I get tired of saying I told you so, but one thing you can count on as November, 2016 approaches will be Democrats’ emphasis on the complexions of voters. Dems will trot out what we improperly call the race card because there is no engaging candidate equal to President Barack Obama on the ticket.
Note I say we improperly use the term race card because there is only one race—the human race. We come in various complexions and cultures politicians have long sought to exploit.
At any rate, much is being made of a response by Donald Trump to questions from Jake Tapper on CNN about an alleged endorsement from David Duke. I doubt most younger than 40 years old will even know Duke’s name although it is somewhat familiar to many of us older than that.
Duke, by the way, began his political career as a Democrat. Trump has disavowed support from Duke. Now it’s long past time for Democrats to do some extensive disavowing.
Duke is a white separatist whose politics have been all over the place. What isn’t being pointed out at present is that he began his career as a Democrat, and in 1988, he attempted to gain the nomination of that party for president. Duke has a fairly well-sourced bio at Wikipedia—if the sources weren’t largely credible I wouldn’t link to it, but that is where you can find his all-over-the-place political career in one location.
While Trump did lapse on not disavowing Duke the moment Tapper brought the name up, what’s interesting is the ongoing pass given Democrats.
For instance, as Mrs. Hillary Clinton attempts to keep a chokehold on black voters who make up sizable majorities in her party in some states, not one reporter has asked her whether she plans to disavow her (and her party’s) very long association with the late senator Robert Byrd. Byrd was a very powerful senator praised by Mrs. Clinton despite the fact he confessed to being a leader in the KKK.
At present dozens of buildings are named for Byrd. Personally speaking, if you seek political justice, those government buildings should be renamed.
There’s far more to the inequality media apply to parties, though.
Most who were old enough to vote in 2008 are well aware of President Barack Obama’s longtime association with his racialist pastor. Obama had been a member of that pastor’s church since the 1990s. It took Obama until March, 2008 to disavow his association between the pastor and the campaign. Did our president sleep through all those sermons for more than a decade?
Obama had other separatist supporters as well. The radical New Black Panther Party (not to be confused with the original Black Panthers) had members show up at a Philadelphia voting precinct. One NBBPer flashed a night stick and spoke in a combative manner to reporters.
How did the Obama administration handle that violation of voters’ civil rights? The US Commission on Civil Rights dismissed it. Obama’s Dept. of Justice let the NBPP off the hook. Subsequently the group’s leader was busted on a gun charge—by New York’s Police Dept., not the federales. Judicial Watch described the leader after that bust:
“This is the same thug who says black people should create militias to exterminate whites, skin them alive, pour acid on them, sick pit bulls on them, bust their heads with rocks and even raid nurseries to “kill everything white in sight.” The same newspaper quotes the Black Panther leader, a Philly street preacher, on a black-power radio show: “I would love nothing more than to come home with a cracker’s head in my book bag.”
Via Twitter, some Jewish bloggers I perceive as left of center came down hard on Trump because Duke is also perceived as anti-Semitic.
Ironically those same bloggers ignore the widespread anti-Semitism in a country Obama just enriched with one of the most questionable foreign policy deals in either of his terms—Iran. We will come to regret this deal in exactly the same manner we regret Bill Clinton’s fake deal with North Korea.
Did I mention Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama’s Iran deal? Nary a word from media about two Democrats enriching a publicly anti-Semitic regime.
Do you recall multiple media cycles devoted 24/7 to these racialist groups’ support for our president?
Have you seen a single story covering leading Democrats’ praise for another radical racialist group the Nation of Islam? NOI is anti-gay, anti-Semitic, and anti-white.
As I said earlier, Trump has disavowed support from Duke.
That said, we live in a country where government power is limited over speech in a unique way. I dislike intensely groups that thrive on hatred regardless of a person’s complexion.
But Democrats are eminently disadvantaged when it comes to racializing politics. Media choose to ignore that fact, and thus we should ignore the same media when they target a candidate because his pedigree is Republican rather than socialist Democrat.
Some conservative media have also assailed Trump. I’d suggest placing your attacks in context with Democrats’ practices as well. To be fair.
Let us now demand Democrats’ numerous disavowals, but let us not hold our breath. We would collectively pass out.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/March 1, 2016)
Please help us continue to keep our site online by donating a small amount via the PayPal link in the left column. We don’t run ads from major search engines or third parties on this site. We are funded by readers. Follow us on Twitter @DayontheDay.