THAT drew you in, didn’t it? And welcome to all our neo-Confederate friends who wouldn’t be here except that they spend their days cruising the Web for stuff they can get indignant about.
Anyway, I thought I’d refer you to the streaming feed from my appearance on Public Radio this morning. The video stutters something fierce, but it you just want to listen to the audio, that works fine.
I spent most of my 10 minutes or so deconstructing David Beasley’s overly rosy memories of his short-lived attempt to get the Confederate battle flag off the dome. While you listen, you might want to read over my last written assessment of ex-Gov. Beasley’s performance on that issue:
THE STATE
THE FLAG IS STILL THERE BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR GAVE UP
Published on: 07/06/1997
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
By BRAD WARTHEN, Editorial Page Editor
There are basically two reasons why a relic of the Civil War still flies in the most ridiculous of places atop the seat of present-day South Carolina government:* Gov. David Beasley didn’t actually try to move it elsewhere, despite his promise to do so. Oh, he started to try, but then he gave up right at the point when a person who was really trying would have rolled up his sleeves.
* Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, wanted the flag to stay right where it is. And what Glenn McConnell doesn’t want simply counts for more at the State House than what the governor does want. Sen. McConnell knows what he’s about.There was a time, in late 1996, when it looked as if the governor was serious about this. At least he said he was, and just saying he was cost him so much political capital that he might as well have seen it through. To have kept going and succeeded would have been to achieve a measure of greatness. To have kept going and failed would at least have earned him respect.
But instead, he ran into resistance and simply gave up. He did this after getting virtually all of the state’s living former governors to stand up with him to call for moving the flag. He did this after getting hundreds of ordained ministers of all faiths to stand up and endorse this historic bid for reconciliation. He did it after creating a rift within his own political party, one that could only be healed by hard work toward a mutually agreeable solution. He did it after getting the Palmetto Business Forum and others to contribute thousands to the ad hoc organization that was going to push this whole thing from a grass-roots level. (That group now has $100,000 that was never spent).
Most of all, he did it after a poll showed that for the first time, most voters wanted to move the flag. Legislators, elected from districts that are artificially polarized by race, are a different matter. That’s why it is so incumbent upon the governor, elected by the whole state, to show leadership.
When Mr. Beasley said he was going to take this on, a lot of us praised him for his courage. But what really took gall was getting everybody stirred up on this issue and then leaving them hanging. A lot of people are never going to forget that.
Many wondered what caused the governor to suddenly take an interest in the battle flag last year: What political angle was he trying to play? Count me among those who believe it was a genuine, road-to-Damascus experience, born of true concern about race relations in this state. What puzzles me is not why he started, but why he quit. I think he was sincere. I just think he had no idea how to make it happen. It’s as if, after being struck blind, the would-be Apostle Paul had simply gone wandering off into the desert, scratching his head. The governor, a veteran of the House, was apparently taken by surprise that leaders of the lower chamber resented being the last to know about his plans – even though they were the ones who would have to do the dirty work to make it happen. They were so peeved that early in the session they passed a measure to hold a public referendum – not to ask what people thought about the compromise plan to move the flag to the State House grounds, but to force them to choose between extremes (fly the flag, yes or no).
Despite a lot of silly "that’s the end of that" rhetoric in the House, this move was widely recognized as a sort of opening gambit. It was expected that the Senate would come back with something far more reasonable, and eventually the House would agree to something that would allow everyone to save face, and perhaps even do some good for the people of the state along the way.
The House vote on the referendum was on Jan. 23. The legislative session wouldn’t end until June. And yet, as far as the governor was concerned, the effort to move the flag was over. For all practical purposes, the governor would not be heard from on this issue again – except for one time. On March 4, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, a staunch advocate for moving the flag, announced he would not run for governor. Four days later, Gov. Beasley signaled that the flag effort was over. He had not even waited to see a bill introduced in the Senate. There were still three months left in the legislative session.
It’s not that the governor dropped off the face of the Earth. He could still be seen here and there, playing golf in charity tournaments, dressing in colorful costumes and riding motorcycles with celebrities at the beach. But somehow he never found time to bring up the flag.
