Ethics Mega-Dunces: The Republicans

"You're right, Abe; they're all rock-heads. I'd like to beat some sense into them with a big stick, but I have no arms."

“You’re right, Abe; they’re all rock-heads. I’d like to beat some sense into them with a big stick, but I have no arms.”

Not a single invited member of the Republican leadership accepted an invitation to attend the official March on Washington anniversary event yesterday.

This is practically all that needs to be said. That fact alone is sufficient to show an appalling lack of leadership, respect, common sense, common purpose, values and priorities within the highest reaches of the party.

Everyone had a “good reason,” of course—Boehner, Canter, McConnell, McCain, Romney, both Bushes,  But the excuses don’t matter. A responsible, intelligent, public minded, fair and  statesmanlike political organization would have made certain that a representative delegation attended, and prominently so. How or why no major Republican figures were present is irrelevant. If the commemoration of the March on Washington, Dr. King’s iconic and transformative speech, and the cultural transformation of America that they helped achieve are as important to the party as they must be--because of the GOP’s origins, because of what it represents, and because, dammit, Republicans are Americans, then attendance was mandatory. They manage to make it to the State of the Union and Presidential inaugurations, because they recognize it as important to do so. They should be able to recognize that showing solidarity with the  Democrats, African-Americans and the public on the core principle of equal rights for all is even more important.

Fox and conservative commentators are focusing on the fact that Tim Scott, the South Carolina Republican who is the only African-American in the U.S. Senate, was not invited to the event. Yes, that was either an outrageous snub or a terrible oversight, but that doesn’t matter either: he should have come on his own, and the conservative media is missing the real scandal. For the party they support just disgraced itself, insulting minorities, the memory of a great American, our founding values and their own legacy in the process. This not only showed narrowness, pettiness, and stupidity; it showed incompetence and a deficit of patriotism as well.

____________________________

Sources: Mediaite, Washington Post

46 thoughts on “Ethics Mega-Dunces: The Republicans

  1. I reposted this to my Facebook Timeline having commented on the matter a little earlier in the day and receiving the Senator Scott line from a republican friend. This was a huge missed opportunity for at least the momentary appearance of political comity in this skewed climate.

  2. Unbelievable. Even for politicians lacking patriotism and other noble values, you’d think they would at least recognize the political opportunity to begin rebuilding the party’s reputation amongst minorities — or, heck, the rest of the population. The “party of stupid” really rings true.

  3. Republicans have long since abandoned the Black Vote, and recent voter legislation laws in NC and Texas would certainly have gotten serious backlash if any Republican tried to speak at the MLK rally… And worse backlash in their own district primary for just attending.

    The old DixieCrats are now the heart of the Republican Party. Irony.

    • Yeah, because there is a point in courting the vote of people who have accepted their place as a kept people.

      Democrat policies have ruined the black community, and the black community is perfectly willing to help keep itself down.

      You can’t convince people to vote themselves few handouts, so why even bother?

    • Let me correct the first component of your run-on sentence for you:

      “Republicans have long ago decided not to court the African American vote through outright purchasing of it via entitlement spending, maintaining the vote through divisive vilification of the other side as racist, and keeping internal dissent down by encouraging a culture of self-victimization”

      You see, conservatives know that the problems troubling the African American community will not be solved with governmental action or spending, the problems will only be solved when the African American community is ready to stand up and join the America that was made available to them after years and years of Civil Rights advancement. The problems troubling the African American community will be solved when it stops listening to the bullshit race baiting left that continues to keep it down by telling it white people want it to stay down (awesome trick the left pulls off). The specific troubles facing the African American community; rampant drug use, fatherless families, a separatist pop-culture that specifically glorifies violence and anti-civic behavior will not be solved until the community en-masse abandons this culture.

      But they won’t. Why? A whole half of the political spectrum, AS LEADERS (treacherous leaders) make an easy decision for them. Instead of supporting the pipeline to success that is individual merit and hard work and stable families, they falsely make available a victim narrative and through the help of the dishonest media continue to convince them that whites, specifically conservative whites, actively want them in poverty.

