Maryland Democrats Act Shamefully

[clayj]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

So, rather than being pleased that a black man is likely going to be the Republican nominee for one of Maryland's Senate seats in next year's election (which is quite an impressive feat), black Democrats have decided to call him an Uncle Tom and to throw Oreo cookies at him.

Between Mr. Steele, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and any other number of successful black politicians, I guess the lesson here is that apparently Democrats are all for more black politicians, but only as long as they are Democrats and NOT Republicans.

These people ought to be ashamed of themselves. They just can't look at people without considering their race first. "If you're black, you've gotta be a Democrat... if you're NOT, there must be something hideously wrong with you."

[pseudobrit]

So, rather than being pleased that a black man is likely going to be the Republican nominee for one of Maryland's Senate seats in next year's election (which is quite an impressive feat), black Democrats have decided to call him an Uncle Tom and to throw Oreo cookies at him.

That sounds so much worse than uprooting civil liberties, allowing the legal system to disproportionately target blacks, allowing corporations to systematically exclude blacks from jobs and all the other racist **** that still goes on in our society just beneath the surface.

But you're right, it's despicable when Democrats do it, too. It's just that one party has institutional racism in their blood. And I'm not talking about the Democratic Party.

[mactastic]

Yeah the Maryland race has gotten ugly with racial overtones. Not only have the Dems behaved badly, as you note, but the GOP governor apparently held a fundraiser at an all-white club, which Steele refused to criticize, prompting the 'Uncle Tom' response from the Dems.

Plenty of bad behavior all the way around.

[zimv20]

yep, that's ugly, shameful behavior.

[nbs2]

Yeah the Maryland race has gotten ugly with racial overtones. Not only have the Dems behaved badly, as you note, but the GOP governor apparently held a fundraiser at an all-white club, which Steele refused to criticize, prompting the 'Uncle Tom' response from the Dems.
You mean the Elks club where O'Malley's brother had his wedding reception and where Democrats have long held meetings?

I believe we (my law school) will be hosting the other Senatorial candidates. Would it be wrong for me to throw Oreos and call them Uncle Toms and ask for a response? Or is that crossing the line?

[mactastic]

You mean the Elks club where O'Malley's brother had his wedding reception and where Democrats have long held meetings?

I believe we (my law school) will be hosting the other Senatorial candidates. Would it be wrong for me to throw Oreos and call them Uncle Toms and ask for a response? Or is that crossing the line?
Ummmm.... sure. Two wrongs make a right WAS the point of my post after all.
:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

That sounds so much worse than uprooting civil liberties, allowing the legal system to disproportionately target blacks, allowing corporations to systematically exclude blacks from jobs and all the other racist **** that still goes on in our society just beneath the surface.

But you're right, it's despicable when Democrats do it, too. It's just that one party has institutional racism in their blood. And I'm not talking about the Democratic Party.

While I agree their behavior was inappropriate, I see what you're saying. This is sort of like the concept of gay Republicans. That's truly ********* up in my opinion. I don't care what gay Republicans say, the party still wants you dead. I don't get black Republicans either. Makes no sense.

[iGary]

This is sort of like the concept of gay Republicans. That's truly ********* up in my opinion.

How tolerant of you.

[leekohler]

How tolerant of you.

iGary- then explain it to me in way way that it could possibly make sense.

[iGary]

iGary- then explain it to me in way way that it could possibly make sense.

You're saying that I'm effed up.

I'm saying you are not tolerant of other people's views.

That's all.

[mactastic]

It's ok to be a second-class citizen as long as I don't have to pay taxes! ;)

[leekohler]

You're saying that I'm effed up.

I'm saying you are not tolerant of other people's views.

That's all.

Why is it that you're Republican then? (At least that's what I'm assuming). What is it about them that you like, when they care nothing for your basic liberties? You don't see why that could be construed as a bit strange? Here's your opportunity to help me understand.

[iGary]

Why is it that you're Repulican then? (At least that's what I'm assuming). What is it about them that you like, when they care nothing for your basic liberties? You don't see why that could be construed as a bit strange?

