John Conyers and Rosa Parks

The death last week of Rosa Parks at age 92 has inspired a predictable outpouring of tributes from politicians of every partisan and ideological bent. Even President Bush, a man who inspired the ire of Parks as far back as the mid-1990s, when she was campaigning against capital punishment in Texas, hailed the mother of the civil rights movement as "one of the most inspiring women of the 20th century" and declared that she had "transformed America for the better."

In their self-serving rush to praise Parks prior to her funderal today, a number of politicians displayed their complete ignorance of the woman's history and her legacy. The worst of them was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, who said of the protest that sparked the Montogomery bus boycott of the 1950s and gave rise to the high-profile civil rights movement of the 1960s: "Rosa Parks' bold and principled refusal to give up her seat was not an intentional attempt to change a nation, but a singular act aimed at restoring the dignity of the individual."

Frist was, of course, wrong. Parks' refusal to give up her seat on that bus was an intentional attempt to change a nation. At a time when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was under attack in the segregated south, Parks was an elected official of her local NAACP branch from the 1940s on and an activist with Voters' League, a pioneering voting rights group in Alabama. Employed by Clifford and Virginia Durr, who were among the most outspoken white supporters of civil rights in the south, Parks was trained at the Highlander Folk School and acted as an informed and intentional activist.

Parks would remain an activist across the years that followed her refusal to give up that seat on the bus, as one of the elected officials who paid tribute to her well knew.

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the Detroit Democrat who is the senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, was elected to Congress in 1964, the year the Civil Rights Act was passed. He immediately hired Rosa Parks as a member of his staff.

Parks, whose political views mirrored those of the outspoken Conyers, would remain on the congressman's staff until her retirement in 1988.

Parks would remain close to Conyers, who recalled the other day that, when Nelson Mandela visited Detroit in 1990, the pair joined the South African leader on stage.

Mandela got the crowd to join him in chanting "Rosa Parks!"

Conyers said that day with Mandela caused him to recognize a simple truth: "Rosa Parks is worldwide."

Yet the icon was also a warm and generous human being. Thus, when Rosa Parks died, Conyers explained, "America lost a living legend; and I, along with countless others, lost a friend."

As a token of his respect for his former aide's accomplishments, Conyers always referred to her as "Mrs. Parks." But there was nothing formal about their friendship. She regarded him as the most important political leader in the many struggles that she waged--not just for civil rights but for peace, economic justice and, in particular, an end to the death penalty.

The congressman regarded "Mrs. Parks" as something akin to a secular saint, as his warm reflection on her passing makes abundantly clear:

We all knew that Mrs. Parks was frail. We always feared this moment, and now it is here. The extent to which she will be missed cannot be dignified with words.

There will only ever be one Rosa Parks..."

And there will only ever be one John Conyers.

Comments (46)

1. John:

   You asked a question re: Bush's "lies" on the previous blog. Since I would not want you to go without information, I will repost my response. My apologies to the rest for diverting off-topic:

   John -

   Rawstory.com has a good timeline of Senator Roberts' efforts to thwart any meaningful examination of the way Bush manipulated pre-war intelligence. I suggest you read it:

   http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_inte lligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

   http://rawstory.com/robertsintel.htm

   As for Bush's "lies," whether one goes so far as to qualify it as "lies," there is plenty of evidence that Bush deliberately misstated the case for war. There is far too much to post here, so I would just direct you to sources that set it out. I would hope you would at least look at these sources rather than skip them, but here are a few:

   Conyers wrote a chronology of the Bush administration lies at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/conyerstimeline.pdf

   There are plenty of other timelines:

   http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

   http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/

   Elizabeth de la Vega writes about it in this issue: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega

   Posted by Hman23 at 11/02/2005 @ 10:44am

2. Freiheit, I think John's point is important. I met Rosa Parks myself some years ago, and I think that she, too, would be dismayed by this revisionist effort to write history as though her stance in Montgomery was simply the individual response of a woman with "tired feet", as the Montgomery Bus Boycott is universally taught. Ms. Parks herself never lost sight of the fact that she represented a continuity of community efforts bent on building a different country then the country built by the Jim Crow rationalists. Whether through the efforts of E.D. Nixon and his colleagues, or the teachings of the Highlander Folk School and her fellow students of activism in the deep south, Rosa Parks knew full well what her spearheading task really represented, and it is a collosal act of impudence - to continue to tell her story as though she were an isolated hero who could take no more. What she represented stood way outside herself, a cultural trend of which the last has not yet been heard.

   Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/02/2005 @ 11:15am

3. The "secular sainthood" of Mrs Parks is particularly troubling. She was a great lady, but saints often find themselves USED to further their "worshippers" political ambitions. (as we saw Chuck Schumer do yesterday, concerning the Alito nomination).

   It rapidly degenerates into "Mrs Parks would want...." or "The memory of Rosa is being tarnished by our opponents' attempt to...."

   Want a "conservatie example"? The "secular sainthood" of Ronald Reagan (I know, I know...big difference between a "actor fascist" and a "civil rights giant"...but set aside the partisanship a second, okay?). Reagan Airport, attempts to change the DIME, etc.?

   The sanctification of human beings for political purposes, regardless of their earthly accomplishments, is a dangerous road to go down.

   Posted by Mask at 11/02/2005 @ 11:30am

4. Can I get an "Amen" for Mask?

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/02/2005 @ 12:11pm

5. You got it. Amen and amen. Individual leadership roles make a difference, but reification or fetish of a particular individual's contributions deprive those who come after of the opportunity to take a critical and creative view of the techniques used by effective leadership, in addition to what is created for opportunist hacks ("Ms Parks would have wanted",etc). How does the old saying go? The corpse of an enemy always smells sweetest to those who opposed them in life, or words to that effect. Many of the people who opposed what Ms. Parks stood for tooth and nail now seek to deepen their agenda in their use of her "saintedness". Give us a break. The right didn't see many of us mounting phony praise for the unlamented Ronald Reagan last year. Spare us the histrionics, please.

   Posted by bkarloff at 11/02/2005 @ 12:49pm

6. Cynically, ZERO....I have another take on Reid's "manuever"...

   It's an attempt (like Bush did with the Alito nomination) to "shore up the base" for 2006, in this case the "We want a Watergate Committee to get Bush impeached on 'Plame-gate'" crowd, who are loudly making it known to Senate Democrats and others that they think they are spineless (See Mr Nichols column).

   So...Reid pulls a "Blackjack 21", gets a day's headlines and the blogs a-flutter over "See, see, Dems finally showing some guts"...so that when 15-20 of them vote for Alito in two weeks, THIS "call for an investigation" provides some cover for those Dems ranked as spineless.

   The problem is Reid is no strategist, he's a tactician...and pissing off Frist like this (Who is STILL the "Majority Leader" and STILL has a MAJORITY in the Senate) was not wise.

   For every "Rule 21"...there are dozens more that a smart guy like Frist (usually..hehe) can pull out as Majority Leader and fire back at Reid.

   That new funding for McCarren Airport in Vegas or some tax break for Steve Wynns, for instance, might find themselves "stalled in committee"....and Reid (per his previous actions) would surely back down and let Roberts carry out the investigation "Phase 2" the way Roberts wants to.

   Posted by Mask at 11/02/2005 @ 1:49pm

7. Well said Rio,

   I have been away for a few days doing things that actually count in life rather than just posting words on an internet site. It has done me good as it always does to be back out there helping others in need, working with young people and seeing lives changed.

   I really question whether my time spent here is of any value in comparision or merely a amusing diversion (I think the latter). I think it is better to spend even more time helping those in need than pontificating about my point of view on political issues that will never be decided on a website.

   Have fun!

   Posted by love liberty at 11/02/2005 @ 3:31pm

8. Mask,

   Good points but Reid isn't scared of losing the crumbs that Frist was giving.....dozens (perhaps hundreds) of Democrat innitiatives are stuck in comittee thanks to Frist. Reid is just sick of being bitch slapped....but you are right now he'll be properly thumped!

   Rio Bravo,

   Nobody cares. You're just trying to be inflamatory using stereotypes that only fit your models. Nobody's biting so go away.

   Love Liberty,

   Sounds like you have some sort of personal dilemma going on.....I suggest you get your answer as to what to do from God.

   Posted by colmes at 11/02/2005 @ 5:11pm

9. The politicalization of Rosa Parks funeral should not be accepted, Mr. Nichols, bad form. Rosa Parks was one of those figures that transcends party affiliation, too bad some have not learned that.

   RIO BRAVO

   Big Kudos! To your last post. There is alot of truth to it.

   Posted by CPT at 11/02/2005 @ 5:14pm

10. Love Liberty

    The only reason for conservatives to post here is amusing diversion. We know we are not going to convince the dedicated hardcore fringe libbys here. So it is more than fine to indulge the diversion, it is healthy.

