SHRIEK! Shirek Stripped of Dedication Honor
A big stir is being brought up around the striking down of a Congressional Bill to rename the Allston Street Post Office (near Ashby BART) in honor of long-time Berkeley politician Maudelle Shirek. From the Oakland Tribune:
The House voted 215-190 against the bill by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, to name the building at 2000 Allston Way for Shirek. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, led opposition on the House floor, saying Shirek’s background “sets her apart from, I will say, the most consistent of American values.”
He cited Shirek’s support for freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted for the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer. Later Tuesday, he told The Associated Press that Shirek had an “affiliation with the Communist Party,” citing her sponsorship of a Marxist library. Shirek could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Lee issued a statement saying Shirek’s “leadership, service and commitment to our community are a testament to what is great about our nation, and she deserves to be honored.”
“That a Republican from Iowa could launch a campaign to deny naming a local post office after this 94-year-old civil rights leader, who until recently was the oldest and one of the longest-serving elected officials in California, is just shameful,” Lee said, adding King’s “campaign of innuendo and unsubstantiated ‘concern’ is better suited to the era of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover than today’s House of Representatives.”
An Arkansas native, Shirek moved to Berkeley in the 1940s. She fought against housing discrimination, was among the Berkeley school board’s first African-American members, was active in the anti-war movement of the 1960s and’70s, founded two senior centers and helped organize the Bay Area movement to free Nelson Mandela from his South African prison…
This wasn’t Lee’s first attempt at naming the building for Shirek. She introduced such a bill in June 2003; it was referred to the House Government Reform Committee, where it died without action…
Needless to say, this is raising a bit of the stir between the left and the right. Even more shocking is that despite Congress’ ultra-busy schedule, they found time to make a political question over a post office dedication. Tax dollars hard at work, folks.
Even though I don’t agree with the reasoning used to defeat this bill, I’m still not sure if Shirek is worthy of having a post office named after her. She may be a nice woman, but honestly, if we honored everyone who worked in Berkeley City Hall for twenty years, we’d run out of places to dedicate. There isn’t a whole lot of political turnover in this city. Additionally, I would wager that there are a good dozen people who have contributed more to either Berkeley’s long-term future or the Berkeley Civil Rights Movement than Shirek, and are less controversal as well.
Title: Shreak? Don’t you mean “Shriek”?
For God’s sake. You spell her name “Shirek” in the first part of your post, then “Shriek” in the second.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — September 28, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
The first Shriek is a pun, silly. The spelling in the second part of the post is a typo which has been fixed.
Comment by Ben N. — September 28, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, after Rep. Lee stated that his attitudes would better fit in a certain earlier era: “I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America.”
You have got to be kidding me.
Comment by unbelievable — September 28, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
lol @ dis posT. haha some 94 year old nobody got denied a post office… OMG STOP DA PRESSES DIS IS HUGE NEWS. INJUSTICE
not rly. she was a nobody… is a nobody… nobody c@res. smashT
barbara lee is pro-taliban, pro-saddam, and pro-facist… cuz daT is essentially all daT pacifism amounts 2.
im glad her bill got smashT. to bad she cant be smashT in an election cause of da fuked up gerrymandered california districts. =(
“lol @ barbara lee being smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 28, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
Yeah, McCarthy was psycho, but nonetheless the government was full of commies. Alger Hiss was just scratching the surface.
Hollywood was worse. Comintern money was flowing into it. This is the history you’re never going to learn within Berkeley’s boundaries. Be honest, have you ever heard of Harry Hopkins?
Comment by face it — September 28, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
dis is news cause as da poster pointed out da house of reps had to vote on dis bill wit a roll-call insted of da uzual voice vote.
when she left offis, Shirek was da oldest and longest-serving elected offishal in kalifornia. her contributions to da peace movment… watever; her contributions to da city of berkley n especially her counsil distriKt 3 warrant da south berkley post office 2 be renamed in her honor. itz berkley remember and ppl like left-wing nutz.
rep lee is a product of da ppl that eleKted her 2 offise so quit ur foolish complaining bout gerrymandering cause it aint due 2 dat at all. foolZ!
“settin da TRUTH straighT”
Comment by انيق, ألم شديد, مقدار ضخم, إدراك — September 28, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
Joe McCarthy… hey unbelieveable, do you know NAYTHING abotu Joe McCarthy besides the Red Scare? Or are you just another ignoramus who learned he was evil in sc hoola nd so you recite it out on a blog? Dumbass.
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Please guys. Have some pity. I really NEED that picture of catherine kelly.
Comment by anon54 — September 28, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
h4h4… gotta love d@ f@ns.
keep up da worship. nexT
“b@skin in d@ worship of my fanz”
Comment by smashT — September 28, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
i still have yet to hear a convincing argument why having random kooks a part of some communist party is somehow destabalizing to america or a problem. government is of and by the people and, if through some crazy turn of events, the population decides it wants communism - hey, that’s the intention that this nation was founded on. repressing personal freedom, on the other hand, is more a threat to our way of life than any bunch of unshowered college idealists could ever be…
Comment by iliketapioca — September 28, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
communism = “repressing personal freedom”…. ret@rd
dis nation unliek oters was not made to let da losah’s in society (communists) run it.
get da fuk out of dis thwead and stfu. u have been smashT s0n.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 28, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
iliketapioca, then why is it not ok to be part of a fascist party or Nazi party in America? A lot of lefties want to ban those groups but think the communist groups should be allowed to thrive.
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
well said. i think we need a response from tapioca brain.
Comment by anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
Anonymous poster of comment #7:
1. learn to type; your lack of care reflects poorly on you
2. I could drown you in my knowledge of McCarthyism and American political history in general
Comment by unbelieveable — September 28, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
Anonymous poster of comment #7:
1. learn to type; your lack of care reflects poorly on you
2. I could drown you in my knowledge of McCarthyism and American political history in general
3. don’t call people names; it’s not nice
Comment by unbelieveable — September 28, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
I’m sorry to sound like an old fogey here, but as a 27-year-old Cal grad and former elected official in Berkeley, I am shocked, disgusted and appalled by the frightening ignorance of people who have posted on this issue. Maudelle Shirek is not a “nobody” — and it is downright innacurate and insensitive to dismiss her as just another person who worked at City Hall for 20 years.
She strongly deserves to have the Downtown Post Office named after her.
Maudelle is literally the mother, grandmother and mentor of the progressive movement in Berkeley. She has lived in Berkeley since the 1930’s, and has been involved in every left-wing movement that has given this city such a proud legacy. She was responsible for getting Ron Dellums to first run for city council (and then Congress), and she also got Barbara Lee involved in politics too.
In 1982, at age 71, she was fired from her job working for the City of Berkeley because she was too old. Outraged at the age discrimination, she made her first run for public office in 1984 — and was elected to the Berkeley City Council, where she served and was continuously re-elected for TWENTY YEARS.
But enough of my ranting. Here is the Daily Cal’s Editorial Endorsement for her re-election back in November 2000:
Available at http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=3824
DISTRICT 3: MAUDELLE SHIREK
Maudelle Shirek is more than just a politician - she’s an institution. For District 3, there is no clearer choice than reelecting the seasoned and sagely incumbent.
Sassy as ever at the age of 89, there’s no stopping Shirek and her 16 years of experience on the council. Her record speaks volumes of her dedication to Berkeley and to the entire world.
A true activist in every sense of the word, Shirek has seen some of Berkeley’s greatest and darkest hours, as well as seen through projects that have immensely benefitted the citizens of her district and of the larger community. She has worked tirelessly on local and national boards and commissions, sometimes creating her own. But it’s the little things that make Shirek a winner. She cooks meals for the elderly, cleans homes of strangers she meets on the street (this is verified) and fearlessly attends rallies and protests - gladly risking arrest. When Shirek speaks, her booming voice can stop any listener in midstep. If that’s not a good quality to have for a councilmember then we don’t know what is.
Shirek’s strongest opponent, James Peterson (ironically, a Shirek appointee), is a less than stellar candidate in this race. Running a generously funded campaign and endorsed by scary developers, Peterson’s reputation is slightly marred by a sketchy campaign contribution scandal earlier this year.
