Charlie Rangel: Tea Party Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr---rs’ Who Fought Civil Rights

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You're right, I didn't read your OP well the first time -- in part because it wasn't very clear to me who you were referencing at points, so I did misinterpret some of your post, but then you also wrote:

"Well, that's odd? So...the Democrats have become the Tea Party? Err... That can't be right?"

in regard to the Senate vote on the bill. You seemed to be implying that Democrats have changed their stripes on this issue, when in fact the there was a sea change in the political parties at that time because of this bill and the Voting Rights Act.

Yes, the southern, pre-1964 Democrats were against this bill, and changed party after it. I would also imagine that the Republicans congressman who supported it were most all northerners as well. The Republican party has changed since then too. There used to be moderate and even some liberal Republicans, but these are mostly a thing of the past. The Republican congressional caucus of 1964 also looks nothing like it does now, nearly 50 years later.

As to Rangel's remarks, I take them to primarily mean the rank 'n file Tea Party supporters, not so much the congressional politicians. It seems obvious that the actual politicians are the hand puppets of the Koch brothers and other super-rich GOP funders, but that they are catering to the baser political interests of their grass-roots supporters. The fact that curtailing the voting rights of minorities and the poor is both a goal of the GOP and its voters is partly serendipitous although it also would seem to just follow from political realities.

But back to the Tea Party rank and file: What was the deal with their campaign signs with Obama shown caricatured as a monkey, and all the talk about him being a Muslim and questions about his birth certificate? And then there have been the various and sundry cases of Rep. state representatives and other officials who have gotten caught sending racially offensive cartoons of Obama via e-mail, etc. The Republicans used to bad mouth Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry plenty, but it was never over issues like this. There's something special in the vitriol that Republicans/Tea Partiers seem to have for Obama, and this would seem to be what Rangel is addressing.

So, I stand sort of chastised for my initial response to your OP. And I happily acknowledge that the Republican party of 1964 was also was important in getting the Civil Rights Act passed. But since the party demographics and regional power bases has changed, this is no longer the case. What are today's red states? Those in the South and the portions of the middle of the country (the latter in mostly low-populated states).

On a tangential but related issue, a big problem with the current state of politics is the extreme gerrymandering that has gone on in the past decade. In no way am I defending past Democratic gerrymandering either, but the current state of affairs is beyond the pale. In Pennsylvania, which voted for Obama in both elections, I think of 22 congressional districts, eight are Democrat, and this is due to gerrymandering. Similar cases abound across the country.

Gerrymandering by either political party is bad because it causes more extreme congressional candidates to make it to the general election, thereby polarizing the House that much more. Congressional redistricting needs to be taken out of the hands of both parties and districts need to be based on reasonable bases, i.e. more coherent geographic areas rather than by long, narrow, circuitous areas which are meant to make districts safe for one party or the other. Obviously in extreme urban and rural areas the party affiliations will still be skewed, but hopefully in most districts it will be more evenly distributed, which will make it easier for the best candidate to win the election

With skewed districts, an extreme candidate is likely to win the primary, and then the dominant party in that district will also likely win the general election. With more evenly distributed districts, the less extreme candidate is likely to beat the opponent because of cross-over votes.

From what you have written before, I would think you might agree with this, Wrabbit, It would certainly help to end the current level of political extremism in the country.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

You're right, I didn't read your OP well the first time -- in part because it wasn't very clear to me who you were referencing at points, so I did misinterpret some of your post, but then you also wrote:

Thanks for reading the op before the second reply. It always helps to at least know what a reply should be disagreeing with, indeed.

in regard to the Senate vote on the bill. You seemed to be implying that Democrats have changed their stripes on this issue, when in fact the there was a sea change in the political parties at that time because of this bill and the Voting Rights Act.

You're trying to read depth into a 2 dimensional picture. Why you're trying so hard to see what was never there is what baffles me...kinda (I think I know why..but it's not conducive to being tactful here to go on). My point was.... Racism and bigotry are not a partisan issue. It's not Democratic. It's not Republican and it's damn sure not tea Party. It's a human condition and racist garbage exists TO THIS DAY in both parties and, yes, in the Tea Party Movement too. None of those are defined by it or tolerate it when it's seen. All 3 have bigots within them though. No doubt there.

Yes, the southern, pre-1964 Democrats were against this bill, and changed party after it.

You keep saying the Democrats who voted against it all changed party. Well... Your claim. You back it. Please show where, by name, this actually happened. Otherwise, we're talking wild speculation with absolutely no solid facts to back a word of it. Perhaps that's precisely what happened...and perhaps it isn't. I'm afraid your credibility isn't up to that claim by itself. Nor is mine, for that matter. That's why we source and support claims of that type, as a normal thing.

As to Rangel's remarks, I take them to primarily mean the rank 'n file Tea Party supporters, not so much the congressional politicians. It seems obvious that the actual politicians are the hand puppets of the Koch brothers and other super-rich GOP funders, but that they are catering to the baser political interests of their grass-roots supporters.

Yeah.. and every liberal is just a water boy for George Soros and carrying his agenda to the masses like a tool in the drawer. See how really ignorant that sounds? The Koch Brothers are very political. Yes. They aren't the nicest and most pure of motive for people in this nation, agreed. Again, BOTH SIDES have their rich eccentrics who think toying with our political system is their personal sport.

But since the party demographics and regional power bases has changed, this is no longer the case. What are today's red states?

I don't know, what are today's red states? Given that I live in one and have lived in a few others over the course of my life, why don't you educate us poor simple folk in the flyover states, just what the nature of our states are? I must be missing enormous things about the place I live and people I live around ...because I don't see any point you're making here...not even a little bit. Is it that racism is a Red state thing? Err... Yeah... You DO realize the majority of the US Black population by demographic and federal maps is concentrated in what was once called the 'Deep South', right?

