Democrats the Expert on Racist Politics

What started before the Civil War continues today. And blacks are STILL in the chains of poverty and oppression as clients of the Democrat Party!

If you haven't seen the film "Lincoln" you should. It's a good reminder about the racist roots of today's Democrat Party. And who can forget that following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was dubbed the "terrorist arm of the Democrat Party!" And of course we cannot forget that not only did Republicans end slavery but we also were the champions of civil rights legislation in the 20th Century.

Not that this stops Democrats from trying to revise their own history and tar Republicans with the racist brush at every available opportunity. Another of those opportunities came this week as MSNBC's Chuck Todd describes how a "very smart White House aide" told him that 'with this Republican, with the way politics of Washington are today, there'd still be slavery.'"

And that racist statement is mild compared to the racebaiting that Democrats do on an almost daily basis. Oppose ObamaCare? You're a racist. Oppose Obama's massive tax increases and runaway spending? You're a racist. The bottom line, if you are an elected Republican and are unwilling to rubberstamp whatever Pharaoh Obama demands, you are racist.

Same with any criticism of the corruption and incompetence of his Administration. Case in point, the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. Victory Davis Hanson picks up the story:

But in the era of Obama, almost everything can be connected to race. So it was not long before the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, and liberal columnists alleged that racism and sexism drove Rice’s neo-Confederate detractors. President Obama, in his now-accustomed Skip Gates/Trayvon Martin posturing mode, also did his best to inflame the tensions, as he dared critics to come after him instead, as if they were bullies out to pick on a vulnerable black woman — and as if the president himself had not hidden behind Rice, throwing her into the public arena in the first place and then refusing to offer any details of his own reaction to the attacks that might have fulfilled his taunt by redirecting scrutiny onto himself.

There is sexism and racism in l’affaire Rice — but sadly it is all originating from the Obama administration and its supporters. First, having a woman or a minority as secretary of state has been accepted as the new normal for over a decade. Indeed, we have not seen a white male in the office since Warren Christopher stepped down in January 1997. Over that period, Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powell, was ridiculed by liberal critics for his misleading testimony about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the Iraq War; I don’t recall him alleging racism. Vocal liberal senators tore into Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, during her confirmation hearings; throughout her tenure, she was subjected to venomous criticism over her role in the Iraq War. Was Senator Barbara Boxer, who mercilessly grilled her, a racist? A disinterested observer over the last decade would conclude that the chief critics of black and female secretaries of state have been liberal Democrats — with no countervailing criticism of them from the Black Caucus, the Washington Post, or the Democratic party. Note in that regard that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left the Bush administration under vicious liberal criticism — although not quite as harsh as the vitriol directed at Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Again, their critics were not tarred with allegations of racism or anti-Latino bias.

For all the president’s condescending talk daring Rice’s critics to come after him instead, we should note that Rice herself apparently welcomes being in the arena. Here is what she undiplomatically remarked about potential critics in an interview for a book earlier this year: “People know not to mess with me. And if they haven’t learned, and they try, then they will learn.”

As Hanson points out, Rice is no wilting wallflower that needs a man, even a white man, to protect her. But if it suits the narrative and the political agenda she is apparently happy to be portrayed as the victim. Should someone of such weak character be Secretary of State?

Hanson also points out, as I have done, that Democrats used very personal and vicious attacks against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Also, judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada were vilified. Never once did the worrywarts currently screaming "RACIST" against Republican criticism of Rice or Obama make a peep when Republicans were the targets. Just the opposite. Many of the same people who now see a Klansman with a burning cross behind every Republican were leading the charge against minorities in the Bush Administration.

And are Democrats who urged defeat of Republican congressional candidates like Allen West and Mia Love racist for doing so? Perhaps not. But then why do these same people accuse Republicans of being racist by pointing to the fewer number of blacks in the GOP congressional delegation?

I suppose it doesn't do much good to point all this out again. Those who are in the know don't need further convincing that Democrats use race for political gain. And racist Democrats who engage in these tactics have no moral principles to be upset by such obvious hypocrisy. But like the other big liberal lies like global warming, this one seems sure to keep coming back for more so document it we must!