Marcella Crump-Williams, the third candidate, presented herself to us as an individual with great promise. But despite practical ideas for improving the quality of life in her district, Crump-Williams lacks solid experience in city government to effectively hold a council seat. Should she lose, we strongly recommend Crump-Williams take time after this election to direcly contribute to some form of local government before running for office again.
Concerns of her age aside, Shirek remains far and away the best choice for continued and immediate results in District 3.
Comment by Paul Hogarth — September 28, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
yo hogarth…..
go cwy about it in ur next book s0n.
“book writer smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 28, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
and Castro is the father of the progressive movement in Cuba. fellow travelers…..or whatever the expression is
Comment by anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 9:15 pm
Sorry if I was hurting your feelings. McCarthy wasn’t just about purging America of communists. Sure you may disagree with McCarthy, but what if I disagree with, say reanmignt he buildign after Shirek. Shouldn’t the people decide?
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 10:27 pm
whatever. you think because you were on some crappy ass rent control board we should all bow down and take your opinions as fact? gimme a break. how many people outside berkeley know who maudelle shirek is? that’s right: zero.
i don’t give a flying f*** what any “former elected officials” think. just another leftwing elitist, you talk a good game about helping the lower class, as long as the believe all your socialist drivel. the intellectual arrogance is sickening. stfu.
Comment by captain anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
Sweet, now we should all take Jason Overman and Jesse Arreguuin’s opinions as fact because they are on the rent stabilization board!
Comment by RepBast1984 — September 28, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
Pssst, Paul! “Literally” means… uh… “literally.” Being literally the mother and grandmother of anything requires some hearty incest.
Comment by Beetle — September 28, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
boston globe, associated press, sac bee are reporting on this current name debacle, so forget capt anon’s comment about noone outside the city knowing who she is. when capt anon writes about intellectual arrogance he/she could just as easily have had the same thing written about him/her.
this is so clearly a case of the federal gov’t. (yeah, make the argument that feds run the postal system) overreaching … republican-led congress abuses power, refuses berkeley name one of its post offices after a highly respected community leader. if this were bigger news, it would look bad for the house leaders.
i’m sure with the spread of mistruths put out by whomever is so against this naming of a post office will continue to say that shirek had ties with the commies, etc. and that people around the country will probably shake their heads, thinking, “berkeley’s at it again!”
Comment by admiral anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 12:05 am
Keep in mind that when Ms. Shirek dared to stray from party orthodoxy by ocasionally working WITH the more moderate elements in Berkeley, opposition research done during her bid for re-election to the city council revealed that some of the signators on her petition did not live within her district. The ‘Mother of the progressive movement in Berkeley’ was quickly shunted aside in favor of someone more willing to toe the line. They’ll name a post office after her, but they just didn’t want her IN office anymore!
Comment by Different Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 1:26 am
lol @ deze comments
h4h4 all i c is hogarth and co. running from dese threads running from dese arguments. h4h4 they have been smashT real b@d.
and ya shriek or watevar her name is a nobody. nuffT said.
@lso any1 who names deyselves “admiral anonymous” is a fukin nerd irl. h4h4
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 29, 2005 @ 2:01 am
Hey beetle, don’t classify their love
If Paul & Co thinks the feds should butt out and let them name a federal building after one of their local heros, I’m sure they’d be fine with other localities putting a symbolic homage over their public buildings. Say naming the local DOJ Civil Rights Division after Strom Thurmond, or a commandment or two or ten, or maybe even a flag of sorts recognizing the Confeder…oh they wouldn’t? Shucks, I thought those granola types wanted equal treatment for everybody.
And you wonder why you people keep losing elections.
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 2:35 am
I’m tired of the naming game. I’d prefer a process that put a damper on hasty decisions to hang a name on anything. Like a ten year period between the proposal and the final vote to enact it. And renaming anything should be banned. Thank God Nancy Riddle had the backbone to snuff out the Jefferson elementary renaming effort. Maio and Worthington wanted to rename Sacramento Street to Cesar Chavez. Of course they didn’t propose polling the Sac Street residents; they just wanted to shove it through the city council. Ironically, I think it was Shirek who put a stop to it because the businesses on the street in her district were irate. Final comment, when you consider the general attitude that flows out of our city gov’t toward the republicans in DC, you can expect them to take the time to put serious matters aside to tell the lefties in Berkeley to blow it out their you know what.
Comment by another another anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 9:14 am
If fascists and nazis want to have a party, then fine. The test of our liberty and resolve for freedom doesn’t come when we allow those that we agree with to speak, it comes from when we allow those that we hate and disagree with to speak. Anything else is oppression. And yes, just as many lefties have their head up their ass on this issue as righties.
Comment by iliketapioca — September 29, 2005 @ 11:36 am
Whatever, if Barbara Lee wants to do something this stupid let her propose it all she wants. For rational Americans, this just makes the Democrats look more irrational and stupid. Thus, they will never EVER win another presidential election or ever get a majority of either house again. For any Republican, why is this such a bad thing? We shoudl be out there supporting her dumb ideas, hell even supporting prostitution in Berkeley. Let THAT be what people think about the left -wing in America and the Democrats will LOSE perpetually.
Hoenstly, if the Democrats want to know why they’re losing, take a look at the people who are figureheads of the party. Massachusettes, New York and California liberals being the face of the Democratic party won’t get midwestern moderates to join the Democratic party. And we all know that no Democrat has ever won a presidential election without getting a southern state.
As a Republican maybe I shouldn’t offer this advice, but you people should elect Evan Bayh on the ticket as President or Vice President. The more you elect douchebag elitist liberals like John Kerry to run against the Republicans you will always lose.
Oh well, maybe I shouldn’t have said that. Democrats please continue to fight for meaningless issues that have NOTHING AT ALL to do wtih the issues people care about.
Comment by Anonymity — September 29, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Next time I think the democratic party should try the other senator from Massachusetts, Ted. With Hillary as his running mate. They would be an awesome team. All he has to do is win Iowa and it’s a done deal. What a great system.
Comment by anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 1:52 pm
next time, the democratic party should try running mr. ed the talking horse. he’s smarter than most of their senators. and funnier.
Comment by anon54 — September 29, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
“next time, the democratic party should try running mr. ed the talking horse. he’s smarter than most of their senators. and funnier.”
ROFL smashT LOLOLOLOL
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 29, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
What the fuck should a Republican Congressman from Iowa have to do with what people in Berkeley name a government building? If all you Repugs like some Iowan congressman better than Barbara Lee, why don’t you move to his district? It’d be better than listening to your goddamn whining while you shit upon Berkeley during your four years at UC, you goddamn useless overentitled chickenhawk needledick right-wing ingrates. Evidently, Republican support for decentralization and local control is a total fucking sham if a liberal is making the decision.
Comment by jonp — September 29, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
What the fuck should a Republican Congressman from Iowa have to do with what people in Berkeley name a government building? If all you Repugs like some Iowan congressman better than Barbara Lee, why don’t you move to his district? It’d be better than listening to your goddamn whining while you shit upon Berkeley during your four years at UC, you goddamn useless overentitled chickenhawk needledick right-wing ingrates. Evidently, Republican support for decentralization and local control is a total fucking sham if a liberal is making the decision.
Comment by jonp — September 29, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
Now now, John Kerry had a C average at Yale, as did Bush. What great politicians we have, and it’s frickin’ Yale where you can get a B+ by just showing up to class.
Also Ted Kennedy was another dumbshit who failed out of Harvard for cheating. No one fails out of Harvard. No one has to cheat at Harvard, it’s not worth the effort to cheat there.
Comment by DTI — September 29, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
Kennedy would be a great choice for the dems. Then the republicans can start a new cheer at their convetion:
“Chapp-a-quid-dick ::clap clap clap-clap-clap:: Chapp-a-quid-dick ::clap clap clap-clap-clap::”
He’ll win for sure.
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 8:08 pm
If all you Repugs like some Iowan congressman better than Barbara Lee, why don’t you move to his district?”
YES! jonp is a states’ rights supporter!
“you goddamn useless overentitled chickenhawk needledick right-wing ingrates”
Overentitled? You must not forget that the average Republicans are working class or poorer rural whites or hispanics.
Comment by RepBast1984 — September 29, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
SmashT is a Bee-otch! H4H4 lol!!
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
“SmashT is a Bee-otch! H4H4 lol!!”
u r my b1tch for hugging on my nutz. pwease continue da worship. smashT
“nexT”
Comment by smashT — September 29, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
i wish congress would name the berkeley post office after newt gingrich.
