You can’t get much more tone deaf than this: Bill Keller uses Martin Luther King Day to…
Somewhere in all this worthy commemoration we should pause to pay homage to a conservative white Republican named William Moore McCulloch.
McCulloch sounds like a guy who did some good things for civil rights, so no criticism of him…but is this really an appropriate time to say we should take a break from praising that black dude and spend a little more time talking about a conservative white Republican? They get all the attention the other 364 days of the year, a black civil rights hero can’t even get one day to be recognized?
Hmm. I would say his real purpose here is to flog the postpartisanship delusion. He’s wanting civility and compromise to come to DC. But of course that wasn’t what MLK was about at all.
McCullough seems to have been a genuine trailblazer on civil rights issues and probably deserves to be recognized.
That being said, this is just another partisan hatchet job designed to pander to the otherwise racist and bigoted Republican base to allow them to continue their delusion that Republicans were the real drivers of the civil rights movement and the INCREDIBLE delusion that white people are discriminated against in this country: “Hey, why are we celebrating MLK, while ignoring this guy who was so big in the civil rights movement? RACISM!”
Bill Keller is apparently trying to wrest the “worst columnist ever” title away from Richard Cohen.
I guess Bill Keller missed the memo that we’re allowed to talk about the Civil Rights Movement on days other than Martin Luther King Day. (I think we need to investigate the distribution system of those memos…)
It all depends on whether you’re interested in taking the opportunity to understand and honor the struggle for civil rights, with MLK as the figurehead, or whether you’re just into he beatification of another American hero. Or perhaps you’re not really into hero worship, but you’ll make an exception for a black hero temporarily, just to even up the playing field? Bit of a tricky one really.
Shut up, Bill Keller
Words to live by.
Well, when MLK was shot, he did undertake emergency measures to prolong his life, unlike Bill’s father in law who elected to go quietly without a lot of fanfare.
Vomit.
My neighbor, who is mostly a very good guy…though strongly leans Republican…was bemoaning having a day for MLK. He stated the, yeah, MLK was a great man…but not that great. Jeez.
Is this something coming out of Fox News? Are they starting a war on MLK Day?
Are they starting a war on MLK Day?
What do you mean “starting”?
There are tons of white folks who played interesting positive roles in the civil rights struggle. I’m particularly fond of Bob Dundas of Foley’s department stores. I think it’s important that their stories be told.
But I’m pretty sure that both Dundas and McCulloch would be pretty unhappy with Bill Keller using their stories to grind some racist axe.
The one holiday where history class pays attention to someone OTHER than a white guy. (Though, my experience was, “Pander for 5 minutes, then move on to something else”)
Hey, didn’t Bill Keller write an article about how horrible a person Christopher Columbus was, and that we should take note of the more influential explorers? No? huh….
Nope. No racism in the GOP. Nyewp.
Dr. Myers, it’s actually worse than you think:
By invoking the “Republican who supported civil rights” line, Keller shows his ignorance of political history. Remember that “Democrat/Republican of the 1960’s” DOES NOT = “Democrat/Republican of the present.”
During the 60’s much of the South was Democrat, and Republicans were much more full of pro-business folk, if my memory serves me well. Well, JFK and LBJ’s support of civil rights led to a mass exodus of the Southern Democrats (“Dixiecrats”) from the Democratic Party and into the waiting arms of the Republicans – this was the dynamic behind the GOP’s move toward the “Southern Strategy” for winning elections.
Republicans who’re moderate or even liberal on social/cultural issues while being pro-business have been migrating from the GOP ever since – thus the “Blue Dog” phenomenon. Keller’s line horseshit because it repeats ad nauseum the common claim about how it was the Republicans who supported civil rights and Democrats who were full of KKK-ers. This is making a categorical error by assuming that the label “Democrat/Republican” referred to the same type of “thing” over time.
À propos MLK:
http://hueyfreemanonlyspeaksthetruth.tumblr.com/post/73900745808/you-dont-get-to-use-martin-luther-king-jr-as
@Andrew Lee
I couldn’t have said that better or even as good! It needs to be said every time the Republicans claim the moral high ground on civil rights.
