McCain Speaks At KKK Rally

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Well, the Latino KKK. Without the hoods or the nooses, of course:

TANCREDO: If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino — it’s a counterpart — a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” What does that tell you?

SANCHEZ: Alright. We’re not talking about — we’re not talking about La Raza

TANCREDO: She’s a member! She’s a member of La Raza!
Click to expand...

Tancredo is an embarassment:

Washington, DC – Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will give the keynote address during the National Affiliate Luncheon at the 2004 National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Annual Conference, which will be held June 26-29 in Phoenix, Arizona. The Senator will speak at the luncheon, which honors outstanding affiliate organizations for exemplary work in serving their local communities, and for supporting NCLR’s policy and programmatic initiatives, on Saturday, June 26 beginning at 12:30 p.m. in the Ballroom of the Phoenix Civic Plaza.
Click to expand...


This is why the Republicans can kiss off the Hispanic and Latino vote. Not because Obama nominated Sotomayor, but because of the reaction from the Republicans to the nomination.
 
Notice how the Democrats have suffered for their filibustering of Miguel Estrada who had a good chance of eventually being selected to the Supreme Court. Oh yeah that's right, racial issues only apply on a conservative/liberal basis.
 
cawacko said:
Notice how the Democrats have suffered for their filibustering of Miguel Estrada who had a good chance of eventually being selected to the Supreme Court. Oh yeah that's right, racial issues only apply on a conservative/liberal basis.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is here. What does Miguel Estrada have to do with Tancredo's idiocy?
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. What does Miguel Estrada have to do with Tancredo's idiocy?
Click to expand...

You referenced Republican response to the nomination. I assumed that meant more than Tancredo. I don't think too many people care what that one trick pony says.
 
cawacko said:
You referenced Republican response to the nomination. I assumed that meant more than Tancredo. I don't think too many people care what that one trick pony says.
Click to expand...


OK. I concede that there are some Republicans that are being much more sensible about this than others (folks like John Cornyn come to mind, even though he is a total idiot he seems to get it) but to pretend that Tancredo doesn't represent a constituency of nutzo wingers among the Republican base is fantasy.
 
cawacko said:
Notice how the Democrats have suffered for their filibustering of Miguel Estrada who had a good chance of eventually being selected to the Supreme Court. Oh yeah that's right, racial issues only apply on a conservative/liberal basis.
Click to expand...

amen. I remember them not getting ANY flack about their racial condemnation of Janice Rogers Brown either.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
amen. I remember them not getting ANY flack about their racial condemnation of Janice Rogers Brown either.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because, like the opposition to Estrada, the opposition to Brown wasn't racial, it was ideological. The Republicans made an honest effort to paint it as racial, though.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, the Latino KKK. Without the hoods or the nooses, of course:



Tancredo is an embarassment:




This is why the Republicans can kiss off the Hispanic and Latino vote. Not because Obama nominated Sotomayor, but because of the reaction from the Republicans to the nomination.
Click to expand...

Link to the Tancredo comments???
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe that's because, like the opposition to Estrada, the opposition to Brown wasn't racial, it was ideological. The Republicans made an honest effort to paint it as racial, though.
Click to expand...

so every republican opposition against sotomayor shouldn't be expected to turn in to a racist issue by the democrats, right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so every republican opposition against sotomayor shouldn't be expected to turn in to a racist issue by the democrats, right?
Click to expand...


Correct. The trouble is that you have, well, people like you claiming that Sotomayor because as a poor Latina she just must be an affirmative action case to be where she is today. And people like Tancredo. And people like Rush Limbaugh. And people like Newt Gingrich. And people like G. Gordon Liddy. And the folks at the National Review. And cetera . . .

And these people are writing and saying all sorts of stupid stuff that is racially charged. It doesn't really look good.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, the Latino KKK. Without the hoods or the nooses, of course:



Tancredo is an embarassment:




This is why the Republicans can kiss off the Hispanic and Latino vote. Not because Obama nominated Sotomayor, but because of the reaction from the Republicans to the nomination.
Click to expand...

It was predictable.

I'm starting to believe that Obama must either be the messiah or the anti-christ. This issue, like the tanking economy, were a gift from God.
 
blackascoal said:
It was predictable.

I'm starting to believe that Obama must either be the messiah or the anti-christ. This issue, like the tanking economy, were a gift from God.
Click to expand...

Not so much. I'm tempted to believe bringing this issue to the forefront was part of Obama's strategy in nominating her. He knew Republicans couldn't afford to alienate the hispanic vote, but they probably would anyway if he nominated her because they'd been making noises and rattling sabres that they'd filibuster anyone he nominated. So he put the Republicans in a predictably hard place.
 
Dungheap said:
Correct. The trouble is that you have, well, people like you claiming that Sotomayor because as a poor Latina she just must be an affirmative action case to be where she is today. And people like Tancredo. And people like Rush Limbaugh. And people like Newt Gingrich. And people like G. Gordon Liddy. And the folks at the National Review. And cetera . . .

And these people are writing and saying all sorts of stupid stuff that is racially charged. It doesn't really look good.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the same said about Clarence Thomas, that was only where he was because of affirmitive action? And Obama really seems to be emphasing Sotomayor's personal story (which is quite inspiring) more than her legal work. Thomas has just as compelling personal story yet Obama says he wouldn't pick him because he was not a strong justice. To me there is no principle here, purely politics all the way around.
 
If she was so poor, how did she get into private schools when she was growing up?:eek:

Dungheap said:
Correct. The trouble is that you have, well, people like you claiming that Sotomayor because as a poor Latina she just must be an affirmative action case to be where she is today. And people like Tancredo. And people like Rush Limbaugh. And people like Newt Gingrich. And people like G. Gordon Liddy. And the folks at the National Review. And cetera . . .

And these people are writing and saying all sorts of stupid stuff that is racially charged. It doesn't really look good.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top