NAACP vs Tea Party: You’re racist vs You’re irrelevant

Not quite as good as the Kirsten Powers match, but still pretty good nonetheless. At issue in this Megyn Kelly debate, the NCAA resolution calling on the Tea Party to condemn the racist elements in its group. But as Tea party representative Phillip Dennis, it’s kind of hard to condemn something that does not exist. It’s the old, how long have you been beating your spouse conundrum. If you answer you have never done that, the headline becomes you deny beating your spouse. Pretty slick.

It’s a two part video. Part One is the section where the NAACP representative Hillary Shelton makes the tired charge that Tea Party folks shouted racial slurs at the DSC Health care rally. Tea Party rep Phillip Dennis responds that has never been proven and thus won’t apologize. Plus, Kelly asks, why did the NCAAP not condemn the Ken Gladney beating.

Note: My You Tube account is currently down and the two part video will be available in a few hours. Until then here is the full interview via Hot Air.

Of course the simple analysis here is the NCAAP acting as a political arm of the Democrat Party. The idea is to devalue the Tea party by demanding an apology, which is they do they admit racism and if they don’t they condone racism. I suspect that stuff doesn’t work anymore.

39 replies
  1. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Jim, do not feel bad, same with me and YouTube not being able to get to my subscriptions, not only to view what you have put together via your blog, but also to get videos for my blog, "Anne's POWER SURGE Blog".

    Anyways, if the NCAAP wants to fight racism, PLEASE NACCP, start by condemming REAL "hate groups" such as the New Black Panthers, who have not only done as seen in Philadephia in the voter intimmadation case and one of their leaders threatening to kill whites, including babies. Condemm groups such as that, NACCP, not grass-roots movements such as the tea party movement which WELCOMES Americans of all different backrounds.

  2. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    If the Tea Party folks asked that the people who attended the rallies to refrain from bringing blatantly racists, obviously offensive signs, they would not draw this kind of attention to themselves. But then, it would be argued that 1st Amendment rights would be curtailed. It's easier to to say that other groups are doing the same thing too.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      You neglect the signs of non-TEA party people that are employed to mark the party as racist and inflame this sort of stuff.

  3. phil
    phil says:

    The Democrat Party has pushed George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party out of first place in the 'race hate' game.

  4. Tim McKee
    Tim McKee says:

    let's see no discussion of Vitter and his Birther remarks?? Let along his sex scandal?

    another hitler and obama billboard?? no comments??

    • chris-os
      chris-os says:

      Vitter wants to see a birth certificate!

      The certificates he should be looking for are the ones certifying his hookers aren't HIV positve.

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Isn't being called "racist" by the NAACP like being called a bad man by Charles Manson?

     

    Apply the test: form a group called the National Association for the Advancement of White People, or the White Congressional Caucus and see what happens.

     

    Racism is not a one way proposition.  When you play the race card, you are playing with the jokers in the deck.

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Changing the subject is a way of shrugging off responsibility. What the heck, everybody is doing it. Any moral compass anywhere? Go ahead, I predict another hit is coming.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      I thought the baseless accusations of racism by the NAACP for the purposes of political advantage was the subject.

       

      If you were referring to me, the point is that racism is not tolerated by the TEA party members, and the outrageous signs attributed to them are from infiltrators.  True TEA partiers have even been following them around with "not one of us" signs.

  7. David R
    David R says:

    Saying the NAACP is a racist group is like saying the Jews are racist because they hate Nazis. I've spent time in the South where the KKK is still in business, where northerners are asked if they are N****R lovers, where I've been told slavery was good for blacks. I live in a small town where every black stranger gets the once over. I am not saying you hate blacks, just that you are naive if you don't think racism is alive and well in America, or that a black person isn't more sensitive to it than say…. a white suburbanite.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Your example doesn't work.  It is like saying someone is racist because they hate terrorists.  Which is, in fact, said.  Or you are racist because you want strong, impermeable borders.

       

      Racism means you consider one race above another or others.  It is also an exclusionary thing.  If you have an organization only for "colored people", then it is as racist as an organization only for asians, hispanics or whites.  Any time race is a consideration, for good or bad reasons, it is racism.

