keep his mouth shut if San Francisco raised the Soviet Flag and Russian emigrees protested for its removal. There is no moral justification for tax money spent to fly a flag of terrorism.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
#66
Museums are owned by the State
April 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
to #76
GC has not once advocated the shutting of mouths
April 14th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
The SC Black caucus and SC NAACP supported placing the Confederate Flag on the StateHouse grounds.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
The Confederate Flag is not a terrorist symbol.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Thank you Bartwiggs
April 14th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Gamecock you mind if I ask you a personal question?
If so I’m just wondering if you know any black voters in South Carolina?
Or have you ever spoken to any black person about this issue?
April 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Gamecock, seems like lots of folks here are trying to put words in your mouth. I think we should read peoples’ posts carefully before pigeon holing their message into whatever preconceived harangue we are in the mood to spout off on.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
The debate here on Race 4 2008 on LJ’s, Rudy Flips on the Confederate Flag? Blog between yours truly, Republius (for whom I have the greatest respect), econ grad and others, prompts this post by Mike Gamecock DeVine.Some misguided, ignorant, uninformed, and worse, i.e. politically correct free speech squelching white guilt laden liberal opinions about the issue of the display of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina and other Southern States have been expressed in LJ’s blog that must be confronted, from:
1. My “attitude” on the issue.
2. My position on the substance of the issue.
3. My history on the issue.
4. South Carolina’s history on the issue, especially that of the S.C. Congressional Black Caucus and S.C. NAACP when the flag was placed on the State House grounds
5. State ownership of museums
6. The slur that the Confederate flag as a “terrorist” symbol
7. The KKK’s use of the Cross of Jesus Christ
8. The technically racist pre se assumptions by some whites concerning the level of offense Blacks “feel” when they see the flag displayed on State House property vs. the private property of the KKK, born of ignorance
9. Latent anti-Southern bigotry born of ignorance
10. The refusal of some conservatives to use their brains instead of swallowing the liberal PC police line and the resulting desire to appeal to Blacks based on race and not based on conservative principles
11. What such attitudes portend for the candidates in the race 4 2008.
The South matters. White and black southerners matter. What matters to them matters. How candidates address what matters to the South, matters, in addressing their fitness for office.
In 2000, McCain showed that the moniker of his “Express” was a crock when he flip flopped and lied about his position on the issues, and showed that “straight talk” meant saying what the MSM wanted to hear. However, as with my position on Mitt Romney (whom I ever so slightly favor), I am more concerned with where a candidate has flopped now, i.e. stands now and promises to so stand if elected than with past stands and alleged flip flops.
Let me preface my remarks with a little personal and South Carolina history:
1. Back in my early teens in the 70s many of my Caucasian peers wore Confederate Flag (CF) t-shirts as a symbol of teen rebelliousness. I did not hang with racists. Yet, I still banned CF t-shirts from my car.
2. My parents integrated Little league and Cub Scouts. My best friend (who rode the bus home with me on the school bus so as to be able to get to baseball practice) and I endured being called, respectively “whitey” and “nigger lover” (I am white. He is Black.) I hired some of the first Black paralegals in my county.
3. The battle against racism defines my life more than any other issue.
4. I favored the removal of the CF from atop the State House dome in Columbia and its placement on the museum that is the State House grounds, as did the SC General assembly Black Caucus and SC NAACP when the legislation was passed and the removal and placement accomplished years ago.
5. The NATIONAL NAACP came out for a boycott of the state soon after the above action despite what Blacks in SC wanted, because the CF was more visible. The boycott continues to this day. Blacks in SC overwhelmingly oppose the boycott.6. Blacks in SC regularly vote for representatives that favor the display of the flag.
7. The “right” position for someone from outside the state is deference to the State for what flags it wants to fly where.
8. The imagined level of offense taken by Blacks at the viewing of confederate flags at public buildings by whites is really an insult to the intelligence of most Blacks. It is, in a word, racist per se. All humans should be as opposed to slavery, no matter their race, and are. Blacks know the difference between racists that fly it and seek to harm them and a symbol of history, a history that includes the flying of American flags over more slaves and territory than the confederacy ever had.Blacks have crosses in their homes. The Klan also appropriated the Cross.This is 2007, not 1857, 1867 or 1967.
We should not treat blacks as children.
9. pay special attention to how Blacks are treated in the Prager story.
This was my first MSM column.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that
America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priorityBy contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America and What We Can Do About It.”Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members. Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist. This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.Face down the PC crowdI don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites. King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law. Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
10. We should not appeal to Blacks like the democrats do, i.e. based on skin color and assumptions as to what they think based on that. It is an insult and it’s racist per se. We should appeal to Blacks EXACTLY as we appeal to Whites.
I was not always one to take up defense of the Confederacy against attacks. I have grown less ignorant over the years, and those that spew ignorant attacks on the CSA should join me.
The CSA was fighting for its Independence on the same principles as theUSA did in 1776. I am glad they lost and that the Union was preserved.
I suspect that most of the ignorant smears on the flag is due to the KKK’s appropriation of the flag and the Cross of Christ, I might add. We can’t let microscopically small organizations force rational minds to stop thinking.
Most Black minds are operational.
It is the Left that is afraid of history and seeks to hide it. We must not insult Blacks like this. We must not close our minds in fear of the white and black PC police.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
[...] debate here on Race 4 2008 on LJ’s, Â Rudy Flips on the Confederate Flag? Blog between yours truly, Republius (for whom I have the greatest respect), econ grad and others, [...]
April 14th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
[...] debate here on Race 4 2008 on LJ’s, Â Rudy Flips on the Confederate Flag? Blog between yours truly, Republius (for whom I have the greatest respect), econ grad and others, [...]