I'm registered independent, but I believe in most of the core Republican ideologies. Do I like the current administration? Nope. Do I like most Republican politicians? Haven't found many I do like.

What I do like is what the Republican party - at it's core is SUPPOSED to be.

Just because I am a Republican/have Republican beliefs doesn't mean I have to give up on the party, nor does it mean I endorse most of today's Republicans, although there are some good ones out there .

See you are associating my beliefs with, as you say "them." "Them" have done a fine job at screwing up what being a Republican is supposed to be. I don't necessarily support "them." Doesn't mean I can't be a Republican.

[leekohler]

I'm registered independent, but I believe in most of the core Republican ideologies. Do I like the current administration? Nope. Do I like most Republican politicians? Haven't found many I do like.

What I do like is what the Republican party - at it's core is SUPPOSED to be.

Just because I am a Republican/have Republican beliefs doesn't mean I have to give up on the party, nor does it mean I endorse most of today's Republicans, although there are some good ones out there .

See you are associating my beliefs with, as you say "them." "Them" have done a fine job at screwing up what being a Republican is supposed to be. I don't necessarily support "them." Doesn't mean I can't be a Republican.

I also hold some Republican beliefs as well, but the current party does not seem to adhere to any of those ideals. What it's supposed to be and what it is are two VERY different things.

And you can go right ahead and be one, I won't stop you. But I still think it's not in any of our best interests at the moment.

[pseudobrit]

What I do like is what the Republican party - at it's core is SUPPOSED to be.

Interesting. At what point does the separation between what the party is supposed to be and what it is become such that you cannot identify yourself as belonging to that party?

For instance, in an inverse scenario (going back in time), I could no longer belong to a Democratic Party that endorsed segregation.

[leekohler]

Interesting. At what point does the separation between what the party is supposed to be and what it is become such that you cannot identify yourself as belonging to that party?

My point exactly. In my younger days, I also considered myself to be Republican. I left because of what they became during Reagan/Bush. I have no party affiliation now.

[miloblithe]

Given the reality of two parties in the US system, I don't find anything the least bit strange about the idea of gay republicans, or pro-life democrats, and so on.

And I think that parties need movements within them that try to steer them in new directions. Some are positive, like the log cabin folks. Some are negaitve, like Christian conservatives. (From my point of view).

Either that or we need to scrap the US political system and go parliamentary. Then I'm sure iGary (and others) can get behind a "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" party, or whatever it is about republican beliefs he likes without those parts he probably dislikes.

[iGary]

Interesting. At what point does the separation between what the party is supposed to be and what it is become such that you cannot identify yourself as belonging to that party?

For instance, in an inverse scenario (going back in time), I could no longer belong to a Democratic Party that endorsed segregation.

Doesn't mean I can't call and bitch when my rep does something stupid, or write letters reminding a lot of Republican politicians what they are supposed to support. I'd rather not give up just because things are messed up, and believe me, I am not delusional; things are messed up.

I prefer to keep trying to change things for the better. I may give up and fail one day, but for now, I try to push for change. :o

[leekohler]

Given the reality of two parties in the US system, I don't find anything the least bit strange about the idea of gay republicans, or pro-life democrats, and so on.

And I think that parties need movements within them that try to steer them in new directions. Some are positive, like the log cabin folks. Some are negaitve, like Christian conservatives. (From my point of view).

Either that or we need to scrap the US political system and go parliamentary. Then I'm sure iGary (and others) can get behind a "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" party, or whatever it is about republican beliefs he likes without those parts he probably dislikes.

I think we all like certain Republican values: emphasis on personal responsibility, individual freedom, states rights and so forth. But does anyone see this happening with the current party? I don't. They've been perfect illustrations of the exact opposite.

[skunk]

Either that or we need to scrap the US political system and go parliamentary.What exactly makes you think that a parliamentary system would produce a more acceptable range of dogma?

[miloblithe]

I think we all like certain Republican values: emphasis on personal responsibility, individual freedom, states rights and so forth.

I'm not sure that I like an "emphasis" on those values. I think that social responsibility and collective rights can be great things and that states' rights are often just selfish regionalism that makes us all worse off.

