I have to admit that I have seen some decent behavior from some SC Republicans, because they were so shamed at having been caught turning a blind eye to the hatred of their rabid base, to do otherwise would be screaming their own guilt from the rooftops. But as they righted a long overdue wrong, Congressional Republicans demonstrated that they still just love to hate.
[R]epublicans in Congress stumbled into the Confederate flag debate Thursday after Southern lawmakers protested a proposal to put new restrictions on displaying the banner on federal parklands, launching the party into a conversation many leaders would have preferred to avoid.
The uproar in the House rippled across Washington after an amendment banning Confederate flags — sponsored by a California Democrat, Rep. Jared Huffman — was attached [without Republican objection at the time] to an otherwise routine budget bill making its way through Congress.
Southern Republicans protested the Californian’s move and threatened to pull their support for the broader $30-billion bill, which funds the Interior Department and other related federal agencies, including the national parks.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) tried to salvage the situation by putting forward a compromise by another Californian, the Interior Committee’s chairman, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona).
But the compromise backfired and was seen as too weak by Democrats, who accused the GOP of protecting what many view as a racist Southern symbol of slavery…
Inserted from <LA Times>
Rachel Maddow covered the story very well.
Be advised that Agent Orange cannot have an idea get "firm in his head." He’s a limp Boehner. The racism that the Republican Party leadership routinely practices is not overt. It’s dog-whistle racism. Many Republican politicians, who are not overtly racist themselves, go along, because the Republican base is overtly racist, because the party adopted the Southern Strategy. In, SC the grace displayed by the AME families shamed several Republican politicians into putting away their dog whistles, at least temporarily, because Republican hatred put them to shame. But the party as a whole has not changed one iota.
26 Responses to “GOP Reps Just Love to Hate”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
"But the party as a whole has not changed one iota." Nor will they ever.
Mindboggling the switch from 50 years ago from Congress doing the right thing and SC fighting it to the current reversal.
Quite ironic!
I've been making noises for a while about Republicans having no shame, and wondering what it would take to get them to show any shame. Well, I guiess now we know. They need, not only to see black people being publicly crucified and publicly responding "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing" – but also, to see the rest of America rising as one to condemn their lack of shame in the face of this display of grace. That is a hell of a thing to have to come up with just to get a flag taken down, but apparently, that is what it takes.
…and that from a small group of them.
Jenny Horne, for one, deserves a better state.
You are right, they have no shame!
It seems to me that the Congressional Republicanus/Teabaggerum are playing politics, not wanting to take a chance that they lose the vote of some of their rabid base as 2016 approaches. Having said that, what other party is so right wing and so hate based that the base would move their vote? None of them is terribly bright.
A bunch of drama queens! . . . that's the Republicanus/Teabaggerum!
You are right, there isn't another party with quite so much hate, but they might form a new one. Even if they didn't do that, but tried to see whether the Libertarians would have them, they would split the GOP vote pretty badly. I wish that would happen.
Problem with video – but I could hear the sound mostly – and I do like Nancy Pelosi's strategy of making them vote on having the 'Confederate' flag (aka N Virginia's Confederate flag, if I heard correctly – and which was renounced by Robert E Lee [who sounds a whole lot more honourable than those who say they revere him these days]) – but not being able to see anything I wasn't able to see if that was the same flag as the Mississippi Battle Flag or slightly different.
PS Rachel Maddow and her editor were right – the bellows of those wanting to vote/not vote in Congress on the matter did sound like those (much younger) parliaments abroad where people resort to fisticuffs!
Just wondering if the Southern Republicans in Congress would have put up such a fuss if there wasn't a black man in charge in the White House.
That's a good question. Elected Republican officials have publically used the N word in reference to him.
Amazing people want to draw such distinct lines over a flag. The American flag represented a government that made slavery legal. And yes the issue was debated during the Revolutionary War, the Congress during the debate over the Decloration of Independence and the Constitutional Congress. The Decloration of Independence would never have been ratified if slavery was made illegal. Of course the issue is different since the South lost the war, but secession was not illegal according to the Constitution, nor was slavery.
Always good to hear a variety of viewpoints. One not so small clarification WRT your claim that "secession was not illegal according to the Constitution"
I would agree that if a sufficient number of citizens in the state wanting to secede, AND a sufficient number in the U.S. Congress also wanting that state to secede, AND the President also wanting that state to secede – then if would be possible and Constitutional.
Even if it were ruled NOT Constitutional, the Constitution could be amended to allow it, as long 2/3 of those in Congress and 3/4 of the states so agreed.
But what is NOT – and HAS NEVER BEEN – Constitutional is for a state (or states) to secede on demand.
Not only was this decided at Appomattox, but also see Texas v White (pp. 725-726).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096
The law does NOT recognize such a legal right.
you are so right yet so many state officials pretend otherwise still…so sad they dishonor their oaths this way
The States did vote on being free States, or not, especially when States were entering the union. The Southern States would not have signed the Declaration of Independence if slavery was made illegal. One of the compromises of the debate on the Declaration of Independence. We would have no United States if slavery was made illegal, or at least the South would have been a seperate nation, which Adams wanted to avoid. It was a dirty deal, but the South was promised they could keep their slaves. That was not changed by rewriting the Constitution, but by simple presidential decree. The South felt betrayed and did VOTE to seceed.
First, the Declaration of Independence was not our nation's founding document. The Constitution was. Second, the government did not attempt to take the south's slaves away at any time before the emancipatipn proclamation, long after the south seceeded. What was at issue is that the South wanted to expand slavery into new territories. Lincoln had campaigned on keeping slavery where it already existed, but preventing the spread. The south seceeded when Lincoln was elected. Finally, the presidential decree to which you refer never happened.
The Emancipation Proclomation never exsited? The original Constitution freed the slaves? Sorry, you are wrong. And States DID vote on secession. States DID vote on being free of slavery, or not.
You claimed there was never a vote on slavery, you were wrong, but I see you corrected that, now claiming it made no difference. If you want to be consistant, then the American flag representing a slve nation should be taken down.
I said there was never no emancipation proclamation BEFORE secession and that there was never a NATIONAL vote denying the south their slaves before the south started the war.
First, I'm glad you obviously agree that the cause of the Civil War was the South's desire to own their slaves.
Second, it wouldn't matter if every vote in every Southern state that rebelled was cast unanimously in favor of seceding – if that's ALL that happened (and it was) it would NOT be Constitutional. (See my first response, wherein I show that it "is NOT – and HAS NEVER BEEN – Constitutional for a state (or states) to secede on demand."
Third, this argument is starting to sound whiny, saying "But you PROMISED we could keep our slaves"
Fourth, if by "not changed by rewriting the Constitution, but simple presidential decree" you're referring to the "Emancipation Proclamation" – I don't get your point. It was a perfectly legal executive order issued by Pres. Lincoln in 1863 – AFTER the Southern states had rebelled and started the Civil War – with full legal authority granted him under our Constitution as part of his war powers. And it only freed the slaves in the rebelling states.
Fifth, the South lost … it's about 150 years past time to GET OVER IT.
"Get over it"
Like I'm some red neck supporter of the South, slavery, and racism. To bad your insulting low intellect can't debate a real and good reason the South had to seceed.
I agree with Nameless, and am glas he got here before I did. His reply has more good detaiul than mine would have.
CT DEMs have been emailing about the GOP trying to keep Trump out of the August televised debates…they have a petition to ensure his mouth reveals this aspect of party's "Southern Strategy" to the public
They are saying that people who request a delay on their finandial disclosure filing will not be eligible, hoping that's what Hairball will do.
Thanks all. Running late!!