Civil rights leaders and liberal activists protest a president who has:

• Dismantled the civil rights division in the Justice Department.

• Fought against affirmitive action.

• Hasn't provided enough funding to remedy problems in voting from the 2000 election in Florida.

• Visited Bob Jones while running for president and having his surrogates pass out flyers quetioning whether John McCain had an interracial relationship because he has a dark daughter who is from Bangledesh.

Excuse them for not believing that the visit isn't just symbolisim and wanting a bit of substance. But I wouldn't call them jerks. We've won the political war on racism, but there's still problems that need to be dealt with.

John Dunn,

"Civil rights leaders and liberal activists protest a president who has:

• Dismantled the civil rights division in the Justice Department.
• Fought against affirmitive action.
• Hasn't provided enough funding to remedy problems in voting from the 2000 election in Florida."

If these "leaders" enjoyed more general credibility, you could afford to settle for such vague charges. As they unfortunately do not, persuasion requires more specific ones with more comprehensive support.

If Bush is as obviously bad as you and the protestors claim, this shouldn't be too hard. The level of diligence displayed in substantiating the charges against Bush is incongruent with the supposed level of passionate distaste for him.

Imagine the howls of protest if Bush had not paid respects to MLK. The same people would be screaming about the naked racism of such a blatant omission. Actually their case would be stronger in such scenario. I would even wonder.

But they've got a right to protest. And they also have a point. Bush is clearly a racist - he's a conservative (if A=B), and just like Hitler to boot.

WTF?

* Dismantled the civil rights division in the Justice Department.

How so? I don't regard declining to run it to Kwesi Mfume's satisfaction as dismantling it, nor do I regard requiring it to enforce the laws as written to be dismantling it.

* Fought against affirmitive action.

Except for filing SUpreme COurt briefs in the Michigan case defending, you know, affirmative action.

* Hasn't provided enough funding to remedy problems in voting from the 2000 election in Florida.

There is never "enough" funding. Anyway, isn't this a Florida problem, not a DC problem? And weren't most of the voting problems (butterfly ballots and whatnot) in predominantly white districts. I thought the stories of blacks being kept from voting were all discredited - they couldn't even find anyone who hadn't actually voted to be a complainant.

That tinfoil must be getting a little tight, John.

In MLK's day, the white Democrats from the South were the problem. Of course this is no argument against the current Democratic party. Accusations of racism in politics are pretty cheap and usually (although tragically not always) completely baseless. Especially against the party that gave us the first black president. I'm sure Howard Dean is an open-minded man of all people and in no way prejudiced against any person of any creed. Picking on him for never appointing an African-American to a cabinet post in his long stint as governor and comparing that to Bush's record is totally unfare and fallacious reasoning. It proves nothing.

Michael: I'm with you, they've behaved like jerks.

There is nothing Bush can do right for some folks. Called insensitive if he doesn't make a gesture and a panderer if he does.

And what does it say about the protesters who show up to make a big splash - to ensure their voice is loudly heard on the news - at an event that is intended to honor one of their heros?

For goodness sake, Dr. King's family, including his wife, had the decency to take the President's action at face value, why couldn't these protesters?

No, Mike, you don't understand:

BUSH=HITLER

There, does that make everyone feel better? I would have said that Bush is congruent to Hitler, but I don't have a congruence sign on my keyboard.

I'm just trying to satisfy the Janeane Garafolo crowd that insists that Bush is two steps away from a good cross-burning. BTW, I live here in Florida. There was no systematic denial of black voting rights in Florida in 2000. That is a lie. Period. Not even poor Mary Frances Berry could gin up enough idiotarian bullpap to convince anyone other than the Deaniac shahid that Bush "stole" Florida from an innocent Black electorate.

groan

"The left won this argument. Martin Luther King Jr. won this argument."

Dr. King would be considered right-wing today. He wanted to judge people on the content of their character, ignoring that some people should get special treatment based on skin color. In many ways that is just like racist Bush! Get with the program!

section9, I was living in West Palm Beach during the 2000 election. There were plenty of folks who couldn't get to the polls due to roadblocks, detours, etc, that somehow weren't there the day before or the day after. That election was f***ed. I was there.

And while I don't think Bush is a big racist, I do think he'll take any opportunity he can get for a good publicity shot. If he was there because he genuinely wanted to pay his respects to MLK and all that he accomplished, then that's cool. But he spent most of the 15 minutes he was there looking at the camera and waving, which makes me suspect his motives.

And for pete's sake, would you people stop with the Bush=Hitler crap? Nobody's saying that but a few wackos on the fringes. Give the rest of us with brains a little more credit, please.

Oh yes, the Left has won. We live in an age of tolerance, where no one would ever send an Asian-American anything that called her a:

oriental cunt
slanted eye whore
slant eyed head
fat gook
melon head flat face
zipperhead

No, of course not. Those people certainly would have to be fringe extremists, not people who worked for major financial institutions. Absolutly not. No such thing could possibly exist.

Martin Luther King had a dream that people would not be judged by the color of their skin. These mainstream reactions to Margaret Cho put the lie to the fact that our work is done.

So Michael there are two issues here:

Are you upset that hundreds of people believe there is more the administration could be doing to support civil rights?

Are you upset that hundreds of people felt it necessary to push past the first amendment zones in order to be noticed by the press and by the president?

Would you clarify this for me please?

Thanks,

I agree the Left lost. Bush and his neocon cronies has reinstated the age of segration, people of color are not give special treatment even though they have been oppressed for 500 yars. Look how he parades around Powell and Rice, like he is showing off his slaves. He IS Hilter, the Rightwing are racists and they have no place anywhere near the grave of Dr. King. I fucking hate Bush for his irrational and hateful beliefs!

BTW Micheal, glad to see you are parading for your Pimp, Mr. Chimp. How much does he pay you to stump for him? No critiques of his racist polices, yet you slam those for using their First Ammendment rights to protest a racist commander-in-thief.

"Bush and his neocon cronies has reinstated the age of segration, people of color are not give special treatment even though they have been oppressed for 500 yars"

Black entertainment t.v. (BET) (are whites allowed to watch?)

Ebony magazine

Black Miss america pageant. (any whites allowed in the contest?)

Yes, segregation is back, thats for sure.

Hipocrite,

Are you KIDDING?! Do you really believe that some sick, stupid rantings to the Margaret Cho website are 'mainstream'? You are being, at best, disengenuous, and at worst?... Oy. Try harder with your arguments and choices of topics, ok?

Let me spell it out for you since you are just about blind in your hatred of the president: He-was-just-paying-his-respects. 'Nuff said.

Hey Julie,

Yer right that election was fucked. You know why all that hanging chad was on those ballots? It comes from trying to stuff too many of them into the holder and punching them all at the same time.

Don't complain if you can't even cheat competently.

Some interesting posts above, especially Lefty. I guess Friday is Pathologies on Parade Day.

What an intelligent and thoughtful response, eric.

Hipocrite,

Of course the left has won. Leftist ideology is about preferrential treatment for certain groups of people. Your mistake was equating Asians with blacks. Asians are not protected against hate speech just as they are not protected against discrimination in college admissions.

"would you people stop with the Bush=Hitler crap? Nobody's saying that but a few wackos on the fringes."

Yeah Julie, that's why Cho's "Bush wasn't as effective a leader as Hitler" statement was so well received by the "brilliant" MoreOn.org crowd. Really sensitive folks, eh?

I did say "people with brains", didn't I, d-rod? :P

Calling someone "racist" is very damaging to them. At least, it was until it became the norm. This is why Jews are so uncomfortable with fascism / Hitler analogies. It cheapens evil, makes us forget just how bad things were. It's sad because racism is still around-- but why fight real racism when the civil rights movement can be turned into an extension of the Democratic Party bureaucracy instead?

Those MLK protesters would have been outraged if Bush hadn't shown up... either way, they wanted a chance to attack him. Why? Pure politics. I hope that the Christians are taking notes, because this is what happens when a group becomes too tied to one ideological camp.

The reality is that the Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery. Many of the original post-Civil War black political leaders were Republicans. The Civil Rights Act received overwhelming support from the Republicans (a couple, like Barry Goldwater, felt that all laws should be race-blind). If you're a fan of affirmative action, you have Richard Nixon to thank.

Republican opposition to affirmative action (actually, mainly just the hiring quotas part) is based on a principled commitment to a race-blind society. If you think it's bad policy, fine, that's ok-- but it's not racism, no matter how stridently you choose to call it that.

