<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you show more sound judgement than McCain did. It only took losing the primary to George Bush to get him to flip-flop back to his principles and admit he’d been pandering. And it took an NFL Superbowl boycott to get him to flip-flop on the MLK holiday in Arizona. </p>
<p>He’s not strong on civil rights even though he was in power for so long.</p>
<p>Mom, while we’re considering what McCain failed to do on this issue (but evidently corrected later) what has Senator Obama done in regard to this? </p>
<p>Would someone also explain the relationship between Senator Obama and Louis Farrakhan? I just found a disturbing reference that implies the two are quite close.</p>
<p>Here’s a thread I just started to explore this issue: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/546835-louis-farrakhan-senator-obama.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/546835-louis-farrakhan-senator-obama.html</a></p>
<p>I don’t think you can reach that conclusion. The MLK day bill is a holiday, it was not a bill that prevented minorities from taking a vacation; that would have been disconcerting.</p>
<p>In my opinion, Obama is not strong on women issues. Check the number of women working on the senate staff of McCain and Obama. Check how much Obama pays his female staff compared to his male staff. Obama is all rhetoric on women issues with nonexistence action.</p>
<p>I’d rather talk about McCain’s lack of intellectual curiosity, flip-flopping on civil rights issues, his alignment with Bush’s voting record and his short-term memory problems. </p>
<p>It seems like he’s like Bush, only more forgetful. And older.</p>
<p>You just don’t have an argument.</p>
<p>No, my argument is that McCain displays an amazing similarity to Bush, except with more memory problems and with a much longer record of service. He voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007. And yet, a lot of conservatives say he’s very unpredictable and they have no idea what kind of supreme court justices he might appoint.</p>
<p>None of this is going to cost McCain any votes. Essentially 100% of the African American votes will go to the African American candidate in racial bloc voting. There is no reason for the Republican candidate to make any effort to court these voters or be beholden in any way if victorious in the election.</p>
<p>I’m not really worried about the African American vote, ID. I’m more worried about the idea of electing a man who can’t decide if he’s a maverick straight-talker or a pandering Bush recruit. He’s so inconsistent.</p>
<p>Why don’t you talk about Obama at all? Some posters have mentioned FISA and women’s rights. You mention McCain and Bush spitting on the Constitution together.</p>
<p>I wonder which argument holds more weight…</p>
<p>If you’re going to spew this, fine. But at least be able to defend against charges brought against Obama as well. It’s all relative. If McCain is spitting on our rights while Obama is taking a dump on them, McCain’s problems don’t look as bad. So, why don’t you take the time to respond to points made about your candidate of choice?</p>
<p>“He’s so inconsistent.”</p>
<p>LOL. And Obama isn’t? He’s inconsistent on everything. Forget the fact that he flip-flopped on offshore drilling as soon as the “totally ineffective” McCain ad mentioned it. Forget the fact that he was a member of Reverend Wright’s “Church” and lied about not hearing any problems (although I suppose he was able to weasel his way out of that one!), and had his children baptized by a racist. Wright wasn’t just his spiritual adviser, otherwise his sermons would have had something to do with religion.</p>
<p>If you’re talking about race and civil rights, try not to ignore the glaring problems with your favorite candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me neither. Those are Democratic Party votes. The only Democrat I will be voting for this year is Ed O’Reilly, the primary challenger to John “Liveshot” Kerry.</p>
<p>I didn’t start this thread to talk about Obama, Baelor. He’s being talked about enough on lots of other threads. I started this thread to get answers to a question I have about why McCain would not want to honor one of the foremost proponents of the Civil Rights Movement. </p>
<p>So far, the answers are: he was out of the country (imprisoned) so he missed the Civil Rights movement; and that he didn’t want to spend the money on a national holiday, even though most other fiscal conservatives were fine with the idea.</p>
<p>It’s just puzzling to me that it would take him 11 years to admit that Dr. Martin Luther King was worthy of a federal holiday. And it seems dishonorable that he would tell a young black audience that he “shortly” saw the error of his ways. 11 years is not a short amount of time.</p>
<p>Why would he be worthy of a federal holiday? You’re arguing that his lack of support is a travesty without proving that the bill was worth voting for in the first place. You haven’t justified that the existence of such a holiday is even necessary or beneficial, so you can’t claim that his not supporting it is some terrible infringement on civil rights. </p>