The issue just never came up in the Senate – not because the Heritage Act didn’t have support. It did. And not because anyone was afraid things would get as ugly in the Senate as they had in the House. It’s just that everyone knew Glenn McConnell didn’t want the flag to move – at least, not under any terms but his own absurdly unrealistic ones. And no one wanted to be so rude as to wound the senator from Charleston’s delicate sensibilities on this matter by even bringing up the subject.
The senator is widely respected for his intimate knowledge of all things Confederate. More to the point, he knows how to get his way in the Senate better than anybody. He always knows what he wants and how to bring it about. He’s even better at stopping what others want if it doesn’t suit him. He does not shrink from pressing his point until he succeeds. For this, he is respected by many and feared by some.
Gov. Beasley, who likes to be liked, probably would not enjoy having such a reputation. Fortunately for him, after his performance on the flag, he’s in no such danger.
Related Posts
Just want to clarify your message.
The American Civil War needed a “political settlement” rather than the CSA losing by “force of arms.”
The Iraqi civil war, OTOH, just needs a few more thousand Americans to die trying to settle it with force, huh?
You dead-enders can’t see the forest for the trees.
January, 2009 can’t get here fast enough.
Oh Brad… well I’ll have fun with this on my own blog. It’s always fun to rehash the late 1990s.
Wonder what happens in January 2009? I mean besides the obvious RTHurl reference to the swearing in of our new president. Is a new president really the answer? Seems to me the “new” president will face exactly the same problems and challenges the “old” one faced. I assume that RTHurl is a liberal…I don’t know her (or him). But, does anyone truly believe that Hillary or Barak or (God forbid!) John Edwards is really going to be more effective than our present Commander in Chief? If one defines effectiveness as pulling out of Iraq most quickly, I suppose any one of these empty suits could be “effective.” Or maybe effectiveness means having dialogue and making nice with people who cut other peoples’ heads off. Again, just about any democrat contender could be effective under this definition. Somehow I don’t see RTHurls’ vision for January 2009 as a particularly good one. Ed
Hurl and other surrender monkeys and appeasers will celebrate if we get a new president who will feel the pain of the terrorists. Then, as the Israelis are driven into the sea and exterminated just as the Iranian president predicts, the leftists will want meetings with the U.N. and wring their hands like the weaklings they truly are. That is the scenario we face if a weakling appeaser gains office in January of 09. Lets hope not.
On the topic of this thread, Gov. Beasely was awarded the JFK Medal of Courage for his stand on the flag.
Now, we return to those thrilling days of yesteryear….
I got my JFK Medal of Courage at the Goodwill Store.
On the subject of the original post by Brad: I find the parallels between the former governor’s efforts have the CSA battle flag moved and the current governor’s efforts to reform the state government’s structure enlightening.
Our legislature is nothing if not able to stymie the executive branch at every turn for the last century and a half. Maybe the SC DOT can get a new logo for its vehicles and equipment; something combining the Stars and Bars, school bus yellow and Sen. McConnell’s family crest would be appropriate.
I suppose putting that new logo on a Hunley submarine shaped silhouette background would be too much, huh?
By the way, with all due respect to JFK, the annual award given by Caroline, Teddy, et. al. is a pathetic fraud. I doubt JFK would have approved of it.
I’ve been off the blog trail for a bit but saw this topic and couldn’t resist. I’m going to “re-post” a post from one of Brad’s blogs on Jan. 24… this particular subject is one I feel strongly about. And Brad – I didn’t miss your response on the women and the draft thing, I just haven’t had time to play lately. But thanks… your thoughts were very interesting and while I might disagree with many of them, I can appreciate the reasoning behind your opinion. Maybe we can fight about it later!
I’ve also decided, with some trepidation, to drop my pseudonym, “Lily”, and use my real name. I’m not quite sure why, but it doesn’t feel quite right anymore not to speak with my real name as well as my real voice.
At any rate, here’s what I had to say about the Confederate battle flag in January; I’m glad to have the opportunity to say it again.
“I’m as native a South Carolinian as they come… both sides of my (white) family stretch back into the history of this state until they disappear. I do not believe that most people who venerate the Confederate flag do so to align themselves with openly evil neo-Nazi or White Supremacist organizations. I think they fly it, and support the flying of it on the grounds of the state capitol building, to remember the illustrious history of the South as viewed through rose-colored glasses, the days when Cotton was King, and to celebrate its past. But in so doing they overlook the implications inherent in the fact that this flag flew over a confederacy of states who did not want to give up the legal right to own other human beings. It may represent a glorious heritage to a certain segment of our southern society, but in a greater sense it represents oppression, hate, murder, and wanton evil to a much, much larger population. Acknowledge this truth or not – the Confederate flag is a racist symbol that has been adopted for generations by hate groups all over this country; it is this association that defines its symbology.”