McCullough did good work on Civil Rights, sure, but he did it while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail against antipoverty programs, in favor of massive military spending, etc. Not being a total shithead on one topic is undoubtedly better than being a total shithead about everything, but I’d rather focus on people who tried to reduce their shitheadedness in multiple areas. Fiscal conservatism isn’t notably better than the social kind, in terms of fucking people over. Basically, there’s loads of people (including MLK) who included economic justice in their fight for social justice, and I’d far rather that we celebrate them (inasmuch as I have trouble taking people seriously as genuinely concerned who don’t address the economic factors involved in all sorts of privilege gradients. I realize the kind of cognitive dissonance involved is possible, I just have difficulty grokking this particular flavor).
Re ekwhlite @ #3
Keller and Cohen aren’t even close to being the worst columnists. Charles Krauthammer and Ross Douthat are vying for that dubious honor.
Republicans have been the party of civil rights since the 1850’s. Slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching, the second KKK, school segregation have all been Democratic Party staples for the better part of 200 years. Many Democrats were blatant racists. Even Democrats who weren’t personally racist (FDR, JFK, LBJ in his later years) slept in bed with Democrat racists to keep political power.
Essentially all of the organized opposition to the civil rights movement was Democrat. The Brown decision was orchestrated by (Republican) Earl Warren, (Republican) President Eisenhower desegregated Little Rock schools, (Republicans) passed the 1957 voting rights act, (Republicans) passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, (Republican) President Nixon desegregated Southern schools in 1970, (Republican) President Nixon was the first president to mandate federal affirmative action, yada, yada.
The civil rights struggle was a struggle of Republicans and other civil rights champions against the Democratic Party. There was no “switch” of the parties– the Dixiecrats nearly all remained Democrats until they died. The South was Democrat when it was racist. As racism abated, the Democrat Party abated.
Democrats have always been race-baiters. They still are. MLK’s dream (MLK was probably a Republican) was of a color-blind society. Republicans are still trying, and Democrats are still fighting it.
Dude, your argument would be so much stronger if Dixicrates like Strom Thermond didn’t switch parties. Good story, too bad it doesn’t stand up to reality.
Very few Dixiecrats switched parties. Nearly all Dixiecrats from 1948 remained Democrats until they died– if memory serves, of the 25 or so elected Dixiecrats at the federal level in 1948, all but 3 died as Democrats (Fullbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd among them). Of the few who switched to the Republican Party, they switched to the pro-civil rights party after they ceased to be segregationists.
The few switches that did occur were on the basis of economic policy and social issues, not to revive segregation, which was dead by 1970.
Bill Keller says: But what about the whitez?
It seems like someone’s never heard of the Southern Strategy. Here, Let me Google that for you.
Most people when they say Dixiecrat mean a very conservative southern Democrat, not just the ones in the 1948 party. And yes, many Dixiecrats did switch to the Republican party. The last holdouts went in 1972 when they couldn’t stomach McGovern as the party’s candidate for president.
And this? “Republicans have been the party of civil rights since the 1850′s.” They sure as hell aren’t the party of civil rights now and haven’t been for a long time.
@theDukedog7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
@theDukedog7
From The Economist, which is nobody’s idea of a left-wing paper:
“Despite brief flashes of strength during the presidential elections of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats—particularly white Democrats—have been losing ground in the South for half a century.”
http://www.economist.com/node/17467202
@theDukedog7
Your citations are extremely disingenuous – you point to a few Southern Democrats who never switched parties but were basically Republican in everything else, and then you wave your arms in the air and go “See?!?!?! Proof! I’m right you’re wrong!!!”
But you seem to ignore the systematic data out there which I have cited above and is pretty common knowledge outside of the right-wing bubble:
http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-4756.html
Again, you’re making a category error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
“MLK probably would have been a Republican.”
STOP WATCHING GLENN BECK!!!
The Southern Strategy is largely a myth. Nixon in 1968 had no chance to take the deep south– Wallace (Democrat) had it pretty well sewn up. Nixon won by a hair, with Wallace siphoning off the Democrat racist votes from Humphrey.
