Skip to main content

Conservatives attempt to paint Donald Sterling as a Democrat

It's been quite a week in this country as far as racism towards African-Americans goes. First we had Cliven Bundy providing all of his wisdom on the "negroes," and then Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling let his views be known about blacks via a secret recording, where he basically told his mistress (of mixed races, ironically enough) that he doesn't want her promoting blacks via photos on Instagram or bringing them to games.

Of course, one of the right-wing conspiracy kinds - Matt Drudge - decided to make this a partisan issue, and tweeted this message:

"GOT GAME: NYT informed the unwashed how Bundy is a Republican. Leaves out NBA Sterling is a Democrat..."

This information was then spread about right-wing websites like those lovely chain emails seem to do all too frequently. The problem with the claim? It's not true. It even earned a "Pants on Fire" grade from fact-checker Politifact, where the site concluded with this:

"Drudge said Sterling is a Democrat. County records show that he is a registered Republican and has been for many years. His donations to Democrats took place two decades ago and were modest even by the standards of that time. We rate the claim Pants on Fire."

This strategy by conservatives always makes me chuckle, because what they're essentially trying to do is say the following:

"Democrats always paint us as the racists! But, you see there? That one guy is a racist and he's a Democrat, so they're just as bad as we are!"

It's a faulty comparison. While there are most certainly racists from both parties, just because conservatives point out a handful of racist Democrats, while they spend a good chunk of time trying to take away voting rights of minorities, and some even going so far as to make comments like the ones Bundy and Sterling made, doesn't make the two parties equal on that front. That'd be like a married husband telling his wife, "Why are you so mad that I slept with all those women? You heavily flirted with that one guy that one time - remember? So, we're even!"

What many Republicans seem to fail to understand is they're not going to appeal more to women, minorities, young people, or the LGBT community if they simply point to a Democrat and say, "Did you hear what he/she said?" They're also not going to prove they're not sexist, racist, or homophobic by doing that either. Just because person A points a finger and proves person B is a racist, does not prove person A isn't one. If the Republican Party wants to appeal more to women voters, they'll have to respect them and vote for them to receive equal pay as men, to have reproductive freedom, etc. They can't just point the finger at a Democrat or two, whom perhaps voted the same way as the GOP on an issue pertaining to women's rights, and say, "They're just like us! So, vote for us!" They also can't look back to ancient history to appeal to minority voters. They can't say, "50 years ago, we voted in your favor! You should be thanking us!" If they want to appeal more to minority voters today, they'll have to change their ways. Also, they can't point at Democrats and say, "Well, they changed their minds. They don't genuinely support your rights. How can you believe them? Vote for us, because we've been consistent!" Again, that's not going to work. President Obama changed his mind on gay rights. Do these GOPers seriously think that the LGBT community would rather vote for a president who was always against them attaining equal rights than a president who changed his/her mind on the matter, and is now supportive of their equal rights? I don't think so...

The Republican Party has mocked President Obama's slogan of, "Change you can believe in," more than Cliven Bundy has made ignorant statements. However, the reason they're having problems rebranding the party and appealing to more voters is because they just don't seem to believe in change, and until they take that step forward, their voting appeal won't change either.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/drudge-report/drudge-says-clippers-owner-democrat/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"