Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him (famous quotes)

[Vonderbach]

Civil rights are a huge part of what makes our country great and anyone who would limit them is not someone I would want to see in office.

Do you feel that quotas and affirmative action contribute or detract from civil rights? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Reagan was a vehement supporter of states rights and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not based on racial issue, but the federal role in attempting to mandate those rights.

 

[Dino]

Black America Today / EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON: The racial paradox of the Reagan presidency

Many, if not most of your issues are misleading. Voting against a particular bill does not mean that you hate blacks or are against equal treatment. Instead, if you dig a bit deeper you will find that Reagan was against affirmative action, a biased system and was very much in favor of states rights, a prominent aspect of the Constitution. The implication that Reagan supported segregation is quite incorrect.

Misleading Really?

"States Rights"

To see Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in its proper context, it has to be placed between the murders of the civil rights workers that preceded it and the acknowledgment by the Republican strategist Lee Atwater that the use of code words like “states’ rightsâ€￾ in place of blatantly bigoted rhetoric was crucial to the success of the G.O.P.’s Southern strategy. That acknowledgment came in the very first year of the Reagan presidency.

There is nothing misleading about it.

 

[Dino]

Do you feel that quotas and affirmative action contribute or detract from civil rights? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Reagan was a vehement supporter of states rights and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not based on racial issue, but the federal role in attempting to mandate those rights.

President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

Are you telling me that in 1965 minorities were treated equally? Are you telling me that they were treated equally 15 years later?

It is getting better but there should always be an effort to ensure all are treated equally.

 

[Dino]

Smelll that? ???



It is Bogus burning up Google.......

 

[Vonderbach]

Affirmative Action, not affirmative action. The term refers to government mandates on hiring minorities. My question was, do you support this as a measure of civil rights?

Misleading Really?

"States Rights"

To see Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in its proper context, it has to be placed between the murders of the civil rights workers that preceded it and the acknowledgment by the Republican strategist Lee Atwater that the use of code words like “states’ rights” in place of blatantly bigoted rhetoric was crucial to the success of the G.O.P.’s Southern strategy. That acknowledgment came in the very first year of the Reagan presidency.

There is nothing misleading about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

With all due respect, and I do mean respect, it is somewhat disingenuous to repost opinion pieces as your own commentary.

But to answer your question, Atwater was not a member of Reagan's campaign, only an aide in his administration after the election. So to say that his words are congruent with Reagan's is a massive stretch. It's as if to say that anyone in Obama's cabinet must not have any original thoughts or ideas of their own. It's absurd really.

 

[Dino]

Affirmative Action, not affirmative action. The term refers to government mandates on hiring minorities. My question was, do you support this as a measure of civil rights?



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

With all due respect, and I do mean respect, it is somewhat disingenuous to repost opinion pieces as your own commentary.

But to answer your question, Atwater was not a member of Reagan's campaign, only an aide in his administration after the election. So to say that his words are congruent with Reagan's is a massive stretch. It's as if to say that anyone in Obama's cabinet must not have any original thoughts or ideas of their own. It's absurd really.

You are absolutely right and I am sorry, I had know intention of trying to pass off my posts as my own words, and I should have clairified.


Now lets not downplay Mr. Atwater. From a wiki entry: Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951(1951-02-27) – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican party.

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N**er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er."

I replace the letters of the racial slur with *** out of respect for other board members. The full quotes can be found here: Lamis, Alexander P. et al. (1990) The Two Party South. Oxford University Press. See also Herbert, Frank (October 6, 2005) "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant." New York Times.

 

[Vonderbach]

I have to ask, if Atwater is representative of the entire GOP agenda, then would it be appropriate to say that Van Jones is representative of the DNC and Obama's administration? Both Van Jones and Lee Atwater held positions in their president's cabinet, and both are controversial figures. Using this methodology, I should conclude that Obama is a Communist. Personal theories aside, this has no merit. So how is it that we can deduce the racial prejudices of Reagan based on a single interview from one of his aides that was no more involved in his election than Van Jones was with Obama?