Comment by captain anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
“Evidently, Republican support for decentralization and local control is a total fucking sham if a liberal is making the decision.”
If the local government wanted to name one of their local buildings something, I’m sure congress would be fine letting them do it.
You don’t even understand federalism and you have a PhD? Tells you a lot about sociology.
Damn you’re an embarassment. Up your meds, not everything is a conspiracy.
Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 12:45 am
As a new student here at Berkeley and being originally from the midwest, I’m amazed by how many staunch Republicans are posting on this Cal site. I thought I left angry, mean, conservatives behind when I got out of the midwest? I guess you guys are everywhere, even in Berkeley!?!
Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 2:45 am
I was not going to say anything being that my statements are “factually” incorrect.
However, I agree with Paul’s statement. Maudelle Shirek has contributed a great deal to the Berkeley community.
Someone said that every Councilmember should not get a post office named after them. They are right, however Maudelle was not the average Berkeley official.
She has a long legacy of serving the community as an advocate for seniors and the poor and most recently on the City Council.
I think its incredibly disconcerting that the Republicans are using this as an opportunity to gain political capital.
Normally naming post offices is not a problem, and it is wholy appropriate that the City honor Shirek’s service in this fashion.
I knew we had gone backwards with Bush’s reelection, but I cannot believe that we are resorting to McCarthyistic tactics.
Shirek was not a communist. But even if she was, that is America. I find it so hypocritical that conservatives dismiss other viewpoints as un-patriotic, when the diversity of opinons and public debate is what makes our country distinct from all others.
I also dont think Ben knows of the contributions that she has made to Berkeley.
Its depressing that we cant even get a post office named after Maudelle.
It is my hope that the city can find an appropriate form of recognition and that this neo-conservative bating will stop.
Comment by Jesse Arreguin — September 30, 2005 @ 3:02 am
she has a legacy of bein a nobody. nuffT said.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 30, 2005 @ 8:54 am
Jesse,
Communists were (and there are probably still a few on the south side, hanging out at La Pena) committed to doing away with our govt and constitution and replacing it with a Soviet style system. That’s the whole goddam point about there being a problem with her embracing communism. They didn’t want to be just another party on the ballot, they wanted to be the only goddam party on the ballot. Lefty apologists for communists make me sick. Somewhere out there there are still people saying Alger Hiss really meant well, he had good motives.
Comment by another another anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 8:59 am
new angry student from midwest….
to be fair, the staunch democrats are just as mean and angry as the staunch republicans. you’ve got to step away and look on objectively.
Comment by another another anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 9:07 am
Did anybody pick up on the placement of articles on today’s Berkeley Planet front page? The Shirek article is front and center next to a front page article on a Marxist library in Oakland. (I don’t dare question any reasoning the planet may or may not have for placement of articles, or the slant of their articles in general.)
Comment by Reason — September 30, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
Wow. I didn’t know Jon AND Jesse were retarded. Don’t they teach federalism in sociology and city planning anymore? If the locals want to name a local government building after a local hero, I’m sure the evil neocon bastards will let them. But when they want to name a federal building after someone, its not a local issue anymore. Dumbshits.
Jon, up your meds, you’re making us all look crazy.
Comment by sensible prog — September 30, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
DAILY PLANET A FRONT FOR COMMUNIST ACTIVITY!
DAILY PLANET PUBLISHSES COMMUNIST SYMPATHY ARTICLES!
Comment by anon — September 30, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
Yeah, um angry midwestern person, have you ever read the posts from mano or jonp? Besides, what’s wrong with passionate people expressing their views from any party? Just because both sides are excessively closed-minded doesn’t mean that they should be put down for having opinions.
Comment by DTI — September 30, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
I scanned the piece on the library. I thought that between the lines he was poking fun at it. Matthew Artz never comes off as an idealogue. Taylor, Brenneman and the editor are really drinking the coolaid.
Comment by uncle joe — September 30, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
“I think its incredibly disconcerting that the Republicans are using this as an opportunity to gain political capital.”
u r a tool for writing dis. haha no one cares about dis but u and a few oter retards in dis city.
“It is my hope that the city can find an appropriate form of recognition and that this neo-conservative bating will stop.”
lol u r retarded s0n. neo-conservatism is a foreign policy ideology… has notin to do wiT Shriek.
“I was not going to say anything being that my statements are “factually” incorrect.”
yea u are incorrect and a tool. now stfu and get off dis thread.
“I knew we had gone backwards with Bush’s reelection, but I cannot believe that we are resorting to McCarthyistic tactics.”
m@n u sound like such a douchebag and a tool haha. i feel s@d for u.
“I find it so hypocritical that conservatives dismiss other viewpoints as un-patriotic, when the diversity of opinons and public debate is what makes our country distinct from all others.”
lol retard… no1 is saying u cant be a communist. waT ppl are saying is daT our country should not reward ppl wiT public honors who wanna overthrow da USA and establish a communist dictatorship.
smashT
ive come to conclude daT jesse is a tool and a douchebag. i asked around and his own colleagues also share dis view. sux to be u jesse. lolz smashT
“douchebag city official smashT”
Comment by smashT — September 30, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
“i wish congress would name the berkeley post office after newt gingrich.”
daT would be tight as fuk. =)
it would be worth all da protests… just to watch all da pissT kids like hogarth, jesse, and dey crew cwy and scream over it lolz.
“gingrich bezerkeley post office ftw”
Comment by smashT — September 30, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
“Sweet, now we should all take Jason Overman and Jesse Arreguuin’s opinions as fact because they are on the rent stabilization board!”
Uh, Jesse… I was just kidding.
Comment by RepBast1984 — September 30, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
I get the point about federalism, but really now, do you see liberals complaining every single time a Deep South Congressman wants to name the interstate in his district after Buford T. Segregationist Peckerwood? Sometimes, I’m just through with liberals and progressives acting “reasonable.” Reasonableness got the Democrats crushed in the 2000 and 2004 elections. When Republicans start conducting themselves in the political arena according to the Queensbury Rules, then I might see the merits of reasonableness, but this is a different era. Besides, didn’t you see how I was copping the style of the RudePundit blog?
Comment by jonp — September 30, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
“u r a tool for writing dis. haha no one cares about dis but u and a few oter retards in dis city.”
Jesse does write like a robot but that’s just his deal. I feel sorry for him, too. But the fact that some Midwest Republican made this effort means that people DO care about this outside of Berkeley.
“lol u r retarded s0n. neo-conservatism is a foreign policy ideology… has notin to do wiT Shriek.”
Neoconservatism is primarily focused on foreign policy but it has a whole domestic side as well.
NEEDLEDICK SMASHT
Comment by Brand America — September 30, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
brand- still dont see the neocon-shirek connection…
Comment by anon — September 30, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
i had no idea we elect people to become whiny bitches who pour their hearts out on a fucking blog. grow some balls.
tact, man. tact.
Comment by smarter than you — September 30, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
h@h@ anoter f@n copying my style. time to smashT dis scrub fanboi.
“But the fact that some Midwest Republican made this effort means that people DO care about this outside of Berkeley.”
1 midwest republican all of a sudden is extrapolated to mean daT people “DO “care”. ya right. liek i said no1 outside dis city gives a shiT. mebbe daT congressman gave a shit while he smashT barabara lee but i doubt he cares anymore now. dis is a non-issue about a no namer communist from bezerkeley… ppl all over da country are really tunin in! ya right smashT
“Neoconservatism is primarily focused on foreign policy but it has a whole domestic side as well.”
liek anon said…. dere is no shriek-neocon connection. crushT
lol sux to be u m@n. juss like ur boys jessie and hogarth u are now one of my victims. welcome to forum warz s0n.
“fanboi demolishT”
Comment by smashT — September 30, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
does this make lee officially useless?
Comment by smarter than you — September 30, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
i had no idea we elected people to act like whiny bitches and pour all of their emotion on a fucking blog.
Comment by smarter than you — September 30, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
jonp,
Remember the Confederate Flag on the southern state’s flag? Hmm… even though 70% of the people in the state voted it should stay.
Reasonableness? As much as I dislike Republicans in many cases, how can you say teh Democrats were reasonable? Because they tend to agree with you more? That’s nonsense. Some people are liberals, some are conservatives. Just because your opponents disagree with you doesn’t make them unreasonable.