If JFK were alive today, he would be a Republican demanding more tax cuts.
Well, written, Claudia.
BTW, I’m sure that Brad’s heart is gladdened since you dropped your nom de blog.
Brad, how many people in SC do you think are named “Claudia?”
Heh.
Yeah… I know. Thanks, Mom! (But you oughta hear my LAST name!)
Lee, you’re wrong again. It’s a Good Thing that you appointed yourself an economic expert.
From Slate
[…]Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they’re wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan’s and Bush’s; it was a demand-side cut. “The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy,” said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy’s economic advisers.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people’s hands, as a temporary measure, so that they’ll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to “get the country moving again.” After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today’s standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a “multiplier” effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.
Two other economic advisors to JFK, Otto Eckstein and the very socialist John Kenneth Galbraith, both admitted later that they had been wrong in initially opposing the tax cuts.
Kennedy was also a staunch patriot, a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, and different in a great many other ways from the socialist McGovern Democrats who hijacked his party.
Wow, RTH and Lee both agree that Kennedy was a great president. Sometimes there is common ground.
I’m not sure there is much of a real world distinction between supply and demand side tax cuts. They both start with the same premise that cutting taxes stimulates the ecomomy and will eventually increase tax revenues. But conservatives only see half the picture. If taxes go mainly to the rich at a time when plant utilization is well below capacity people will not spend much extra nor will there be much in the way of investment by American business. The end result is a very large and eventually dangerous federal budget deficit. Since domestic investment opportunities are scarce the deficit is financed in large part by overseas investors, especially China and Japan. What extra revenue that is generated from the tax cut is offset many times over by the lower rates.
With the Bush tax cuts what we ended up with was an enormous windfall for a few very wealthy people who failed to invest much in plant and equipment (because it just isn’t needed) and the lower classes. Inflation remains somewhat under control because wages are flat. But even with modest inflation real wages are slowly falling over time. The gap between the super rich and even the garden variety rich is widening. The income gap with middle and lower class people has become staggering.
John Kennedy faced a very different set of economic circumstances in the early 60s. The tax cuts he implemented were the right medicine then but should not serve as a model for the current economy. What we need today is a way to get real wages rising again. A good start would be a big increase in the minimum wage and a good national health care system that allows people to keep more money rather than spend it on medical matters.
Mom? Somehow I was under the impression that RTH is a woman, but then it seemed not to fit. By the way, JFK can be credited with starting the arms race. I guess they all have jelly on their fingers . . . .
The NRA that JFK belonged to was a much different organization than today.
Wikipedia
What a tragedy that someone who so desperately wants to be an expert is afflicted with chronic reading incomprehension (CRI) and cursed with blockheaded denial of reality (BDR). The second intellectual deficit is aggravated by blind belief in wingnut talking points (BBWTP).
Slate, again.
The NRA, founded in 1871 by General U.S. Grant and other military officers, did not need to create a legal affairs department until the socialist regime of Franklin Roosevelt begain to attack all of the Bill of Rights.
The real ramp up of repressive legislation began in 1968 with Senator Joseph Tydings and Thomas Dodd trying to take firearms from most law-abiding Americans.
President Bush’s small 2001 roll back of Clinton’s taxes on the middle class was enough to immediately end the Clinton Recession of 2000, and generated enough new revenue to ballance the budget, pay for the entire war in Iraq, and pay off more than $1.0 TRILLION of debt incurred during the Clinton years – except Congress blew the “excess revenue” on junk social programs.
JFK was not a great President. He was jacked up on amphetamines and pain killers most of the time, and unable to make big decisions. His insecurity caused him to surround himseslf with arrogant Ivy League academics who enjoyed experimenting with working people and the poor. They got us into the war in Vietnam, but did not have the ability or will to fight it.
Translation: they wouldn’t nuke North Vietnam. That’s the only effective answer that the wingnuts proposed.