    Posted by CPT at 11/02/2005 @ 5:17pm

11. LL, you have been threatening to walk away from this site for months. When are you going to please follow through? I say good riddance. I hope the doorknob doesn't leave a permanent mark on your way out.

    Rio Bravo,

    I suspected your wit could not have been original. A quick Google got 450 hits. Are you nothing but a mouthpiece for others? It is pretty pathetic that you think the Democrats are so obviously absurd yet on a blog where people exchange opinions you are unable to come up ideas that are your own.

    Well, I'll do you one better; here are some of my 22 Rules for being a Republican:

    - believe in a smaller less-invasive government, except when it comes to legislating morality regarding gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, freedom of choice, or trampling the Bill of Rights through the Patriot Act.

    - believe that Hussein was responsible for 9/11 just because Bush uses the words Iraq and 9/11 in the same paragraph over and over again.

    - believe that perjured testimony in a private civil case alleging sexual harassment is an impeachable offense, yet obstructing justice in an investigation involving the improper leaking of classified information concerning WMD intelligence is a "technicality."

    - believe that there is no way Tom DeLay can get a fair trial from a judge who contributed money to a Democrat, yet the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee is perfectly suited to investigate Bush's handling of pre-war intelligence, and there is no need for a bipartisan investigation.

    - do not believe in hand-outs from the government, unless of course, it is for energy and oil companies - then it is billion dollar subsidies for all!

    - do not believe in activist judges who broadly interpret the 14th Amendment, unless they use it to overturn a state's decision to recount votes cast in a presidential election.

    - believe Democrats are inherently fiscally irresponsible even though Clinton managed to balance the budget while Bush has run up a record deficit.

    - still believe their party is better trusted with homeland security even after the inept response to Katrina.

    - believe they are more qualified to combat terrorism, but that the best way to do this was to invade Iraq rather than apprehending Osama bin Laden.

    - believe that competition in the market is always preferable to a government program, but will happily offer no-bid contracts to well-connected companies.

    - believe the MSM is tilted to the left but think it is perfectly acceptable to give White House press credentials to gay hooker, right-wing mouthpiece Jeff Gannon.

    - believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on the availability of any type of gun, but doctors should be arrested under federal law for prescribing medical marijuana pursuant to state law.

    - believe that poverty is the result of lifestyle choices.

    - believe that the best way to improve the lives of working Americans is to cut taxes for the obnoxiously wealthy and offer massive tax subsidies to corporations, and the worst way would be to raise the minimum wage.

    - believes that funding for Head Start, the arts, and other civic programs are wasteful spending, but building a bridge in Alaska for 50 people is a necessary use of federal resources.

    - stand firmly against abortion, but also oppose the FDA approval for emergency contraception that would necessarily reduce the number of abortions performed

    - believes global warming is junk science but Intelligent Design should be the part of every high school science curriculum.

    - believe that the best way to promote democracy in other countries is to impose it by force and occupy those nations until we are satisfied, torture their citizens, and bomb their cities so long as the damage is only collateral, rather than lead by example.

    - believe that international law is relevant if you are using it to cite Hussein's violations, but irrelevant when it comes to our actual unilateral decision to invade Iraq.

    - think that the entire CBS news crew should be fired for reying on forged documents involving Bush's national guard duty (even though the underlying facts were true), but any examination of the Niger forgeries is partisan politics and we should hamper any investigation to get to the bottom of it.

    - the environment? Who gives a shit!

    - believe that we should legislate with little care for future generations, be it the environment, the economy, or foreign relations, because as our president says about how history will judge us, "History, we don't know. We'll all be dead."

    Now take your pot-shots, but at least this is original material.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/02/2005 @ 6:27pm

12. Rio, CPT, Love Liberty, and the rest of the North American Neo-Conservative Self-Love Association - It is you who are amusing, it is you who are fringe, it is you who history will expose as brown-shirts defending a dictator wannabe. Tell you what, why don't you all leave, find Jeff Gannon and whoever his love Monkey in Chief was, and spank your conservative dogma somewhere else. It is possible (and probably very likely) that all the investigations, trials, indictments, accusations, et al will come to nothing, but that doesn't mean that A) They aren't completely warranted; and B)They shouldn't have attempted as a last gasp effort to take back the country from the pseudo-religious, war-mongering fanaticals who have convinced rich and poor alike to support an anti-American, unconstitutional, greedy agenda. And if you haven't seen the latest, the Republicans want to reform the tax code, but every "reform" hurts the poor/middle class and helps the real elite of this country (not the so-called liberal elite, although I'm sure some of them will benefit accidentally).

