George Bush is our Bull Connor
 

Rangel's 'Revolution'
"Comparing President Bush to the Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner whose resistance to the civil rights movement became synonymous with Southern racism, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday of the president: 'George Bush is our Bull Connor,'_" the New York Sun reports from Washington:

Mr. Rangel's metaphoric linkage of Mr. Bush to the late Theophilus "Bull" Connor--who in 1963 turned fire hoses and attack dogs on blacks, including Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrating in favor of equal rights--met with wild applause and cheering at a Congressional Black Caucus town hall meeting, part of the organization's 35th Annual Legislative Conference._._._.

Mr. Rangel, a Democrat who has represented Harlem for almost 35 years, spent his portion of yesterday's forum reminiscing about the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, and calling on his audience to undertake similar action today, inciting them to "revolution" after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and particularly its impact on indigent blacks in the Gulf Coast region.

The storm, he said, showed that "if you're black in this country, and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience--it's a death sentence." Denouncing Mr. Bush for waging "a war that we cannot win under any stretch of our imagination" instead of providing for those devastated by the hurricane, Mr. Rangel left his audience with a parting thought.

"If there's one thing that George Bush has done that we should never forget, it's that for us and for our children, he has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all," the congressman said.

At one level this is simply ludicrous, but at another it is troubling. Rangel is out of touch with reality--perhaps dangerously so--if he thinks calling for a racial "revolution" is anything other than a political dead end.

The civil rights movement succeeded--with great difficulty at that--because it appealed to the consciences of white Americans. This was a matter of practical necessity: In a democracy, you cannot bring about change without appealing to the majority. But it was also a matter of the uncomplicated rightness of the desegregationist cause. Winning equal rights for black Americans required overcoming a lot of history, prejudice and fear, but it didn't require overcoming any compelling arguments on the other side, for there were none.

By contrast, issues of race and poverty in America today are far more complicated, involving questions of personal responsibility, governmental ineffectiveness and corruption, and the racial attitudes of blacks as well as--indeed, we'd argue, considerably more than--those of whites.

Rangel's simple-minded approach is utterly inadequate to the task. He suggests President Bush is a racist, notwithstanding Bush's having made poverty a priority. He describes blacks as a passive, downtrodden population, then urges them to "revolution"--but who does he think would support such a revolution?

Oh, Democratic politicians will egg this sort of thing on, hoping to drive up black turnout in the next election, and white liberals will cheer, then pat themselves on the back for caring so much about black people. In other words, Rangel is urging on black America the same approach to politics that has prevailed throughout the post-civil-rights era. If after 40 years blacks remain disproportionately poor and alienated from American society, surely it is time to ask if this approach has been a failure.

- Opinion Journal

Oh, i'm sorry, I thought the title said Bull Shitter

That's why democrats can't be taken seriously. They eat this type of thing up, while everyone else laughs at them.

It's hard to take particular people seriously when they make such a huge generalization.

Sometimes it is Good To Be A Republican!:)

Of course, being a Rep. In a Rep. State and in the only Dem. County is tuff!:(

But, I still think, no matter what party You are, When Our Dully Elected Moroons get In Place, they worry about one thing, Them Selves!:mad:

When a Party Steps all over themselves and have No Damn Agenda, what do people expect?

Most Democrats are absolute idiots.

The funny thing is that up until Reagan, the evangelical Christian movement has been a Democrat party component. This same group has been responsible for a large (if not the largest portion) of social reforms in our country.

Even now this group is pushing Bush on things most Republicans have not supported - everything from larger government aide to environmental regulations to foreign policy sentiments (anger with the Iraq war).

-Rudey

If you add "leaders" it's even truer: Most Democratic leaders are absolute idiots.

Most of their major suporters (teachers' union, minorities, other unions) and the leaders of them are also idiots.

There is nothing the teachers' union favor, except more pay for teachers and fewer pupils per teacher. There's never been any form of evaluation or testing that they think is worthy.

Julian Bonds' NAACP calls Bush an "idiot" and then wonders why he won't come to speak to them. They have seen 40 years of "Great Society" programs and urban renewals, and trillions of dollars spent to help the poor and minorities, and still there is little change. These idiots and the Democrats think the answer is to spend more on programs proven not to work.

Why? I am honestly curious as to why you believe this.

Whig party is the only way to go.

I venture that perhaps it is possible that many of the programs you speak about "failed" due to underfunding.

Why do you not consider this? Or, if you consider it, why do you reject it?

You are right about this! I live in Texas, but I also happen to live in one of the only THREE counties in the entire state that Bush didn't win last fall. It is interesting indeed to live in a city where you are in the voting minority. Oh well, at least I know I did my part. :)

1) I think most voters, regardless, of party are idiots. There is no right and wrong, good and evil; it's politics and that's that.

2) Democrats are failing largely as a results of:
a) a lousy ability to play the game. Carville is one of the few that knows and he's just not as good anymore. Funny how this machine got Clinton into office and was busy getting Yeltsin elected in Russia, but somehow lost that fizzle.

b) a lousy ability to put out effective ideas. In fact, quite a few of the ideas that you would think would have been put out by the Dems were proposed by the Republicans. The voters that get point a don't know about point b; they are idiots. The things that are going on in the Republican party are not traditional party actions by any means. So for someone like Rangel to say that, he's either stupid, ignorant, or a liar. Given that the party is no longer beholden to a Presidential election, watch how the party moves away from certain social programs and religious ideals.

-Rudey
--And also since I am obviously the smartest person ever to grace this world, I can make statements like that and it's perfectly OK.

I would not go so far as to call people idiots (even if it may be true for some). But, I do think you are right in this point. I don't like that people see it is such a black and white/ good and evil/ republican and democratic situation.

I hate the division it causes. Besides, I don't think there is anyone out there who agrees with EVERYTHING that their candidate stands for. I know I don't.

Rudey, what do you recommend to change the way politics are run in this country? :D

My next question is, what is your operational definition of an idiot? Why is one who "get[s] point a [and] don't know about point b" and idiot? Why isn't he or she just ignorant?

Maybe I am taking the statement too seriously, as your addendum after your name, I think is meant to be taken tongue in cheek, but I am really trying to understand where you are coming from.

I am a Democrat and I am not offended by what you said (but that has more to do with my personal line of thinking) but I am truly interested in the ways people who don't think like me reach their conclusions. I am not trying to argue, just better understand. I am a "Democrat" but there are some "Republican" platform issues I agree with (school choice for one) and I understand that sometimes others are right and I am wrong. I seek all knowledge to get me to that end.

Thanks!

Why does this, to you, make Democratic voters idiots? Why does it even make Democratic leaders idiots instead of just lacking or losing right now?