Of course, that tactic (just as invading the north) would have meant international condemnation; probable involvement of China and/or Russia; and isolation for the U.S. Not to mention that it would also been morally inexcusable.
But, why wouldn’t the U.S. want to risk WW III to prop up the corrupt government of a geopolitically insignificant country? Why wouldn’t we want to sacrifice more HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS instead of just 57,000 in a civil war of a country whose culture, history and politics we didn’t understand?
At least Iraq has a lucrative supply of energy vital for the U.S. Of course, Dear Leader hasn’t even been competent in securing the oil.
Those “arrogant academics” sought to open the American Dream to many fellow Americans who had been left behind.
Conservatives saw the poor and victims of racial discrimination as unlucky or unworthy of a shot at equal education or equal opportunity. It was none of the gubmint’s bidness that states refused to allow black Americans to vote. It was none of the gubmint’s bidness that black Americans were discriminated against at almost every opportunity for bettering themselves. Finally, it was none of the gubmint’s business that states refused to protect either the property or, even, the lives of black Americans.
Equal rights for ALL Americans weren’t part of the conservative “American Dream.” Those “arrogant” liberal academics thought that America owed the same rights to ALL Americans.
I am a 53 year white male whose lineage extends backwards into the vanishing point colonial mists of South Carolinas’ past, and I understand from others in my family that we had some ancestors who fought in the Civil War, although I haven’t devoted any time to confirming that or finding out more about it. That was then, this is now. For me, here is the deal on the flag: Take it down. Right now. Take it down with honor, put it somewhere that people who want to can go reverence it or whatever, but remove it from the Statehouse grounds this coming Monday. Let’s do this so as to get the issue off the table, and end the distraction it causes from things that are way more important and that we need to work on. Moreover, get it out of the way so that people who get all worked up over it can no longer use it for an excuse for their failures. That’s right…I really do believe that many people who stay all foamed up and agitated about the flag issue do so because it enables them to shift blame and avoid taking responsibility for their own failures and wrongdoing. It seems we can argue about ANYTHING in this state as long as we do not attempt to tell the unvarnished truth about and face squarely certain things going on in certain “communities.” I imagine that I have really “put the terd on the table” by being blunt about it, but it is what I believe, and I think getting rid of the flag would either end some of it, or really draw attention to these posers and their slight of hand when they move to the next distraction without beginning the hard work they need to do. Ed
Where do you suppose RTH got the idea I thought "The American Civil War needed a ‘political settlement’ rather than the CSA losing by "force of arms."
And has he read nothing of what I or Gen. Petraeus have said about Iraq? It most certain does need a "political settlement." The point of the surge is to make possible a measure of security, without which no one has the guts to step out and take the risks necessary for such a political settlement to come about.
In fact, in a nutshell, that IS the Petraeus plan, as articulated effectively by Lindsey Graham in this phone interview.
Ed, turd not terd but close. I am not an obsessesed flag supporter, but what bothers many people is the incessant attempt to rewrite history in a politically correct manner. Once the flag goes off to some obscure spot, let’s say near Abbeville, where the first secession meeting was held. Then what, the same people will then come back and insist on removal of all references to the Confederacy. Where are the R.E. Lee, Longstreet, Stuart, etc. statues? Take them down. One high school recently dropped the name Fightin’ Rebels. Further, the blacks shipped to America were shipped over on Spanish, British, and US ships. Is the Stars and Stripes next? Meanwhile, African blacks are still to this day enslaving other blacks. Where is the outrage if the “flag” is so critical of an issue. The flag is but one step in a multitude of actions to purge history in America. Anyway, the so-called boycott of our state by the NAACP has a positive effect in keeping a lot of the race-baiters out of our state. I for one don’t want any of them in the state for any reason.
Read by mistake actually. The State and Brad are so predictable, (another NY Times wannabe)the only useful purpose it serves is washing windows with a generous splash of vinegar.
