http://www.nysun.com/article/20580

We all know Charles Rangel is at least a taco short of a combination plate, so when he makes ridiculous comments of saying W. is worse than Bull Connor, we all pretty much simply ignore him. But listen to what other demos are saying:

"A Democrat who represents Brooklyn on New York's City Council, Charles Barron, concurred with that sentiment. "I think that's an insult to Connor," he said of Mr. Rangel's statement. "George Bush is worse, because he has more power and he's more destructive to our people than Bull Connor will ever be."

For example, Mr. Barron said, "A KKK without power is not as bad as a George Bush with power."

"To be a racist in the richest, most powerful country in the world is lethal," Mr. Barron added. "Look what he's doing to communities of color all over the world," the council member said of Mr. Bush. "He's a lethal racist."

"What he did in New Orleans - I mean, that's worse than what Bull Connor did in his entire career as a racist in the South," Mr. Barron said. "Look at these neighborhoods before Katrina hit. Bush made that community what it is. Katrina did the rest, in partnership with Bush, to deliver the final blow.""

Quote: "Bush made that community what it is." Poverty never existed in New Orleans until W. became President! New Orleans was a thriving community until Bush forced them all into poverty! And Katrina was in partnership with Bush! Bush partners with hurricanes!

Where do you demos find these kooks?

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Ridiculous comments like these hurt them, middle America turns its nose at such idiocy. Yet they continue to say them and dems continue to support them or stay silent on the issue. It is things like this that keep them out of power.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Are demos really idiots, or do they just play idiots on TV? And if you're really a big idiot, you get to be in charge of the demo party! It's as if they constantly try to out idiot one another!

"Granddaddy, what's a democrat?"

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Bill O'Reilly made mincemeat out of Charlie Rangel the other night concerning that statement. O'Reilly presented Rangel with some facts and Rangel seemed speechless. Like.....the percentage in poverty after Bush's 4 years is lower than after Clinton's first 4 years. And like the amount of money Bush has spent on poverty dwarfs what was spent in the Clinton administration.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Rangel was an idiot for making that statement.

But then Barn goes into overkill mode. The Congressional Black Caucus, New York Dems in general and a Brooklyn *City Council member* in particular represent all Democrats? Huh?

The Caucus really needs to think about how hard it slings the "racist" label. They're starting to get a "cry wolf" reaction.

__________________
Man up.

"But then Barn goes into overkill mode. The Congressional Black Caucus, New York Dems in general and a Brooklyn *City Council member* in particular represent all Democrats? Huh?"

I'm simply the messenger. You are free to report any comments from demo's renouncing Rangle's statements. We'll wait...

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

http://www.nysun.com/article/20654

WASHINGTON - The Democratic National Committee yesterday refused to distance itself from Rep. Charles Rangel's comparison of President Bush to an infamous Southern segregationist, Theophilus "Bull" Connor, remarks the Republican National Committee identified as "hate speech" and urged the DNC to repudiate.

Still waiting on a quote from a demo denouncing Rangle's comments....Operators are standing by.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Name one democratic leader that has denounced such a horrible accusation.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Raytri took the words out of mmy keyboard Right on both counts.. herr Raytri Since when does a 'City Council member of any party represent the policies or values of the national party ?
Does David Duke speak for all Republicans in the US. Does Duke even speak for all Republicans in Lousyanna ? Or for that matter in his Bayou?

I also am getting very tired of the Black CAUCUS braying "racism " at every turn. They are losing sympathy by overusing the racial card.

__________________
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land" - Guess Who? You go it !

This is what is frustrating, finding the party leaders to denounce this insanity. I hope David Duke experiences the law of reciprocity for the hate he spewed, he truly is a piece of excrement, but then, so is Rangle the racist.

9/21/00 4:45 p.m.
“Race-Baiting” in Kansas City
A smear campaign works.

By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR senior editor


Two days ago, I wrote a somewhat heated defense of an ad running in Kansas City which was being labeled racist. As I noted, the man behind the ad, Richard Nadler, is an old friend of mine. Since then, the story has gotten a lot more coverage: Good Morning America and the CBS Evening News have both done segments on it. A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee has called Richard Nadler's ad "Willie Hortonesque" (does that mean she's accusing Nadler of being like Al Gore?). The DNC's chairman, Joe Andrew, has sent his Republican counterpart, Jim Nicholson, a letter demanding that he "repudiate [the] racist, fear-mongering ad," which he described as "repugnant to all Americans" (except, presumably, the racists).