On a tangential but related issue, a big problem with the current state of politics is the extreme gerrymandering that has gone on in the past decade. In no way am I defending past Democratic gerrymandering either, but the current state of affairs is beyond the pale.

Oh for God's sake, give the Gerrymandering B.S. a break, eh? * B O T H * sides gerrymander the crap out of the big cities in our nation from Los Angeles to Dallas. Whichever side has the power, draws the lines as close to their dream list as they can get away with, without court intervention. It's wrong, it's counter to our system and freedom and they are both masters at it.

United States House Districts

That is a VERY large image..but it shows every single district in the nation. The Gerrymandering is in red and blue state alike. Almost exclusively in big cities...and done by *BOTH* parties.

Your determined effort to make everything a divisive right/left issue is kinda like Rangel here. It serves little purpose but to stir the discontent, feed the anger many feel and keep the fighting going ....almost like an agenda at times?

Deny Ignorance...Deny the Red/Blue split TPTB are so invested in making sure normal folks come to hate each other over and which makes almost every worthwhile effort in this nation doomed to die before it's started.

With all this crazy anti-white anti-libertarianism there is either going to be mass acceptance or a major revolt by the group being suppressed by today's leadership. Looking at whites in history, Hobbes nightmare isn't far away.

Well errrr I was just 7 yrs at the time he is referring to with that bill....and oh yah one of my best friends at that time was a black girl. That any person in Congress would consider it appropriate to call people that name shows what he is made of and what his thinking is.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

I take them to primarily mean the rank 'n file Tea Party supporters

Who are the rank and file Tea Party? I'm Tea Party since 08 and if you see my post you would know that I was too young during the said time period Rangel seems to be discussing. I was too young to even know what racism meant, at least in my family anyways. But of course, my own father hired a lot of black guys and thought that giving them jobs was the best thing for their self-esteem. He also worked to get blacks and women into the Veiled Prophet organization(which today puts on the famous St Louis Riverfront July 4th celebrations).
As for all that party-changing nonsense, it is just bs rhetoric put out by the Democrat Party to keep blacks as a voting bloc for them, since they cannot erase their nasty legacy they try to push it off on the Republican Party with that bs line.
Also, the Communist Party used the Democrats to influence people. Frank Marshall Davis was a card carrying Communist and was a best uncle of a particular President of Democrat affiliation. Communists recruited black people for their cause, as well as women, because of their downtrodden status, and therefore these people have become the main voting block for Democrats, which party is now defacto Socialist in this country. And don't forget who the CPUSA supported in recent elections.
The ends justify the means to these types of people and so they go around accusing groups of people of being racist (fill in the blank) when they in fact don't know anything about the group of people they are referring to.
What a tool that guy is....

Just for fun, here's a reference to the VP parade and fair
www.stltoday.com...
I would mention that my father left the organization, and told me that while the group represented high society and successful businessmen at the time, he felt that they were mostly silly and they even blackballed him for his efforts.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


shameful...absolutely shameful....

and as a point of social comentary...this also shows you how absolutely f**ked it is in this country nowadays.....

Paula Dean, an (in my opinion) inconsequential celebrity, says Ni**er 30 years ago, and people find out now, and she loses everything.....

Charlie Rangel, a senior member of congress, an (whether we like it or not) important politician, refers to the tea party (of whom, i'm sure, a great many of his constituents belong) as Crackers.....and nothing happens....

nobody's calling for his head, nobody has started a campaign to get him booted out of congress.....so it's ok when brown people use ethnic slurs, but it's NEVER ok when white people use them......double-standard, anyone?

and even look at this board.....'n-word' is censored, cracker is not. (please note that 'n-word' is the standard filter replacement for...well...you know what..)

Question: Why do you have a such a racist in office??? Probably hates his own white ancestors too.

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

George Romney would be booed off the stage at any Republican event today. Today, George Romney would be a Democrat.

That is the entire point everyone is trying to show you.

Shrug. And JFK with his belief lower taxes and his strong military stance would be booed off any stage at a democrat event today and could now be considered a "moderate republican."

Heck, he even liked guns.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

George Romney would be booed off the stage at any Republican event today. Today, George Romney would be a Democrat.

That is the entire point everyone is trying to show you.

Shrug. And JFK with his belief lower taxes and his strong military stance would be booed off any stage at a democrat event today and could now be considered a "moderate republican."

Heck, he even liked guns.

have some class would you,,
someone show her a real gun,,
ie PT-109 style.

yea JFK.

reply to post by Daedalus


You hit on exactly what burns my buns the most about this story and it's details. It's not that a racial slur was used somewhere. Although, it's also notable that this has come to be seen as a proper racial slur too, at the point of having to self censor its use in the same way we already do for other slurs that are simply better known.

It's that quite a bit less in things said or done with past politicians have brought about immediate and very loud calls for their downfall, usually resulting in it too. The # 3 in the House of Reps for seniority goes around dropping racial slurs casually to the press like it's second nature for him to talk and think that way (obviously, it is for him, which is another matter entirely to look at) and it's not even noticed or commented about in any meaningful way.

I want to see equality, but that means a disregard and total lack of importance put to race ...not highlighting it in entirely new and different ways to call it progress. He represents the worst of the other side of a bygone era, being an active Congressman since '71. (He took office a couple years before I was born for goodness sake)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i'll do you one better.....and this is a paradigm killer...

we're all the same race...it's called humanity.....

unless the aliens landed while i was asleep, and nobody told me.....then there is only one sapient species on this planet..

as long as the system continues to have the ability to convince people that they are a completely different race, separate from humanity, simply because their skin color is a little different, or because they have somewhat different facial features, or hair.....as long as they can dupe people into believing this crap, nothing will change...