Almost immediately after his inauguration, Nixon moved rapidly to desegregate southern schools, which were heavily segregated in 1969. Nixon called southern Democrat pols to the White House state by state and told them to desegregate their schools, immediately. He had attorney general Mitchell threaten them with federal prosecution if they balked. All the states complied, except Louisiana, and Nixon went there personally and “convinced” them to desegregate (with threat of federal prosecution). Within a year and a half of assuming the presidency, Nixon desegregated southern schools (ie in 1968 80% of black kids in the south attended segregated schools. In 1971, 20% did).
Nixon also ordered affirmative action for federal contracting early in his first term– the first federal affirmative action in history– because Democrat unions were racist and were denying blacks opportunities to work on federal contracts.
An odd “Southern Strategy”, wouldn’t you say?
In 1972, Nixon won by landslide without any “southern strategy”.
Jimmy Carter carried much of the South in 1976 (which would be odd if southern bigots were drooling to vote for Republicans), and Reagan beat Carter’s and Mondale’s asses in 1980 and 1984 without any “southern strategy”.
With Clinton’s first win in 1992, most senators sent to Washington from the South were still Democrats, and most local pols were Democrats. It wasn’t until 1996 that the Republicans really began to lock up the South, and that was because of economic and social issues (Southerners were no longer poor and stupid, so they were no longer Democrats).
The “Southern Strategy” is a myth, except that the Democrats fellated Southern racists for 200 years for votes and power. When the South ceased being racist, it ceased being Democrat.
@nutella:
[And yes, many Dixiecrats did switch to the Republican party.]
Name them.
theDukedog7:
The queer shoop, with that raised eyebrow/beffudled/WTF look, reminds himself that he’s been living in the South since 1974, looks around at the world around him and responds to the idiocy in the above quote:
“Racism is alive and well in the South.”
“When the South stopped being racist…” WHAT THE HECK?!?!?!?!?
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/
https://harvard.academia.edu/SethStephensDavidowitz
A Ph.d candidate in economics at Harvard uses Google Insight to map what parts of the country have keyword “obama” and racial slurs used in a Google Search together – he finds that counties with heaviest searches of “obama” with racial slurs also have weakest support for Obama – THE SOUTH
“The Political Legacy of American Slavery”
http://www.mattblackwell.org/files/papers/slavery.pdf
The result: The more slaves a county had as a share of its population during the time of slavery, the higher the level of prejudicial attitudes in that same county in the present.
So no DukeDog7 or whatever, the South has not “stopped being racist.”
@theDukedog7.
Dude, the burden of proof is on you – you’re the one making crazy claims like “The South is no longer racist” or “There was no Southern strategy.”
All you have to do is show us studies indicating the prejudicial attitudes have declined over time in the South as compared to the rest of the country.
Also, you can show that support for the Republican Party in the present is not associated with racially prejudicial attitudes in the survey data.
You can also give us data on how the rise of the GOP in the South had nothing to do with civil rights. We, on the other hand, will also marshall data, and then see who comes on out on top. I’m not very optimistic about your chances…
All you’ve done up until now is cherrypick little factoids (yes, factoids, not facts) and then DENY DENY DENY
“Southerners are still racists– they post anonymous racist comments on blogs!”
That’s all you have– that’s what your argument boils down to. Actual racism, akin to the atrocities of the Democrat plantation up through the 1960’s, is gone. Sure there are some nuts and bigots– of all races– but they no longer enact legislation or have any real influence on policy.
The fact is that the South was murderously racist for 200 years, and it was a Democrat Party plantation.
The Civil Rights Movement was a movement against the Democrat Party. Republicans were and are strong allies of people who genuinely seek civil rights and a color-blind society.
The Democrats are the party of race-baiting. Anti-black racism was profitable for 150 years, so they rode it for all it was worth. By 1960, Johnson and a few other converted bigots came to understand that segregation was nearing the end of its shelf life, so they changed tac, and feverishly worked to pose as the party of civil rights. It was and is a lie, of course.
Democrats still profit from racial fear and hate, but of a different twist. They need to keep up the appearance of racial conflict, because it gets them votes.
Tony:
Oh, but Tony, what on earth would you know about it, living in the South and being a POC? You need a privileged white dude to tell you whether or not racism is for realz.
[Dude, the burden of proof is on you – you’re the one making crazy claims like “The South is no longer racist” or “There was no Southern strategy.”]
