When is a Democrat not a Democrat?
When they want him to be a Republican.
Revisionist history, brought to you by Democratic Representative Keith Ellison:
Note that George Stephanopoulos—whom I presume knows better—does not trouble himself to correct Ellison because it suits George’s purposes to let the mistake slide. It’s only when Representative Tom Cole (R), who was sharp enough to pick up Ellison’s error, corrects Ellison, that Stephanopoulos gives a little knowing chuckle and smile of acknowledgement that Cole is correct.
Not that it matters to most of American anymore. The “Republicans are the racists” narrative is firmly ensconced.
And note when we get concerned about narcissism. (sort of related)
Headline: Is Donald Trump a textbook narcissist?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/is-donald-trump-a-textbook-narcissist/
When is a Democrat not a Democrat?
As documented many hundreds of times in their “Name That Party” game by Newsbusters.org, the media’s refusal to identify the Democrat party whenever a politician or other individual is named in news stories about:
– being caught in a lie
– their criminal activity
– their unethical behavior
– FBI investigations
– their indictment
– their conviction
– their lack of accountability and/or responsibility for bad consequences of their actions or policies
– their outrageous/racist statements
– any historical figure or event that reflects badly on Democrats.
In fact, they also document the many, many times a Democrat in trouble is identified as a Republican. I’m almost pretty nearly somewhat certain it’s probably maybe just a coincidence (possibly) that the reverse never happens.
When it’s a Republican, the party is identified in the headline and every paragraph in the 10,000 word front page “story” on how an unpaid parking ticket negatively affects the future of the GOP and proves that all Republicans are racist, homo/Islamo/Trannyphobic misogynistic bigots who need to die.
See also “Name the Race” and “Name the Religion”.
In the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, narrative is elective truth, while the actual truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other in the arena.
The fact that George S remains at ABC after everything he does shows what a rigged system we have. We know the MSM is rigged for the Dems but I doubt the 20% still undecided voters get it.
That was one part of Cruz’s speech last week that was excellent: he mentioned that the GOP was created during the civil war, that Abe Lincoln was the first GOP president, etc. That history needs to be repeated to counteract the Democrats’ whitewashing of any responsibility for racial ugliness in the past.
LIzzy, the GOP preceded the US Civil War.
The Old South went wholesale for the Democrat party.
The brand new party, the Republicans, largely swept the North.
It was a FOUR-WAY race, BTW.
The two-party system evolved out of the Civil War.
Only two parties were left standing by 1864.
The Democrat party was so wounded by its bigotry that it was almost invisible at the national level until the Republican party split in 1912 and Wilson was elected.
Cleveland, the bachelor, was the only significant Democrat to get into the White House.
It took the Great Depression to flip the script and put the Democrat party on top… with FDR out Hoovering Hoover.
Today’s kids don’t even realize that the Liberal or Progressive movements BOTH started within the Republican party.
FDR got his 100 days of legislation by FLIPPING the Democrats in Congress — into adopting the Republican// Hoover big-spending Big Government.
Yes, Hoover, not FDR, is the fellow that set the foundation for todays Big Government.
He served three terms as “president” — as he was the de facto CEO of our government from 1921 through 1933.
Harding and Coolidge were mere pictures on a wall compared to the dynamic Hoover. (Harding was a dark horse, compromise candidate with no national following whatsoever. Coolidge barely spoke. Hoover never shut up. Heh. Period political cartoons made fun of the above reality. You will not see this history in any high school textbook.)
He ‘ran the Federal government’ out of the Commerce department. ( Re-worked to suit him, BTW. ) (1921-1928)
Lets not forget that according to the left’s narrative the KKK and all the Southern racists were also Republicans.
Honestly, had to listen to it twice to catch it.
It may be less that Stephanopoulos let it slide (though one always has to be wary with him) than this being an example of how the Dems like Ellison cannot keep their facts “straight”.
We often hear that the GOP were the party of Lincoln and emancipation, and that the Dems were the party for slavery. The Dems keep trying to offload their own “guilty” history onto the GOP to reinforce their narrative of GOP = racists.
Very true, but the GOP often raise this historical point as if there is the same distinction/implication for today.
Doesn’t that come across as similar to quoting the Yankee’s winning history as if that has implication for their performance today?
So, yes, of course, it is revisionist in the sense that Ellison is opportunistically attempting to offload the burden of Dem’s history onto the GOP, reinforcing their narrative.
trump is no wallace, but, we have to wonder, given what we see with the GOP today, is it all simply a recent turn, or were some in the GOP playing to the old wallace crowd all along, and we ignored them like the Dems ignore this historical detail?
Until recently, I’d have vehemently denied the charge as unfairly painting the whole with the few of a tiny minority.
Dennis Says:
July 25th, 2016 at 11:49 am
Lets not forget that according to the left’s narrative the KKK and all the Southern racists were also Republicans.
According to Southern Baptist Democrats, all the Dixiecrats went over to the Republican side, and the Dixiecrats were the racists in the Democrats.