<p>In addition, Obama is relevant. As soon as you say “I don’t want a candidate who doesn’t care about civil rights, etc.” then it becomes relevant. You’re moving beyond a specific incident and into the realm of McCain as a whole, and how he doesn’t embody what you want in a president. Uhh, asking who does is entirely acceptable. Starting a thread to mention (albeit, incompletely and incoherently) one incident and slam one candidate for it is not really going to work out. I suggest either presenting actual evidence (e.g., the bill itself) or defending your implied viewpoint that Obama has a better civil rights record. Your refusal to do either just reveals your inability to come up with an argument.</p>
<p>Plus, this entire discussion is irrelevant unless we compare McCain to Obama. So McCain’s civil rights record isn’t perfect. So what? If Obama’s is worse, then McCain’s is by definition better. If Obama’s is better, then McCain’s spotty record detracts from his appeal (I would hope). But discussing McCain’s shortcomings by themselves is flat-out stupid unless we’ve established Obama’s credentials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>King advocated nonviolent means to protest racial discrimination in federal and state law. Changed the course of our country to make laws actually align with Constitutional guarantees (and be enforced). Six million signatures were collected in a petition to Congress to pass the law. Reagan thought it important enough to sign in 1983. I believe it’s beneficial to national pride/patriotism to honor Lincoln, Washington, King, plus, it’s always nice to take a day off of work. If it was good enough for Reagan, why wasn’t it good enough for McCain? He sided with Jesse Helms on the issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry you are having trouble understanding. I did present evidence of McCain’s votes against the MLK holiday and his 11-year-opposition to it before “shortly” coming around to the idea. And I presented a video clip of him lying about “shortly” realizing his error. </p>
<p>I also mentioned that he voted against the 1990 Civil Rights Act </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>source: [McCain</a> Myth Buster: John McCain and Civil Rights | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS146394+11-Apr-2008+PRN20080411]McCain”>http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS146394+11-Apr-2008+PRN20080411)</p>
<p>Obama’s voting record on Civil Rights looks solid:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Barack</a> Obama on the Issues](<a href=“http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm]Barack”>Barack Obama on the Issues)</p>
<p>Obama’s work as a community organizer and civil rights attorney is further proof he is committed to civil rights. His work as a constitutional law professor at a conservative law school is proof that he understands the Constitution.</p>
<p>I see McCain embracing civil rights ideology he once denounced. I don’t see Obama doing this.</p>
<p>“I believe it’s beneficial to national pride/patriotism to honor Lincoln, Washington, King, plus, it’s always nice to take a day off of work. If it was good enough for Reagan, why wasn’t it good enough for McCain? He sided with Jesse Helms on the issue.”</p>
<p>That’s your opinion (obviously). But to begin the assumption that it was worthy of a holiday and then use that to attack McCain is a flawed argument. We’re not talking about disenfranchisement of minorities or equal pay here. We’re talking about a national holiday celebrating someone. Unless you can connect McCain’s refusal directly to racist tendencies, I fail to see how this is a civil rights issue at all.</p>
<p>“Sorry you are having trouble understanding. I did present evidence of McCain’s votes against the MLK holiday and his 11-year-opposition to it before “shortly” coming around to the idea.”</p>
<p>I know you did. But you haven’t explained why. You haven’t even presented the bill so we can know that there was no reason to oppose it at all. You’re just saying that he didn’t vote for it, and should have. There’s no evidence for that. There’s also no evidence that this has anything to do with civil rights.</p>
<p>“And I presented a video clip of him lying about “shortly” realizing his error.”</p>
<p>That you did. Most politicians “lie.” It’s unfortunate, but Barack Obama has lied plenty to. I will present sources if you want me to.</p>
<p>“I also mentioned that he voted against the 1990 Civil Rights Act.”</p>
<p>Would you mind posting any justification McCain had for not voting for it? The burden is on you to show that McCain “spits on the Constitution” or whatever. The article was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, so I’m sure that they didn’t even post anything that the bill contained that could potentially justify someone voting against it. When we’re talking about things like this, at least somewhat unbiased sources are preferred.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, some of McCain’s record:
Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
Inter-racial dating ban is idiotic and cruel. (Feb 2000)
Career-long history of supporting Indian causes. (Jan 2000)
Allow, but not mandate, school prayer. (Jan 2000)
Flying Confederate flag should be left to states. (Sep 1999)
Would be “comfortable” with a gay president. (Dec 1999)
1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups. (Aug 1999)
Hollywood should voluntarily self-censor sex and violence. (Jul 1999)
We don’t need laws against Spanish language & culture. (Mar 1999)
Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas. (Jul 1998) </p>
<p>Some of his voting record:
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states. (Nov 2006)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)</p>
<p>His old voting records (pre-1995) were more iffy, especially regarding anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation. But he’s been pretty consistent since then. And he supports free speech and the rights of the individual (flag-burning is the exception). </p>
<p>More on Obama:</p>
<p>Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)</p>
<p>Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
^Unjustified. McCain had way less than that, even though you can compare their voting records and see that McCain’s recent record is almost exactly the same as Obama’s.</p>
<p>Everyone has problems with their record. I would consider Obama’s, which is nowhere near as developed as McCain’s in terms of time, to be particularly weak in some areas. Same for McCain. But Obama is not the savior against the devil McCain with regards to civil rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s always difficult to prove that someone has racist beliefs; however, by piecing together actions (or inactions) on civil rights issues, even if they are symbolic ones like honoring a slain civil rights hero, I think you can get an idea of a man’s character. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The evidence is his own words. Here from April of this year: </p>
<p>
[McCain</a> admits error on King holiday - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/mccain_admits_e.html]McCain”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/mccain_admits_e.html)</p>
<p>As for the 1990 Civil Rights Act, I don’t know why he voted against it. He claims now that it was because he doesn’t support quotas, but the bill had nothing to do with quotas. It lost by just one vote.</p>
<p>Without going into his long record of other votes on civil rights issues, these three – the MLK holiday, the flip-flopping on the racist S. Carolina flag and the no vote on the Civil Rights Act, well, the picture is not one of a leader who is strong on civil rights issues (be they symbolic or be they practical). </p>
<p>McCain attends events at places like the Civil Rights Museum and his campaign touts his civil rights bonafides, but in truth he’s a senator who helped the President (HW Bush) become the first to ever successfully veto a civil rights measure.</p>
<p>In an environment where even suggesting that LBJ played a role in civil rights gets you tarred as a racist by African American leaders such as James Clyburn and Donna Brazille, I see very little incentive for white folk to concern themselves with civil right issues any more. </p>
<p>There’s certainly no percentage in getting actively involved, for example, in headquartering a major foundation in Harlem and getting labeled a racist for your efforts.</p>
<p>The only prudent response in this climate is for white politicians to worry about issues of importance to white voters and let the African American politicians handle issues concerning African Americans. With no votes to be won, there’s no reason for a white politician to vote for legislation or holidays important only to groups that view them as racists.</p>
<p>The involvement of white people in the civil rights efforts of the last 50 years was clearly not something that the African American leadership values. In fact, it appears to provoke considerable hostility. So, it’s probably for the best, in this political climate, to step back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, wrong.</p>
<p>The problem with the Hillary comment wasn’t that she “suggest[ed] that LBJ played a role in civil rights” (a proposition so obvious that no one with any sense would ever dispute it); it was that, in the context of the ongoing conversation, she appeared (to many) to be building LBJ up at the expense of MLK, perhaps the most revered African-American leader in American history.</p>
<p>(These things, I realize, seem a whole lot simpler when, as here, you simply ignore the context [not to mention distorting what was said], but here, as elsewhere, context is everything.)</p>