Y'know, while I think that Bush laying the wreath was probably more of a cycnical attempt to work the vote demographics than it was a sincere symbol of respect (and that's what the booing may have been about), I think the heckling while he did this was cheap and pointless. Doesn't matter why he's doing, there should have been silence.

Then again, he's so insulated from protest that there probably aren't a lot of opportunities...

I did say "people with brains", didn't I, d-rod?

Bingo! MoreOn.org just seems to be a pretty influencial part of the mainstream left at the moment.

Stu,

Maybe the protesters were just trying to save their own livelihood. I mean Bush has learned the Clintonian art of stealing your opponent's issues. I mean what if Bush steals the race issue? What would all these black "Civil Rights" leaders do then? No one likes to stand in the unemployment line. They are doing what every good union guy would do, they are just protecting their turf.

Anne,

Here is the clarification you asked for:

It would not be an improvement if only Democrats paid respects to Martin Luther King Jr. I don't wnat to live in a country where that's how it is, and I'm glad I don't.

d-rod, I actually like MoveOn.org. I think they motivate a lot of people who tune out regular politics, get them involved, and that's a good thing for everyone. I also don't think that the Bush/Hitler comments are representative of the majority of MoveOn members--that's why those 2 ads got such poor ratings from all the member votes. Please don't generalize the whole group as bad because of a few loud kooks.

Michael, I don't think anyone wants only half the country to respect MLK. I think the protestors saw Bush's last-minute visit, followed by yet another fundraiser, as a photo op and a weak ploy to get the minority vote, not as a sincere wish to pay respects to King. I really, really hope it was sincere, but it's hard for me to trust him.

Julie,

Every president does photo-ops. This is just an excuse (and my point is that it is a very bad excuse) for punks to have their own photo-op.

" I think they motivate a lot of people who tune out regular politics, get them involved, and that's a good thing for everyone."

I agree. What this country needs is another group of dogmatic, small-minded people that dismiss civilized discussion of the issues and instead march lockstep with an agenda of destroying a hated enemy.

More shouting down! More mass demonstrations! Let a group write our slogans so we can chant them in unison! We want more of these! And Move-On.org gives us what we need.

The slide show on Yahoo shows only anti-war protesters (probably the pachouli crowd from Little Five Points). They thought it appropriate to have an anti-war protest at an unrelated memorial ceremony attended by the widow.

On the contrary Julie, Bush = Hitler is quite mainstream amongst leftists. If there ever was a rally cry to pump up the MoveOn base, that would be it. However, the majority of the MoveOn types are at least smart enough to know the commercial would not be effective for mainstream America.

I'll just say the obvious here.

As a 36-year-old, I don't take any protests seriously anymore.

Street yammering may have been seen as the Vox Populi back in the 1960s, but in 2004 they're just the provence of nostalgia-hungry, exhibitionist, street-money-paid, protect-my-activist-turf, maybe-I-can-get-laid-by-the-cute-girls-in-tie-died-shirts goofballs.

I suspect the hot air expelled in Atlanta yesterday just padded Bush's already substantial lead over his Democratic rivals.

I'm subscribed to the MoveOn emails and such, and they have NEVER compared Bush to Hitler or encouraged such actions.

There sure seem to be plenty of small-minded, namecalling people who aren't capable of civilized discussion on the issues on this blog. Sorry I wasted my time with it.

(and thanks for being polite, JJ.)

I suspect the hot air expelled in Atlanta yesterday just padded Bush's already substantial lead over his Democratic rivals.

I'm sure that's true. They have no idea how obnoxious they look to people in the middle.

Are you calling me small-minded? MoveOn is a fraud, Julie. On MSNBC Wed Night, 'Scarborough Country' invited a representative from their organization to be on the show and they bailed. This is response from the outfit that whines about the “right-wing media” giving Bush a free ride? They have an opportunity to defend themselves in front of a big audience and they walk. I’m sure if Bush wins in a landslide we’ll hear from them all about how the media manufactured consent through repressive McCarthyite tactics by the Bush police state. People who want to “get involved” could do a lot better than this pitiful bunch.

Evidently-

1) It simply goes without saying that if you are white and Republican, you cannot genuinely admire someone like Martin Luther King or actually wish to honor his legacy. You cannot admire Martin Luther King and be a white Republican, because being a white Republican means you are obviously a racist. If you are a black Republican, you are just as obviously an Uncle Tom.

2) If you are white and Republican, it simply goes without saying that any attempt to show respect to any person of color, or to that person's achievements or legacy must be self-interested pandering, because no white Republican actually likes or respects any person of color. If you did actually like or respect persons of color, you would not be a Republican.

3) If you are of The Left, you are the sole repository of moral authority regarding who can, and who cannot, be sincere in deed and thought. As Republicans are not of The Left, they obviously cannot admire those who have been co-opted (without consent) for use by The Left.

Being the sole repository of moral authority is a nice job if you can get it, I suppose, but I would suspect that none of you are as qualified as you think you are.

This white Republican honors the memory of Dr. King and considers him one of the greatest citizens our country has produced. There is no contradiction in that, except in the minds of certain Leftists who can do little more than hate those who do not accept their ideological dictates.

If, without knowing me, you feel compelled to question my sincerity or denigrate my integrity on the matter, I would suggest it is you who defiles his memory.

Reasonable people, Democrat and Republican, will look upon the arrogance and insensitivity of these protesters and note, once again, that too much of The Left is being consumed by its' own unreasonable and ungovernable hatred.

Julie,

Please don't generalize the whole group as bad because of a few loud kooks.

Funny, re:race couldn’t the same be said of the Republican Party in the 21st century? You seem to be particularly selective in who you give a break.

… followed by yet another fundraiser, as a photo op and a weak ploy to get the minority vote …

Are you new to politics? The Democratic Party has been doing this for generations. Once again, you seem to be quite selective in who allow photo opportunities re:racial pandering.

I should remind you that bigotry encompasses political bigotry, as well, not just race, religion, or ethnicity. Perhaps you should dispense with the conservative stereotypes and drop the hyperbole and the defense of demagoguery.

Regarding MoveOn.org. Most of these people are addicts -- young people and 60s relics hopped up on radical politics. They’re about as reliable as a 40-year-old Pontiac and as politically savvy as a frat boy at a kegger. George Soros giving millions to them is like a businessman buying heroine for the homeless. Kind of a sick joke, really -- a truly twisted way to get your kicks.

Michael, did you see any signs that the protesters were protesting a Republican's visiting the MLK site? You're right to be appalled if that's what many of them were doing. But I thought they were just picking a tasteless occasion for an anti-war demo.

They're addicted to that too. "Once the needle goes in, it never comes out."

Jim,

There's this quote: "When I heard Bush was coming here I couldn't believe it. I was outraged and disgusted..."

Michael and Dennis said it.

Martin Luther King is a hero to many Americans, including me. He'll surely go down in history with Washington, Lincoln, and F.D.R. He should probably have his own memorial on the Mall.

George Bush isn't just George Bush-R, Texas. He's also the President of the United States.

Of course the President of the United States should paying his respects to one of America's greatest heroes.

And no, one's lack of support of affirmative action and reparations does not make one a racist. It doesn't mean that you are "dishonoring Dr. King's memory."

Here is a question. I think you will agree that the appointment of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice to their respective positions was one of the great moments in the history of the civil rights movement. Why? Because these are the first two high-level executive branch officials in history who were not obvious tokens. Colin and Rice are actually 100% qualified for the positions they hold, and could well be serving in their respective roles if they were both white men. They are not Clarence Thomas or Jocelyn Elders. They are exceptionally competent people who are fully quaified for the positions they hold.

Why haven't the Democrats produced a Colin Powell? Why are the leading black Democrats pathetic race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters?

There are millions of competent black professionals out there. All of the black lawyers, business owners, and accountants I know are exceptionally competent people who would be an asset to the Congress or the Senate.

So why isn't the Democratic party running them for office? Why is it always some hate-filled hustler like Gus Savage or Marion Barry?

The Democratic party should have a thousand Colin Powells. While racism is not the problem that it once was, a lot of black talent is still under utilized in this country. Politics is an area in which a black American can get a fair shake. The Democrats have always been a friend to black people. The Republicans certainly haven't been, until recently. Therefore, the Democratic party should be filled with talented black people. It should have a huge advantage over the Republicans.

But while the Democrats give us Al Sharpton and Jocelyn Elders, the Republicans give us Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. Why? What has gone wrong?

