Comments on: Hagel Says Republican Party Must Change

Sen. Hagel May Run For President With The Hope Of Shifting Republican Philosophy

[huskerarmy]

"...it will never help the cause to keep pointing fingers an blaming one group for all the problems / failures on another group.."

Fartknocker,
That is about as sincere as I've ever heard you sound. Unfortunately, as long as people (like you) defend the George Allens and Trent Lotts, the GOP campaign against Harold Ford, the exploitation of Barrack Obama's middle name to elicit hate, there will be mistrust and the vernacular will not change... You want change, you have to change yourself first.

[huskerarmy]

"...Bill Cosby is still correct. The Black community needs to take better control of the situation and look to cure those ills that... are within the power of the communmity to solve. If his message often meets with criticism it may be because there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the position that outside help (read money) is the critical issue."

Or... that those who deliver this message all too frequently have a vested interest in a position that their problems are entirely their own and theirs alone to solve without the resources to solve them (read money).

[rillifane]

clemenhagen1

Eisenhower was "reluctant"? I should hope so. But he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Kennedy, on the other hand, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into helping the Freedom Riders and did so only after scenes of people being beaten while local cops stood by had been played over and over on the TV news.

As for your list of choices.

Frankly I think Eisenhower was the greatest president of the post war era. Truman runs second. I despised Nixon but then I also had real issues with Kennedy (albeit for different reasons). Johnson was a contemptible political hack while Barry Goldwater was a genuinely great man (and one who I knew personally). JFK, by the way shared my evaluation of Goldwater. I think both Clinton and Bush II are jackasses and voted for neither. (I liked Bush I).

Clarence Thomas is a better person than it may appear. I've know him for thirty some years thru our mutual friend Jack Danforth. Thurgood Marshall was, in my oponion, a better justice (tho not a better mind in the final analysis).

PS: for the record, I'm Anglo-Asian not Black
That's given me the experience (amusing or disheartening depending on one's perspective) of being called "a Neo-Nazi Reagan Clone" by a "Black Nationist" at a lunch meeting one day and a "N*gg*r loving half breed from Jew occupied New York" by a White Citizen's Council member at a dinner meeting on the same day.

[rillifane]

FARTKNOCKER2

I have no trouble with the idea expressed by that elderly legislator from Virgina although I suspect that his motivation was not very worthy.

Apologies for slavery are absurd and nothing more than political game playing.

However, it would be wrong to say that the effects of slavery and a century of Jim Crow don't still ripple thru the ages down to our own day. Overt acts of racial discrimination still occur on a daily basis in every corner of this nation and I'm not talking about some of the far fetched drivel pushed by the Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons.

That being said, Bill Cosby is still correct. The Black community needs to take better control of the situation and look to cure those ills that, no matter their genesis, are within the power of the communmity to solve.

If his message often meets with criticism it may be because there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the position that outside help (read money) is the critical issue. You'll notice that Sharpton and Jackson are wearing $1000 custom made suits and living like corpoprate CEO's off the money they make being self annointed advocates for the poor and oppressed.

That sort of venality is endemic to every group and is the principle basis for the political support of Nanny state. "Activists" of every stripe pretend to commitment to this group or that while actually looking to become gatekeeper for Federal largesse.

[long_rider]

I have to admit that Hagle has stood up to the chimp, and the co-president, but the idea of placing another Republican in the Whitwhouse does not set right with me.

The Republican party has turned its back on the American people for the last six years, and have bowed to the corp. kings - giving them everything they want. The current administration has done nothing for us Americans, and should receive little support from Americans in 2008.

In the last six years, under Republican rule, Americans have lost jobs, have been sent to fight a needless war, been lied to time-after-time, and let the government run with little or no oversight. During all of this, party politics was the winner every time, with little consideration for the people they were suppose to represent.

I am not saying the Democrats will be much better, but we have lived through six years of lying, stealing, cheating, with the Republicans, and Americans will probably see Republicans for what they are, dollar ****** to big business, and the people be damned.