<p>[Political</a> Punch<a href=“%22So%20.%20.%20.%20Obama%20is%20MLK,%20a%20good%20talker%20who%20never%20accomplished%20anything,%20and%20thank%20heaven%20for%20Clinton-slash-LBJ?%20Am%20I%20reading%20that%20right?%20And%20is%20that%20really%20a%20smart%20message%20to%20make%20just%20a%20few%20days%20before%20the%20South%20Carolina%20primary?%22”>/url</a></p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece]Hillary”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece]Hillary</a> Clinton gaffe over Martin Luther King may cost votes in South Carolina - Times Online](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/was-hillary-dis.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/was-hillary-dis.html)</p>
<p>“I think it’s always difficult to prove that someone has racist beliefs; however, by piecing together actions (or inactions) on civil rights issues, even if they are symbolic ones like honoring a slain civil rights hero, I think you can get an idea of a man’s character.”</p>
<p>What? Maybe race issues are not the focus of his platform. Maybe making sure that gay rights are state issues is the focus of his platform. Maybe women’s wages are…maybe equality in the classroom is…These aren’t necessarily true, but they are examples. You are looking at a specific case of a specific issue. You haven’t even proven that the MLK is a civil rights issue at all. Of course they’re important. That doesn’t mean I have to sponsor a holiday of a man who championed one aspect of them. There is a HUGE difference.</p>
<p>Everyone has a focus. You’re talking about race issues. That’s perfectly fine. But asking everyone to focus on race issues is a bit of a stretch. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who actively and truly champions all civil rights.</p>
<p>“The evidence is his own words.”</p>
<p>McCain thinks he should have voted. That doesn’t mean he should have voted, and that doesn’t mean that not voting for the bill was indicative of his anti-civil rights platform.</p>
<p>“As for the 1990 Civil Rights Act, I don’t know why he voted against it. He claims now that it was because he doesn’t support quotas, but the bill had nothing to do with quotas. It lost by just one vote.”</p>
<p>McCain has a consistent history for AA and somewhat related policies while refusing to support quotas. I find that pretty consistent.</p>
<p>“Without going into his long record of other votes on civil rights issues, these three – the MLK holiday, the flip-flopping on the racist S. Carolina flag and the no vote on the Civil Rights Act, well, the picture is not one of a leader who is strong on civil rights issues (be they symbolic or be they practical).”</p>
<p>The MLK holiday is a non-issue. If you honestly think it’s terrible, that’s up to you. But it is NOT a civil rights issue, and it in no way is indicative of McCain’s stance on civil rights. The Confederate Flag issue has two sides as well. It DOES represent a heritage, but not necessarily a good one. In that respect, his first statement was passable although the flip-flop was not so good for him. If you can’t even provide the link for the Civil Rights Act and a reason other than quotas (which is completely valid and consistent with McCain’s other civil rights opinions) that he didn’t vote for it, then that argument is completely invalid anyway.</p>
<p>Again, everyone has a focus, and everyone makes mistakes. The demi-God Obama doesn’t have a perfect record either, but that doesn’t seem to bother you. Interesting…I don’t even support gay marriage (I’m against all government unions beyond cohabitation), and I’m surprised that the deity is so anti-equal rights…Hmm, but that doesn’t matter. Only skin color, right? There are issues beyond race, or so I’m told…</p>
<p>Hey, I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy of a campaign that gushes about the man’s civil rights record in front of civil rights museums and AA audiences and on national television when the facts don’t support it. McCain helped Bush I veto important civil rights legislation and become the first president to ever do so. That’s a pretty big deal to me. </p>
<p>You can start your own thread to redefine civil rights as not having to do with race. I never said they are limited to race in the first place. This is just one area that bothers me about McCain.</p>
<p>I never said that they had nothing to do with race.</p>
<p>I said that McCain’s civil rights record is not focused on race. He redefined his positions about 13-15 years ago, and they have remained pretty consistent. If you don’t like them, that’s fine. But he’s not racist, and he has been consistent and pro-civil rights in a few areas. Race is not his focus. It’s Obama’s. Obama’s record on civil marriage is not pro-civil rights. It’s anti-civil rights. He supported FISA and has a spotty history on women’s rights. You haven’t even begun to address those concerns.</p>
<p>See, everyone has a focus! If race is important, vote for the man who has over 90% of the black vote (which I find unjustified given his commitment to race issues, but that’s another topic). If gay issues aren’t, then neither candidate is particularly good but McCain is better because he supports state mandates more consistently than Obama. It’s all a matter of what is important to you.</p>