You know, if you've ever lived in the country you know that there's only one result from years of flushing toxic wastes into a septic tank -- sooner or later it flows over and begins to percolate to the surface and foul everything in and around the house.

Little fits of pique like the one noted here at MLK's tomb underscore the bad maintenance the Democratic Party has been doing on its house for decades.

For all that time, it has been taking the chunks of spew and bile excreted by a host of brain-dead, soul sick, and ideologically constipated special elements demanding special treatment and special refuge and just shoving it down into the septic system hoping, hoping that it would stay there. From time to time, it flushes a lot of money down on them in hopes of keeping them under control. After all, many of these career toxics, they are really in the game to protect their phony, baloney professional activist jobs.

Yes, the Democrats have hoped that by giving the swill a place, the swill would stay in place. Well, it hasn't. It has now managed to rise so far above its proper place deep underground that it has filled even the top level of the Democrats house and soaked into such stalwarts as Ted Kennedy, who has moved from carrying about the whiff of wine to carrying about the fountains of flautulence.

This septic eruption has also emitted a few floaters, five or six, that are swirling and bobbing about the surface emitting noxious gases in debate after debate, appearance after appearance, struggling to see who will be afloat on the vast Dead Sea of the Democrats hopes in November.

There are some sane Democrats still around, true. But the smell is backing them off the veranda to the high ground just outside the property where they stand aghast remarking on the decimation of the real estate value of this once proud house.

In the end, the septic system will have to be pumped out at great expense in time and money. The house will have to be bulldozed down to the foundations and the land sanitized. This will take some years, perhaps a couple of decades, but it will in time be done. And it will probably be a better and more beautiful home that the current “Winchester Mystery House.”

That's when I'll move back in.

You GOP fascists will never understand it, but black people love us white liberals. Please see my site for pictures:

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

Joe Schmoe: Why haven't the Democrats produced a Colin Powell?

Well, the Democrats have produced Harold Ford, whom I like very much. He is 33 years old and a Congressman from Tennessee. He is no Al Sharpton. He tried to wrest the Minority Leader post from Nancy Pelosi, and I was sad to see him lose.

Oh, I must have been mistaken. Clearly, if Martin Luther King had won, people would have the right to register to vote where they were residing, without any kind of odd Residency requirement (real or made up) that prevented the black people from voting, right?

Don't mess with Texas.

Hipocrite,

Wow, you sure oversold the link you just cited. So, it's controversial whether college students should be allowed to vote where they attend school or where they live. Big deal.

Martin Luther King won. He certainly didn't lose. Conservatives used to call him a Communist. Count your blessings.

Let's see, some fool of a County D.A. writes a letter to the editor opining that college students shouldn't be able to vote. The county elections administrator says that she's not going to change a thing -- students will vote. The secretary of state says the same thing. The state supreme court ruled the same thing 25 years ago.

Hipocrite decides to imply that voting rights have been violated, and tosses in a gratuitous slur on Texans in general. Beautiful.

Score another for Power Researcher Totten.

The supreme court case that guaranteed students the uncontroversial right to vote where their dorms are located was SYMM v. US, which, ironicly enough, was prosecuted by EXACTLY the same student body as the currently disenfranchised?

And you wonder why people question your so-called "liberal" credentials. Apparently you aren't appaled when laws try to keep the brown people from voting due to coorelating factors.

Did you know that those controversial law requiring your grandparents to have not been slaves in order to vote was illegal also?

Phill, close, but the letter wasn't to the editor, the AG hasn't responded and it was the US Supreme Court.

I guess I have a definition of winning that includes "not fighting about it anymore." Perhaps that's just me.

Michael:

I'm sure that's true. They have no idea how obnoxious they look to people in the middle.

I'm beginning to think that you can replace the bolded with don't care and that's what's going to cost them this election.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/pvvoting

"On Nov. 10, the Waller Times published a letter to the editor from Waller County District Attorney Oliver Kitzman about concerns over residency. A few days after the letter ran, rumors circulated that students had been indicted for violating the residency laws." Those rumors are false, by the way.

and

"Loewe [county elections administrator] said she has no plans of making changes in student voting unless she is instructed to do so by the secretary of state. The secretary of state has said in writing that students can choose either their parents’ home or university home as their voting residence."

and

"In a letter written to Kitzman on Dec. 31, 2003 and obtained by BlackAmericaWeb.com, Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey S. Connor wrote: “The law for college students is the same as for any other Texas voter. These same residency requirements also apply in similar manner to those who spend much of the year traveling to more than one location, such as military voters, immigrant workers, and retired persons who travel.…. It is the opinion of this office that persons who are age 18 or older and are college students are presumed to have requisite intent to establish their college town as their residence if they so choose.”"

and

"In 1979, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the right of Prairie View students and all students to vote in local elections when they meet the residency requirements..." The USSC upheld the TX SC.

You were saying?

Hipocrite: And you wonder why people question your so-called "liberal" credentials.

Listen up, mister.

I'm through with you and the Democratic Party. Done. Finished. I'm out.

I've had enough.

Let me know when you and your reactionary pals are tired of wallowing in isolationism, conspiracy theories, and hate.

Michael, what you said.

the only reason he went was so he could write off his traveling expenses to a fund raiser in ATL as a presidential expense. he also tried to have a memorial service across the street cancelled as he would have to see the electorate in person which no emperor should have to do

Via tbogg....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23422-2004Jan16?language=printer

Bush Installs Pickering on Appeals Court

President Bush installed Charles Pickering on a federal appeals court Friday, bypassing Democrats who had stalled his nomination for more than two years, sources said.

Bush appointed Pickering by a recess appointment which avoids the confirmation process. Such appointments are valid until the next Congress takes office, in this case in January 2005.

Pickering, a federal trial judge who Bush nominated for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, has been waiting for a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Democrats have accused him of supporting segregation as a young man, and pushing anti-abortion and anti-voting rights views as a state lawmaker.

They also have said they wouldn't be able to trust Pickering to keep his conservative opinions out of his work on the federal appeals court.

Of course Michael Totten is a liberal. I mean one of his biggest issues is social justice. Towing 98% of the party line just isn't acceptable in the liberal collective anymore.

I think Matt is on to something here. I mean who in their right mind would dare question a travel expense by the President on a visit to commemorate MLK? I bet if you investigate closely, you'd find a $100 trillion giveaway for Halliburton to drill oil on Mars in that travel expense report somewhere.

So you wingers are nuts? or just stupid. I don't think those are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are broad enough categories that one might dominate the other.

And I am referring to tott's unsupproted comment regarding racist/isolationist Democrats. What's up with that, anyway?

Look, the protests were organized not because Bush decided to show up, but because his presence initially required the ceremony be cut off. The Secret Service told the organizers of the commemoration ceremony they had to be done by 2, because that's when the President would be doing his photo-op. The ceremony was scheduled to go on to 4 or 5, but because Bush felt the need to - in the words of Reuters - "expand his base" he attempted to force an early end to the ceremony. I'd be pissed off too. They only relented when the ceremony organizers said they would not leave the church across the street.

Totten, you're as loose with the facts as the people you criticize on the left.

"Clearly, if Martin Luther King had won, people would have the right to register to vote where they were residing, without any kind of odd Residency requirement (real or made up) that prevented the black people from voting, right?"

What!?? You mean black people can actually vote!? Surely there must be some mistake here!

There are many reasons to find Bush's appearance at the MLK memorial offensive.

The first is that it gave the appearance of having been hastily arranged and was sandwiched between two fundraising events.

The second is that if the last 3 years proves anything it is that there is nothing that Bush does that is not 100% politically motivated. Yes, the President is supposed to be represent all the people on occasions like this. Someone please post just one example when it can be said objectively that he has done that.

Julie,

Never? I find that rather strange considering some many of the judges (Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Margret Cho, Chuck D, Julia Stiles etc...) of the bash Bush contest have made comments comparing America to NAZI Germany and Bush to Hitler. Are you saying th site organisers are just totally out of touch with the site audience?

Looks like Power Researcher is really really pissed off:

I write "Apparently you aren't appaled when laws try to keep the brown people from voting due to coorelating factors."

MT writes: "I'm through with you and the Democratic Party. Done. Finished. I'm out."

I mean one of his biggest issues is social justice. Right? Right?

"The second is that if the last 3 years proves anything it is that there is nothing that Bush does that is not 100% politically motivated."

A politician is politically motivated? Oh God no! This never happend under Jimmy Carter, Clinton or REAL presidents.