Comment by RepBast1984 — September 30, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
hmmm, is Buford T Segregationist Peckerwood supposed to be some kind of code name for Robert Byrd — the only GRAND CYCLOPS OF THE KKK in the senate who just happens to be a DEMOCRAT.
Comment by anon54 — September 30, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
or should I have said a DEMO-CRAP.
Comment by anon54 — September 30, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
I was just pointing out the uselessness of your analyzation of Jesse’s comments and the connection that you seemed troubled by, smashT.
NEEDLEDICK SMASHT
Comment by Brand America — September 30, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
Byrd has reputed his segregationist past, unlike say Trent Lott… Byrd is an exception to the rule, since most Democratic segregationists and their proteges left the Democratic party a long time ago.
Comment by jonp — September 30, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
What does sponsorship of a marxist library mean? money involved or not?
This is the crux of the matter.
Comment by underground brkely rtwngr — September 30, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
jonp, you’re right there are still racists int he Republican party. One example is Sandra Day O’Connor, who affirmed that racism against Asians in admissions was still defensible.
Comment by Anonymity — September 30, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
“I was just pointing out the uselessness of your analyzation of Jesse’s comments and the connection that you seemed troubled by, smashT.”
wtf are u talkin about s0n?
waT connection am i troubled by?
u got smashT and now make no sense. sux to be u d00d.
“another fan smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 1, 2005 @ 1:50 am
“lol retard… no1 is saying u cant be a communist. waT ppl are saying is daT our country should not reward ppl wiT public honors who wanna overthrow da USA and establish a communist dictatorship.
smashT”
Really? She said she wants to overthrow the US and replace it with a communist dictatorship? Hmm. Curious, I’ve never quite read that quote.
Hyperbole anyone?
Back to a reality-based viewpoint for a sec, I suspect Shirek has nothing to do with this. Barbara Lee inspires quite a bit of enmity in Congress, and this is probably just another way for the Reps to make clear their dislike.
Comment by Donald — October 1, 2005 @ 8:46 am
Donald, you’re right. Barbara Lee is also a person who should never spearhead any movement if the Democrats want to take it seriously. Let’s face it, Barbara Lee is not taken seriously by the Democrats or Republicans in congress. She’s a joke and all liberals know it. If they ever want respectability they shoudl lock her up in a padded room or seriously just nominate someone more respectable to take her place in congress. Making such a big deal about her and a name change for the post office won’t solve anything.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 1, 2005 @ 10:49 am
“Really? She said she wants to overthrow the US and replace it with a communist dictatorship? Hmm. Curious, I’ve never quite read that quote.”
no m@n. learn how to fukin read… some idiot was s@yin daT it was ok to name buildings after communists… i tink da quote was similar to dis: “so waT if she was a communist”. den i gave my response… we shouldnt be namin buildings after communists cuz dey wanna overthrow da US government. smashT
fukin kids at bezerkeley need reading skills.
“3rd grade reader smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 1, 2005 @ 11:33 am
Barbara Lee committed treason before the US invasion of Grenada. She deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison.
Comment by captain anonymous — October 1, 2005 @ 1:56 pm
Lefties banning Nazis? Sure there are some who want do so, but there are other liberals and lefties who did just the opposite, such as the ACLU members who actively fought for the First Amendment right of Nazis to parade in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s. (The whole “I hate Illinois Nazis” shtick in the Blues Brothers was inspired by this case.) In addition, there are pictures of David Duke prancing around in a Nazi uniform back from his college days and it hasn’t hurt him in the Louisiana Republican Party. This was a well-known fact and it didn’t stop Duke from getting a majority of white people’s votes when he ran for governor against Edwin Edwards. Personally, I’m glad Duke pranced around like a Nazi. If he had actually hidden his views, he might have actually become governor of Louisiana. In European countries where they have restrictions against Nazi hate speech, these restrictions have often backfired by lending sympathy to some really sleazy neo-Nazis. In addition, the restrictions simply teach European fascists to be more crafty in what they say, a factor which explains the rise of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.
Or how about Trent Lott and Bob Barr? Both Barr and Lott have spoken in front of the Council of Conservative Citizens. The Council of Conservative Citizens is not some ordinary Republican group, but the direct descendant of the White Citizens’ Councils who played a major role in enforcing segregation and harassing civil rights activists in the South during the 1950s and 1960s.
Comment by jonp — October 1, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Yes, repbast, in some limited cases, I see the merits of states’ rights. As long as states rights don’t trump individual rights (that was the problem with the 50s Southern version of states’ rights), I don’t see anything illiberal about having states’ rights as a bulwark against overreaching federal power. In fact, Paul Bruno had some discussions about the merits vs. demerits of federal power on our respective blogs.
Not true. Despite the fact your claim here dovetails with things said by lefties like Tom Frank in What’s The Matter with Kansas?, the statistical evidence doesn’t quite support that. If you measure personal income according to its percentile in the income distribution, whites in the bottom third (0-33rd percentile) vote for Republicans much less than whites in the middle or upper thirds. You can find the evidence here in a new paper by Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels:
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf
I also checked the 2004 election stats on CNN.com, which disconfirms your claim that the average Republican voter is Latino. It appears that Latinos voted for Kerry by a margin of 53%-44%. Bush did even worse against Gore, only capturing 35% of the Latino vote. In fact, the only racial group where Bush had a majority in 2004 was white people.
Comment by jonp — October 1, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
Um jonp, didn’t David Duke also run as democrat in the 1988 Presidential election? Duke is a staunch opponent of the Republican party and has written articles endorsing any opponent against George W. Bush.
http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/anybody-but-bush-by-david-duke_620.html
And jonp, the allowing of free speech at Skokie Illinois caused a rift in the ACLU between thsoe who believe in free speech and those who don’t. I praise those who believe in free speech because free speech shouldn’t be censored ebcause of morals.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 1, 2005 @ 4:53 pm
I’ve double-checked the vote totals on state referenda about the Confederate flag:
1996 poll, South Carolina: 49% favor removing Confederate flag from Capitol dome vs. 40% opposed
2001 vote, Mississippi: 65% pro-Confederate flag vs. 35% anti
2003 vote, Georgia: 73% anti-Confederate flag vs. 27% pro
Sorry, but only Mississippi seems to fit what you’re talking about. Don’t mess with me on public opinion/election stats. I got skillz, brah!
Anyhow, this isn’t analogous to the Shirek situation, because the removal of the Confederate flag in Southern states did not involve federal power, but instead mostly involved boycotts by private organizations such as the NAACP. In fact, in South Carolina, the removal of the Confederate flag had a great deal to do with evangelical Republican governor, Jere Beasley, who favored removing the flag because he thought it was the Christian thing to do.
Comment by jonp — October 1, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
Duke switched his registration to the Republican Party in 1989 and won a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives as a member of the GOP. In 2000, Duke endorsed the Reform Party ticket of Pat Buchanan, but Buchanan is just a disgruntled Republican anyway.
Comment by jonp — October 1, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
Correction, jonp Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative. He believes in a smaller federal government, stronger states’ rights, international isolationism, Tariffs and anti-free trade, tighter immigration controls and social conservatism but only at the state level. I don’t think those are any ideals embraced by the current Republican party.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 1, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
david duke was a democrap. same as lyndon larouche, jesse jackson, and al sharpton… chek yo facts s0n…
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 1, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
“the ACLU members who actively fought for the First Amendment right of Nazis to parade in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s”
In all honesty, does anyone think that if this happened in 2005, the ACLU would still support the Nazi’s free speech? I say emphatically no. The ACLU has turned into just another leftist political group.
Comment by captain anonymous — October 1, 2005 @ 7:12 pm
David Duke ran as a Democrat, Republican and supported Pat Buchanan. Strangely, the Republicans under Ronald Reagan publicly denounced David Duke and Pat Buchanan said he was embarrassed to have support from David Duke. However, the Democrats never denounced David Duke from being in their party.
In 2000 he backed Pat Buchanan, who denounced him. In 2004 he backed John Kerry, and the Democrats said nothing.
