Can Democrats talk about anything but slavery and Nazis
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, January 21st, 2011 | PolicyJanuary 21, 2011.
That’s for the Democrats who can’t seem to act like we’re in a new century.
I’d say they sound like a broken record, but I’d sound as out-of-date as their tired, old, hateful rhetoric that they resort to anytime they have to debate policy.
Virginia State Senator Mamie Locke talked about the Repeal Amendment, but instead of having any substance at all to talk about, she simply said this:
“It was the same type of rhetoric that was used in the 1850s before the Civil War,” Locke said Thursday. “It’s so 1861-ish.”
PHIL HAMILTON NEWS ALERT – Sen. Mamie Locke is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education at Hampton University. She also serves on the Senate Education and Health Committee. How that isn’t a conflict of interest I’ll never know!
But back to slavery and Nazis.
How despicable it is of Locke to basically imply that those who want to defend the Constitution are akin to slaveholders?
Even worse? Is Locke implying that Constitutionalists are warmongers by her invoking Civil War rhetoric? Or does she just lazily rest her intellectualism on calling her opponents racist?
She’s got a friend in Congressman Steve Cohen, who compared Republicans defending the Constitution to Nazis!
“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care”
Really? Opposing health care is like murdering six million Jews???
Really?
Disagree with a Democrat and you’re a racist or a Nazi or both.
Want to talk about hateful rhetoric, Democrats?
Listen to yourselves and your biased, negative, hateful, inflammatory, angry, spiteful rhetoric that you’ve used for decades.
The decline of the Democratic Party in my life time has been tragically sad. The Party of FDR this is not.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
23 Responses to "Can Democrats talk about anything but slavery and Nazis"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift and Jeffersoniad, J.R. Hoeft. J.R. Hoeft said: From @BrianKirwin – Can Democrats talk about anything but slavery and Nazis – http://bit.ly/hL9WHg || Apparently not #vpod [...]
It’s obvious the Democratic party is fully protected under the second amendment and the Republican party is not. It took Obama how many days to comment about the rhetoric of his own party after Tuscon? And at that, he did it at the memorial that was on national TV. Sounds like the beginning of his 2012 campaign to me.
When Polosi said, we’ll have to pass the bill (health care) to find out what’s in it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
I was astounded about the dumbing down of America. Who passes a bill without knowing what’s in it? Good grief. Then came the blaming of a maniac’s actions on Republicans. Now this.
While Locke and Cohen are truly offensive in their rhetoric, they live in America and have freedom of speech. Republicans should have the same rights.
Actually Brian, Senator Locke didn’t mention slavery at all. She was talking about the doctrine of nullification and the role it played in secessionism. Of course was secession was triggered by slavery, but Senator Locke didn’t go there: you did.
But of course, Mamie Locke is Black, so I guess you just sort of assumed, didn’t you?
You are right, any who called Republicans “Nazi’s” or Nazi like was an idiot.
Why? Because he gave republicans ammo. Obama was called Nazi and communist and evil and anti christ ROUTINELY. He is threatened more than any president in history, the hate mongers have riled up the weak minded morons, who have no idea that Talk Radio, Fox, and the Blogs are mindless pandering to stupid people.
But when one democrat calls something Nazi like — that gives the hate monger crowd exactly what hate mongers need — another excuse.
So to the Democrats who are doing stupid things like feeding the hate mongers excuse machine — quit it.
This kind of garbage is what happens when Bearing Drift appoints an actor as a journalist.
My response:
http://www.the-richmonder.com/2011/01/brian-kirwin-plays-race-card.html
You’re right about the Nazi comment. If you’re a politician and you’re thinking about comparing something to Nazi Germany….don’t.
The Locke comment —you’re reaching there. The people who advocated succession also believed they were “defending the Constitution.” Locke’s got a point about rhetoric for nullification and imposing the state government in the path of the federal government.
Although she might also have mentioned that the inability of either party to accept defeat in an election as legitimate also harkens back to that time.