Um, This is from responses to the first post, I see that people need a broader explanation of what I meant.

MLK's family gives and invitation to the president every year. The president accepted and laid a wreath at Reverand Kings grave. That's fine, my point isn't that only Democrats should go, but with far better civil rights records than Goerge Bush can call him on doing one thing and saying another.

RC Dean, take you tin-foil and put it up your ass. It was not just a white district problem. Black voters were scrubbed from the rolls, which is why States now allow people to vote and check their registeration afterwards, and not just turn them away.

Yowsa: [T]the protests were organized not because Bush decided to show up, but because his presence initially required the ceremony be cut off.

So, it wasn't an anti-war protest? Could you please provide evidence for that?

michael,

the protesters' point is that while bush may go to ceremonies honoring king, he's just paying lip service. i agree that it is a good thing that members of both parties try to honor martin luthor king. but if they really want to honor king, a person who during his life was clearly anti-war, pro-affirmative action, pro-programs to assist the poor, bush's actions as president clearly speak louder than his words.

there is simply nothing wrong for protesters to try to point out these discrepancies.

Someone commented: Those MLK protesters would have been outraged if Bush hadn't shown up... either way, they wanted a chance to attack him. Why? Pure politics.

If it makes it easy for you to understand people by simply marking them 'political' or 'leftists' or whathaveyou, I understand. You are ignorant. These individuals were there for different reasons: civil rights statement, they didn't have a job to go to (2million+ lost since our leader was dictated by a court), they personally don't like Bush- for any number of reasons. The point is that these folks took time out of their day to say something and they hoped that people would recognize what they were trying to say. Instead of asking and talking to these people, giving them an opportunity to voice their concerns and even offer a solution this page and millions around the country like to label them 'political.' I understand it is easier this way, but moves our country no where and only highlights how this government preys on your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow Americans. If even one person has reason to use their day in protest we as a country are failing.

I can't speak for Totten, but I'm pissed because you're lying. Nobody's been disenfranchised.

What do they call it when you aren't allowed to vote where you live, but they make you vote somewhere else instead?

jj walker,

Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Margret Cho, Chuck D, Julia Stiles are not the "site organizers" of moveon.org. they just were asked to served on the panel of judges for the contest.

so to answer your question you addressed to julie: no, the organizers are not out of touch with the site audience.

any more questions?

Making a Federal holiday for MLK is a very bad idea. Same goes for Columbus day. Both holidays have created a government sanctioned cult of personality. MLK's birthday should be changed to civil rights day. Columbus day should be changed to immigrants day.

We got rid of Washington's and Lincoln's birthday and created Presidents day. Good!

End the government sanctioned cults of personality.

I can't speak for Totten, but I'm pissed because you're lying. Nobody's been disenfranchised.

No one has ever been disenfranchised? In 2004 because no one's voted yet or in 2000? When people get turned away from the polls in Florida because they're names aren't on the rolls because the Sec. of State took criminals off, that may be a problem. When it's in heavy african american precincts it's disenfranchisement. I won't say the election was stolen, but there's some real issues with voting in 2000, and Congress and Bush agreed to fix them. It's just they haven't funded it yet, like no child left behind.

THEY ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE WHERE THEY LIVE. There are no additional residency requirements. As I pointed out in my original comment to you, the County AG wrote a letter to the editor. That is all that has happened here. The County Elections Administrator told him they were going to vote where they want to. The Secretary of State (who has jurisdiction in this matter) wrote him a letter telling him that they are eligible to vote where they live.

Let me know when any official with jurisdiction in this matter says otherwise. None have as of yet. If they do, I'll make the drive to Hempstead and march with them. Until then, you're factually wrong.

"End the government sanctioned cults of personality."

I find your comments racist and hateful! MLK was a great man. Better than the slaveholding capitalist "Founders" so worshiped by the racist right!

John Dunn, I'm talking to Hipocrite about Waller County TX in 2004, and nothing else. Context, man, context.

Hipocrite,

I don't need to tell you this, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway because I admit to reading your linked article quickly and not doing any follow-up reading on it. Maybe I missed something.

I do not think it is okay if black, brown, purple, or striped people are denied the right to vote.

If you think a Democrat-turned-Independent is going to suddenly adopt Strom Thurmond's 1940s viewpoint on race, you really need to get over yourself. You don't have a monopoly on anti-racism. Not even close.

"I find your comments racist and hateful! MLK was a great man."

I agree. We have had thousands of great men and women in our history. Not a single one deserves a federal holiday.

Besides being a great man, MLK was an adulterer and a plagarist. He plagarized portions of his Ph.D. dissertation. He was still a great man but he was no Jesus Christ.

It's got nothing to do with race. It's about ideals such as civil rights which are far bigger than any one man.

If even one person has reason to use their day in protest we as a country are failing.

Could there be a less possible standard?

R C Dean sez: I thought the stories of blacks being kept from voting were all discredited...

What about ChoicePoint?

Shoot Mike, you'd be calling MLK a commie today if he was still alive. Are you aware of any of his thoughts or writings beyond the "I have a dream" speech?

P.S. Leftie is a stupid winger troll pretending to be a leftist, if that's not obvious to everyone.

Shoot Mike, you'd be calling MLK a commie today if he was still alive.

I would? How do you know? Because he opposed the Vietnam War? Well, I just so happen to agree with him about that.

I would have marched with him for civil rights and against the war.

I know some of you like to take everyone who disagrees with you and lump them in as far-right racist fundamentalist whack jobs, but I've gotta say it only goes to show just how out-of-touch you really are. You are left-wing Ann Coulters.

TBogg says:

George Bush slipped his uninvited visit to the MLK Jr. memorial between two fundraisers. His time spent "honoring" the Rev. King: 15 minutes.

To not see the whole visit as a case of political opportunism, one has to be an incredible tool. To disparage the protestors is beneath contempt.

I say: fuck you, brownshirt.

"Shoot Mike, you'd be calling MLK a commie today if he was still alive."

I would? How do you know?

Ummm... because you're an obvious tool of the VRWC?

But you keep spinning (and cashing Unka Karl's checks)!

George W. Bush speaks on MLK day.

Wow. This is what happens when I get linked by T-bogg. I can see why he doesn't have his own comments section.

UpYourNose,

So if the site organizers were not out of touch with their audience, then is it fair to say when they asked a bunch of Bush=Hitler types to serve as judges, their views would be fairly in line with the audiences' as well?

I would not be happier if only Democrats paid their respects to MLK. I would be happy if no one who was happy to end affirmative action, appoint racist reactionary judges, and shield themselves from protesters with city buses was allowed to get away with associating themselves with MLK.

Bush and other Republicans are defining "support for MLK" down to mean virtually nothing.

If any of you guys had any idea what MLK actually said, you wouldn't much like him. You see, more than standing for racial equality, MLK stood for the poor. And he stood up against US imperialism. Today he would be branded by conservatives as someone who "hates America" (which I believe to be a pretty big insult). Check out the following quote:

"I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today--my own government."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

See, MLK hated America.

Oh, and by the way, King WAS a communist (well, at least a socialist-- and I'm pretty sure that most conservatives conflate the two).

"Oh, and by the way, King WAS a communist (well, at least a socialist-- and I'm pretty sure that most conservatives conflate the two)."

That's one more reason not to have MLK's birthday a federal holiday.

Michael,

Good points... but it just goes to show the problem-- a civil rights movement more concerned with which people win rather than which principles.

BTW, you might feel vindicated to know that Martin Luther King added his name to the list of people demanding that Lyndon Johnson honor American security commitments to Israel in the 1967 war. (This was expressed in an ad in the NYT.)

While a man of peace (wise enough to know that, in America, peaceful protest was enough to end segregation), he was willing to support countries (like Israel) for whom war was the only option.

"That's one more reason not to have MLK's birthday a federal holiday."

See, deep down you conservatives really do hate MLK. That you hate what he stood for is too obvious to bear mentioning.

More MLK quotes:

"The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seem to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U. S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru...

"A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death...

"It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries."

He sounds like a left-wing psycho to me. Who was it that said "MLK would be right-wing today"? Could anything be more ignorant?

Oh, and by the way, King WAS a communist (well, at least a socialist-- and I'm pretty sure that most conservatives conflate the two).

Well, I'm not a conservative and I don't conflate the two.

I am getting a kick out of leftists conflating centrists and radical right-wing reactionaries. It's really something to behold.