[clemenhagen1]

Rillifane: First, Eisenhowever called in troops reluctantly, and only after Gov. Faubus removed National Guard troops who blocked the Little Rock Nines entrance into the school and replaced them with an outmatched Little Rock city police force. Eisenhower showed little true leadership when it came to civil rights. As for Warren, a true leader both on the supreme court and later on the Warren Commission. However, I'll give you your choice of supreme court nominees: Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas! You decide. Are you suggesting America has a long and ugly history of racism? You cannot argue with that. Are you suggesting that politicians of all persuasions have used the race issue cynically? A given. But choose your leaders on the issue of race: Truman or Eisenhower? Kennedy or Nixon? Johnson or Goldwater? Clinton or Bush? I cannot pretend to understand your experiences as a black man growing up in the South. But an objective viewer would have to accept the fact that Democrats have done far more to advance the cause of justice and equality in the 20th and 21st Centuries than Republicans ever have. I do appreciate your historical insights, however. You are obviously extremely well-read and educated. Take care.

[rillifane]

clemenhagen1

It was on the orders of FDR that a variety of Republican sponsored legislation, including voting rights, housing rights and a proposal for an ERA for women was voted down. FDR's deal with the black leadership was to entrench them in power by making them the gatekeepers for Federal largesse. A. Phillip Randolph and his friends choose personal politcal power and personal gain over civil rights.

It was the Eisenhower appointed conservative Republican former governor of California, Earl Warren who crafted the decisions which gave impetus to the civil rights movement. And it was Eisenhower who didn't hesitate to send troops to Little Rock to enforce that court's orders.

Don't kid yourself. The Democrats in the north were every bit as racist as those in the south. That's why my birth certificate from liberal democrat NYC reads "colored" (I'm anglo/asian).

Race is, and has always been, the number one social/political issue in the USA.

And whether its Southerners trying to pretend the civil war was about something other than race (an argument I seem to have on a weekly basis here in Texas) or northerners trying to pretend its a problem restricted to dumb rednecks the biggest part of that issue is self delusion.

[mwitten2]

Finally, a prominent Republican telling the truth about the Civil War in Iraq and after a weekend in which we lost 27 members of our great military to the "insane" policy of the worse President/Vice President in the history of the United States, I commend Mr. Hagel for his courage in telling the truth about the mess in Iraq!

[clemenhagen1]

Rillifane: One must really focus not on party but on region. The South voted as a bloc from 1870 to 1970 because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Reconstructionists. However, to suggest that the Republicans were the party of civil rights in the 20th Century is absolutely ludicrous. First presidential administration to help minorities? Roosevelt during the New Deal. First president to use powers of his office towards true integration? Truman, who pushed civil rights legislation that was killed by Southern Democrats AND Do-Nothing Republican Congress. Truman's reaction? He integrated the armed forces with an executive order. During the civil rights movement the South was dominated by conservative Democrats - no other party existed in the South. However, Kennedy did propose civil rights legislation and did federalize the National Guard to protect the Freedom Riders and James Meredith. LBJ did use his powers to push through landmark legislation. Calling the Republicans civil rights reformers simply does not jive with my reading of history, Teddy Roosevelt and a few notable exceptions not included.

The two-party system, along with all of it's fundraising, 527s, special interests, corporate lobbyists, redistricting, gerrymandering, corruption, and political manipulation of our voting system, is completely broken. There is no possible way for an average honest citizen with great ideas to win any election greater than local dog catcher without making use of one of the above.

Abolishing the electoral college would open up the free marketplace for great ideas and fresh new leaders. We need to start over from scratch, so the rules can't be fixed to favor the wealthy and easily corrupted.

By the way, what kind of country contemplates electing for President a Bush-Clinton-Bush- and possibly another Clinton - two family dynasty possibly up to 28 years (lets hope Jeb doesn't want a run for it later, assuming Clinton wins in this scenario)