She doesn’t actually mention slavery at all.
The difference between Sen. Locke and Hamilton is pretty clear. She serves as a faculty member at a private institution, whereas Hamilton weaseled his way into a public one that’s supported heavily by VA taxpayer dollars.
THe Locke comment was a little excessive and definitely unwise, (and imho, we are still a long way from 1861-whether thats a reference to racial equality in comparison to slavery, the breakup of the union or whatever else she meant.) However the COhen comment was far worse. Comparisons to Nazis, Hitler, etc., are completely uncalled for in politics.
Ok, Steve. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, I guess.
BK-of course the Civil War had something to do with slavery. But Locke wasn’t referring to slavery, she was referring to the states’ rights rhetoric and nullification sentiment used to justify secession.
Steve, are you telling me that state’s rights rhetoric started in 1861?
If she meant that, she better get another History degree.
The only thing I see starting specifically is the Civil War.
Well, with the exception of South Carolinia, which was in late 1860, were not most of the secessions of Southern states in 1861?
Every reference to the Civil War is not a reference to slavery.
“It was the same type of rhetoric that was used in the 1850s before the Civil War,” Locke said Thursday. “It’s so 1861-ish.”
Here’s a little Demagoguery 101 tip for you. If you want to falsley claim that someone invoked “slavery,” don’t print the actual quote so that we can all see she didn’t actually say that.
You had the Nazi guy dead to rights. Should have left Locke out of it.
Steve, thanks for the lesson in demagoguery!
I asked you a question, and like a whiny toad you refused to answer it.
For the benefit of our audience, I’ll ask it again, and maybe you’ll put down your Connect The Dots book long enough to actually answer it.
“Steve, are you telling me that state’s rights rhetoric started in 1861?”
Go get ‘em, Brian! I’m getting awfully tired of liberals trying to shut down discussions they don’t care for with baseless smears of racism.
Well, I guess it ain’t just liberals, unfortunately.
Senator Locke should know that the doctrine of nullification was developed by Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s. And the repeal amendment isn’t close to nullification.
C’mon Brian don’t you listen to Rep. Michelle Bachmann?
She mentioned slavery this past Friday, Jan. 22, 2010 in Iowa.
Rep. Bachmann: “Fortunately today we don’t face the prospect of an armed violent civil war, but instead we face the question of whether our nation will live to the latest generation is equally great. It’s an underlying issue in the struggle of our time is a slavery of a different kind.”
“Because it is a slavery. It is a slavery that is a bondage to debt and a bondage to decline… That’s what that slavery entails. It’s the subservience of a sovereign people — we are a sovereign people — to a failed self selected elite. That would be our fate.”
Back in July 2010 Rep. Bachmann said she believed America was turning into “a nation of slaves” because of Barack Obama, Democrats and the new health care law.
More: “We are determined to live free or not at all. And we are resolved that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world,” Bachmann said quoting Founding Father John Jay. – July 2010
Come on Brian, keep up with the times…
Didn’t you do a Google search before you wrote this? Looks like Rep. Cohen has company…
OCT 3, 2010: “Washington Post journalist Dana Milbank has observed that Fox News host Glenn Beck has a bit of a Nazi fetish. From Obama’s inauguration through June 2010, Beck had “202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 mentions of fascism or fascist, and another 24 bonus mentions of Joseph Goebbels.”
full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093005267.html
“I asked you a question, and like a whiny toad you refused to answer it.”
BK- You know, Hannity, you don’t get to chose what the other side in the debate will say.
But, in fact, I did answer your “question”
“Well, with the exception of South Carolinia, which was in late 1860, were not most of the secessions of Southern states in 1861?”
Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you in crayon, of course state rights rhetoric didn’t begin in 1861. But that’s certainly when it came to a head.
Back to the point, Sen. Locke didn’t bring up slavery. You did.
I don’t get to chose? Good grammar, idiot.
You write for a living?
Ah, Typo Police. The last refuge of the well and truly beaten. I accept your surrender.
I heard you like that…
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.