I agree with Neil. Anyone who is against Affirmative Action should not be allowed to honor MLK. I mean afterall, if you allow just anyone to honor a great man, it would taint his dream and legacy of racial preferrences and set asides.

Well, conservatives and centrists (and even liberals) conflated "communist" with "someone we don't like" for 50 years. For instance, in Indonesia, "communist" meant "illiterate peasant" when the CIA helped to kill around 1,000,000 of them in 1965. In El Salvador during the 1980s, "communist" meant "the editor of the independent press" and "catholic bishop" and "poor children".

"He sounds like a left-wing psycho to me. Who was it that said "MLK would be right-wing today"? Could anything be more ignorant?"

Scott,

MLK would certainly be questioned on his liberal allegiance when he said he wanted people to be judged by their content rather than their color. Such dissent would not be tolerated in the liberal collective today.

"MLK would certainly be questioned on his liberal allegiance when he said he wanted people to be judged by their content rather than their color. Such dissent would not be tolerated in the liberal collective today."

I am a liberal, and I believe that. Every liberal believes that. Affirmative action's goal is to achieve that.

MLK would not even be granted access to the mainstream media today for speaking out against war, and especially for trying to instigate "class warfare." Everyone would understand that he is a left-wing nutcase.

Michael,

I agree that it would not be an improvement if only Democrats paid respects to MLK Jr. I only wish that I believed that's what Bush was doing. "Paying respects" means more than carrying a wreath to a crypt; it means respecting the legacy and furthering the honorable goals of Dr. King, and Bush has done neither.

Why can't he have the courage of his convictions and just say "I am familiar with the legacy of Dr. King and the love that many people feel for him and his work; I disagree with most of the things he stood for, however, and I'm the one in a position to set policy and the direction of government."

Better that than a cynical photo op piggy-backed on a fundraising trip so he can stick the American people with the bill for his campaign.

The real improvement will be when a Republican president can genuinely lay claim to MLK's legacy of reform and racial progress. I look forward to seeing that president pay his respects for Dr. King.

Well, conservatives and centrists (and even liberals) conflated "communist" with "someone we don't like" for 50 years. For instance, in Indonesia, "communist" meant "illiterate peasant" when the CIA helped to kill around 1,000,000 of them in 1965. In El Salvador during the 1980s, "communist" meant "the editor of the independent press" and "catholic bishop" and "poor children".

Unless you have any evidence that I did this (you don't, because I didn't) then kindly stop accusing me of it. Thanks.

Michael,

I am sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to accuse you, or anyone in particular. That's why I said "most conservatives" not "all conservatives" and didn't say "Michael J. Totten" when I said "conservatives and centrists (and even liberals)."

The point that I was trying to make (rather snidely, and I apologize for that) is that almost everyone I come into contact with (not everyone, but almost everyone) can't distinguish a commie from a hole in the ground. "Commie" is usually a word that means "someone I don't like". It's just a slander so one doesn't have to listen to someone else's arguments.

these protests are not meant to convince the irght wingers on this board. they are there to speak to those who agree silently and say " yes, someone else thinks they way I do. we need to organize and take the poer back. "

i mean all i have read here from the wingers is half informed claptrap with no overall perspective on the reality of racism in america today -- and GWBs negligible if not counterproductive response to one america's transcendent problems.

that's why it is less useful to argue with diehard wingers and take to the streets and talk to real americans.

i meant "power" and and "one of america's..."

It's just a slander so one doesn't have to listen to someone else's arguments.

I think I understand. It's sort of like calling someone a conservative in some politically regressive regions of the U.S., say along the coasts or near universities. Kind of like that, eh?

Scott: "Commie" is usually a word that means "someone I don't like". It's just a slander so one doesn't have to listen to someone else's arguments.

That's often true. I have been called a communist over and over again for years, and I really f-ing hate communism.

Same goes for labelling people "racists." You don't have to listen to them once they are so labelled.

My father's second wife is a Latina and a liberal Democrat, and she absolutely hates affirmative action. She finds it inexcusably patronizing and insulting. Don't even think about calling her a racist.

The left has cried Wolf! so many times that hardly anyone listens anymore, for the same reason I stopped listening to people who bandy around the word communist when arguing with liberals.

George Bush is not a racist any more than Hillary Clinton is a Stalinist.

i mean all i have read here from the wingers is half informed claptrap with no overall perspective on the reality of racism in america today -- and GWBs negligible if not counterproductive response to one america's transcendent problems.

I'd say a more pressing 'transcendent' problem is that some people are helpless without the racial critique of the universe. Even when race or racism is not a factor, some simply do not have any alternative tools with which to evaluate any given situation. In my opinion it is this mindset that is the most relevant 'reality of racism', at least in regards to politics. Such people still think it's 1954 or 1964, not 2004.

Even when race or racism is not a factor, some simply do not have any alternative tools with which to evaluate any given situation.

thanks for illustrating my point. are you so blind to the historical reality and meaning of racism in the United States that you believe a discussion of attitudes toward race and racism is inappropriate, when the topic at hand concerns MLK Jr?

GWB, a man some find lacking in his handling of racial and civil rightts issues (to put it mildly) goes and pays lip service to MLK. I mean when would a good time be to talk about race?

Scott: "Commie" is usually a word that means "someone I don't like".

I thought NAZI and Fascist were more popular terms than Communist. I mean in most leftist circles, being a Communist is not a bad thing, it wouldn't make for much of an insult.

JJ Walker,

I've been called a communist hundreds of times by the right-wing equivalents of the people I am arguing with on this thread right now. And, yes, I always took it as an insult.

Nilsey: "that's why it is less useful to argue with diehard wingers and take to the streets and talk to real americans."

See, there's your whole problem. You've been spending too much time on the net arguing with diehard right wingers instead of talking to real Americans on the street. Had you been doing that before, you guys wouldn't have gotten crushed in the last election cycle.

Michael Totten,

My point is Nazism and Fascism are much more reviled by conservatives than Communism is reviled by the liberals. If you were at some liberal meeting and another member praised Communism, few if anyone else would object. The same could not be said if the situation is reversed in a conservative meeting. Communism is much much much closer to mainstream liberalism than Nazism is to mainstream conservatism.

JJ: If you were at some liberal meeting and another member praised Communism, few if anyone else would object.

There was a time when that was true, yes. But it has been a long time.

It's still true that a person praising communism isn't socially banished the same way a skinhead would be. But if you think mainstream liberals accept praise for the Soviet Union, I think it's been too long since you've been to any liberal meetings.

Just one question for the righties:

If we become a color-blind society like the right says they want, can we discard with nepotism also?
The administration is Critical of U of M for giving points to different races but obviously okay with getting into an ivy league school with marginal qualifications? Please enlighten me.

And for the record, I don't think Wubbya is a racist and I do think he was paying his respects. That's my view from my left position (which by the way, used to be the center until recently)

I mean when would a good time be to talk about race?

Perhaps a better question is, "Why are so many stuck in a bygone era?" or maybe "Why do so many still confuse pathological racial paranoia with intelligent commentary on race?" or better yet, "Why do so many think their creaky, decades old Fight-the-Power! rhetoric still has any effect of anybody?" Better yet, "How can some in this day and age still think their racism-in-the-guise-of-racial-commentary still fools anyone?" Questions for the ages, I say!

Still, you have fun with your circa-1964 bloviations and hyerbole. I'd never deign to deny anybody their daily dose of medicine for that nasty little pathology of which I was speaking.

... can we discard with nepotism also?

Sounds good. Where do I sign up?

"I thought NAZI and Fascist were more popular terms than Communist. I mean in most leftist circles, being a Communist is not a bad thing, it wouldn't make for much of an insult."

I agree that Nazi and Fascist are used in a similar way. Regarding some leftist circles, what you said is accurate. Some leftist circles are intellectually dishonest and blinded by ideology. To see this, all you have to do is attend an anti-war march and pick up the fliers. But I wouldn't characterize it as "most". The ones you are liable to hear are the ones that are the loudest--and most obnoxious. You probably don't hear from many quiet, reflective, sincere, and thoughful liberals.

"My father's second wife is a Latina and a liberal Democrat, and she absolutely hates affirmative action. She finds it inexcusably patronizing and insulting. Don't even think about calling her a racist."

I don't think opposition to affirmative action is racist. I actually feel that affirmative action should be along poverty lines, not racial lines. Well, I go back and forth on this issue. When I watched C-SPAN and saw the conservative lawyers arguing their case (regarding the Univ. of Michigan case) I found myself feeling sympathetic to their argument. Affirmative action is a difficult issue. I really don't know what we should do about it.