    Posted by Turk33 at 11/02/2005 @ 6:41pm

13. RIO BRAVO certainly wrote up a storm. Allow me to reply to some of his rants:

    Rosa Parks was a christian saint surrounded by democratic party vipers, race baiters and extortionists who besmerch her memory.

    What immediately comes to mind is the late, brave Pat Tillman: the Bush administration using his uncommon valor in their pro-war rants while ignoring that his family was lied to, that he was actually killed by "friendly fire" and not by the enemy; and let's not also forget what Tillman in fact said to one of his fellow soldiers while Iraq was first being attacked, "This war is illegal as shit." Talk about besmerching someone's memory.

    You have to … be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

    Well, when DNA tests are resulting in innocent men having been sent to prison, then yeah, capital punishment does indeed need to be looked at. (And for the record, I'm for the death penalty.) And to be a Republican, you have to hypocritically be "pro-life" yet support the death penalty. Talk about an oxymoron!

    believe that businesses create oppression and governments create opportunity.

    More like: believe that malfeasance-ridden businesses create oppression, not the non-malfeasance-ridden ones.

    believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

    No. We believe that citizens should be given a background check before purchasing a weapon, in case one of them just happens to turn out to be an ex-criminal who isn't supposed to have one. I hear this "Democrats want to take away our guns!" without anyone citing any quote from a Democrat to substantiate this. And let's remind ourselves what Kerry pointed out during one of the debates: it was determined that al Qaeda are taking advantage of gun-sale loopholes to acquire weapons. Quite a double standard, I find, when Republicans, who are willing to bend the Constitution in having one's privacy invaded to appease the Patriot Act in the name of "fighting terror", turn a blind eye to this loophole, which terrorists are using to acquire weapons to potentially kill us.

    believe that there was no art before federal funding.

    Republicans: believe there were no businesses before corporate welfare.

    believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.

    No, we're saying pollution-spewing SUVs play more of a role than less-pollution-spewing non-SUVs in global warming; and they also, more than non-SUVs, increase our reliance on foreign oil. Personally, I'm for both drilling in the Arctic and increasing MPG; I only wish more from both sides would see that this trade-off is the most sensible position.

    believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

    If you're one of these myopic-minded cads who honestly thinks that someone chooses their sexual orientation, "makes" themself sexually attracted to someone they're really not attracted to, then I truly feel sorry for you. The thing is, people like you have to believe it, because otherwise you'd have to deal with God making someone homosexual when homosexuality is a sin in the Bible -- which would cause you to question the validity of the Bible, methinks. So much easier to stubbornly adhere to the "the homo chooses to be so" nonsense; just like you do in blaming teen violence solely on violent video games and movies while ignoring bad parenting that emphasizes materialism over morals.

    believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

    Well, at least, contrary to some hard-right Repubs, it isn't spread through tears, and condoms do play a big part in prevention. (Of course, the disgust so many have with rubbers boggles the mind: demean those rubbers yet demean social welfare to pay for the baby born from the non-protected sex.)

    believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

    First, your innate hate for teachers is charming. (Bet you're not a fourth as hateful toward scum like Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay.) Second, if watch-a-gunshot-not-a-cumshot parents aren't going to teach their kids, and those kids due to not knowing anything go and experiment and get pregnant, then, in a wish not to have more teen preganancies -- which, of course, result in more abortions -- it seems rather sensible.

    believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists, who have never been outside of San Francisco, do.

    Quite stereotypical, are we not? So all activists are "loony"? Okay, then I'm just as valid in labeling all God-speaks-through-Bush supporters as "loony". Fair enough, no? And I, a Democrat, have nothing against hunters and find any condemnation of them by meat-eating Democrats more than a wee bit hypocritical.

    believe that self-esteem is more important that actually doing something to earn it.

    I think those two things go hand in hand. I haven't met many people with low self-esteem who are asking for handouts. And I don't know if you're a fan of Bush, but he received extra points in his admission to Yale for having been both the son and grandson of an alumnus. This hardly strikes me as being "earned". And, I'm sorry, where is the condemantion for corporate welfare as well as personal welfare?

    believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of is on money to make The Passion of The Christ for financial gain only.