       

      Half my family comes from the very deep South, and I know whereof you speak.  But I could take you to parts of Boston, NYC, Philly, Hartford etc. where you can go, and if you are white, you will receive the same "once over".  That is racist too, which is my point.  Do the New Black Panthers ring a bell?

       

      And it would be a considerable stretch to say I was racist, for reasons that need not be discussed here.

  8. David R
    David R says:

    Most people seem to think racism is an either/or  thing: either you are a racist or you are not. Rather, prejudices exist along a continuum from no prejudice to only prejudice. Most people are in the middle some place. No doubt the Tea Party has some of each, as does the NAACP. I like to think of prejudices in terms of the harms they cause. For example the prejudice of the powerless toward the powerful seems to do little harm to the powerful, while the prejudice of the powerful, who control wealth, opportunities, employment, health care, etc. can and has caused great harm to the powerless. NAACP was formed to help blacks claim their inalienable rights: a struggle that has taken decades, and is not finished. When intelligent middleclass Americans describe the organization with the all damning label of racist, it, in my mind, confirms that the NAACP is far from irrelevant.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      The only irrelevance the NAACP might have is born of their progressive (no pun intended) conversion from a civil rights organization to an race wielding arm of the Democrat party.  From its noble beginnings, it has degenerated into a group that, as we see in the current case of their complaint against the TEA party, creates or exaggerates racism in order to further a political aim.  That is a definite harm, both to the TEA party and the NAACP itself.

       

      Shouldn't the NAACP corral, or at least ostracize, racist groups like the New Black Panther, who make blacks look like hypocrites?  If blacks harm themselves by becoming what they hate most, aren't they going backwards?

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        More of a caricature of a once proud civil right organization.  They have sold out to the Democrat party and the other victicrats.

  9. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    To those who say Tea Parties are lacking in diversity, could it be that there's some inherent flaw in the tax system which disproportionately victimizes white people?  Most of the folks I've seen at Tea Party rallies, regardless of race, look like they toe a hard line  and get up every morning and pull the wagon.  Possibly, the people we don't see at rallies are the folks who don't have any skin in the game of paying taxes, or maybe their skin in the game comes in the form of a check or a free ride in the wagon?  We are a victim society- victims everywhere.  And far from sympathy for the "angry mobsters" who want to keep more of their own money- "it's not your money" and now you are "racists" too!

    • chris-os
      chris-os says:

      "To those who say Tea Parties are lacking in diversity, could it be that there’s some inherent flaw in the tax system which disproportionately victimizes white people?  Most of the folks I’ve seen at Tea Party rallies, regardless of race, look like they toe a hard line  and get up every morning and pull the wagon. "

      So, you are saying that the reason tea parties are 99.9% white is that people of color are a burden to our society?

      You believe that you are not a "racist" because you do not use the "N" word?

      The true definition of racism is  the unfounded belief that certain undesirable or detestable characteristics, often exaggerated ad absurdum, are invariably and categorically true of all members of that race.

       

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Perhaps “disproportionately victimized the middle class” would have been more prudent.
        ?
        That aside, part of the reason that the TEA parties are predominantly “white” is because blacks would be ridiculed by Democrats and other blacks for doing so.? See Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, any conservative black commentator.? “Uncle Tom” is racist too, just as is the presuption that blacks cannot be conservative.

  10. steve418r
    steve418r says:

    Using the race issue is a great way to distract from the real issues of our society. Individuals that do unacceptable things are made accountable by life’s natural consequences. Hiding behind race is not going to change the truth. Racism may be alive and well in some people’s minds, but I refuse to take part in it. I refuse to be accountable for the actions of my ancestors if they owned slaves or were racist. I disagree with the behaviors of lots of people and if they are nonwhites I have been accused of racism. So be it!! I still know right from wrong, and if someone is wrong, it is not because of heritage. It is an individual choice they made and I will not condone it. I agree with the principals of the Tea Party. I believe we need to take this country back and live by the constitution as it is written, not by the convoluted liberal interpretation the present administration is trying to shove down our throats. I believe that if my hard work results in success, I should not have punished with unreasonably high taxes. After all, becoming successful has been the American dream until Obama decided he needed to “redistribute wealth”.