Also, I used to have respect for the ACLU until they started taking positions on issues that had nothing to do with free speech like affirmative action.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 1, 2005 @ 7:27 pm
“In 2004 he backed John Kerry, and the Democrats said nothing.”
super smashT
“crushT”
Comment by smashT — October 1, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
“In all honesty, does anyone think that if this happened in 2005, the ACLU would still support the Nazi’s free speech? I say emphatically no.”
Of course they would. The modern leadership is very proud of Skoke. The ACLU lost of a lot of membership when it happened, but it seems to me the principle behind the decision is less controversial now than it was then.
Comment by Donald — October 2, 2005 @ 10:13 am
“no m@n. learn how to fukin read… some idiot was s@yin daT it was ok to name buildings after communists… i tink da quote was similar to dis: “so waT if she was a communist”. den i gave my response… we shouldnt be namin buildings after communists cuz dey wanna overthrow da US government. smashT”
Sorry, the coherence here is a bit overwhelming. Are you making the affirmative assertion that she’s a communist. And are you further making the assertion that all communists support the overthrow of the US political system?
Or were you saying IF Shirek was a communist, THEN she doesn’t deserve honors.
The former requires evidence. The latter isn’t what you said.
Comment by Donald — October 2, 2005 @ 10:15 am
“Barbara Lee is also a person who should never spearhead any movement if the Democrats want to take it seriously. Let’s face it, Barbara Lee is not taken seriously by the Democrats or Republicans in congress. She’s a joke and all liberals know it.”
She supports some important issues that don’t get much exposure otherwise, but I agree to the extent that she is a very ineffective politician. It’s possible to be quite liberal AND a consensus builder (Feingold being the most obvious example to my mind), but she just can’t get anything passed.
“Making such a big deal about her and a name change for the post office won’t solve anything.”
I think any fair Republican here would agree that this is a petty thing for the Congress to do. It’s not that big of a deal, but it’s clear who’s being unreasonable.
Comment by Donald — October 2, 2005 @ 10:21 am
If we have Evan Bayh supporting a cause, both Republicans and Democrats would listen. I think he should run for President. However, when you have Barbara Lee supporting somethign suddenly all of the Republicans are opposing it and half of the Democrats cower away in fear that her presence will destroy whatever cause they’re trying to support. She also might get some support from sadistic Republicans who like showcasing her as the spokeswoman for Democratic values.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 2, 2005 @ 11:42 am
Contrary to the right-wing vitriol of some people who have posted on this blog, Barbara Lee is actually a highly respected member of Congress.
She may be much farther left than even most Democrats, and her views may be anathema to Republicans, but she’s not someone who people find disagreeable. That’s why all those attacks and death threats against her after her lone voice in September 2001 against war in Afghanistan were so ugly. You couldn’t possibly go after a nicer person.
There are some liberal Democrats in Congress, like Maxine Waters for example, who are far more combative and aggressive — and easier to demonize by the right. The only thing people can fault Barbara Lee for, however, is the fact that she votes the way her very very liberal constituents (in a district that represents Berkeley!!) want her to.
Back in March 2002, the Daily Cal endorsed her re-election (despite the fact that the Editorial Board’s politics at the time were far more conservative than usual), because they said frankly — you can’t fault her for voting the way her constituents want her to.
Barbara Lee speaks for me. She may not speak for you, but at least respect her for standing up for
Comment by Paul Hogarth — October 2, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
Thank you for your opinion about how much you like Barbara Lee. My point is that people don’t call on Barbara Lee to be the negociator, just like they don’t call on Tom Delay to be any type of moderator between the left and the right. If the Bay Area wants to become more respected overall by mainstream Americans, they need to elect someone more moderate like Gavin Newsom, into the seat of the 9th district. Someone like Gavin Newsom who is fiscally moderate but socially liberal would gain a lot more respect for the East Bay than Barbara Lee.
To her credit the other crazies like Tom Lantos and Mike Honda, Ellen Tauscher, and Nancy Pelosi are also seen as not very negociable either.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 2, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
“Are you making the affirmative assertion that she’s a communist. ”
som1 said she supported it. but daT isnt da point if my argument
“And are you further making the assertion that all communists support the overthrow of the US political system?”
yes… communist party = revolutionary party. why dun u study some fukin history before u come post on dis blog. smashT
“Or were you saying IF Shirek was a communist, THEN she doesn’t deserve honors.”
if she was a communist den she doesn’t deserve shiT. either way she is a nobody so doesnt deserve it anyway.
da larger point i was makin was daT communists shouldnt have public buildings named after dem cuz dey wanna overthrow da government.
hope uve been practising ur reading comp skillz kid cuz i juss made it cwystal clear.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 2, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
bzzzzz, try again. barbara lee is a treasonous cockroach who conspired with a soviet puppet state to threaten US national security. she belongs in the federal penitentiary.
Comment by the candyman — October 2, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
Why is Kerry under an obligation to denounce David Duke for endorsing him when that would simply bring more attention to Duke’s slimebag racist beliefs? It’s not even clear that the Democrats knew about the endorsement, because they certainly didn’t seek it out. Besides, the basic point is that the only time David Duke has held public office is AS A REPUBLICAN. Democratic voters have never put David Duke anywhere near a position of power, but Republican voters did.
smashT LOL
Comment by jonp — October 2, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
Excuse me, but Rehnquist was a poll watcher who actively worked to disqualify black voters while working as an Arizona Republican official. In addition, while Rehnquist was a clerk, he wrote memos urging his boss to uphold segregation in the Brown v. Board of Education case.
Comparing Rehnquist’s blatant racist past to O’Connor’s votes in affirmative action case shows a total lack of historical and moral perspective. The fact that maybe some B-minus Asian high school student finds it a little harder to get into Berkeley because of some of O’Connor’s Supreme Court votes is not racism.
Comment by jonp — October 2, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
Buchanan used to work in the Nixon Administration. In addition, he ran in the 1992 Republican primaries against Bush Sr., after which he gave his famous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican convention. In addition, prior to joining the Reform Party, Buchanan was a nationally syndicated columnist who consistently favored conservative Republicans in his columns. Buchanan’s support for tariffs and isolationism put him out of step with Dubya’s Republican Party, but his social conservatism and immigrant bashing would definitely fit right in.
Comment by jonp — October 2, 2005 @ 10:55 pm
sigh jonp…. why muss we go through dis stuff again
prominent democrap anti-semites/racists/crazies:
Jesse Jackson
Represenative Moran
Senator Byrd
Al Sharpton
CBC
Cynthia Mckinney
Lyndon Larouche
etc…
a little history lesson:
democrats started da civil war
democrats defended slavery
democrats started segregationist policies
democrats were against integration in da south
democrats still in favor of modern racial discrimination (affirmative action)
Republicans:
Founded on anti-slavery platform
Fought for da Union
Fought against segregation
Brown vs Board decision written by Chief Justice Warren…. Former Republican Governor of California
Civil Rights Bill of 1964 passed on the votes of national republicans against da fillbuster mounted by democrat senators
stay smashT kid and keep on supporting a party with such a noble history
“fukin smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 pm
“but his social conservatism and immigrant bashing would definitely fit right in.”
Yes, jonp… Bush’s amnesty policies and WEAK/LAX immigration policies now count as “immigrant bashing?”
There’s a reason why Bush got so many Latino votes… not by immigrant bashing.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 12:11 am
Pat Buchanan’s biggest issue with Bush besides Iraq is Bush’s liberal stance on immigration. Even Hillary Clinton has been crusading about the need to close the borders. Bush has condemned the Project Minutemen folks as vigilanties and has always been engaged with Vincente Fox about allowing more immigrants in illegally and legally. To say Bush is an immigrant basher is the same as saying Clinton believed in non-intervention.
So before you spew off your liberal mantra about Bush embracign all the ideals of conservatism (whatever those are) please look at the facts first.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 12:16 am
Bush isn’t pro-immigrant enough. I support the position of the Libertarian Party on immigration. Peaceful people should be allowed to cross borders peacefully. End of story.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 1:14 am
Yoohoo, Smashy-Boy…
Do you having anything that the Republicans have done since 1964 that suggests they have helped black people? There’s a reason why Goldwater only got the electoral votes of Southern states. As for Republican racism:
Strom Thurmond (switched from Democrats to Republicans in 1964)
Trent Lott (opposed integration at Ole Miss as a student, praised Thurmond’s 1948 Dixiecrat campaign)
William Rehnquist (blocked black voters from voting, opposed Brown v. Board of Education)
Ronald Reagan (opposed fair housing in California, favored tax breaks for segregated academies)
George W. Bush (smeared McCain during the South Carolina primary by claiming he fathered a “black baby”)
Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush (deliberately added extra black voters without criminal records to a “felon list” that barred them from voting)
Richard Nixon (attempted to appoint the segregationists Haynesworth and Carswell to the Supreme Court)
Bob Barr (spoke frequently before the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the White Citizens’ Councils of the Jim Crow South)
Rep. Cass Ballenger [R-NC] (admitted “segregationist feelings” to a reporter)
Frankly, you are not going to win this debate, because I can always match your anecdotal data with my anecdotal data.