"I think I understand. It's sort of like calling someone a conservative in some politically regressive regions of the U.S., say along the coasts or near universities. Kind of like that, eh?"

You are correct in one sense-- the word "conservative" has been hijacked. It no longer means "conservative". For instance, anyone that is truly conservative in the literal sense of the word would be outraged by Bush, Cheney, et al. What is conservative, for instance, in Cheney's statement that "deficits don't matter"? Nothing is conservative about destroying civil liberties, massively expanding the government, being the world's policeman, etc, etc. True conservatives should be outraged that their word has been stolen by the people currently in power. Now people think that "conservative" means some unholy combination of "warmonger" and "religious zealot."

"George Bush is not a racist any more than Hillary Clinton is a Stalinist."

I more or less agree.

"My point is Nazism and Fascism are much more reviled by conservatives than Communism is reviled by the liberals."

It depends on what you mean by "Fascism". If you mean it in the technical economic sense of the word, I don't agree at all. What Bush, et. al. are pushing for something that resembles Fascism. That is, state capitalism where everything is privatized. If you mean "pure evil" when you say "fascism", (which is what most of my friends on the left mean) then the whole comparison is silly.

MLK Day is a federal holiday and the office of the chief executive of the federal government is virtually required to observe it in some way.

George Bush has the two highest-ranking African-Americans ever to serve in executive branch. Not even the 'first black president' did so much. Powell was a political choice, but Bush has a long-term professional relationship with Rice. He really is judging her on the content of her character (and her abilities). This is exactly what MLK dreamed about. Bush is living it.

And Bush's family is inter-mixed with Mexicans! (I think the family is grooming George P. for the presidency.)

These 'Bush is a racist' charges are just so much partisan politics.

Uh-oh. There are two Scott's in here. I didn't post this:

Just one question for the righties:

If we become a color-blind society like the right says they want, can we discard with nepotism also?
The administration is Critical of U of M for giving points to different races but obviously okay with getting into an ivy league school with marginal qualifications? Please enlighten me.

And for the record, I don't think Wubbya is a racist and I do think he was paying his respects. That's my view from my left position (which by the way, used to be the center until recently)

Okay, I'm the Scott who posted all the crap about MLK, and about the misuse of the word commie. From now on, I'll post as "Scott A."

I also posted the recent one about Nazism and Fascism and affirmative action.

There was no systematic denial of black voting rights in Florida in 2000. That is a lie. Period. Not even poor Mary Frances Berry could gin up enough idiotarian bullpap to convince anyone other than the Deaniac shahid that Bush "stole" Florida from an innocent Black electorate.

Regarding this statement -- what was the lawsuit that the NAACP settled with Florida in 2001 (02?). Don't remember that? It didn't get much publicity. They determined there were a number of people listed as felons who should not have been, and thereby were not allowed to vote.

Phil, not sure if you're still reading this (I wouldn't be, honestly) but when the County AG says that it would be fraud to vote locally, the fear is not that you don't get to register, it's that they arrest you before/after/while you are at the polling place.

I'm sure that no one would ever deny the Brown people the right to vote like that - I mean, that kind of thing ended with the residency tests in the 1970's, right around Symm v. US, which made it perfectly clear that it was a violation a students Civil Rights to prevent them from registering to vote where their dorm was.

Certainly, knowing the law like every College Freshman does, anyone who was threatened with such a thing would clearly not be intimidated from voting in their local elections. I mean, we live in an enlightened society, where threats from authority figures that contraveil the law should never be taken seriously. It's not like people are being corraled away from areas based on the content of the signs they carry and put into "Free Speech" zones for saying the wrong thing. Right? Right?

For the record, I posted earlier and am not part of "the mob" that Michael says has been sent here from "Troll HQ". And frankly, the discussion here has been for the most part civil and instructive, and not full of "bad thoughts, cruel putdowns, and nasty hit-and-run attacks" as Michael implies in his second update to this post.

Brad,

This is discussion is significantly less civil and more juvenile than usual, and it is certainly because of T-bogg's trolls.

I read your comment above. I don't really agree with you, but you are a much more reasonable person than those who have accused me of being a right-wing nut (I voted for Ralph Nader four years ago), a racist, a brownshirt, and a red-baiter.

Cut the crap hipo.........Phil nailed you, period.

Michael,

I think you are being too sensitive. A while ago there were a bunch of really off-the-wall nasty posts (see posts by Lefty). But these were mostly ignored, and I think for the most part this discussion thread has been very civil by the standards I am used to.

Besides, I think that having a few crazies posting in your comments section should actually be viewed as a compliment.

Scott: "What Bush, et. al. are pushing for something that resembles Fascism. That is, state capitalism where everything is privatized."

What the heck is state capitalism? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Brian O,

Come on now, we all know Bill Clinton is more black than Rice and Powell put together. Just ask some real black folks like Harry Bellafonte.

Michael Totten wrote: "It's still true that a person praising communism isn't socially banished the same way a skinhead would be. But if you think mainstream liberals accept praise for the Soviet Union, I think it's been too long since you've been to any liberal meetings."

I don't know about you but there are quite a few elected Democrats that openly fawn all over Castro and his policies. Can you imagine what would happen to a Republican prasing Nazi or Fascist policy?

From the article: "Bush was not invited," said Lance Grimes, 55, a black social worker who lives in Decatur, Ga., and was part of the demonstration at The King Center. "It is a desecration for him to lay a wreath at the tomb of Dr. King. He is diametrically opposed to everything Dr. King stood for. With all due respect, Coretta Scott King is making a tactical mistake."

--------------------
"Not invited." With all due respect (none), who the heck asked YOU, Grimes?

For the first time in our history, the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State are African-American. Not to mention the Secretary of Education. In their appointments, Pres. Bush was not attempting to gratify a part of his constituency, or to win political points, or even to create diversity in his cabinet; he chose the best people for the job-- immeasurably crucial and important ones at that. He judged them by the content of their character and ability. Race was immaterial. Affirmative action was not a factor.

If this makes Pres. Bush, as Grimes says, "diametrically opposed to everything Dr. King stood for," what would it say about him if he had made his decision ely on the basis of race?

I think if Grimes thinks the president's visit to honor MLK is a "desecration," then the Georgia social worker is the one who is diametrically opposed to Dr. King's beliefs. He should be ashamed of himself.

Notice how this type is fond of calling the GOP moralizers? That's because they're so morally blind.

correction: what would it say about him if he had made his decision SOLEly on the basis of race, above.

JJ,

Well, you got me there. Come to think of it, neither Powell nor Rice ever played sax on Arsenio.

Bleeding heart wrote: "Pres. Bush was not attempting to gratify a part of his constituency, or to win political points, or even to create diversity in his cabinet; he chose the best people for the job--"

Didn't Bush make a big hoopla about making his cabinet look like America? Wasn't he pandering? Oh wait, was that Bill Clinton, the first black president who said that? Or maybe it was Howard Dean... Ah well, it's so hard to tell you white people apart.

I dunno, Michael, I side with the trolly lot. I'm glad I made my contribution to social justice by being denied employment several times because I am white. It felt good to fight the power. It brought a tear to my eye to think of the spirit of Dr. King patting me on the back after the interviews in which I was told, "Er, this is actually a diversity position." I remember that old speech of his, "I have a dream that someday we can deny a white man a job and give it to a less-qualified Chinese person instead, so that no one will be judged by the color of his skin!" We made it, Dr. King! We made it!

As a side note to the likes of Grimes (yes, I know he's not here), once your hero becomes a national and official institution, you kind of lose the ability to disinvite people to certain events, or even to have much control over his legacy. The King family is somewhat famously not dealing well with this situation. But at least they don't disrespect the presidency.

From their point of view (I'm guessing), the more right-wing, conservative, or what-have-you, that the president who visits is, the better it is for the universal claims of King's vision, as MJT stated in other words.

Imagine Lincoln's kin abhoring respectful visits from southern politicians. Wouldn't happen.

Jim,

While that was an encouraging and heartwarming story of social justice in action, I am sad to say we are still a long ways from realizing the dream. While it's true that Chinese-Americans have finally made it, there are still Native-Americans, Latino-Americans, African-Americans, African-Africans, Afrikaner-Africans, Koreans, Mongolians, Hmongs, Bosnians, Palestinians, Gay, Lesbians and Bisexual Palestinians, those swarthy looking guys standing on the corner of 34th street taking pictures of the Empire State Building... who are in dire need of Affirmative Action. As you can see, we are a long ways from realizing the dream. Now get back out there, fight the good fight for social justice and get denied again!