  11. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    The racists among The Tea Partiers may be a minority, but the vast majority still refuses to call them out and condemn them. I guess I'm still waiting for a major player in their party to acknowledge to step forward and just say, "We don't want you".

    The strategy here: attack the finger-pointer as the 'true' menace. But then you probably already knew that. Or, maybe some just want the subject to be ignored because the topic encroaches upon their comfort zone.

  12. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    The best response to the NAACP's smear campaign can be borrowed from Joe Wilson – You lie!

  13. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    How many times has the subject been changed? I particularly liked the statement that infiltrators are responsible for the "offensive" signs. And who says that? The Tea Party people, and why should I believe them? Revealed truth, maybe?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      When you think about it, isn't the fact that the TEA party members are loudly and publicly pointing out and disowning the people carrying those signs (by saying they are not part of our group) in fact them "step(ping) forward and just say(ing), “We don’t want you”?

       

      I think you just stepped on yourself there.

  14. Erik Blazynski
    Erik Blazynski says:

    1. How is calling Barney Frank the "F" word racist? And which "F" word are they talking about?

    2. They want the tea party to denouncing any racist elements, they should denounce this if there is any.

  15. David R
    David R says:

    I get it: the liberals are evil and stupid and the conservatives merely stupid and evil. It strikes me that most of the characterizations of the opposition are way off base. And this kind of nastiness is not something we just invented. When John Adams described inter-party squabbling back in the early 19th century, he remarked that it'd already been going on for 150 years. Much of this party bashing is destructive because it maintains the status quo. If I can mis-quote Calvin Coolidge: the business of government is doing what business wants. If this hasn't been clear in the last 10 years, I don't know when it will ever be.  Doesn't matter if it is W or Obama in the White House, the forces of big money will get the results they want. Sometimes we get a bone. like health care reform, but that comes to us all but battered and beaten by the monied/corporate interests who like things the way they are. Sometimes Democrats do their bidding, and sometimes it's Republicans. And the voters rail to take back government from the people who don't really control it.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Okaaaay, I thought we were talking about a purported civil rights organization making unfounded racially based attacks on the TEA party?

       

      As for the "bone" we are getting with health care "reform" (when we used to have the bone plus the meat), answer me this: in the Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley race, Ms. Coakley was specifically attending a fund raiser in Washington D.C., where  "an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley:

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/b

      Now the Republican was against Øbamacare and Coakley was gung ho for it.  Why would the "monied/corporate interests who like things the way they are" be supporting her like that?  And who actually wrote the bill?

      Just askin'….

      • David R
        David R says:

        Dims: There you go again trying to make what's wrong with America into a party thing, with one party being the saints and the other the sinners. My point is most of the issues debated here are noise that keep Libs and Conservatives at each other's throats, while corporate interests continue to rule the country. That's the status quo I am talking about. Follow the money: How much do corporate interests spend in lobbying, political contributions and consulting jobs for politicians of all stripes? My reading of history tells me that the monied interests have been the tail wagging the dog since before there was a USA. So in my book it's of little importance if two relatively powerless organizations are called racist.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        I agree to a degree (is that a poem?).  I know that the Dems didn't write this Øbamacare boondoggle bill, and they sure didn't write it.   So it had to be the insurance and pharma companies.  My point about Coakley demonstrates that.  It is particularly galling when things like the Øbamacare and banking bills were supposedly written to control these entities, but they are in all likelihood written by the same bunch.  I just get irked that the Dems have seemingly rolled over so completely and jammed through these bill at flank speed, regardless of the suicidal effect it is having on polling.  And the Republicans have, to their temporary credit, refused to go along.  Yet it is the Repubs that are constantly accused of being in bed with the corporations, and the Dems are just as dirty, and in this case, more so.

         

        I would be all for keeping any interests, corporate or otherwise, out of the Congress etc., but the SCOTUS has deemed it a First Amendment right.  We can't count on many of the pols to rise above party politics and act in the best interests of the country, particularly without term limits, which would flush (pun intended) most of the incumbents out on a regular basis.

         

        Frankly, it is up to us, both in voting and buying, to keep the critters at bay.  That is why I won't register with either party, and most voters here in MA won't either.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] NAACP vs T Party: You’re Recist vs You’re Irrelevant (07.14.10) […]

Comments are closed.