Tooshay Dave…spelling the word correctly seems less important than the thought it contains, but I stand corrected. (And yes, I know it’s really “touche” but I can’t get that little mark over the ‘e’ with this keyboard…). Anyway, I would much, MUCH rather see black leaders in this state begin addressing problems in their ethnic group like fatherlessness, illegitimacy, school dropout rates and poor scholastic achievement, crime and incarceration rates, drug use, poverty and so on and so on ad infinitum…rather than hear these so-called leaders rant and hand wring endlessly about a silly flag on the Statehouse grounds. I have said that I am a white male…as white and dough-ey as they come. And I understand that what I’ve said will seem racist to many folks…but I also know that these problems exist in the white ethnic group too. Not the point. The problems that give us a cold are giving black folks double pneumonia…and it’s time their leaders quit using a silly flag as a straw man in lieu of really solving problems their people face. Maybe removing the flag will eliminate their crutch. Ed
Brad, I suggest that you review the clip that you posted. I’m not going to transcribe your words– far too tedious. However, when you opined about how South Carolinians are too stubborn to be coerced– either by an NAACP boycott or by losing by force of arms–I couldn’t help but compare the situation to Iraq.
If you think that South Carolinians are stubborn maybe you haven’t studied the history of Shia and Sunni. South Carolinians are pikers by comparison.
I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far but the concept of seize and hold for political reconciliation in Iraq circa 2007 is comparable to a similar Union proposal for the rebellious states in 1864. The time has passed. The battlelines have been cemented.
In essence, the Union forces seized and held the rebellious states during military occupation during Reconstruction. Unfortunately, the political reformation of the rebellious states didn’t take place during the occupation. And, that effort meant stationing Union troops in every county of the former states.
Just as an experiment consider how many American combat troops will be necessary to occupy each city, little town and settlement of Iraq. Then add 50% for additional support personnel. Now, double that number because the Iraqis will be conducting guerilla warfare from the desert and across national borders against an alien occupying power.
Just as southerners rejected the military imposition of an alien cultural and political system, so Iraqis will resist infidel American military occupation.
As a South Carolinian still fighting to take down the Confederate flag I thought that the comparison would be pretty obvious.
Just an interesting little I saw this week in THE ECONOMIST (another NY Times wannabe?). Only 6% of Republicans polled said they consider George W. Bush their model of a President. 79% picked Ronald Reagan.
Of course, Reagan cut taxes (before he raised them), spent a lot on defense, but didn’t get us into a major Middle Eastern war. W must have slept through that lesson in his Reagan coursework. The more I see of both of them, the more Bush I looks like Eisenhower, the more more Bush II looks like Nixon.
OK, Brad, I’m going to make it easy for you. Maybe you don’t want to take the time to study Iraqi towns, cities and communities.
Let’s just say that there are 9 million Iraqis still living in Iraq. (Could be overstating the case but, what the heck.)
If we need a ratio of one American per 25 Iraqi civilians then we’ll need to station 360,000 combat troops in Iraq. Add 50% more for support duty equals 540,000 who will need to be rotated in annually.
Let’s say that we’re going to station the troops in Iraq one out of every three years.
My rough guesswork means that we’ll need nearly a million combat troops and 250,000 support troops.
That’s not counting keeping a reserve in case we need them in South Korea or another hot spot.
Many military experts believe that we’re about to “break” the military/reserve/national guard system now just trying to keep 150,000 occupying Iraq.
I see no way short of a military draft to maintain the needed troops in Iraq. To pay for such an increase in armed forces maybe we could cancel a few high priced weapon systems.
Or, we could cancel Dear Leader’s tax cuts PLUS add a little more.
I’ll let you gauge the probability of (1) the American people welcoming the draft again; and, (2) Congress-critters sacrificing constituent jobs in defense industries for a long term occupation of Iraq.
This is the hard economic math that made the neo-cons lie about how many troops and how much money it would cost to invade Iraq.
ed, the current crop of so-called black leaders (excluding Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, and a few others) know that focusing on teenage pregnancy, school dropout rates, crime, etc. will not bring in the dollars of extortion money like issues such as the Flag, corporations that are accused of racist activity, etc so they go where the bucks are. The best interests of their constituencies is not at the top of the list. Warren Bolton has it right but he is a lone voice on the matter and is easily outshouted by the NAACP crowd.
The entire flag controversy as ginned up by the NAACP as cover for the scandal of their national leaders, here in Columbia, embezzling over $2,000,000 from their treasury.
Brad, in your archives, do you have any editorials that you wrote blastin Gov. Fritz Hollings for placing the flag over the capitol dome. I realize you may not have been in SC at the time, but what was The State saying back then?