None of that is accurate, but people still believe it.
trump is no wallace, but, we have to wonder, given what we see with the GOP today, is it all simply a recent turn, or were some in the GOP playing to the old wallace crowd all along, and we ignored them like the Dems ignore this historical detail?
Until recently, I’d have vehemently denied the charge as unfairly painting the whole with the few of a tiny minority.
You aren’t told a missing bit of the history. The Northern propaganda, the Union side, was that CW 1 ended slavery, thus it justified itself on moral grounds. If that was true, where did Jim Crow come from?
Where did Southern racism and welfare come from? Why is the South, Appalachia still, the poorest whites around?
The Demoncrats didn’t win the war, but they won the Reconstruction and peace using KKK death squads. They got their power back, even if they lost their plantations.
So no, Slavery 2.0 did not end with CW 1. That’s why CW 2 is needed.
The Republicans tried to occupy and safeguard the black voters in the Southern states. They failed. Partially due to Lincoln’s VP pick. Partially due to the South’s revenge killing of Lincoln, who pardoned Nathan Bedford Forrest and Lee and all the other heroes of the “Confederacy”, which were discarded by the same leaders of said Confederacy once they were no longer useful as military pawns.
So there’s no “glory” to be had here. But the history does need to be set right, for a people that do not know their past, can be lied into hell for the future.
“That’s why CW 2 is needed.” – Ymarsakar
Kind of ruins any point made.
We so believe that our own principles and the arguments for them are not enough to convince enough others, that we need to resort to point of gun to settle it.
That belief quickly turns self-fulfilling.
We live too much in an echo chamber, and are not taking the message out, let alone selling it in a way that is meaningful and brings those not already convinced to our side.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/07/24/first-thoughts-on-rebuilding-conservatism/1/
I can’t remember where I read it, but the first slave owner in America was black, and he wasn’t the only one.
Blert:
Sorry, but your assessment of Hoover and Coolidge is not accurate, that’s where you went off the tracks.
They have to consider us racists (and similar prejudices). The evidence for it doesn’t have to be very good. Hearing dog whistles, insisting the worst interpretations are the true ones, and scouring the fringes for serious anti-black or ant-female sentiments is their stock-in-trade, so they will always have plenty of “evidence” to work from.
Consider what they have left for political arguments if we aren’t evil.
Stephanopoulos knows better, and he should have been professional and made that correction himself.
Keith Ellison was born in 1963, so he can claim some ignorance, and judging from his career, even with a law degree, he doesn’t look all that bright, just smart enough to get elected. (He might even believe what he said, from being around biased or uninformed people most of his life.)
Tom Cole was born in 1949, so he would have direct experience of that time. He also has an M.A. from Yale and a PhD from the Univ of OK. And he has American Indian ancestry, being part Chickasaw.
What can one do? Correct the record, laugh off such antics, and find ways to lessen racial obsessions (perhaps starting with the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren taking a DNA test? Only $99 at ancestry.com, as we’ve all seen the commercials, right?)
The only democrats that remain are the Left’s useful idiots, the millions of liberal low-info voters.
Yankee,
Stephanopoulos is a ‘professional journalist’. That said, yes he does know better. That is beside the point. Anything, including roasting live babies is allowed if it furthers the agenda. While I am not willing to roast a live baby to further my agenda, I am also not willing to vote for djt.
Almost. It was not the first slave owner, but the first slave owner who win in a court the right to own a slave. So it could be considered that the person who introduced legal slavery in US through a lawsuit was black.
By the way, back then free blacks were far more likely to be slave owner than whites. This is another statistics nobody talks about.
OM…
You needs must go back ninety-years and correct those pundits — and do so quickly.
Your judgment would be valued — but for your legacy posts.
Objection is no refutation.
Read “Coolidge” by Amity Shlaes before you post ignorantly about Hoover and his legacy and what Coolidge did, said, and thought.
Facts matter, Blert.
Blert:
Post about Coolidge and Hoover again when you’ve finished your required reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Coolidge-Amity-Shlaes/dp/0061967599
592 pages including footnotes.
I found it to be very good. Much as I did the “forgotten Man.”
Blert:
For some reason Ronald Reagan held Coolidge in high regard, but don’t know what he thought of “3 term” Hoover.
We so believe that our own principles and the arguments for them are not enough to convince enough others, that we need to resort to point of gun to settle it.
Which is why Trum’s side will attempt to convince you to violate your conscience, and you will try to convince them that they shouldn’t. None of you will succeed at that, then somebody will decide to escalate matters. Your choice is whether you want to be on the first strike team or whether you want to be the receiving team, as Lincoln was.
My principles don’t need force of arms to settle them. They are true, irregardless of what people think or say or what power they bring to bear. However, that is not satisfactory for Leftists, Democrats, and nationalists who want power above all else, including sexual power, the ability of a Trum to make Cruz and others lick their shoes in submission and vassalage.
Those factions, B, you aren’t going to be able to get rid of using principles. Something people who cannot see the future, are blind to of course.
Kind of ruins any point made.
Hey B, if you can’t argue against them, it’s not my problem. It is, however, your problem.
Things don’t get ruined because you decide that they are ruined. You have to contest the battle a little, as Eric might have said.