      The fact that you are pushing the “dixiecrats” (part of the great Republican-Democrat ideological shift lie) narrative is telling about how uninformed you are. You do realize that ALL but 3 of the ‘dixiecrats’ returned to the Democrats eventually; most of the switchers realizing that the sporadic opposition to the CRA in the Republican Party was not due to racism, but due to the same strain of hyper-libertarian market values vis a vis Rand Paul?

      The great switch did not occur ideologically among the parties, the great switch occurred with the African American demographic. Through the Depression and WW2, the Democrats had solidly established a base among the poorer classes through outright entitlement purchasing and class-envy divisiveness, but realized they would soon lose a solidly southern racist voting block due simply to old age and dying off….see, the south was slowly growing up and the old hard-core hate based politics was a dying trend. As more African Americans seized on their voting rights and participation in the American system, nationally, democrats realized they could use the same tactics of division and entitlements to slowly pull this emergent voting demographic into the fold.

  4. Also not invited?

    One of King’s daughters. She’s a Republican, you see.

    And frankly, a Republican showing up to the event would have given credability to the litany of slams and insults that were thrown at the Right (like Billy CLinton’s bullshit line about how it is easier to get an assault rifle than it is to vote).

    • My read on it is that there wasn’t even an event to commemorate MLKjr’s vision for America, there wasn’t an event to seek unity and racial harmony. Not one bit. The name of MLKjr was usurped to give credence to a line-up of grade-A bullshit artists to advance further divisive speech and then campaign further for leftist ideals and dreams.

      The Republicans knew what this ‘event’ was going to be. They could have shown up and done one of two things: 1) Be noble, patriotic and unifying (like most national level Republican leaders speak), which would ultimately validate the virulent crap spouted by the other speakers, or 2) Be just as partisan and off topic as the other speakers, therefore opening themselves up to just as much skewering as they are now, or to devolve what should have been a great opportunity to recognize how much America different America is now than it was when MLKjr spoke. You see, it doesn’t matter for Republicans, because with MSM under full control of the left, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

      • Such an awful rationalization, and similar to the one people like Chris Rock have used to argue for black non-celebration of the 4th of July. There was some unseemly crap at the event yesterday, but don’t mix it up with Al’s earlier version. For the most part, it was bi-partisan in tone, and if the Republican were afraid that they wouldn’t be “welcome,” well, they really need to grow a pair, to be blunt. It was their duty to be there. Anyone who suggested that it wasn’t their celebration as much as anyone’s—it was the Republican Party that ended slavery after all—needs to be told to go jump in the reflecting pond.

        • Probably so. I’d have preferred they showed up and taken the moral high ground like they usually do when it comes to patriotic things like this, and not mentioned one damn word about future intentions. Simply to revel the awesomeness of the advances that America had made in race relations (at least until this most recent round of virulence from the left). America, in about 100 years, achieved what the Old World still has generally not achieved in 1000s of years.

    • Apparently the former President has never been to Illinois…FOID cards (if they will ever process them them) and “assault weapons” bans vs “vote early, vote often”

  5. The ethics mega-dunces are those who have cultivated a nation with so much distrust and disharmony (cough cough leftists) that Republicans can’t even trust an event like this to be open and friendly for an actual unifying effort. Nah.

    Racial relations in this nation are officially an Ethics Train-wreck, anyone involved being ethics dunces.

  6. Racial relations in this nation are officially an Ethics Train-wreck, anyone involved being ethics dunces.
    **************
    Agreed.
    What a mess.

  7. I was always told to that whites should stay away from MLK-day events out of respect. I was told that by my University administration and the organizers of the events. I would assume that something like this was organized by the same groups of people and the same rules would apply.

  8. But the three Democratic presidents all cited varying parts of the Democratic bill of particulars against Republicans, without mentioning the other party by name.

    When NPR can’t even avoid pointing out that R’s were slammed at the event, I can’t imagine why R’s might have opted to not stand there and get insulted by feckless morons…

    • Case in point- look what happened in the 40th anniversary .