Non sequitar much, Dave?
Were they on the grassy knoll in Dallas, also, Lee?
Hurl, Hate America much?
Nope, Dave, love America enough to understand what it stands for.
Ready, seems to be totally unaware that the NAACP national HQ was in Columbia at the time the leaders were indicted for looting its treasury.
The State assisted in playing down the scandal and in fanning the flag controversy as a smoke screen for the NAACP and to help its fundraising to refill the empty coffers.
Search the archives of The State for articles on the plea bargains. You’ll find more news about it in other papers, though, such as the Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal, just as you will on the Holderman scandal at USC.
Not Columbia. The HQ wasn’t in SC at all; but the board chairman was a dentist from the Upstate. We campaigned constantly to get rid of the guy and clean up the organization. Your impression of our role is as fantastical as your assertion that the HQ was in Columbia.
And the NAACP are latecomers to the flag deal. Through most of the 90s, they weren’t visibly involved, when we were writing hundreds of editorials to get it off the dome. They got heavily involved at about the time they got rid of the crook who was running the organization… which was unfortunate. They have damaged greatly the cause of getting the flag off the grounds. As we have written over and over, there is no chance of any progress on the flag issue as long as the NAACP is out there trying to coerce the state with its ineffective boycott. It distorts the whole issue.
South Carolina needs to move beyond the Civil War because it has grown up and joined the present day. It will never progress in response to such pressure as what the NAACP is trying to apply. All that does is make the atavistic types dig in their heels.
Brad, I’m not sure what state you live in but clearly you’re living in a fantasy if you think that the NAACP’s boycott has beans to do with where the flag is located. Claiming that the NAACP’s boycott stiffens the resolve of South Carolinians to keep the flag flying is a pathetic dodge of reality.
The NAACP could drop the boycott tomorrow and revert to ignoring it. Just as they did for the decades.
Not a dang thing would change. Just as it didn’t for decades.
That flag pole in front of the statehouse is the embodiment of white South Carolinians giving the middle finger to African Amricans.
Until AAs organize economically and politically to force the flag into a museum, white South Carolinians will continue to disrespect them.
Neither South Carolina nor the majority of South Carolinians have “grown up” enough to get over being whipped liked a red headed step child over 142 years ago.
Gov. Petigru’s description of SC is just as true today as when he said it prior to the Civil War: “Too small to be a republic and too large to be an asylum.”
Only in LeesWorld, would a newspaper repeatedly runs articles on the front page to “downplay” the issue.
I do believe that Holderman’s soap opera got more ink than the NAACP scandal.
But, what do I know? I never realized that the NAACP HQ was in Columbia. LOL
Do you deny the fact that the top leadership of the NAACP was indicted and plead guilty to embezzling $2,000,000 just prior to the sudden creation of the flag controversy?
Once again, Lee, I must attempt to acquaint you with the accepted norms of debate.
You make the allegation. You provide supporting evidence.
NOT: You make the allegation. I provide the support.
In the above exchange, you made factual statements which turned out to be false. Now– without even acknowledging your errors– you want us to do your research AND accept your conclusions.
Given that your grasp of the facts is so obviously weak and slanted to support your agenda of attacking the NAACP, why should we even give your the benefit of the doubt, much less any effort to support your allegations?
Keep in mind that you’re not filling the vacant minds of yahoos at the local Klan meeting.
At least you admit you are unfamiliar with the NAACP, the fact that its leadership was here in Columbia, that they embezzled money, etc.
That’s why it is easy for The State to bamboozle readers like you with phony issues.
Lee, I’m not obsessed with slagging the NAACP unlike you.
You’re still not getting the message. Where’s your substantiation for your canards?
See? It’s YOUR job to convince the reader. Don’t expect readers to think “Oh, I’ve never heard about, Condi shining Dear Leader’s shoes so it must be true.”
Speaking of bamboozlement, you must really have a great command of technical mumbo-jumbo for customers to take you seriously– given your unwillingness to even marginally support your statements.
My substantiation, which I already provided, is in the archives of The State, Atlanta Journal, Charlotte Observer, New York Times, etc.
Why are you afraid to look up the articles and read what you missed when it happened, while you were riding your Big Wheel or whatever?