I understand why Lee Atwater's comments are controversial and I also understand that he obviously was not the best choice as a member of Reagan's cabinet, but that's where the criticism of Reagan ends. As we see today, there are members of the same political parties than have vast differences in their agendas. The RNC has their religious right and their fiscal conservative right, the DNC has their liberal left and their Blue Dog, Truman Democrats. So just because you're on the same team, it doesn't mean that you can't have varying opinions on a multitude of issues. In this case it was race.

 

[skydivr]

great post!

Lurch- he must have said 'marines' by mistake.. He really meant 'army'

+1 hooah!

 

[Dino]

Just saw the bit on Affirmative Action. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to redress the wrongs of the past, but even with AA policies in place women and minorities are under-represented in many areas, so I support it at the grass roots level. I do not think that a less qualified person should be hired because they are a minority, though this does happen. I do think that services should be provided to ensure every effort is made to provide the same opportunities for everyone to gain the same qualifications. Equality is one of the cornerstones of who we are as Americans though not always practiced. If you do not put measures in place to ensure equality how do you protect minorities?

 

[Dino]

I have to ask, if Atwater is representative of the entire GOP agenda, then would it be appropriate to say that Van Jones is representative of the DNC and Obama's administration? Both Van Jones and Lee Atwater held positions in their president's cabinet, and both are controversial figures. Using this methodology, I should conclude that Obama is a Communist. Personal theories aside, this has no merit. So how is it that we can deduce the racial prejudices of Reagan based on a single interview from one of his aides that was no more involved in his election than Van Jones was with Obama?

I understand why Lee Atwater's comments are controversial and I also understand that he obviously was not the best choice as a member of Reagan's cabinet, but that's where the criticism of Reagan ends. As we see today, there are members of the same political parties than have vast differences in their agendas. The RNC has their religious right and their fiscal conservative right, the DNC has their liberal left and their Blue Dog, Truman Democrats. So just because you're on the same team, it doesn't mean that you can't have varying opinions on a multitude of issues. In this case it was race.

I never claimed Mr. Atwater represented the RNC. I am making the connection between him and Reagan AND Reagan's record and his adoption of the racist "Southern Strategy" policies. It is not just the interview. The interview simply quantifies Reagan's record of attacks on Civil Rights (see my previous post).

Look at the article by Herbert, Frank (October 6, 2005) "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant." New York Times. You also used one of his articles, I think. He pulls no punches in accusing the RNC of being racist.

 

[Mr Bogus]

nope just watching you take a perfectly nice thread and make total ass of yourself... rather fun reading the PM's actually..

 

[Dino]

nope just watching you take a perfectly nice thread and make total ass of yourself... rather fun reading the PM's actually..

good one.......*****

 

[papi_ocho]

+1 hooah!

sry boys he actually said high speed comments about every branch including the army.

I did try to google it for u. but only the best one came up! I'm sure u read it already!


Semper Fi :-)

also

"of course his rhetoric did make you feel good while he was giving it to you in the"

ofcourse this comment sound like someone I know and see on TV everyday!

old RON truly was a great speaker! people follewed him because he actually spoke! people thought twice about Mr lowinsky's after the pot story-finished his term. people thought twice about everydam thing the OIL administration did-finished his term

everyone is questioning the budget era and the health care era and the troops in harms way era. over and over and over.

clinton had a easy ride because of the work the first bush did.
obama is having a horid time because of the work the 2nd bush did.

we may not vote him back in! but understand that the next guy is gonna reap the benefits of it all! and be deamed as a hero of sorts. an economical genious! turned out economy around after 3days in office!!

all perception!
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[skydivr]

Thank you Vonderbach!

Finally, a good foil for Dino (I'm not smart enough to match wits with him, but you are doing a great job).

True Equal rights with regards to race means the law is colorblind. Fat Chance.

RR wasn't perfect and I'm not claiming he was. What he was good at was setting his moral compass for what he thought America was best at, and communicating that to the public, and the people in his adminsistration. He had some pretty smart people working for him and he didn't nit pick them too much. I wish we could find another President like him.