By the way, you totally misinterpret the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A majority of both Republicans AND Democrats voted in favor of the Act:
By Party: The Original House Version:
* Democratic Party: 153-96
* Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:
* Democratic Party: 46-22
* Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
* Democratic Party: 153-91
* Republican Party: 136-35
Read “Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics” by Carmines and Stimson to see how the Republicans have largely abandoned whatever pro-civil rights legacy they had. Most of the Southern Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act either retired, converted to the Republican Party later on, or lost their seat to a Republican who was just as racist as they were. Republicans consistently point to William Byrd as so-called “proof” of Democratic racism, but in fact, Byrd is the exception rather than the rule, because he stayed with the Democratic Party and has since renounced his prior racist beliefs.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 1:38 am
jonp, I’m going recent and I’m not even going to cite a single racist southern Democrat because then I’d have to go back to the civil war.
2000-2005: racist attacks against Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell claiming they’re “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas”, including racist cartoons with them having big lips.
Pete Stark (D-CA): Screaming that his opponent was a “fruitcake” and a “cocksucker” on the house floor, obviously anti-gay slurs
Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Openly making jokes about Indians, Ghandi, the taxi cab driver guy at the gas station.
David Duke (D-LA): Ok, that’s a low blow because he was like pary of 5 political parties but the Democrats were the only ones who really accepted him/didn’t denounce him.
Democrats: supporting affirmative action which is a direct racist attack on Asian-Americans.
Democrats: block voting against would-be first hispanic district judge Miguel Estrada; also threatening to block vote against Janice Brown from the California Supreme Court; block voted against Clarence Thomas; insulting Professor John Yoo, “Yoo”-sing his name to make jokes
Bill Clinton: Rwanda (KNOWINGLY let 800,000 blacks get slaughtered while he pulled out UN troops), Iraq (500,000 dead Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright claiming 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the sanctions); “Welfare Reform” that took away thousands of blacks’ welfare payments in the inner cities (ok, maybe this can be viewed as a good thing, welfare to work); Defense of Marriage Act
Jesse Jackson: Claimed New York was “hymietown”
Al Sharpton: Screaming about Jews being “Diamond merchants” at a political rally to rally blacks to his cause
(I’m not sure if Farrakhan is even part of a political party so I’ll leave him out)
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 5:39 am
“CBC”
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
“Cynthia Mckinney
Lyndon Larouche”
Lyndon Larouche is a prominent Democrat? How dumb are you? And Mckinney is a disgrace. The party stays far away from her.
“Brown vs Board decision written by Chief Justice Warren…. Former Republican Governor of California”
Who is now a hero for Democrats and much maligned by Republicans.
“Civil Rights Bill of 1964 passed on the votes of national republicans against da fillbuster mounted by democrat senators”
The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were the crowning achievements of the Great Society, true. As Jonp mentioned, a majority of both parties voted for it, including essentially all northeastern Republicans and Democrats. LBJ knew the cost though. “I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”
He was right.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 8:31 am
“no m@n. learn how to fukin read… some idiot was s@yin daT it was ok to name buildings after communists… i tink da quote was similar to dis: “so waT if she was a communist”. den i gave my response… we shouldnt be namin buildings after communists cuz dey wanna overthrow da US government. smashT”
We need to get you beyond a cursory bullet-point knowledge of history. Shirek is not a self-identified communist. She is certainly not a member of the Communist Party. So, just because clueless hacks may not understand the difference between Stalinism and Social Democracy is not her fault. But regardless, there are plenty of Marxists throughout the world who have been democratically elected and maintained democratic institutions. It is not at all impossible to reconcile American political institutions and, oh, say, Stagism for example. And that’s not to mention the many reformed (and not so reformed) Trotskyites who have embraced the power of American Empire in the past 20 years.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 8:41 am
“Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Openly making jokes about Indians, Ghandi, the taxi cab driver guy at the gas station.”
As a general rule, I don’t like Hillary, but this one isn’t too hard to defend. She made her joke in the context of trying to praise immigrant entrepreneurship. It was obviously in poor taste and/or delivered wrong, but she immediately apologized.
“Democrats: block voting against would-be first hispanic district judge Miguel Estrada; also threatening to block vote against Janice Brown from the California Supreme Court; block voted against Clarence Thomas; insulting Professor John Yoo, “Yoo”-sing his name to make jokes”
So, you’re making the assumption that it is automatically racist to vote against a minority? That sounds like something vaguely similar to affirmative action to me.
“Bill Clinton: Rwanda (KNOWINGLY let 800,000 blacks get slaughtered while he pulled out UN troops), Iraq (500,000 dead Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright claiming 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the sanctions); “Welfare Reform” that took away thousands of blacks’ welfare payments in the inner cities (ok, maybe this can be viewed as a good thing, welfare to work);”
Disgraces all. Would you like to cite Bush’s failure to act in Darfur or Zimbabwe? Or Bush senior’s failure to finish the job in Iraq? Or Reagan’s support of fascists in Latin America? Or Nixon’s, well, that’s too easy.
And do you think Welfare Reform would have taken place if the Democrats had a clear majority (hint: no fucking way).
“Defense of Marriage Act”
Which if memory serves me correctly, was opposed by 12 Senators, all Democrats. Simply put, the political costs were viewed as too great to embrace gay rights. We can thank (Democrat) Howard Dean for speeding up that civil rights battle. The progress made in the past decade is astonishing.
“David Duke (D-LA): Ok, that’s a low blow because he was like pary of 5 political parties but the Democrats were the only ones who really accepted him/didn’t denounce him.”
This brings us back to Larouche. Since when does ignoring someone that doesn’t deserve attention amount to tacit endorsement or acceptance?
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 8:53 am
wouldn’t the libertarian position also be that if those peaceful people peacefuly trespass on private property, then the peaceful property owners should be able to peacefully discharge their firearms in whichever peaceful direction they choose? jonp wants to kill mexican immigrants, who knew???
Comment by anon54 — October 3, 2005 @ 9:09 am
“Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Openly making jokes about Indians, Ghandi, the taxi cab driver guy at the gas station.”
I don’t come to the defense of Hillary often, but I will in this case. She was making a joke in the context of praising immigrant entrepreneurship (and if memory serves me, wasn’t she speaking before some Indian caucus? A far cry from Lott speaking before the White Collar KKK). The joke was inappropriate and/or misdelivered, but regardless, she immediately apologized.
“David Duke (D-LA): Ok, that’s a low blow because he was like pary of 5 political parties but the Democrats were the only ones who really accepted him/didn’t denounce him.”
Which brings us back to Larouche. Since when does ignoring someone who doesn’t deserve attention amount to tacit endorsement or acceptance?
“Democrats: block voting against would-be first hispanic district judge Miguel Estrada; also threatening to block vote against Janice Brown from the California Supreme Court; block voted against Clarence Thomas; insulting Professor John Yoo, “Yoo”-sing his name to make jokes”
Since when does voting against a minority (when the inspiration for voting against said minority has nothing to do with their status as a minority) amount to racism? That sounds like affirmative action to me.
“Bill Clinton: Rwanda (KNOWINGLY let 800,000 blacks get slaughtered while he pulled out UN troops), Iraq (500,000 dead Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright claiming 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the sanctions); “Welfare Reform” that took away thousands of blacks’ welfare payments in the inner cities (ok, maybe this can be viewed as a good thing, welfare to work);”
Disgraces all. Do you want to cite Bush Jr.’s failure to act in Darfur or Zimbabwe? Or Bush Sr.’s failure to finish the job in Iraq? Or Reagan’s open support of fascism in Latin America? Or Nixon’s, well, that’s too easy. These aren’t examples of racism but rather credulism and opportunism.