A Bush campaign spokesman has said the ad "should be pulled" because it sent "an inappropriate message" and "is just wrong-headed." Nicholson has released a statement saying that the ad "seems to me to be racist or race-baiting in intent" and saying that he condemns it "forcefully and without equivocation," just as he has denounced David Duke. Jim Talent, who's in a tight race for Governor of Missouri, took to the floor of the House to say that although he had not seen the ad, he had read a quote from it that "comes perilously close to bigotry"; Talent's press release noted the ad's "demeaning message and undertones." And a member of the Kansas City school board suggested that similar sentiments led to the Holocaust.

Well.

I understand that Nadler's critics will consider it irrelevant that he has written extensively on how to improve educational achievement among minority students; that he has worked hard to build multiracial coalitions, going so far as to endorse the most prominent black radical in Kansas City for the school board a few years ago; that he is even now attending a conference on how to help the poor accumulate assets; etc. So, like the critics, I will just examine the ad.

The charge against the ad takes two forms. The first is that its subtext — the real message of the ad — is that whites should like school choice because it would let them flee public schools, and that they should flee public schools because they have too many minorities. If so, the message was so subtextual that nobody who watched it got it: The ad ran in Kansas City with no complaints until the national media started making the accusation of racism, at which point local politicians started to denounce it. Also, the ad starts with its narrator saying that her daughter had done fine in the same public school; it was only when her son started "hanging with the wrong crowd" — which is explicitly depicted as white — that she took him out of the school. Different kids have different needs, in other words, and school choice can help those different needs be met. (I might even say that kids have "diverse" needs, but we'll get to that in a bit.)

The ad could just as well have been about a black family in the same situation, and obviously, in retrospect, should have been. The ad is part of a series of ads in which various people — a union member, a black man about to vote Republican for the first time in his life, a married couple reviewing their investments — explain how pro-investment policies have made it easier for them to meet their goals. That fact ought to have some bearing on the question of Nadler's "intent" or "subtext."

None of the foregoing, however, clears him of the second charge: that the ad's reference to "diversity" is racist in itself. The relevant lines from the ad: "But when Jason started hanging with the wrong crowd, we had to act fast. We didn't want him where drugs and violence were fashionable. That was a bit more diversity than he could handle. So we sent him to a private school run by our church. There, he gets more attention, and the moral expectations are higher." Most of the coverage has noted that the narrator puts stress on the word diversity (although not as much as on the word "him" in the next sentence).

The diversity to which the ad refers is moral, not racial: Discipline has eroded in the school to the point where unhealthy subcultures are flourishing and some kids are drawn into them. (Again: The only kids causing any trouble in the ad are white.) It is true that liberals over the last decade have used the word "diversity" exclusively to refer to race and, to a lesser extent, to gender, sexual orientation, and religion. It is also true that Nadler's use of the word is meant to mock this liberal tic. This was, to note the painfully obvious, a bad decision on his part. But not a racist one.

As I mentioned, there was no adverse reaction to the ad in Kansas City, from anyone of any race, party, or ideology, until the national media piled on it. Now, of course, local politicians have condemned it, as have the area's middle-of-the-road talk-show hosts. (Talk-show callers, however, have been strongly for the ad in Kansas City and, Nadler tells me, even in New York.) The Kansas City Star ran a pretty balanced story on the controversy.

About the Republicans who have denounced him, Nadler says, "That's probably what they should be doing. This isn't their problem. They don't need this media barrage." (He adds, "I would just caution them, though, that making a practice of letting the Washington Post vet their ad scripts is not a good idea.") This seems to me a display of an almost superhuman forbearance. I must confess that I cannot match it.

Republicans such as Nicholson complain about a double standard: The media didn't hold the Democrats to account for running ads in Missouri strongly implying that Republicans were for burning black churches. When Republicans allow themselves to be so easily intimidated by the flimsiest accusation of racism, however, they acquiesce in that standard. Of course the Democrats get away with race-baiting all the time. They're getting away with it right now in Missouri.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.