Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Why does everyone like to pretend that Lincoln loved black people? You don't need to be a revisionist historian to refute that myth.

The Democrats want to invade the South and torch Atlanta? :-)

But seriously folks...I wonder how the _totality_ of the Republican Platform of 1860 would compare to either major party today. The original Party of Lincoln opposed slavery (like every modern political party on this side of the Florida Straits) and supported protectionist tariffs (which receive bipartisan support in this day and age). So what else did the Republicans support back then?

It should be noted that the NAACP of Hoover's time wasn't the pack of race-baiting statist demagogues that it is today.

Correction" "...the *leadership* of the NAACP..."

Speaking of which, did you see William Buckley's attempt to declare that his positions on civil rights were analogous to those of the NAACP in the NYT today? Ugh. I must have been unware of the period when the NAACP favored disenfranchisement and opposed Brown v. Board...

Please. Everyone knows Lincoln would be a communist if he were alive today.

In Richmond, Virginia, attempts to erect a statue of Lincoln met very stiff resistance, some of it from Republicans holding political office. Petitioners compared Lincoln to Hitler and Lenin.

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.lincoln.htm

Lincoln statue

Here's a more up-to-date report on neo-Confederates:
Mac Diva on neo-Confederates

http://macaronies.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_macaronies_archive.html

Don't be too hard on Bush; according to the psychiatrist author of "Bush on the Couch", he's a dyslexic, ADD-suffering, paranoid, megalomaniac,
untreated alcoholic, sadist, for starters.

I left the NAACP some time ago, after 25 years of membership. They are no longer much of a civil rights organization. They have a well-deserved reputation, but they now use it for nasty, partisan politics -- not in support of blacks, but in support of Democratic politicians.

The NAACP actively opposed Clarence Thomas. They oppose school vouchers. They oppose defensive use of guns by citizens. These are not issues supported by a majority of blacks. These are not issues that help blacks. These are issues of interest to the Democratic leaders.

It makes sense for Republicans to give our support and participation to other civil rights organzations that don't demonize us.

How dare they oppose Clarence Thomas? Can't they see he's black? I mean that's all that should matter to those poeple!

I am probably not up on the issue to the extent that I ought to be, but I am unaware of any legislative initiative that has been able to effectively support the "defensive use of guns by citizens" without at the same time making guns more available to non-citizen residents, children, criminals, gangs and the like. It is, as far as I am aware, only possible to distiguish between defensive and offensive uses of guns after the fact, when it is too late for the distinction to do any good, outside a courtroom. Which is to say, "defensive use of guns by citizens" is campaign jargon, spin, a statement of a position, rather than an objective statement of the situation. In fact, don't blacks suffer more gun-related violence, per capita, than the population as a whole?

He means laws that allow you to carry a concealed weapon; AFAIK, the NAACP has never proposed a ban on long arms.

David poses an interesting question: should civil rights groups support minority candidates/nominees, regardless of their positions on the issues? Suppose a black judicial nominee believed that civil rights laws governing public accomodations (i.e., private businesses such as hotels, banks, restaurants) were unconstitutional. Would it be consistent with the NAACP'S mission for them to support that nominee?

Indeed, the question isn't altogether hypothetical: Clarence Thomas' radical libertarianism is very close to the position I have described.

Of course, they should theoretically support blacks of all political persuasions, even those with which they disagree. Otherwise they are tacitly asserting that all minorities should think the the same way, a position that is racist in itself and an affront to the notion of individuality.

The "Party of Lincoln" title belongs to the party responsible for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

Let's see, which party had more congress-critters supporting that measure?

Oh.

Nevermind.

Uhm. How about this: "The Party of Lincoln" title belongs to the party most responsible for welfare-reform measures in the 1990s, and forced the President -- a redneck cracker from Arkansas -- to sign legislation designed to build intact black families, get good honest jobs for all who wanted to work ...

What, you don't like that one, either?