[Sayhey]

Given a choice between throwing oreos or raising money at clubs that restrict membership on the basis of race, I'll take the admittedly tacky tactic of tossing cookies. It sure represents the feeling I get when dealing with the upfront racists in such "elite" clubs. If Lt. Gov. Steele objects to the name calling and guerilla theatre tactics, then perhaps he should stand up the racists among his so-called "friends."

[miloblithe]

What exactly makes you think that a parliamentary system would produce a more acceptable range of dogma?

Well, I mean a system that has a parliament with a low threshold for proportional representation by party list, and no single-member districts (or even some combination). I don't know whether this would produce anything "acceptable", but it would produce a wider range.

[leekohler]

I'm not sure that I like an "emphasis" on those values. I think that social responsibility and collective rights can be great things and that states' rights are often just selfish regionalism that makes us all worse off.

Hmm...I see your point. However, I find it funny when Oregon passes an assisted suicide law and Republicans in the Fed are the first to go after them. States rights mean nothing to them when it doesn't fit their agenda.

[solvs]

Is anyone here defending the Dems deplorable behavior? I don't see that. We critize them all the time for things they do (or, most of the time, what they don't do). People seem to think this board is all liberal, but it's just that the Republicans (well, neocons) are the ones in power right now making most of the mistakes. And worse, trying to shift the blame (or just make stuff up). What I see here are both parties doing very stupid things, and I think most of us would agree. 2 wrongs do not a right make (though, if a group of African Americans is protesting one of their own, I don't see how that is racist... just stupid).

Oh, and I would be a Republican if only they would.

[leekohler]

Is anyone here defending the Dems deplorable behavior? I don't see that. We critize them all the time for things they do (or, most of the time, what they don't do). People seem to think this board is all liberal, but it's just that the Republicans (well, neocons) are the ones in power right now making most of the mistakes. And worse, trying to shift the blame (or just make stuff up). What I see here are both parties doing very stupid things, and I think most of us would agree. 2 wrongs do not a right make (though, if a group of African Americans is protesting one of their own, I don't see how that is racist... just stupid).

Oh, and I would be a Republican if only they would.

You hit the nail on the head solvs- as usual. ;) And iGary, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to p*** you off.

[solvs]

You hit the nail on the head solvs- as usual. ;)
Thank you. I try. You know, the funny part is that we might actually agree with iGary on a lot of things. Now if he'd just stop calling me a liberal, I wouldn't get so defensive.

Personal insults are not welcome here you know. ;) :p :cool:

[leekohler]

Thank you. I try. You know, the funny part is that we might actually agree with iGary on a lot of things. Now if he'd just stop calling me a liberal, I wouldn't get so defensive.

Personal insults are not welcome here you know. ;) :p :cool:

Ha-ha! But at the same time, I don't think anyone would mistake either of us for Republicans. :)

[zimv20]

What exactly makes you think that a parliamentary system would produce a more acceptable range of dogma?
for one, all members would have to know how to spell "parliamentary".

[iGary]

You hit the nail on the head solvs- as usual. ;) And iGary, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to p*** you off.

Ooops - didn't see your edit.

I just get crap from my family all the time about this. I understand it seems retarded, but it's just the way I feel.

Sorry I got snippy. ;)

[Mike Teezie]

What's so funny to me is how much people buy into the terms liberal and conservative, and get so offended by being called what they are.

The brilliance of this administration, if there is such a thing, is that they in tandem with the conservative media, have turned every social/politcal issue into one big giant High School Football game.

It's a massive, arbitrary, conjured up rivalry. The liberals versus the conservatives.

We've seen what they've attached to the term - liberals are Godless, financially irresponsible, weak, "out there" and of course, eat babies for breakfast and let murderers run free.

It's bred into people who otherwise wouldn't have a clue (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm) that the "liberal ideology" is in constant threat of taking over the country. If you don't watch out, they're going to come abort your baby, drink your (hidden)booze, and knock up your daughter.

Story:

My mom works with this dizzy bastard who is always coming in and telling her how crazy the godless liberals are and all that. My mom generally avoids confrontation with this guy, as getting him stirred up is usually a 45 minute assault on your mental stability. She prefers to let him think he "told her" or whatever, and enjoy the silence afterwards.