      The 40th anniversary commemoration Saturday of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s indelible speech was less nostalgia than a lengthy condemnation of Bush administration policies, viewed by many speakers as an affront to King’s beliefs.

      The crowd of a few thousand gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, the site of King’s Aug. 28, 1963, “I Have a Dream” speech, heard speaker after speaker denounce President Bush’s positions on the Iraq war, affirmative action and the economy.

      Some causes espoused from the podium were controversial enough to make some attending squirm in their seats, such as the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, on Pennsylvania’s Death Row for murdering a police officer.

  9. I attended the March 50 years ago and was inspired. I listened to the drivel yesterday and was repulsed. I am quite certain that MLK would have been as well. The multiple ironies of the speaker list was beyond belief. Bill Clinton, who defended the racist Dem Senator from WV, Byrd, as just a “good old boy” who burned crosses in the yards of black people while he was a Grand Kleagle of the KKK at his funeral a couple years ago., not to mention his “hero” Senator Fulbright, a racist who fought civil rights legislation till his dying day. A rally led by a racist poverty pimp who is a phony “Reverend” is not a place for any honest American to be. It is interesting that King’s daughter, a Republican, was not invited, since she has been fighting the millionaires who have stolen the mantle of leadership in the civil rights movement and sold their race down the river for some money from the man who runs the Washington plantation. But now let us resume ignoring the fact that 10,000 black kids will kill 10,000 black kids again this year while the organizers of this rally focus on a druggie like Trayvon Martin as a “victim”

    • I’m not sure how anyone can avoid accepting that Trayvon Martin was a victim. What ever his flaws to that point in his young life, he hadn’t done anything that would have justified cutting his life short when he began his fateful walk back to where he was staying. When people end up dead when they shouldn’t due to the intervention of bad judgment or bad luck, they are still victims.

        • Victim of fear, victim of youth, victim of circumstance. He should not have been placed in fear of his life, and he reacted badly to that fear. He shouldn’t be dead, and that makes him a victim. It just doesn’t make him a murder victim.

              • He attacked without any serious provocation, and in the process had the guy he attacked on the ground and was raining down blows.

                I dunno what you consider “jumped”, but it sure as fuck ain’t a love tap.

                Just so we’re all clear here, because apparently this is a difficult concept – anyone that swings at me and then proceeds to pull a ground-and-pound on me will be shot.

                • He attacked without any serious provocation, and in the process had the guy he attacked on the ground and was raining down blows.
                  ***************
                  That’s right.
                  And that is the reason why TM is partially responsible for his own death.
                  You (general you) have NO right to put your hands on another person.

                  I can look back on my teenage years and imagine my father if the police would have arrested one of my brothers (big, athletic and rowdy) for attacking an adult out on a street somewhere.
                  There would have been serious punishment and a re-learning of how to behave like a civilized and decent citizen.
                  But then, my brothers wouldn’t have been out roaming the streets after dark when they were already on punishment for spray painting lockers at school…AND, they wouldn’t have been left to their own devices long enough to be smoking “blunts’ all day.
                  That was back in the days when parents still acted like parents and did not blame their children’s inadequacies on everybody but themselves.

                  Yes, George Zimmerman pulled the trigger and yes, he shouldn’t have been out there playing “cop” in the first place.
                  I believe he was emboldened by the firearm he was carrying and that caused him to follow TM when un-armed he might not have.
                  That still doesn’t give TM the right to double back and violently assault GZ.

                  If I assaulted every man that ever gave me (a female on the slight side) the creeps or made me feel afraid, we would all be stepping over the bodies.
                  That is the lamest excuse on the planet.

                  If TM’s parents would have been doing their job and TM’s school and local police dept. would have been doing their job, this would have never happened because TM wouldn’t have confronted Zimmerman.

                  Those responsible need to own it and stop making excuses.
                  There is plenty of blame to go around.

                  • Someone is a victim and that they are partially responsible for their own fate are not mutually exclusive. I know people like to use the terms that way, but they just aren’t. Someone can be a victim of a fraudster having them sign a contract with bad terms in the fine print, but the victim also should have read that fine print. People who signed mortgages they couldn’t afford were victimized by lenders who intentionally set them up to default—but the mortgagers are responsible.