Uhm. How about this: "The Party of Lincoln" title belongs to the party that supports black parents' right to get the publically-financed education they want for their kids, in either integrated or segregated, secular or religious, public or private, co-ed or mixed, NEA or non-union faculty ...

No?

Jeeeze, this is hard.

The Republican Party is still the party of Lincoln, it is just that long ago they switched Lincolns. Since the end of Reconstruction they have been the party of Robert Todd Lincoln, the son who went to Harvard and despised his father's lack of social snobbery.

Or perhaps George Lincoln Rockwell.

Lincoln Chafee?

Oh, let's not forget about Exhibit A of the NAACP's membership with the ranks of the shrill: those James Byrd ads that featured his daughter saying that Bush's opposition to hate crimes legislation was like her father being dragged to death all over again. Aside from the heartless exploitation of Ms. Byrd and the dubious claim that hate crimes are worse than nonhate crimes (is killing a guy because he's black worse than killing a guy for his wallet?), the genuine concern in such circumstances is that the case be handled like any other with respect for due process. And it was - three convictions, two death sentences, one life conviction, zero mere slaps on the wrist.

>>I left the NAACP some time ago, after 25 years of membership. They are no longer much of a civil rights organization. They have a well-deserved reputation, but they now use it for nasty, partisan politics -- not in support of blacks, but in support of Democratic politicians.<<

Yeah, the lawsuit they won against Jeb Bush for purging black citizens from the voter rolls in the 2000 theft of Florida wasn't in support of blacks, it was in support of Democratic politicians.

If you say so.

Brad wrote, "Of course, they should theoretically support blacks of all political persuasions, even those with which they disagree. Otherwise they are tacitly asserting that all minorities should think the the same way, a position that is racist in itself and an affront to the notion of individuality."

That's odd; I would have thought they should theoretically support blacks who support the cause of anti-racism.

Pouncer wrote, "The 'Party of Lincoln' title belongs to the party responsible for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

"Let's see, which party had more congress-critters supporting that measure?"

Uh huh. And how many of those Democrats were Southern Democrats; and which party represents that political tradition in the South now?

Does any party support "that political tradition?" I'm not aware of any detectable opposition to the 1964 Civil Right Act, in the South or anywhere else.

"Aside from the heartless exploitation of Ms. Byrd..."

Correction: Ms. Rene _Mullins_.

Patterico has a complete transcript of the James Byrd ad:

http://patterico.com/archives/002417.php

How do you suppose Bush would be treated at an NAACP convention?

Would you like to go to convention where the overriding concern of the participants was to debase, ridicule and humiliate you?

Is it a sin not to attend such a convention?

Someone is always talking about if you ever read any superhero comic books were always so hyped up about everyone involved. And if yes, you would have noted that there couldn't be a second civil rights revolution.

If yes, please be aware that Republicans need for drugs, take a criticism of the latter: .A.....and so much so that the stance of African-American community by highlighting the commonality of interests Republicans have with a raft of uplift programs presented to each resident in the Middle East.

Nice site Ever wonder how cigarettes are made? These are then cut to proper length for cigarettes. Filter-tipped brands have a double-length filter inserted between every two cigarettes; filters are sealed to the rods and then cut in half to produce two cigarettes, each one having a filter on one end.

Most of them smoked cigarettes Save money on cheap cigarettes Cigarette smoking has been buy cigarettes. order cigarettes the most popular method of taking offer discount Camel cigarettes nicotine the year a report offer discount marlboro cigarettes that concluded that buy cigarettes. order cigarettes cigarettes and other Save money on cheap cigarettes forms of tobacco smoking cigs for all the Buy cigarettes and pack of smokes for you rolling tobacco would you like cigarettes with Free delivery of cigarettes years of smoking can cause cigarettes Chesterfield cigarettes bar talking with people Lucky Strike cigarettes Marlboro

nice site i really like it http://www.a1-cheap-cigarettes.com

nice site i really like it http://www.my-discount-cigarettes.com

1870 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

8455 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

173 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

6777 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com