Well, not me coach. I was in her office the other day, and he came running in there to talk about some garbage that he saw on FOX news, and how the liberals were going to be run out of the country.

He went on and on for five minutes. I sat listening until he finished. When he got done, he was grinning like an idiot. All I had to do was ask him,
"Are you a religious guy at all?" To which he proudly exclaimed "Of course, Southern Baptist all my life!" I said, "Well man, I hate to tell you this, but Jesus was pretty much the most liberal cat of all time."

He screamed. I thought he was going to cry, vomit, or punch me. He fled the scene, red faced and mumbling some garbage under his breath.

My point is, is that this guy isn't a right wing nutter. He's a fairly conservative guy, but no crazy. A few years ago, you wouldn't have seen this kind of behavior.

I think it's a shame that for whatever reason, the administration thought creating a massive rift was the only way to go about getting what they wanted. So they pushed and prodded everyone in one direction, and if you weren't with their very right wing agenda, you got labeled.

Well guess what suckers? Didn't work on me. I'm cool with just about everybody, sans racists and homophobes. Guess that's them.

I'm a socially progressive, fiscally responsible. I'm proud to be a liberal - why isn't anyone else?

[leekohler]

Ooops - didn't see your edit.

I just get crap from my family all the time about this. I understand it seems retarded, but it's just the way I feel.

Sorry I got snippy. ;)

It's OK. I probably deserved it.

[solvs]

I'm proud to be a liberal - why isn't anyone else?
Negative connotations.

[mactastic]

I'm a socially progressive, fiscally responsible. I'm proud to be a liberal - why isn't anyone else?
I'm a meat-eating, gun-toting lefty and proud of it. :confused:

Have I not been clear enough in this forum?

[jelloshotsrule]

the banner ad on this page is AWESOME

"are there liberals under your bed?!?!"

http://www.worldaheadpublishing.com/helpMom/index.php

[Mike Teezie]

I'm a meat-eating, gun-toting lefty and proud of it. :confused:

Have I not been clear enough in this forum?

I probably should have clarified that I didn't mean anyone on this forum. Our merry band of liberals around here are awesome.

[JesseJames]

All this makes me wonder just how factionalized both political parties are.
I'm an Independent but I do lean toward the Republican way of thinking.
Sometimes the Democrats (especially the more radical ones) just smacks with the veneer of communism and pusillanimousness.
I'd be a registered Republican if only the rich white guys in the party would stop being so damn pompous and draconian. They've essentially hijacked the party in my view.

[mactastic]

I'm an Independent...
I see we're in the same political 'party' then. I may be a proud lefty, but I'm certainly not a Democrat.

[Dont Hurt Me]

All this makes me wonder just how factionalized both political parties are.
I'm an Independent but I do lean toward the Republican way of thinking.
Sometimes the Democrats (especially the more radical ones) just smacks with the veneer of communism and pusillanimousness.
I'd be a registered Republican if only the rich white guys in the party would stop being so damn pompous and draconian. They've essentially hijacked the party in my view.A long time ago this same thing happened to the Republican party and the American People kicked their arsses out of Govt for a long ,long, time. History, so here we are again. Independent too. The extremist running both parties need to go home.

[skunk]

arssesMake up your mind.



;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ummmm.... sure. Two wrongs make a right WAS the point of my post after all.
:rolleyes:

Living in the Dc area, and having a sister living in MD, I can see how Steele is an Uncle Tom. Heck Steele's government SUV was stolen from his front door and he has said nothing about taking back the the sate from the criminals.

In talking with my African-American friends, it is not just about the skin color. It has to do with the level of commitment to the "minority" community. Like it or not, Steele needs to also appeal to the White voters. And even in MD they are the majority that goes to the polls.

Nationally I think Republicans have been more shame full. They have "forgiven" lies that have led to 2000+ Us deaths and many 10's of thousands of of Iraqi deaths.

Frist is upset over the closed session of the Senate. But he is not upset that his party threatened to use the rules to their own end.

It is time for us to take back Congress from the "money". It is time that for us to take back local offices from the "money".

