When idiots speak on MLK day

Two outrageous statements were made on Martin Luther King Day. New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin declared that New Orleans was always going to be a "chocolate city" and Sen. Hillary Clinton said the U.S. House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation."

As for Nagin, he has since tried to "clarify" his MLK Day statement by saying this:

How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about. New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special.

The first time I read that (on a conservative blog), I thought the blogger had made it up. That has to be the most idiotic "explanation" I have ever heard. Ace had the best line about this I have seen:

He also added that he meant to note that "chocolate" is especially delicious with a squirt of lemon (Asians) and cherry (American Indians), too, plus whatever flavor Samoans and Sikhs might be.

Can anyone honestly take this guy seriously anymore? And that seems to be the way most people are viewing this - he says so much stupid things so why even bother.

But not only did Ray Nagin give us a "delicious" recipe for chocolate, he also spoke on behalf of God - saying America deserved the hurricanes because of [insert political issue here]. Pat Robertson was roundly criticized from every side for his stupid comments, but I wonder if the media and the left-wing blogs have condemned Nagin for his role as the spokesperson of God.

In my own opinion, Clinton's statement was much more reprehensible - comparing Republicans to slave owners. She can dance and say she meant something else, but you don't use the word "plantation" in Harlem on MLK Day unless you are trying to insinuate something. The entire quote makes it worse:

When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run — it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, you know what she's talking about. We all know Republicans are racists. We all know Conservatives hate black people. We all know that if they could, the Republicans would reinstate slavery tomorrow.

She should be forced to apologize for her statement, but she won't. She should be forced to at least provide some evidence backing up her claim, but she won't. The media will sweep this under the rug because this doesn't fit in with the moderate Hillary. This was Hillary speaking to her political base and the rest of America doesn't need to hear what she said.

Yesterday, I heard an illustration that completely disproves Clinton's premise and much of the premise of the Democratic party today.

Name the most prominent black Democrat. Most people would probably say Sen. Barak Obama, a first term senator. Now name the next one. Most people would draw a blank.

Now name the most prominent black Republican. Most would say Condi Rice, the highest ranking cabinet official in the Bush White House. You could look at the Secretary of State before Rice, Colin Powell. You could say Clarence Thomas, appointed to the Supreme Court by a Republican.

If you look across the political landscape, numerous black Republicans are gaining national exposure in their statewide races (particularly in Ohio, Maryland and Pennsylvania).

Republicans are the ones charged as being racists and bigoted, but it is the Democrats who have the history of opposing civil rights. It is the Democrats who have a senate leader who was a grand dragon in the KKK.

Christians are often blamed for their support of slavery or their opposition to civil rights, even though there were Christians on both sides of those issues and faith played a huge role in the defeat of slavery and the recognition of civil rights.

While Christians are constantly forced to apologize for the past sins of some of our members, the racist history of the Democratic party is completely whitewashed.

Does any of this prove the reverse of Clinton's statement - that Democrats are racists, while Republicans are not? No, but the point is that neither party is inheritly racist or bigoted. Both parties support and care about the well being of all Americans (black, white, hispanic, etc.), they just have different ideas on how to achieve the desired results.

Two idiotic statements were made on MLK Day. One was forced to attempt an explanation of his comments - a black man. The other was allowed to sweep her's under the rug - a white woman. The media must be racist.

Comments

[seeker]

I say let Hillary and the bunch try to stir their liberal constituents to action with such idiocy, following in Howard Dean's footsteps (where has he been lately? I enjoyed his regular wild comments).

She is just driving moderates away.

Accusations of racism towards either party are definitely inaccurate, if not purposefully misleading. I assume that both parties are trying to do the right thing. The questions really are, what do impoverished communities really need? What will help them in the long run? How much can govt do, and what do we expect them to do for themselves? What are the practical consequences of various approaches?

[Sam]

Aaron,

1. I'm sick of hearing about old school Democrats. You know as well as I do that those old school Democrats became so sick of the Democratic party's leanings that they decided to join...the new school Republicans. Particularly in our own South. You know that, and yet it doens't seem to be anywhere in your post.

2. Using plantation is stupid, but perhaps Hillary means that the leadership of the house (formerly Delay and his cohort) tell everybody else what to do. I think it is well documented that DeLay was known as "the Hammer" for basically making his ideas go through at the expense of everybody else's.

3. There is racism in both parties. But the bigger problems are class issues, not race issues. And Republicans are notoriously intolerant of any discussion involving class. (Whereas Dems just don't bring it up because they're so damned stupid.)

[Aaron]

1. I agree. I don't think it has any bearing on current issues what so ever. I was only using it to illustrate a point. Some of those Democrats became Republicans (Strom Thurmond). Some also apologized for their past stances and even hired minorities in high positions in their staff (Thurmond again). Some stayed in the Democratic party (Robert Byrd).

The current issues cannot be decided by looking at the past problems.

2. I'm sure that is what Hillary wants people to think about her using "plantation," but she knows that using that term on MLK Day at a black church is insinuating the worst about her political opponent. She did not choose that word haphazardly.

For a plantation owner, Delay sure has been thrown under the bus. "The Hammer" has lost a lot of his swing. Hopefully the Republicans will put a reformist (conservative) in the leadership position. I fear that everyone in Washington regardless of party has been infected with the K Street bug and loves to brag about pork back home too much for anything to be changed. I hope I'm wrong.

3. There is racism in our nation - a whole lot less than there was 50, even 20 years ago. But starting class warfare is no better than starting race conflicts.

I think the policies of the Democratic party are harmful to the lower class in the long run. I think they make them dependent on the government and trap them in ghettos and trailer parks for the rest of their lives. Both I don't think they hate poor people, I think their efforts are misguided.

Republicans don't hate poor people nor are they intolerant of class issues. They (we) simply see a different means to solving the problems.

[Sam Rocha]

Hi nice Blog!

I’ve recently posted an article on Hillary among others; if you’re interested check it out. I’ve enjoyed looking through your archives and would love to establish reciprocal link.

www.debaterelatepontificate.blogspot.com

[Ed Darrell]

You're right: It's an insult to plantation owners who whipped their slaves and cheated on their wives to compare them to the current leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.