I’ve been giving you lots of facts. Here’s one (again): why, if Nixon pursued a “southern strategy” to court white southern bigots for votes, did he immediately when elected confront southern white bigots and order them to desegregate southern schools or face federal prosecution? Seems an odd way to romance white southern bigots, eh?
Here’s another fact (again) why, if Nixon pursued a “southern strategy” to court white southern bigots for votes, did he quickly order federal affirmative action for the first time in history? Why would he nuclear piss off the southern white bigots he was supposedly romancing?
Here’s another fact (again): if the south was still so violently bigoted in the 1970’s, why did Jimmy Carter (a strongly pro-civil rights candidate) do so well in the south in 1976? I thought the south was full of white bigots– why did they vote for a pro-civil rights candidate like Carter, instead of the nasty Republican Ford?
Here’s another fact: If the South was hankerin’ to vote for racist Republicans from 1968 on, why were almost all senators elected from southern states Democrats until 1996? The racist Republican-loving southern bigots pushed the wrong levers in the voting booths for 20 years?
The Southern strategy is a myth.
theDukedog7 ., your #34 contains no evidence, therefore is nothing but OPINION, and in the words of Christopher Hitchens, “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. So, lead with evidence, not opinion, to avoid being dismissed.
You do realize, you lying sack of filth, that anyone using “Democrat” as an adjective is automatically tuned out by anyone with two brain cells to rub together?
[…is automatically tuned out by anyone with two brain cells to rub together?]
You’re still paying attention, it seems.
And “you lying sack of filth” does seem to encourage an exchange of ideas.
[your #34 contains no evidence, therefore is nothing but OPINION]
#36 contains a whole string of facts, not yet refuted.
Start with Nixon. Why would he pursue a southern strategy he couldn’t possibly win (because Wallace had the electoral votes locked up anyway), and then immediately piss off the southern bigots in the biggest way imaginable by forcing them to desegregate their schools and accept federal affirmative action?
Why would Nixon nuke the very same bigots you claim he was courting?
theDukedog7:
Since you’re new to Pharyngula, here’s some advice:
The “facts” you’ve presented are just your opinion. You’ve presented no citation to any evidence to support your opinion. Until you do so, your beliefs will be discarded as ridiculous, unsupported bullshit.
As for this:
You think you’re exchanging ideas?
Bless your heart.
theDukedog7:
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/the_racism_at_the_heart_of_the_reagan_presidency/
Tony!
I’m not new to Pharyngula. Pharyngula is like herpes– can’t get rid of it.
The facts I have cited are easily confirmed by google search. If you’d like me to show you how to use google, let me know.
Adding to what Tony posted, here’s Republican strategist Lee Atwater on the matter.
theDukedog7, please read the commenting rules. Pay particular attention to the part about being a motormouth and posting too much in a thread, being repetitive and not paying attention to the substance of other comments. You may want to also note, as stated in the commenting rules, that this is a rude blog. Making assertions without providing citations, and indulging in one fallacy after another will not garner you a satisfying discussion here. People who wish to make assertions are expected to back them up with something considerably more solid than hot, blustery air.
Another part of the commenting rules is to quote people when responding, and to use the nym of the person you are responding to, which is easily done, what with the nyms being directly over each post.*
To quote someone, use <blockquote>Place Text Here</blockquote>
*This goes for everyone – a polite reminder to please address responses with the person’s nym, no matter what you think of them. Thanks.
I for one have no idea how to use Google! Perhaps you could demonstrate. You could try showing your keywords and linking to the sites you’re using as references.
What’s wrong with Democrat? I am a foreigner to the US, and confused by some of your more subtle dogwhistles :) I do understand that as an Australian anti-Liberal Republican I’m basically the opposite of an American anti-Liberal Republican, but that one has lost me.
BTW, it doesn’t look from here as if lynching is over. Apart from Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride, James Byrd etc thee’s the alarming rates of death penalty and railroading shown up by the Innocence Project.
theDukedog7:
Then you are here now with a different nym. You do know sockpuppeting is a bannable offense, right?
Tony!
Reagan used secret codes! Yikes!
Actually, as a Republican, I remember being sent the code-breaking machine. Little gadget like that Enigma thingee in WWII.