One of MLK's biggest role models and influences was Gandhi. Do we remember Sen. Hilary Clinton's (D-NY) remarks from a few days ago equating Gandhi was a gas station owner? It was a joke but in extremely poor taste and obviously offensive to people whose families came from the sub-continent. I don't think Sen. Clinton is actually a racist. I vote Republican and cannot deny the desire to pounce on such Democratic gaffes and label the offender a racist (see my smug comments about H. Dean above). But as some have pointed out, the overuse of specious accusations of racism (cry wolf) for partisan gain ultimately have the effect of blunting the effectiveness of such claims and degrade our ability to recognize and deal with actual real cases of racism when they come up - which they still do and will continue to do so for a long time.

Why doesn't Totten just say "they should just be glad they don't have to call us massa' anymore" ...that's progress.
Wow, a whole 15 minutes between fundraisers, they should be so honored that he chose their particular function for his photo op when he had so many klansmen who would have loved to have him.

And as for Mr. Totten's little jab at "Troll Headquarters" not having a comments section; Totten is notorious for being thin skinned and banning people on a whim (or a bad panty day), so just because he regularly lets people fawn all over his weak arguments while banning those with strong disagreements doesn't make him anymore daring or brave than "Troll headquarters", it just means he has to put up with an occasional flood of criticism in his persuit of daily ego stroking.

One of the significant little secrets is that in about 1984 Communists decided that as Communists they were going nowhere in the U.S.A political system. Thus they became Democrats. I saw them do this. I have no idea why they became Democrats, or what this can possibly have to do with the fact that Democrats hate capitalists and tend to teach a lot of Marx on campus, support the anti-second amendment crime lobby, hate religion, etc.. It is a total mystery why the CUPA advises its Communists to always vote Democrat. I don't get it.

JJ Walker> Well Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Palestinains arent being executed here like they would be under the PA authroity.

Social worker Grimes> I'm not overwhelmingly fond of social workers, especially since I have two black cousins who are adopted and many social workers are dead set against white families adopting black children. Granted my cousin Tommy is a Republican so that may be their fear.

Sautee that red herring with some capers, Hipocrite.

One last time: nobody's been kept from the polls. Nobody with the authority to do so has made any attempt. Kitzman is a jackass, but he's succeeded in disenfranchising no-one. EVERYONE who has authority in this matter has repudiated him.

Sykopath: Totten is notorious for being thin skinned and banning people on a whim.... [MT bans]those with strong disagreements.

I see you've never actually read this blog.

MT takes a regular beating here without banning. He bans rarely, and only for abusive name calling. Why would you come write such a post and tell such a lie? Are you just trying to smear a blog that you've been told not to like by someone you admire?

This is the first time I have been lumped in with brownshirts (for my anti-leftism) and communists (for being a life-long Democrat) in the very same discussion thread. Just thought I'd throw that out there as something to think about.

(And some people wonder why I've decided I like being a centrist.)

My God, Michael, I'm not calling you a Communist -- if you are referring to my post. You did say you are no longer a Democrat. To clarify, just in case, what I'm saying is that as the Democrats look at what has caused their Party to disintegrate, the fact that Communists have flocked to it could be considered a factor. This has happened. Holy subversion and infiltration is a classic communistic tactic. Where did the U.S. Communist Party go?

Communists are still very resolute that Communism must be the way to go, in spite of all failures. It is a religion which is not going away any time soon. I understand that the London School of Economics is full of them still. Our own Universities overfloweth.

Socialism is merely Communism minus the State, which means Socialism is Communism. The Democratic Party is obviously Socialistic and pushing for more. See National Health Care, noted to be a failure in all Communistic countries, unless having one's blood pressure taken once a month is seen as National Health Care. Britian's system is failing. Canada's is not quite so far along, thank's partly to having us to the South to deal with the deficiencies of rationed health care which characterizes all Nat. Heath Care.

Other factors within the Democratic Party in harmony with classic Communism include political correctness, which basically prohibits free thought: any different thought is bourgoise and contrary to the original majority unithought which is needed to obtain power to begin the revolution. Correct thought justifies vilification of dissent as racist, slavist, etc., indicative of "the minority, the exploiters".

Also, the Democratic politics of bigotry and victimization naturally attract a set of members set on blame and gain, through tax and spend on the backs of the producers -- capitalists and any other productive people. Tax cuts are obviously taboo. The point of Communism is to take all excess profit from the producers. Why do the dwarfs want to repeal the tax cuts? [The deficit argument is a red herring unless we admit that government spending is not as efficient as private sector spending in terms of stimulating growth, in which case gov't spending should be decreased, not taxes increased. Gov't is God for both Communists and Democrats.]

Such members generate no new ideas but rather only try to work their same scams over and over. They tend to not create much wealth, because they don't believe wealth creation exists, rather choosing to transfer the wealth of others to themselves, from the fixed pot of wealth they mistakenly envision. Thus these Democrat members are again Communists in practice. [Note: Can we say "reparations"?]

Obviously, self defense is seen as threatening to these members because it might be used against them and also indicates that the world is larger than the U.S., so that factors may exist which might upset their closed-system free lunch apple cart. In the face of Terrorism and Saddam, they have tried denial, just as in the case of Stalin's and Mao's murders, or else the deaths are "justified" or deserved. The only Evil is capitalism [coporatism], because capitalism has what the noble entitlees want, the stuff which will be redistributed to produce "economic democracy", another communistic ethic which is touted by the Democratic Underground, and other Deanies. Having more stuff is manifestly "unfair" and the allegedly egalitarian Democrats want it.

Such weaklings and spiritual allies of Communism can therefore easily be manipulated by unofficial Communists, who love thought control as their primary technique and promise more free lunch, justifiably obtained from alleged capitalist oppressors, whose evil nature is also taken as the reason why the weaklings always feel so bad -- about themselves. Who other than a self-hating parasite would now want to associate with the Democratic Party? There might be a gigantic watershed going on here. You got out of there just in time, not that being a Republican is the necessary answer.

Interesting post, Joe. You've articulated things I've been thinking. I'm not sure to what degree it's right; there are lots of ordinary Democrats who don't fit the description. But I find it compelling. The root problem of communism and assorted Democratic Party nonsense is that a monstrous form of egalitarianism runs rampant and liberty is forgotten.

Nit pick: socialism is communism plus a state, but we get your drift.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

The ONLY reason President Ran Away on 9/11 attended this memorial was for the American Taxpayer to pay for his two fundraising events

sykopath - you say - "Why doesn't Totten just say "they should just be glad they don't have to call us massa' anymore" ...that's progress.
Wow, a whole 15 minutes between fundraisers, they should be so honored that he chose their particular function for his photo op when he had so many klansmen who would have loved to have him."

This is your well-reasoned argument? Loony hyperbole and an uninformed comment?

First of all, white supremacists groups have more in common with the far left than with moderate Republicans or Demcrats - and both extremist groups hate the Bush administration.

Somebody obviously opened up a cave and let the trolls out.

Jim, I am not dogmatic and know Democrats are not all like Communists. It is up to Democrats, however, to define themselves. It looks like they are in big trouble, real trouble. Actually it is also the hated Limbaugh who has been trying to wake up Democrats to look at themselves. But why listen to a "Big Fat Idiot"? [The DLC tried to warn of impending problems about 14 years ago, when it was predicted that the Demoratic oops Party might no longer be a Party "in ten years" if it did not develop real ideas.]

I think there is a problem with the minds of many people, seriously. At least I know I have defects. A true Liberal knows this and tries to overcome it. But the term "liberal" now means something else more akin to a certain body of dogma, which looks more and more like Socialism, or parasitism. "Power to the ants." My apologies to the ants.

BUSH AND MLK....So I see that President Bush has installed Charles Pickering on the 5th Circuit Court via a recess appointment. Pickering, of course, has been filibustered by Democrats largely because of his lamentable record on civil rights.

But why do it today? After all, Congress has been in recess for over a month.

Let's see: last year Bush decided to celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday by announcing his opposition to affirmative action at the University of Michigan. This year he decided to appoint a judge universally reviled by civil rights groups.

Quite a coincidence, isn't it?

Posted by Kevin Drum at 10:11 PM

Wow.

This thread seems to have drawn every parking lot attendant on the continent. Who is going to park the cars between now and the commencement of The Leftist Utopia?