Since The State was in on the scam, I don’t expect Brad Warthen to post any old articles about the NAACP embezzlement and plea bargains he was helping cover up, but I will, after a few more days of playing with you folks.
Yep, I figured that you’re being deliberately obtuse. You can play with yourself all you want.
Do you know how to pay The State to research it for you?
Are you just a cheapskate who wants someone else to pay to remediate your education on this subject?
Do you hope you won’t have to read the history and realize you were duped by The State and NAACP on the flag controversies?
Are you just bluffing again, hoping I won’t post the information, as I always do, and make you disappear from the thread as you always do?
What a pointless argument.
Lee,
If JFK were alive today,he’d be listening to his old Wall of Voodoo albums.
Lee, I’m “disappearing” from this thread because you’ve admitted that you you’re deliberately not supporting your argument.
On a number of threads I’ve lost interest for the same reason or because your argument has been disproved but you just won’t admit it.
Tell me why exactly I (or anyone else) should pay to disprove your argument. Again, you’re being obtuse.
Your favorite technique is to make some ridiculous statement and then challenge people to disprove a negative.
As I said, have fun playing with yourself.
Good move, Ready, running away BEFORE I pummel your denial with reality. That way you can remain in denial.
Maybe I should post some links to other threads where you suddenly left after the irrefutable facts you demanded were posted.
Go ahead, Lee. I’m not holding my breath.
BTW, I’m still laughing at your “irrefutable facts” on the electric coop thread.
Note: “Because I say so” isn’t an irrefutable fact.
Now, when was the NAACP headquartered in Columbia? LOL
The NAACP leadership was from Columbia, until they were indicted by a federal grand jury, just before the flag campaign was ginned up as a smokescreen.
Brad could post some of the articles from The State and other papers, but he was part of the coverup.
Benjamin Chavis was removed by the NAACP board in 1994 after he and another employee were found to have used at least $300,000 for personal use. Over $2,000,000 was missing, and the NAACP was $3,200,000 in dept.
Chavis had served 4 years in prison in the 1970s for firebombing a white grocery store. He had alienated moderate NAACP members by his forming alliances with street gangs and the Nation of Islam.
In 1997, he joined the Farrakan’s Nation of Islam, and became involved in other scandals.
Chavis was succeeded by Kweisi Mfume (not his real name), also a former convicted violent felon, former gang member, and admitted father of quite a few illegitimate children. Mfume resigned in 2004 to position himself for a run for the Senate from Maryland, while being paid $300,000 consulting fees plus benefits for the next 6 months.
Here are 35 articles from the NY Times:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_association_for
_the_advancement_of_colored_people/index.html?offset=10&query=SUSPENSIONS,%20DISMISSALS%20AN
D%20RESIGNATIONS&field=des&match=exact
Ready drops another bluff, and flees the facts about the Clinton administration naming Bin Laden as a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/03/blackhawk_autho.html
You’ve yet to cite any direct substantiation (from any source except yourself) of these charges, Lee.
You searched on “national_association_for_the_advancement_of_colored_people+SUSPENSIONS+DISMISSALS+RESIGNATIONS” in the NYT archives. That provided a list of 35 brief synopses of articles– most with apparently no relevance to your charge.
I didn’t see any mention of an indictment or embezzlement of $2 mil in the 35 synopses. I guess that you didn’t even bother to read them.
You call me a cheapskate for refusing to pay $5 per article to investigate your claims.
LOL.
You’re a joke.
BTW, the article on the 1995 audit fails to mention any indictment or “embezzlement” of $2 mil.
I guess the NYT is covering up, too, huh?
Lee, I’ll give you credit on Bin Laden indictment: I asked for substantiation and your provided direct substantiation.
Of course, that’s only half the story. You alleged that Clinton refused to either arrest or have bin Laden killed.
While I wasn’t aware of the 1998 indictment of bin Laden, Clinton certainly was and attempted to eliminate bin Laden various ways– all the while Rethuglican “uber-patriots” undercut him.
It was Richard Holbrooke and others in the White House who accused Clinton of refusing to arrest Bin Laden. The documents were produced to prove it. Clinton lied about it under oath before Congress.
And RTH is makit it up about the articles.
Read them. They discuss the $300,000 cash traced to the NAACP leaders, the $2,000,000 missing and named in the lawsuit by the NAACP againstt the deposed staffers, and the $3,200,000 in debt run up by the discraced leaders.