We waited at night, in the room in the basement, and when the Gipper spoke on the shortwave radio, we plugged it into the code-machine, and all the racist stuff came out.
It was so cool. Ahhh— the good ole days!
theDukedog7:
Are you familiar with Burden of Proof? It falls on the person making the assertions. It is up to you to provide citations for your “facts”.
theDukedog7:
The easiest way you can show me how its done is to provide links to the evidence that supports your opinions.
theDukedog7:
Did xe click the link and read the whole page?
Magic 8 Ball says “NO!”.
Oh, so many rooles! And I didn’t know this was a rude blog! I thought I wandered into a Tourette’s self-help site!
I’m lookin’ through the closet for my old Republican racist-code-decoding-machine. Maybe it will also decode “asshole” code so I can figure out what you’re saying.
So that’s a “no” on teaching us how to Google? I am disappoint.
Still no links to back up all the assertions xe made. As I thought…a bag of hot air.
Alethea @ 47:
“Democrat” Party, “Democrat” politicians, the “Democrat” president (rather than Democratic” in each case) is a ridiculous affectation invented, as far as I know, by the late, unlamented William F. Buckley. Somehow, in Republican (Or should I say “Republic”?) peabrains that somehow sounds insulting, and it’s been a consistent tell of a right-wing hack for at least 60 years.
So,so tiresome.
I’ll try again:
Start with Nixon. Why would he pursue a southern strategy he couldn’t possibly win (because Wallace had the electoral votes locked up anyway), and then immediately piss off the southern bigots in the biggest way imaginable by forcing them to desegregate their schools and accept federal affirmative action?
Why would Nixon nuke the very same bigots you claim he was courting?
Real easy question. Simple logic, grammatically correct sentences, publicly available facts, common sense.
A real conundrum for you pharynguloids, heh?
Easy fuckwit, put up third party evidence to back your claims, or shut the fuck up. If you can’t put up, and can’t shut up, you show yourself with prima facie evidence to be liar and bullshitter.
theDukedog7:
It’s quite simple: use your mouse to click on the pretty blue words, that’s a link. Read the rules and attempt to comprehend them. Then you can get busy proving how gosh darn smart you are by using people’s nyms, and the handy html I bothered to type out for you to be able to quote people properly. Why I’m sure you can prove your genius by following these simple steps! Get right on that, now.
Ohhh… the things I do to help the needy…
http://hnn.us/article/5331
Alethea
Using Democrat as an adjective, rather than Democratic, is a rightwing meme that’s been prevalent over here for the past several years. I don’t know why, but I think it originated with Limbaugh or one of that lot.
No, these days it’s usually done by individuals or small groups, rather than being a holiday outing for half the (white portion of) the community. That’s progress, I guess?
Yes, but technically that’s not lynching, which takes place without color of law. That’s just the continuation in slightly toned-down form of the antebellum legal system lynching is meant to emulate.
Oooh, xe can do the linky thing!
Now which of those opinions does the link supposedly support?
Gee– you guys need to take some speed-reading courses or somethin’
A little advice: know something about a topic on which you spew, so you don’t say such stupid things and have to read an essay with big words and long sentences to know you’re wrong.
If you want to express an opinion on the Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, find out first that his “Southern Strategy” was to promptly and peacefully end school segregation, ya know, like Democrats had failed to do for 200 years.
Now that’s a strategy!
Tony!
[Now which of those opinions does the link supposedly support?]
Ah, this one (thank goodness I can cut and paste faster than you can read!)
Start with Nixon. Why would he pursue a southern strategy he couldn’t possibly win (because Wallace had the electoral votes locked up anyway), and then immediately piss off the southern bigots in the biggest way imaginable by forcing them to desegregate their schools and accept federal affirmative action?
Why would Nixon nuke the very same bigots you claim he was courting?
You can look up the “Nixon started federal affirmative action” one yourself.
But I don’t want to express an opinion. I want to understand the reasoning behind your opinion. With sources. Which you continue to omit, for some reason, despite the fact that you already volunteered to demonstrate.
Ya’all haven’t read the link yet? What are you libs doin’?
Waitin’ till it comes out on “Links on Tape”?