 

[Vonderbach]

I never claimed Mr. Atwater represented the RNC. I am making the connection between him and Reagan AND Reagan's record and his adoption of the racist "Southern Strategy" policies. It is not just the interview. The interview simply quantifies Reagan's record of attacks on Civil Rights (see my previous post).

It's not very accurate to claim that Reagan adopted the Southern Strategy simply because his campaign followed certain parallels with that movement. There is a popular fallacy that says "correlation does not imply causation." This is to say that just because two items seem to compliment one another, we cannot deduce from that alone that they are originated from one another. To appeal to voters of a certain demographic, ALL politicians pander to some degree.

Look at the article by Herbert, Frank (October 6, 2005) "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant." New York Times. You also used one of his articles, I think. He pulls no punches in accusing the RNC of being racist.

I would never claim that certain aspects of the RNC aren't racist, but then again I would never claim that the DNC isn't racist either. The only difference is that the RNC may pander to the whites, but the DNC panders to the minorities. Both can be construed as racist in nature, just different ends of the spectrum. Regardless, you won't find me defending the RNC anytime soon. I'm a Republican in name only.

 

[Dino]

Thank you Vonderbach!

Finally, a good foil for Dino (I'm not smart enough to match wits with him, but you are doing a great job).

True Equal rights with regards to race means the law is colorblind. Fat Chance.

Let me correct you, the law IS colorblind. Those who interpret and enforce the law are not. If they were there would be no need for affirmative action.

Don't sell yourself short sky you do pretty well with your poisitions.

 

[skydivr]

Affirmative Action IS Law; ergo, the Law is NOT colorblind. "Reality IS Reality"

I'm not nearly as eloquent as Vonderbach.

 

[Dino]

It's not very accurate to claim that Reagan adopted the Southern Strategy simply because his campaign followed certain parallels with that movement. There is a popular fallacy that says "correlation does not imply causation." This is to say that just because two items seem to compliment one another, we cannot deduce from that alone that they are originated from one another. To appeal to voters of a certain demographic, ALL politicians pander to some degree.


I would never claim that certain aspects of the RNC aren't racist, but then again I would never claim that the DNC isn't racist either. The only difference is that the RNC may pander to the whites, but the DNC panders to the minorities. Both can be construed as racist in nature, just different ends of the spectrum. Regardless, you won't find me defending the RNC anytime soon. I'm a Republican in name only.

Fair enough, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck sometimes it is a duck. Reagan’s record is directly in line with the Southern Strategy and his associates and members of his administration promoted it, so if nothing else he was complacent towards it and that is just as bad.


I don't think you can say supporting equal rights: "pandering to minorities"

 

[Dino]

Affirmative Action IS Law; ergo, the Law is NOT colorblind. "Reality IS Reality"

I'm not nearly as eloquent as Vonderbach.

Affirmative Action is based upon more than race it is also based upon gender and ethnicity. It would not be necessary if discrimination did not exist.

 

[Vonderbach]

I don't think you can say supporting equal rights: "pandering to minorities"

I think it's one thing to say that you support equal rights in one hand while asking for your vote in another. Like I said, it goes for both parties.

It has been theorized by many political thinkers (some of which are black) that the DNC and their left leaning affiliates actually do more to harm minorities than they do to support them. By enforcing these AA policies and making certain that minorities remain on government subsidy, we are in effect promoting a unique brand of cloaked racism. If you provide subsidy with no incentive to emerge from said subsidy, you are only creating complacency and dependency.

Affirmative Action is based upon more than race it is also based upon gender and ethnicity. It would not be necessary if discrimination did not exist.

That's somewhat circular logic. We will never rid ourselves of discrimination as long as we discriminate "against" white men. Affirmative Action provides for the advancement and hire of lesser skilled minorities due to nothing more than race, sex or disadvantage. For this reason, we are going to continue to see white men harboring ill will towards minorities that have usurped their rights to employment.

Instead, we should treat every citizen as an equal and prosecute those that refuse to do so. Placing mandates and quotas on hiring practices is a divisive process with no real benefit to anyone.