And I do love the way The Lefties celebrate the memory of Dr. King...by calling everyone who isn't just like them a Brownshirt and/or a Fascist. Good to see they understand Dr. King's message to the extent they understand just about everything else.

"Actually it is also the hated Limbaugh who has been trying to wake up Democrats to look at themselves."

Oh, good one. The racist junkie, Rush Limbaugh, dispensing wisdom to the Democratic masses, and they ignore him. Why?

"Who is going to park the cars between now and the commencement of The Leftist Utopia?"

I don't know, but DennisThePeasant will still be kissing some white guy's ass, I'd bet.

Carmageddon wrote: "Oh, good one. The racist junkie, Rush Limbaugh, dispensing wisdom to the Democratic masses, and they ignore him. Why?"

Liberals should ignore and shout down anyone that disagrees with them. I mean afterall, isn't that the great liberal tradition of open mindedness?

Carmageddon wrote: "Let's see: last year Bush decided to celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday by announcing his opposition to affirmative action at the University of Michigan. This year he decided to appoint a judge universally reviled by civil rights groups. Quite a coincidence, isn't it?"

I completely agree! If Bush really cared about MLK's legacy and dream, he obviously would have instituted more government programs for racial preferrences, set asides, quotas, lowered standards, and other such social justice programs universally embraced by "Civil Rights" groups.

New slogan for 2004: Bush Lied, Dr. Kings' Dream Denied!

Dream, meaning MLK's dream of more government social justice programs to promote racial preferrences, quotas, set asides, and lowered standards... of course.

"Liberals should ignore and shout down anyone that disagrees with them. I mean afterall, isn't that the great liberal tradition of open mindedness?"

Disagrees? Rush disagrees with liberals. Oh yeah, it's just a disagreement. Hitlery, feminazi, I mean, for a group that seems sensitive to Godwin's law, you sure don't mind ignoring it when it suits your purposes. Limbaugh doesn't just disagree with liberals, he demonizes them. If you don't like the discourse coming from the left, thats just too bad. Limbaugh started this train rolling in the 90s. Congratulations to the right wing for what they have accomplished for the national discourse.

Joe, you and I both spoke of the pernicious egalitarianism infecting the left-of-center in America. On that topic, let me recommend to you The Illusions of Egalitarianism by John Kekes.

I'm optimistic that the morass you describe in the Democratic Party will fade away over the next couple of decades. The 25-year-olds of today may be shallow, but they don't appear to be beholden to leftism. I taught college for the last ten years, and when it comes leftism, these kids just don't get it. I remain hopeful that when I'm old, one party will stand near the center speaking for the poor and for openmindedness about ways of life, while the other stands near the center speaking for time-honored values, private property rights, liberty, and small government. By then both will stand firmly for national security and the eradication of tyrannies abroad. I think leftism is a 150-year blip on the historical screen. Its essential Marxist core is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories come and go.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

I can see that this is going to be the nastiest election I will have ever seen.

Another Bruce,

You can try to blame Rush Limbaugh for the left's bad behavior, but I don't buy it. Rush Limbaugh is, indeed, an ass. And I expect better than that from the Democrats.

MT, do you think Edwards, Kerry, or Gephardt as the nominee would make for a civil election season? Have to assume they'd discipline the nasties in their camp, of course.

MT, do you think Edwards, Kerry, or Gephardt as the nominee would make for a civil election season?

Not necessarily. It would help a little, but the mob on this thread from T-bogg's site would still behave like the punks they are.

Another Bruce wrote:
"Limbaugh doesn't just disagree with liberals, he demonizes them. If you don't like the discourse coming from the left, thats just too bad."

Not only that, if you don't like the discourse coming from the left 100%, then you aren't even a real liberal. It's too bad to see an once great party hijacked by the fringe for self destruction.

"Limbaugh started this train rolling in the 90s. Congratulations to the right wing for what they have accomplished for the national discourse."

Oh, you mean the time honored tradition of shouting down speakers you disagree with at college campuses is all just a response to Rush Limbaugh's radio show?

Jim wrote:

"Have to assume they'd discipline the nasties in their camp, of course."

I am afraid the nasties have grown into a beast they can no longer control. As the Democrats lose more and more voters in the middle, they become more and more reliant on their special interest groups that increasingly come to dominate their base.

JJ, I think a D candidate could shame them with a strongly worded series of remarks on the stump, say, every couple of days for a week and a half. The shameless amongst them would at least be driven into the backwaters for the rest of the season. He'd probably even get himself some votes for "high ground".

"Oh, you mean the time honored tradition of shouting down speakers you disagree with at college campuses is all just a response to Rush Limbaugh's radio show?"

No, but I do mean that using Limbaugh as someone who just has some philisophical differences with liberals is a pretty lame point to make. I don't think that its right for anybody to shout any speaker down because they disagree with the speaker's point of view. I just think that this "angry left" argument is sort of a pot and kettle situation, coming as it is on the heels of the eight year jihad on the Clinton administration. (Actually more like eleven years, it has never really let up in some circles.) You guys point to someone like Michael Moore as a left wing extremist, and then you defend Limbaugh. Pot, meet Kettle.

What were the accomplishments of the eight year jihad against Clinton? There were none. It was a tremendous waste of time and money. The American people saw absolutely no benefit.

So, what do the Democrats do? They’re doing what the Republicans did, starting their time-and-money wasting jihad.

A sign of intelligence is the ability to learn from past experience and the mistakes of others.

Another Bruce: You guys point to someone like Michael Moore as a left wing extremist, and then you defend Limbaugh. Pot, meet Kettle.

Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both blowhards. Indeed. But Rush Limbaugh does not excuse Michael Moore. It just doesn't work that way. It's best to find another argument.

Based on Carmageddon's posts, I think I now know who is, and will be, parking cars regardless of regime...

...and no tip when you park my Mercedes Benz ML430, son. It's the price you pay for your integrity.

Long, contentious comments section here. Scrolling with my right hand and eating dinner with my left. After reading the last of the many comments I see my mashed potatoes now have been formed to resemble Bush on one side and Hitler on the other. mary, discard the crutch of "logic". Join me this weekend in quest of TV newscams. You bring the stilts, I'll bring the papier mache.

Make the effigy Taft.

So, what do the Democrats do? They’re doing what the Republicans did, starting their time-and-money wasting jihad.

We are? When? Where? Please post it here so those of us who didn't get the memo will know.

And you know, Michael Totten, having a world wide web doesn't excuse your having a weblog, either -- it's just that ol' thing called 'free speech' -- I guess Michael Moore just got bit by it, too. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not sure M.Moore has quite the forked tongue and double standard that Limbaugh has. I've heard many a liberal defend Limbaugh's privacy in this current matter. I doubt that Limbaugh has ever defended a liberal's right to anything!

As the Democrats lose more and more voters in the middle, they become more and more reliant on their special interest groups that increasingly come to dominate their base.

Huh? Have you forgotten that the Democrats won the 2000 election popular vote by over 500,000 votes. Can you provide some back-up to what you're saying here or are you just hopeful?

As the Democrats lose more and more voters in the middle, they become more and more reliant on their special interest groups that increasingly come to dominate their base.

Huh? Have you forgotten that the Democrats won the 2000 election popular vote by over 500,000 votes. Can you provide some back-up to what you're saying here or are you just hopeful?

Yeah. The 2002 midterm elections.

Yeah. The 2002 midterm elections.

I don't buy it statistically. Give us the numbers.

Streaker: I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not sure M.Moore has quite the forked tongue and double standard that Limbaugh has.

Actually, no, I do agree with you there. Still, it doesn't make any difference. You can't excuse bad behavior on the left because there is bad behavior on the right. It just doesn't work that way.

Fox News poll of Jan 7-8.

President Bush easily tops each of the potential Democratic presidential contenders he is matched against in this poll. If the election were held today, voters would support Bush over Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt by 26 points, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry by 22 points, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean by 21 points, and retired Gen. Wesley Clark by 20 points.

>You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only >one.

Indeed you are not.

"But where's the man, who counsel can bestow,
Still pleas'd to teach, and yet not proud to know?
Unbiass'd, or by favour, or by spite:
Not dully prepossess'd, nor blindly right;
Tho' learn'd, well-bred; and tho' well-bred, sincere;
Modestly bold, and humanly severe:
Who to a friend his faults can freely show,
And gladly praise the merit of a foe?"

- Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

Jim, you're close, bud.