Tony #62
It’s a screed written by a right wing ‘economist’ from FrontPage Magazine, official mouthpiece of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The entire point appears to be that Nixon can’t possibly have been racist or involved with racists or supported by racists because he integrated the schools. It reads like an op-ed and contains no references except to quote from a book by Nixon’s speechwriter.
In other words, it, like Dukedog’s “opinions” , can be dismissed as fuckwittery.
The fact that Nixon rapidly integrated the public schools in the south is a true valid factual verity. Public knowledge, actually, unless you’re stupid and don’t know anything about desegregation of the south.
If Nixon was pursuing a racist southern strategy, why would he do exactly what the racists didn’t want, which was to have their little white Democrat kids go to school with little black kids?
Nixon’s “Southern strategy” was desegregation, after 200 years of Democrat segregation. Sounds pretty racist, huh?
Good night kids. History lesson is over. Hope ya’ learned somethin’.
I’m guessing someone thinks they won…
“Won” would imply it was ever a contest.
A history lesson could have come from internet notes from an American History class. Funny how the idjit was unable to present such notes while displaying real ignorance and presenting real revision of facts. I know, I lived through that era….
So, what exactly is your point? Because the complexion of political parties have changed over the last fifty years, that Republicans nowadays are somehow not racist? That the current Republican policies that exclusively favor the richest Americans are not hostile to any minority populations? Or are you just playing the silly “Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves, therefore we win!” game?
theDukedog7:
Oh, it definitely was not a contest. Your efforts at revising history would make David Barton happy.
theDukedog7 wrote:
Shall we examine this one in detail?
From wikipedia, because I’m lazy:
Virtually all the opposition came from the former confederate states, and in the places where it did not, it came largely from Republicans. However, even if you ignore where the elected officials were from, the law enjoyed support from the majority of the members from both parties. So, it turns out that you were lying (or grossly misinformed).
theDukedog7 .
If you have posted here under another nym, please identify yourself.
You may have a few hours.
Rey Fox:
I’m guessing this is the best answer.
Sorry, my #73 was supposed to quote Dukedog’s history lesson line. Evidently the line wasn’t copied properly, hence the non-sequitur sound of my response.
ck,
Obviously theDukedog7 assertion that Republicans passed the law is incorrect, what part of the country you represented is what largely determined your vote. I know that vote cannot be rerun, but I think it would be interesting to see what the results would be with the parties as they are today. I have a feeling that their region would end up being less of a determining factor.
@Travis,
Today? I’d bet the split would be urban-rural rather than north-south, although there would probably be an identifiable north-south trend. It would probably also be split neatly down party lines.
@dukedog7
This is categorical bullshit. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
I mean, the only way your historical revisionism can have even the remotest modicum plausibility is by ignoring black people.
In light of this fact it is unnecessary to address any other part of your argument.
Correction @theDukedog7
The war on MLK is nothing new. I was a kid in Arizona in the 80’s when they voted down the creation of an MLK Day holiday. They did this even after the NFL announced they would pull the SB from Arizona, costing businesses millions in revenue. The right-wing attack on the MLK’s legacy is two-fold. First, they try to discredit his accomplishments and say he didn’t do anything that great. Then, when that doesn’t work, they try to insist that he would be a Republican if he were alive today.
But the worst MLK-related thing I’ve seen today was an NRA video that explained how MLK might still be alive if only he’d been armed the day James Earl Ray assassinated him. I’m not sure how having a gun on your person protects you from a sniper. I guess next the NRA will be saying that JFK would still be alive if there had been more people with guns surrounding him.
So, brave dame/sir theDukedog7 ran away, did he?
That’s bullshit. The civil right struggle was a struggle of the allies of civil rights against its enemies. Today, the biggest enemy of civil rights in the US is the Republican Party. Therefore, regardless of past allegiances, they’re on the wrong side.
Even leaving the complete and abject denialism involved in Republicans simply presuming that their party has been absolutely the same entity throughout time, intentionally ignoring all evidence to the contrary, I find it inherently hilarious that Republicans can’t help but go back fifty year or more as their ONLY defense against claims of being a racist party. Yeah, that will really show us. I swear that they only do this to make our heads explode. And we can’t return the favor and mindfuck them by saying “Democrats aren’t anti-war, because FDR!” because they feed off of bad logic, so it is pointless.