Regarding welfare reform, do you think it would have been proposed (let alone passed) if there was a clear Democratic majority? (Hint: no fucking way)
“Defense of Marriage Act”
If memory serves me, 12 senators voted against this one, all Democrats. At the time, open endorsement of gay rights was considered too dangerous by most politicians. (Democrat) Howard Dean has sped up this civil rights struggle by an amazing rate. We’ve made so much progress in the past 10 years, and that progress has been stalled by Democrats and Republicans, sure, but Republicans much more consistently and voraciously.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 9:10 am
So I wrote this about an hour ago, twice, and it never appeared. I’ll break it up into 2 pieces, but I apologize if it appears 3 different times.
“Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Openly making jokes about Indians, Ghandi, the taxi cab driver guy at the gas station.”
I don’t come to the defense of Hillary often, but I will in this case. She was making a joke in the context of praising immigrant entrepreneurship (and if memory serves me, wasn’t she speaking before some Indian caucus? A far cry from Lott speaking before the White Collar KKK). The joke was inappropriate and/or misdelivered, but regardless, she immediately apologized.
“David Duke (D-LA): Ok, that’s a low blow because he was like pary of 5 political parties but the Democrats were the only ones who really accepted him/didn’t denounce him.”
Which brings us back to Larouche. Since when does ignoring someone who doesn’t deserve attention amount to tacit endorsement or acceptance?
“Democrats: block voting against would-be first hispanic district judge Miguel Estrada; also threatening to block vote against Janice Brown from the California Supreme Court; block voted against Clarence Thomas; insulting Professor John Yoo, “Yoo”-sing his name to make jokes”
Since when does voting against a minority (when the inspiration for voting against said minority has nothing to do with their status as a minority) amount to racism? That sounds like affirmative action to me.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 10:22 am
“Bill Clinton: Rwanda (KNOWINGLY let 800,000 blacks get slaughtered while he pulled out UN troops), Iraq (500,000 dead Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright claiming 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the sanctions); “Welfare Reform” that took away thousands of blacks’ welfare payments in the inner cities (ok, maybe this can be viewed as a good thing, welfare to work);”
Disgraces all. Do you want to cite Bush Jr.’s failure to act in Darfur or Zimbabwe? Or Bush Sr.’s failure to finish the job in Iraq? Or Reagan’s open support of fascism in Latin America? Or Nixon’s, well, that’s too easy. These aren’t examples of racism but rather credulism and opportunism.
Regarding welfare reform, do you think it would have been proposed (let alone passed) if there was a clear Democratic majority? (Hint: no fucking way)
“Defense of Marriage Act”
If memory serves me, 12 senators voted against this one, all Democrats. At the time, open endorsement of gay rights was considered too dangerous by most politicians. (Democrat) Howard Dean has sped up this civil rights struggle by an amazing rate. We’ve made so much progress in the past 10 years, and that progress has been stalled by Democrats and Republicans, sure, but Republicans much more consistently and voraciously.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 10:23 am
donald…
my point was daT communists should not have buildings named after dem. even if she isnt a communist she is still a nobody. nuffT said and learn how to read…
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 11:53 am
repbast…
you forgot about represenative moran saying daT da jews contwolled da US government. smashT
to jonp:
wen it comes to views on liberty we both know which party has a noble record and which party has a shameful record…
one party fought a war to pweserve slavery… anoter party fought to hold da union together… shouldnt be to hard to figure out which is which.
In modern times:
1. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are anti-semites yet dey still are tweated wiT respect in ur party.
2. Affirmative Action = racism
3. Senator byrd still uses da N-word on national television (did on meet da press a couple years bak)
repbast covered a bunch of oter shiT daT i wont repeat. but dis list goes on and on
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
I will take that as a capitulation. Thanks.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
a capitulation on ur part? then yea smashT
“smashT x 10000″
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
repbast…
you forgot about represenative moran saying daT da jews contwolled da US government. smashT
to jonp:
wen it comes to views on liberty we both know which party has a noble record and which party has a shameful record…
one party fought a war to pweserve slavery… anoter party fought to hold da union together… shouldnt be to hard to figure out which is which.
In modern times:
1. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are anti-semites yet dey still are tweated wiT respect in ur party.
2. Affirmative Action = racism
3. Senator byrd still uses da N-word on national television (did on meet da press a couple years bak)
repbast covered a bunch of oter shiT daT i wont repeat. but dis list goes on and on
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
Haha donald, I notice you didn’t touch on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both anti-semites. And I’m not talkign abotu disapproval of Israel’s policies because I join in the criticism. I am talkign about hating JEWS as a people, not ISRAEL as a nation.
So you want to name Bush Jr.’s crimes? I’ll be very very liberal here and say Afghanistan: 7,000, Iraq: 15,000, Darfur: 50,000. Wow, one of Clinton’s mistakes TRUMPS all of those. And under the Bush administration, we’ve essentially ended the Cuban Embargo.
Oh I forgot Howard Dean: Conederate flags on pickup trucks?
“The joke was inappropriate and/or misdelivered, but regardless, she immediately apologized.”
Didn’t Trent Lott apologize in front of the WHOLE NATION on BET?
LaRouche: Have any of you actually publicly denounced this lunatic? I remember whent he Cal Dems were in tears when LaRouche endorsed John Kerry. Why were you guys not in teras when David Duke endorsed John Kerry?
And, I assume you may agree with me on the affirmative action poitn, but blatant racism against Asian-Americans, all groups.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
Make that 30,000+ Iraq, and up to 100,000 Darfur, which still doesn’t amount to Clinton’s atrocities. And I’m no fan of Bush. Either way, Clinton’s failures internationally trump any single Republican President’s. You’re also forgetting Lyndon Johnson for whom without we wouldn’t have had a Vietnam War.
Senator Byrd: How can you “have changed and regret your past” when you still use the N-word in public?
Cruz Bustamante: “N-word Trade Unions” to a BLACK audience, liek Hillary’s Indian jokes to an Indian audience.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
“So you want to name Bush Jr.’s crimes? I’ll be very very liberal here and say Afghanistan: 7,000, Iraq: 15,000, Darfur: 50,000. Wow, one of Clinton’s mistakes TRUMPS all of those. And under the Bush administration, we’ve essentially ended the Cuban Embargo.”
Of which none is related to racism. I don’t see how this is even relevant to the issue at hand, but let’s continue…
When it comes to world genocide, Clinton’s (and the world’s) failure to act in Rwanda was a travesty no doubt, but let’s not pretend that Clinton (or Bush in Darfur for that matter) CAUSED genocide. And to be fair, Clinton did act in Yugoslavia, despite opposition from many mainstream Republicans.
And ending the Cuban Embargo? What did I miss?
“Oh I forgot Howard Dean: Conederate flags on pickup trucks?”
His point was obvious. Poor southern whites and blacks, while perhaps disagreeing on the nature of what Southern pride is, do share many common interests.
“Didn’t Trent Lott apologize in front of the WHOLE NATION on BET?”
Yes, to save his job. I don’t think anyone would claim that Hillary Clinton has a consistent record of hatred for Indians. Did Trent Lott disavow his support for the CCC? I don’t believe he did. Lott has consistently voted against the interests of blacks and aligned himself with at least one racist group. Everyone makes off the cuff comments that they later regret, but Lott’s record (along with Thurmond and Helms) is disgraceful.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
“LaRouche: Have any of you actually publicly denounced this lunatic? I remember whent he Cal Dems were in tears when LaRouche endorsed John Kerry. Why were you guys not in teras when David Duke endorsed John Kerry?”
I think it’s kind of implied that Larouche does not represent Democrats. And outside of a select few college campuses, no one knows he exists anyway.
As for David Duke, this thread was the first I heard that he endorsed John Kerry. Once again, it’s kind of implied that he doesn’t represent Democratic values. Duke WAS able to make it through a Republican primary process though, something that is inconceivable for Larouche, and your party does house Lott and until recently Thurmond and Helms.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
“You’re also forgetting Lyndon Johnson for whom without we wouldn’t have had a Vietnam War.”