    First, if you believe he didn't do it partly for money, you're insane. Second, most Democrats like myself would never claim that an artist does something just for money, especially someone as well-established as Mr. Gibson. Third, hard-right Republicans myopically claimed that people who didn't like the movie were anti-Christian, when in fact some of us didn't like it because it was, quite simply, a bad film. I write film criticism, and here's my 1-star review of it:

    http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=8773&reviewer=327

    believe that the NRA is bad because it support certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

    I support gun checks yet don't support suing gun manufacturers. And, again, when findings show al Qaeda is using gun-purchasing loopholes to acquire weapons, it's a matter that needs to be looked at and not ignored.

    believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

    A proud Democrat who supports taxes so low-income babies don't starve and uses my own bank's ATMs so I don't get charged, thank you very much.

    believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Thomas Edison.

    Cite your source for this, please. And Theodore Roosevelt's quote has come to mind:

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    Between Roosevelt and George Clooney, I'll give Teddy my attention each and every time.

    (Oh, and why do so many Republicans decry celebrities except when it's a celebrity that shares their view? And why do they demean Hollywood yet support Hollywood by paying money for their product both at the theatre and video stores? Just curious.)

    believe that standardized tests are racist but quotas and set-asides are not.

    With affirmative action in college admissions, there is no "quota". The applicant is given extra points -- as are children of an alumnus (which, again, Bush benefitted from this at Yale), which you hypocritically don't seem to have a problem with.

    believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and a very nice person.

    I'm a Democrat who will vote for an alternative if she gets the nomination, just so you know. And I can justly launch the same criticism at Republicans who think Bush is "normal and a very nice person", can I not?

    believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere in history that it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

    There are some hard-lefties who do indeed believe that, but I and many non-hard-lefties do not.

    believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

    A "sex offender"? Do tell: I didn't know Clinton was tried and convicted for a sex offense. Please provide details. Having consensual sex with an intern is a "sex offense"? Interesting. And Clinton's lie in no way jeopardized the country, thus he deserved to get his law license revoked but not impeachment. And if you're referring to Libby in the first part, please detail for us how you know beyond a doubt that he "told the truth". Purportedly not remembering when you spoke to some reporters is one thing, but when your account doesn't mesh with 7 White House staffers, as well, then, uh, you've got a problem. You're not automatically defending Libby because he's a Republican, are you? Because that's be as simple-minded as a Democrat supporting Hilary Clinton just because she's a Democrat.

    believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

    As with public-school teachers, your innate hatred for homosexuals is, again, charming. (Whatever happened to the Bible's advice to hate the sin but love the sinner, by the way?) And please don't get me started on the hypocrisy of Republicans and homosexuality: there are plenty of them who have anal sex and watch lesbian porno.

    believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

    And borrowing tons of money from Chinese banks to pay for tax cuts over here is in the U.S.'s best interests? Please.

    believe that this message is part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

    No, just that it's from some homophobic cad who probably goes to church yet possesses a burning hatred for people who are unlike himself.

    The true democratic party is dead and buried never to rise again and anyone over 40 with a functioning brain knows this.

    A true Republican party wouldn't be racking up record deficits and not vetoing spending bills, so they seem to be "buried", too.

    The leftovers are all either elite leftwing extremists or totalitarians of one stripe or another depending on their particular bias of hate evolved retoric.

    Ditto the true Republicans, as I've pointed out.

    I have seen nothing otherwise from the left that would ever swing independent votes their way!

    Well, you need to go back and check last year's polls: with Kerry having received 48% of the vote, I seriously doubt that no independent votes swung his way. Or are you just big on spouting generalities rather than actual facts?

    The "theater of the absurb" continues to perform daily on liberal threads everywhere to little or no avail!

    And your post here is the the posterchild of sanity? In your dreams, maybe.

    Anyway, my first post here has been fun. Thanks, people.

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/02/2005 @ 6:59pm

14. Thanks Freheit - It would not shock me if some argued that some of my points are a wee bit off-base if given exacting scrutiny. Maybe some will point that out; but, of course, I could do the same to Rio's - and I see that TexasDemocrat just undertook the task. :)

    And LL, I hope you understand I am joking - or at least half joking. ;) As I have said to you before, I prefer (even if I disagree) when you stick to a particular argument or point. When you surface to condemn the entire thought process of the Left and nothing else, it sounds so sanctimonious. You position yourself so that is impossible to resist.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/02/2005 @ 7:03pm

15. I must say RIO BRAVO, that you've proved yourself someone who can neither back up what he writes nor rebut someone's rebuttal to it.