If Brad could provide “post some of the articles from The State” then why can’t you?
Is the indictment sealed (i.e secret)?
Who among the “NAACP leadership” was from Columbia? Among the executive directors since 1977 only Benjamin Gibson had an SC connection. He was from Greenville.
What are names of the people indicted by a federal grand jury for embezzling $2 million?
[emphasis added]
It looks like a 1995 audit of the NAACP by a major accounting firm couldn’t turn up any such irregularities.
When you can cite some reasonably impartial source then I’ll post again.
From the NYT:
A complete audit was obtained by The New Times and, while it shows no smoking gun, it does outline what the report called a lack of “effective cost monitoring,” “personal accountability” and “appropriate documentation.”
The report also details what it said was “excessive” and questionable spending by Dr. Gibson on limousines, airplane tickets, $1,000-a-night hotel suites, $1,756.85 for tuxedo rentals and a $603.75 briefcase.
Because Dr. Gibson, on the advice of his lawyers, has answered only a handful of the nearly 3,000 questions put to him in writing by the auditors, the report says it is unclear if $111,930 in questioned expenditures were justified.
The auditors, from the Washington firm of Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P., did say there was nothing irregular to report about the spending practices of 23 of the 28 organization’s officers. But the audit determined that Dr. Benjamin Hooks, the N.A.A.C.P.’s executive from 1977 to 1993, apparently used $5,000 for personal travel expenses.
On second thought, let me point out that Lee’s larger allegation was that the NAACP “ginned up” the Confederate flag controversy as a cynical money raising ploy.
He has either provided no direct evidence to support his account of the NAACP’s financial troubles or his alleged “irrefutable facts” have proven unreliable.
I’ll stipulate that the NAACP was $3.2 million in debt in 1995. No matter how that debt arose, Lee has presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that debt had any connection to the flag controversy.
Given Lee’s willingness to mis-state the public record, why would anyone take his obviously biased conclusions with more than a grain of salt?
I’m “disappearing” until Monday.
Why did the NAACP board fire the executives, accuse them of misappropriation of funds, and sue them in federal court to recoup $2,000,000?
What did they expect, hiring an ex-con who had committed hate crimes like fire-bombing white businesses?
Lee, you’ve lost. Give up.
You charged that the top leadership of the NAACP was indicted and plead guilty to embezzling $2,000,000.
You evidently can’t prove it– even after stupidly boasting that you were just “playing” with the readers of your posts. IOW, you’d been wasting the readers’ time by being obtuse.
You’re the one who’s been “bluffing.” When I called your hand it turned out to be baseless.
I’ve wasted enough time debunking your canards. You simply refuse to admit defeat, mistake or error.
Psychologists have a name for your condition. I suggest that you consult a good shrink for help. Denying reality isn’t healthy.
BTW, this is the last extended exchange with you that I’ll waste time on.
You were totally ignorant of the fact that the NAACP had been bankrupted by crooked executives.
You were duped by The State into buying the flag controversy, and never did learn about the corruption and coverup, just as they intended.
First you denied the facts of any corruption.
Then you denied the extent of the corruption.
Now you quibble about it not being $2,000,000, although you won’t state how much you think was actually stolen, or your sudden source.
Basically, you don’t care how much the Democrats steal or what lies they tell you.
Lee, you really need professional help. And, I’m not talking about reading comprehension.
Are you still in denial that the NAACP had tow leaders in a row who were ex convicts with gang ties?
Do you deny that the flag controversy was convenienty ginned up right after the scandal broke about the NAACP being broke, $3,200,000 in debt, and tons of cash swiped by former staffers?
The State used you and your ilk as their stooges in a phony campaign and coverup, so be mad at them and yourself, not those of us who are trying to bring up up to speed.
The Third NAACP Leader Forced Out in 1995 – William Gibson of Greenville, SC
From the NAACP’s own website
Benjamin Chavis and William Gibson ( of Greenville, SC), were removed from office in 1995.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0834933.html
They leave it at that. You can find the rest of the story of the missing money in lots of newspapers, even a little in The State.
Gibson was accused of diverting $500,000 to his personal accounts, but an audit showed he only stole $111,930. ( USA Today 5/6/2002)