          • And what’s more, labeling him as any kind of victim removes ANY responsibility he had for his own actions. HE chose his actions, not someone else.

            This obsession with labeling everyone as some kind of victim is part of the reason the little thug was out walking around anyways – a less PC world would have had the little shit in a holding cell for possessing stolen goods.

            • The obsession with calling perps victims is a problem. Dead unarmed kids shot in confrontations that never should have occurred at all are victims. And the fact that he may have used drugs is 100% irrelevant to his status (referring to comment that prompted this exchange.)

              • The confrontation WAS ENTIRELY HIS FAULT.

                Zimmerman was leaving, had ceased active involvement. Martin sought out the face-to-face confrontation.

                If you initiate the attack (that yes, should not have happened) then you are not a victim at all, in any ways, shape, or form. you are an ATTACKER, and if you get shot and killed then so be it.

                • That’s not how causation is determined, in law or logic. The initiator of the chain of events shares liability with the last individual whose act made the event unavoidable. Martin was the last one who could have stopped the tragedy by not confronting, then not attacking, then not stopping the assault, of Zimmerman. Zimmerman could have prevented all of it by staying in his car.

            • And what’s more, labeling him as any kind of victim removes ANY responsibility he had for his own actions. HE chose his actions, not someone else.
              ******************
              Right again.
              But that is American society today.
              Half a nation of victims and the other half paying for it all.

  10. To be clear: it doesn’t matter whether their recommendations were ignored, whether it was going to be a Democratic rally, or if the mean old Democrats were going to make faces at them and call them bad names, or if the crowd was going to turn their back on them or if they were going to have monkey dung thrown at them. If the Republicans even pretend to be leaders, it was their duty to participate in honoring the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, what he said, and what it all stands for, and not doing so looked…and is…terrible.

    • it was their duty to participate in honoring the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, what he said, and what it all stands for,

      And I say bullshit. I don’t care if they were honoring Jesus, with the Christ Child himself scheduled to be in attendance – when it is obvious that you will be the whipping boy, you have no obligation to be there.

      • They are in the profession of leadership, represent the public, and can’t just bail when they have to face abuse. You gain respect by facing down your adversaries with class and dignity. If they can’t muster that degree of courage and responsibility, they need to find another profession.

        • Actually, they are in the role of crafting laws. Leadership is ancillary at best.

          And when was the last time anyone actually got respect for facing down an opponent with dignity? Mind showing me where Romney got a boost in respect for going t o speak to the NAACP?

          I’ll say it again – when you have no intention of doing anything but insult me, to do anything BUT “not show up” isn’t “leadership”, it is stupidity.

          • 1. They are leaders by definition.
            2. You don’t do the right thing to get credit for it.
            3. The point of the gathering was not to insult Republicans, and if that did occur, it would have been ancillary and reflected badly on the ones doing the insulting.
            4. Taking the insults is part of the job. Alex Rodriguez is a slime ball, but he went to bat knowing he would be jeered. When you can’t muster as much character as Alex, you have a problem.

            • 1. You are welcome to have this opinion.
              2. So you do the right thing to get respect, but not to get respect. Gotcha.
              3. The point of the gathering was clearly to insult Republicans – did you not see the list of speakers, or listen to what they said? Again, I have no obligation to go anywhere that will consist of nothing more than attacks on me. I don’t blame anyone for opting to not be called a racist to their face.
              4. Yes, because he went to bat because he has character, not because refusing to do so would have cost him money… Of course.

              • No, he went to bat because he wanted the money AND because he has guts…not necessarily character. Just as the GOP leaders should have gone because it would look so terrible if they didn’t and would make them look statesmanlike, whether they are or not, ANF because it’s part of their job and duty.

                Of COURSE I’m welcome to have this opinion. Especially because it is the only ethical opinion to have. Basing non-attendance on fear of the unpleasant may be a reasonable pragmatic or selfish decision, but it can’t be defended as an ethical one.

                .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.