I think that the Republicans are scared right now. The failure of GB in the WH and the lies from Rove and DeLay have them fearful. They will stop at nothing IMO to gain every edge they can. The attacks against Steele is a case in point.

[Sayhey]

What's so funny to me is how much people buy into the terms liberal and conservative, and get so offended by being called what they are.
<snip>
I'm a socially progressive, fiscally responsible. I'm proud to be a liberal - why isn't anyone else?

The funny thing is when I was a young radical one of the worst things you could be called was a "liberal" (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=41230003&s=143441&i=41230025). Totally different reasons than what the far-right means today when they use the term as a slur. Now I'm no where as radical as I was in my younger days, but the term still doesn't sit well with me as a description of the kind of politics I advocate, but I spend half my time in political discussions defending the same liberal politicians from the most outrageous attacks of the far-right. I don't know if to cry or laugh from the irony.

[mactastic]

This story (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreos13nov13,0,6788452.story) casts some doubt on the Oreo-throwing incident, which apparently took place in 2002, and only now was raised nationally.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that he is angry at "revisionism" from political opponents who question a much-repeated story about Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele being pelted with Oreos during a 2002 campaign debate in Baltimore.

Versions of the story have been repeated over the years by Ehrlich, Steele and their supporters in describing what they call a pattern of racial slights against the black Republican, and accounts of the event have spread widely.

Speaking on Stateline with the Governor on WBAL-AM yesterday, Ehrlich said he would not tolerate questions about the veracity of the incident.

"This revisionism is real dangerous. And to the extent anyone is out there now saying, 'Well, no, those Oreo cookies really weren't thrown at Mike Steele, that's now an urban legend, whatever, made up by the Republicans,' I mean these people have got to get real," Ehrlich said.

...

Several debate attendees, however, could not corroborate Ehrlich and Schurick's version of events.

"It didn't happen here," said Vander Harris, operations manager of the Murphy Fine Arts Building at Morgan State. "I was in on the cleanup, and we found no cookies or anything else abnormal. There were no Oreo cookies thrown."

The incident is said to have occurred when Steele walked to his seat before the debate started, not during the event on stage when it would have been captured on video. Newspaper articles and television news reports from that night didn't mention it, and representatives of the news departments at television stations WBAL, WJZ and WMAR and Maryland Public Television said they have no video of the incident.

News reports of the event, which was sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, extensively described the raucous and sometimes rude behavior of the crowd - especially by supporters of Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the Democratic nominee for governor. At one point, Kweisi Mfume, who was then head of the NAACP, interrupted the proceedings to implore the crowd to calm down.

The first reference to the Oreo incident came five days later in an article in The Sun in which Schurick, then a spokesman for the Ehrlich campaign, said Townsend supporters distributed the cookies in the audience. He also said the crowd booed Ehrlich's family - a detail that was reported on debate night - and scratched the paint on Ehrlich supporters' cars with their keys.

...

Steele was quoted in two articles that appeared in the next day's newspaper talking about the pro-Townsend crowd and what he called race-baiting by her campaign, but he said nothing about cookies.

Three weeks later, Washington Post writer George F. Will wrote in his column that "some in the audience had distributed Oreo cookies." That day, while campaigning at a Jewish day school in Pikesville, Ehrlich told the audience that Townsend supporters threw the cookies at Steele.

Just before the election, the London Daily Telegraph said that Steele "was bombarded with Oreo cookies" during the debate. Most reports that month, however, referred to cookies being "passed around."

After the election, Steele told a writer for the Capital News Service that an Oreo rolled to his feet during the debate.

"Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there," Steele told the news service. "If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me."

Most of the accounts in the past few weeks have described Steele being "pelted" by Oreos. Ehrlich said on WBAL radio that his father was hit in the head by one of the cookies. Schurick also said Ehrlich's father was hit. Schurick would not make Robert L. Ehrlich Sr. available for an interview yesterday.

Steele campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said last week that the cookies "were clearly thrown at the lieutenant governor." He said Steele would not respond to questions about the event.
So it's a he-said-she-said thing that theliberalmedia presented as fact? Interesting.

[trebblekicked]

why am i not surprised?