In my mind, LBJ is the most tragic figure in modern American politics. No man has done more to advance Keynesianism and civil rights in this country, but unfortunately, Vietnam got out of control, and certainly by early 1967, he knew it. That’s why he tried to reach a peace settlement with the North Vietnamese in 1968. Unfortunately, Nixon and Kissinger secretly collaborated to ensure that the North Vietnamese would reject his peace offering. They told agents of the North Vietnamese that they would offer a better deal if Humphrey was defeated, and so the negotiations fell through. We all know how this story ends. Nixon continued the war for another five years, doubling the number of American casualties and increasing Vietnamese casualties by an uncalculatable amount. And in the end, the peace offering was essentially the same proposed by LBJ. Nixon and Kissinger would be the greatest villains of 20th century American politics for this reason alone, but of course, their act had only just begun.
“Senator Byrd: How can you “have changed and regret your past” when you still use the N-word in public?”
I’m certainly not going to defend Byrd. I question his sincerity on race, and he is also one of the greatest theocrats in the Democratic party. Byrd should have left for the Republican party with the rest of the Dixiecrats. We’d be better off.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
donald:
kennedy + johnson started vietnam… dont blaim dey inability to resolve da issue on a Nixon-Kissinger conspiracy theowy. smashT
“I’m certainly not going to defend Byrd.”
glad to c u dont support ppl in ur party. smashT
“No man has done more to advance Keynesianism and civil rights in this country”
his “keynesianism” wrecked da economy. da gweat society has been a total failure and represents the bankruptcy of libewal solutions. instead of solving poverty da gweat society set poor people back a generation by giving dem handouts and welfare instead of economic oppurtunity. smashT
Abraham Lincoln > LBJ on civil rights… only rsn da Civil Rights act of 1964 passed was cuz da republicans broke da democratic party filibuster. smashT
“stay smashT kid”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
Well it’s clear that both parties have its douchebags and racists, as well as gay haters and anti-semites. We might disagree on which has more or less. It’s good to debate a person who used to live in teh fraternity I was a part of.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
“kennedy + johnson started vietnam… dont blaim dey inability to resolve da issue on a Nixon-Kissinger conspiracy theowy. smashT”
It’s not a theory. It happened. If you’re interested and literate, pick up “Flawed Giant” by Robert Dallek. Our library has it I’m sure.
“glad to c u dont support ppl in ur party. smashT”
I don’t blindly support anyone.
“his “keynesianism” wrecked da economy. da gweat society has been a total failure and represents the bankruptcy of libewal solutions. instead of solving poverty da gweat society set poor people back a generation by giving dem handouts and welfare instead of economic oppurtunity. smashT”
Which is of course why people are starving in the streets in Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Denmark.
“Abraham Lincoln > LBJ on civil rights… only rsn da Civil Rights act of 1964 passed was cuz da republicans broke da democratic party filibuster. smashT”
Once again, the majority of Democrats supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. That’s why the Dixiecrats fled into the Republican camp and why the Republican party of today is a party centered in the South. Your penchant for hackery is amazing.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
“Well it’s clear that both parties have its douchebags and racists, as well as gay haters and anti-semites. We might disagree on which has more or less. It’s good to debate a person who used to live in teh fraternity I was a part of.”
Sorry, I didn’t realize I knew you. Who are you?
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
“Which is of course why people are starving in the streets in Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Denmark.”
da reason keyensianism is in quotes is cuz u have no fukin idea waT it is. keynesianism = increasing government investment in da economy during periods when dere is an economic downturn. it has notin to do wiT waT LBJ did. go fukin take an economics class or read keynes b4 u come on dis blog and make an even further @ss out of urself. smashT
dose governments u mentioned are social democratic… not Keynesian. Keynesian economics is not related to social welfare programs. crushT
keep postin waT u hear oter ppl say and remain in ignorance. snuffT
“smashT ignorant newb”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
“dose governments u mentioned are social democratic… not Keynesian. Keynesian economics is not related to social welfare programs. crushT”
Are you serious? Keynesianism, at its most basic, is demand-side economics. It’s the belief that government has a proper role in managing an economy. For our purposes, it is the government’s job to make sure that consumers in a society have the capital to purchase necessary commodities, especially (but not exclusively) during economic downturn. This is done through providing government or government-subsidized employment, or through welfare doles, with the end goal being 100% employment. Also, Keynes supported subsidizing innovation in specific sectors when necessary. How this leads into the modern welfare state should be obvious, but if it’s not, may I suggest you search for “Keynesian welfare state” in Google and choose one of the 17,400 links.
Comment by Donald — October 3, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
if jonp woke up tomorrow, magically, in the master bedroom of the white house, he wouldn’t advocate open borders for peaceful people.
Comment by underground brkely rtwngr — October 3, 2005 @ 7:56 pm
Neither Jackson nor Sharpton has held public political office as a Democrat. Jesse Jackson Jr. holds a Congressional seat, but he has never publicly or privately expressed anti-Semitic views and should not be tarnished with the views of his father.
In addition, the last time Jackson ran for president as a Democrat was in 1988. I was 17 and you were probably still crapping your diapers at the time. Sharpton ran for president in 2004 and was largely treated as a joke by Democratic primary voters. In addition, Sharpton has endorsed Republican candidates in New York, including Al D’Amato and NYC Mayor Bloomberg. Sharpton has also received assistance from Republican operatives because he draws votes away from more credible Democratic candidates. Here’s an article about how GOP dirty tricksters have assisted Sharpton’s campaigning:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
Donald, I doubt I know you. I joined your fraternity the semester after you left.
Comment by RepBast1984 — October 3, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
If I woke up in the master bedroom of the White House, it’d be because I’m knockin’ boots with Jenna. Come on! A drunken Texas sorority girl named Jenna Bush?!? That’s a Girls Gone Wild DVD waiting to happen.
Anyhow, I’m totally sincere in my views on immigration and foreign affairs. My views probably fit this platform plank from Michael Badnarik’s Libertarian Party platform the best:
“The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.”
What part of “recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration,” don’t you understand?
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
donald:
da ignorance displayed by u on dis thwead is amazing. go read “The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money”. den come talk to me about waT keynesianism is….
its ok m@n. i kno u are juss repeating waT every1 else is sayin to u, so is not really ur fault daT u are so ignorant. it is a common misconception daT Keynes was arguing for da welfare state.
in fact he wasn’t, his policy prescriptions have notin to do with stuff like universal healthcare and oter welfare programs.
“smashT ignorance”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 9:00 pm
haha @ jonp. so now u are for open borders and an isolationist
m@n what a fukin joke. i dont wanna see c@lifornia become another tijuana… dose of u who have been dere kno what i mean.
and isolationists are pussy’s who would let da rest of world be smashT by facism/communism so daT we can den stand alone vs dictators… ya real responsible ppl dem isolationists are!
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
True isolationists are admirable like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. However, most “isolationists” are simply opportunists. The Republicans were “isolationists” when Clinton went to war in Bosnia and Iraq; the Democrats were “isolationists” in the 200s invasion. Pathetic flip floppers, all of them.
It’s almost as pathetic as using the term states’ rights. Republicans are states’ rights when it comes to federal gun laws, and Democrats are federalists (US v. Lopez). Suddenly with legalizing marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich, Demcorats are now supporters of states’ rights and Republicans believe in national rights.
I am consistently isolationist no matter who’s in power and consistently states’ rights no matter what the political issue.
Comment by DTI — October 3, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
DTI: isolationism is a tewwible foreign policy. cutting ourselves off from da rest of the world only meanns da dictators will rise again and push every1 over. i dont want histowy to wepeat itself.
“isolationists = weak”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 10:56 pm
Are you calling George Washington weak? Because it was his farewell address that stressed the importance of avoiding “entangling foreign alliances”… You could also argue that World War II wouldn’t have occurred if we hadn’t intervened in World War I and imposed economic constraints of the Versailles treaty on the Germans. In fact, that’s what Keynes argued in his Economic Consequences of the Peace.
Comment by jonp — October 4, 2005 @ 6:04 am
jonp: “What part of “recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration,” don’t you understand?”
Jon,
Human societies and countless animal species that move in groups do two things — and they always will. They form hierarchies and they establish territories. You and your fringe-mates in town can talk about justice, peace, social equity and a borderless world till the end of time, but the other 99% is going to be putting in fence posts, arranging themselves in the pecking order and scrambling over themselves to try to get ahead.
Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2005 @ 9:00 am
Despite his talk of hierarchy, something tells me Anonymous isn’t the alpha male he thinks he is.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 9:51 pm