    As for the DeLay matter, suppose it was a Democrat indicted, and the judge, it was found, had donated to a Republican organization and Bush's campaign: would you be supporting that judge's removal over "bias"? Don't think so. And something you probably know but choose to ignore: this prosecutor has sought indictments on more Democrats than Republicans in his career. (Oh, and 2,832,704 of us Texans voted for Kerry, thank you very much.) But enough on that, as it deflects attention from your refusal to rebut my rebuttle above, which was no doubt your facile intention.

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/02/2005 @ 9:18pm

16. The problem is Reid is no strategist, he's a tactician...and pissing off Frist like this (Who is STILL the "Majority Leader" and STILL has a MAJORITY in the Senate) was not wise. Posted by MASK 11/02/2005 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

    Mask, You may have a point about Reid. However, no political party can afford to alienate its base and the Democratic leadership in Congress, through its silence and inaction on important issues, was doing just that.

    As far as "pissing off Frist" is concerned, well, maybe Reid, Pelosi and Co borrowed a page out of Newt Gingrich's book. Newt was the GOP Moses-type who lead his people to the Promised Land. After watching Bob Michel and other House GOP Minority Leaders learn over the years how to "get along by going along," the Georgia right winger decided to really stir the pot, make a lot of noise, and eventually nationalize some issues that produced the current majority of right and far right wing types in the House and Senate.

    Truth is, however, the Kansas Jay Hawk, Pat Roberts, brought this on by dragging his feet and changing his tune pre and post election (2004) on finishing the investigation.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 01:24am

17. there is a need to counter the impression built up over time that Democrats were pro-civil rights and Republicans anti-civil rights, when in fact a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 11/02/2005 @ 1:07pm

    Yeah Baby!

    And then Tricky Dick Nixon gave all those pasty white evangelic conservative democrats a reach around and whispered into their little ol' lynch mob ears, "Hey boys, that liberal Bobby Kennedy and his brother Jack and their boy Lyndon made you fellas pee in the same bathroom as the black man (he actually the other word for black man common both then and now with evangelics in the southeast US). Why don't ya'll come on over here and visit with us Republicans for a spell?"

    And they did. And shortly after the southern strategy was implemented, there began a great ideological cleansing of all those liberal republicans that voted for civil rights and voting rights. Yet "Talk the Talk" conservatives like our confused love child Freiheit still claim brotherhood with those great men that were purged. You can always count on a conservative to look you straight in the eye and lie to you.

    Love Liberty, does that sound about right. An evangelic pastard like yourself should be all studied up on the creation of the evangelic abomination. Come on son, cut and paste me something. Give us a little story about how the truth is all hateful like.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 03:05am

18. Will C & Freiheit both speak of a distant past....

    More recently, Democrats have used African-Americans, more than "racist Republicans" have used them against racist whites. 30 years of a failed welfare system and promises of "more, if you just vote for us ONE more time"...quota affirmative action that was un-Constitutional...and promises of "more diversity in the power structure" (which means "We'll let Jesse Jackson be in our primaries (as long as he doesnt 'disturb' things) and let him make one of his little sermons at our Conventionn later) and ONE guy at Commerce Secretary under Clinton.

    Meanwhile, agree with their policies or not, the Republicans appoint the second African-American USSC Justice, the first A-A Secretary of State, the first female A-A SoS, Secretary of Education, etc., etc.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 06:50am

19. TURK

    You are right, judging by your last post, you surely are not fringe. (sarcasm)

    Posted by CPT at 11/03/2005 @ 07:08am

20. Meanwhile, agree with their policies or not, the Republicans appoint the second African-American USSC Justice, the first A-A Secretary of State, the first female A-A SoS, Secretary of Education, etc., etc.

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2005 @ 06:50am

    But these appointees are all just grinning Uncle Toms being subservient to the massas on the plantation. Just listen to Harry Belafonte... he'll tell you!

    Posted by dscott at 11/03/2005 @ 10:11am

21. Texas Democrat,

    I very much enjoyed your posting, unfortunately, you will not engage Rio Bravo (or USA pride, Love Liberty & CPT) in any actual debate. These guys get their talking points, throw it out there and try to frame the debate. When you engage them even on their topic they vanish, and trying to get them to debate something outside of their talking points is comical. These I call the Ann Coulter crowd as they seem to exist to loudly and annoyingly just filibuster actual debate (and actually think they are somehow helping somebody or something).

    There are a few (John Maasch comes to mind & sometimes Marybretbrad) that will directly answer questions / rebuttals but they are few and far between.

    Hopefully we'll see more of your insight.

    Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 10:45am

22. HMAN23,

    Well said. If you don't mind, I'd like to borrow your list for my own use.

    Cat

    Posted by Cats Pjs at 11/03/2005 @ 10:58am

23. King George says he pays no attention to polls. Gee thanks George!

    Iraq War polls: 32% support the war, 62% oppose the war.

    Iraq war when asked: "Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?" -----50% say withdraw immediately 43% say stay the course.

    Yet we will stay the course so long as King George has his say, because it's what a tiny and very loud (necons) minority want.

    Polls on abortion: 54% are pro Choice and 38% are pro life

    Yet we will put Alito on the SCOTUS to chisel away at these rights because it is what a small and loud minority want.

    Polls on Social Security Reform. 63% for 33% against.

    Yet if Libby, Rove FEMA et al hadn't have happened King George would have forced his hair brained crackpot stuff down our throats on this one too!

    I know that Madison wrote of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority, but do we have to persecute the majority?

    Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 11:11am

24. TEXASDEMOCRAT,

    Here here! Well put. I'm afraid I'm going to have borrow some of that one too.

    Cat

    Posted by Cats Pjs at 11/03/2005 @ 11:14am

25. Some methods progressives"those bastions of tolerance" view as valid political debate.

    1) tossing Oreo cookies at Lt Governor Michael Steele http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051102-103054-2018r.htm. And I won't even mention the numerous "food" attacks on various conservatives at college campuses.

    2)Kweisi Mfume, the former NAACP president, sees no problem with the name-calling and racial epithets. He says that the race baiters are just "pointing out the obvious."

    3)Daily Kos dresses Michael Steele up as a black-faced minstrel.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. I would bet my bottom dollar that if it were possible on this website, Rio, Mary or myself would have had an ice cream cake thrown at us all in the name of political debate.

    Posted by dscott at 11/03/2005 @ 11:34am

26. Not to be too farcical, but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black (couldn't resist!)?

    Posted by Turk33 at 11/03/2005 @ 11:42am

27. Ice cream wouldn't be necessary since public-school-teacher/homosexual haters like RIO BRAVO do an impressive job of throwing pie in their faces with their own negligible posts.

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 11/03/2005 @ 11:59am

28. COLMES: As is your usual rant, your latest is but another sad display of arrogance.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/03/2005 @ 12:00pm

29. No problem CATS, just make sure to source me. :)

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:32pm

30. Actually, I don't know of anyone involved in any sort of political struggle of any stripe who doesn't contain a certain amount of arrogance, given that all of us involved in political battles seem to believe we have a little more insight than most of our compatriots. Political people, particularly those in leadership, are arrogant to a certain degree. I'm not sure that pretense of it being otherwise is in any way a virtue, either.

    Posted by bkarloff at 11/03/2005 @ 12:32pm

31. No DScott, we just throw their arguments right back at 'em.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:33pm

32. BKarloff - I agree totally, as does my wife. :)

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:35pm

33. HMAN23,

    I think I'm going to have to adapt your writing to a "You might be a wingnut if you.... [insert fallacious belief here]"

    Cat

    Posted by Cats Pjs at 11/03/2005 @ 3:26pm

34. HMAN23,

    Pretty hard to have a food fight on a blog site. But put those conservatives in a public forum like a college campus and their dry cleaning bill goes up dramatically. I can think of numerous examples. You NEVER see or hear food being thrown at Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchhill during a public speech. And you know it would be reported.

    I wouldn't mention it at all it it were only an isolated incident. All in all it's a pretty juvenile approach to public debate by supposedly the more nuanced and intelligent among us.

    Posted by dscott at 11/03/2005 @ 3:34pm

35. More recently, Democrats have used African-Americans, more than "racist Republicans" have used them against racist whites.

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2005 @ 06:50am

    Interesting usage of the word "used". What evangelic conservatives could not enslave or hold in the twilight of freed slavery, they now simply incarcerate. The only thing that's changed in the hearts of our domestic enemy is the tactics they "use" to keep their boot on the throat of red blooded Americans. And, aren't those tactics always so squeaky clean legal?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 3:46pm

36. I would bet my bottom dollar that if it were possible on this website, Rio, Mary or myself would have had an ice cream cake thrown at us all in the name of political debate.

    Posted by DSCOTT 11/03/2005 @ 11:34am

    Son, you don't think we'd waste perfectly good ice cream on you, do you? My own personal favorite is slimy half rotted brussle sprouts. They're just the right size, good balistic profile and not so heavy as to cause damage but just heavy enough to sting. And yuck, the smell!

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 3:54pm

37. Hypocracy is the rule of thumb in the socialistic liberal totalitarian camp!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/03/2005 @ 3:53pm

    I don't know about the rest of you fellas but I was growing some serious hardwood when I was five. And having crazy sex dreams about my second grade teacher when I was seven. She was one of those classic nineteen sixties bleached blonds with the deep blue eye shadow and the short skirts and go-go boots. Man, she was a babe!

    Rio, the only mistake you evangelic boys make is believing that your children are as clueless as you are.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 4:05pm

38. WILL C

    Not sure how you get "evangelic conservatives" from my post....A. given I made no mention of them, and B. given I'm an agnostic.

    And I suppose you're in the camp that says that all African-American males in prison are "political prisoners who did no wrong"? Which is fine, except that you'll find NO home for any "progress" on such ideas in either the Republican or Democratic parties, given that neither buy that "Nation of Islam" mentality, and especially when one of the key "selling points" for the Democrats with "Clintonism" was the precipitious drop in the crime rate in the mid-to-late 1990s under his watch.

    And I suppose more generally, I'm speaking of the mythos built up in the last 40 years that a political ideology (i.e. "neo-liberalism") is the ONLY answer for racism and poverty...and anything or anybody that opposes that is "racist"...which is quite useful to ONE political party, especially when it is never called upon to show actual results....either in the public domain or in its leadership.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 4:15pm

39. Will,

    This is Rio's red meat talking point for the day that he's cut and pasted from somewhere. I think he thinks it's educational and healthy for us to see. He will not respond to you though because he doesn't have the script for that.

    Just in case you're reading RIO. YES I WANT SEX ED FOR ALL KIDS AND THE SOONER IT STARTS THE BETTER OFF WE ALL ARE AS A SOCIETY. HOME SCHOOL YOUR KIDS IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO BE TAUGHT CERTAIN THINGS.

    Posted by colmes at 11/03/2005 @ 4:17pm

40. And I suppose you're in the camp that says that all African-American males in prison are "political prisoners who did no wrong"?

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2005 @ 4:15pm

    We made you pee in the same bathroom as the Blackman, made you ride in the same bus seat as the Blackman. We made your kids sit in the same classroom as black kids.

    So what did you do: Waged war against public education, waged war against public transportation and damn if I can find a public restroom anywhere anymore? But then you took it a step further, you moved the good jobs out of the cities and then all the way out of the country. You let slave wage labor in from Mexico. you linked health care to a job. You passed laws that hit the poor more then they affect the middle class and rich. Then you built an entire crime college penal system to hold the mess.

    The fellas rotting in jail aren't political prisoners. They are Americans. They did break the law. But they were the laws that you made because you are tough on crime, tough on drugs, hell son you're just so tough. Except when someone calls you a name and then you cry like a bitch.

    All red blooded Americans have an entrepreneur inside of them. All of us want to do something with our lives. All of us want to stand tall before our friends and families, if we can't find a legitimate means to do so some of us turn to illegitimate means. That's a fact. And you boys know thats a fact, which is why you did all of the above. But maybe you can tell us the story again about how the children and grand children of the lynch mob set up the country so that red blooded Amercans of African descent get a fair shake. I like that one. Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please!

    The only thing that will change in this country is our priorities. We will toss aside the classic evangelic conservative ideology of cracking skulls and return to the great liberal center of America that values educating the minds inside them. Its part of the liberal agenda: forming the more perfect union, justice, the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. You might have heard of it. Of course the only tragedy in our tale is that in order to change directions, we have to get rid of you. Sorry.

    Oh one more thing, mask. Lucipher doesn't care about your faith or lack of it. The infusion knows no bounds.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:01pm

41. Hey colmes

    You got that buddy.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:02pm

42. "Talk the talk" Conseratives

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:03pm

43. mindless tools

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:03pm

44. the clueless elite

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:03pm

45. counrty music line dancing robots

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:04pm

46. On another note, lets take a look at the lies perpetrated by the liberal social demon-crats to prove how it is "not your fathers or mothers party" you are "driving" into obscurity and ineffectiveness as a viable political alternative!

    So Rio

    I not really sure where you are going with this. You rant and rave about how Democrats lied to the country about social security and in doing so you imply that SS should be gotten rid of because, of course, somebody broke the contract. But then you follow with this:

    Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

    So Rio, what is it? Do you or don't you want to kill it? We're all sitting here in breathless anticipation of your answer.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/03/2005 @ 5:21pm