Just in time to make Dubya look moderate by comparison.

Jim D,

For once, I completely agree with you. Why won't this guy just quit, or at least stop calling himself a Republican? Aghh! It's nuts like these who give people like Krugman the pretense they want to slime the GOP. Oh well, Bobby Jindal will probably run, and if he does he will spank Duke in the open party primary.

Sherk

I pray that Duke runs. Louisiana is going to be a lot closer for Prez than the Republicans think, especially now with an open Senate seat. Add Duke to the equation, and you could not ask for a better reason to increase Democratic turnout. Dem wins LA = White House.

Besides, it will be nice to see the true face of the Republican party. Duke is a man who says what many, many Republicans believe, but are afraid to openly say.

A Duke race will give Louisianans a clear choice between what the two politcal parties espouse. I say "Bring 'em on!"

WhoMe?

I dislike Republicans as much as the next guy and I'm sure that "many" Republicans are racist, but I think that its pretty dishonest and ignorant to say that they are all secretly David Dukes.

Andrew --

Agreed.

Jim and Andrew,

If you are going to run a blog, you need to have some copy-edit experience. I never said that "they are ALL secretly David Dukes."

I was very careful to say that MANY Republicans have these thoughts. Not all, not most, not a substantial majority, not even a bare majority. I choose my words carefully.

Do all Republicans harbor racist views. Of course not. Nonetheless, I stick to the belief that MANY Republicans in the deep South still harbor racist views that they will not share in mixed company.

"Duke is a man who says what many, many Republicans believe, but are afraid to openly say."

WhoMe?

Look, I think you'll believe me when I tell you I am a conservative and a Republican. I also have a lot of conservative, Republican friends (shocking, I know). I'm from Michigan, but I know a number of Republicans from the South (from College), even the deep South states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. And I have NEVER, NOT ONCE, heard any of them utter one racist remark, or anything that even hinted at a racist remark. Neither I nor any of my conservative friends, or any of the conservative/GOPers I know, are racists. Seriously.

And it is more than a little offensive when people insinuate that we are.

Look, WhoMe, I know how good it feels to know you are on the side of righteousness and justice, and fighting against all that is deplorable and wrong. And I know that when you can tell yourself that when your opponents aren't just wrong, but evil, and fighting for evil, then it makes you feel really good to be fighting against them, since then you aren't just right, but your side is the side of the angels, fighting against darkness. I know how easy it can be to demonize the other side.

But in this case YOU ARE WRONG! Honestly, Republican's ARE NOT racists. It might feel good to say we are, but it is a lie that maligns the character of millions of Americans. We don't mouth racist profanities in public because we "are afraid to openly say" them, we don't do it because WE ARE NOT RACISTS.

Look at the GOP in Louisiana. We overwhelmingly nominated Bobby Jindal when several other qualified white candidates were running. Why? Because, regardless of his skin color, he was the better candidate. Similarly, if he runs, he will spank David Duke in the primary. Why? Because Republicans, even those in the deep South, ARE NOT RACISTS! Do you seriously think Gore would have carried any Southern states if, say, Bush were black? No, we still would have swept the region against him.

Just had to get that off my Chest,

Sherk

I will say that I think that Louisiana might be an exception- I really think that Jindal lost in the runoff because the racist minority- still a minority but much larger than in other states- voted for the white, conservative Democrat (Kathleen Blanco) over the South Asian conservative Republican (Bobby Jindal). Also, here in Texas we have elected a man to the State Supreme Court (Steven Wayne Smith) who has said that Hispanics and Blacks aren't smart enough for UT and 1 prominent GOP state rep now running for Congress (Wayne Christian... again with the "Wayne." Troubling, as its my middle name) who has said that the state budget writing process is bad b/c it is controlled by trial lawyers, blacks and hispanics. Still, these cases are the exception rather than the rule and I'd say that some southern Black and Hispanic politicians are just as racist as the "Waynes" of the world.

Shrek,

True, Deep South Republicans nominated Jindall - not too long ago they also nominated Duke. They also recently elected Haley Barbour as governor to Mississippi despite his open embrace of the CCC (the modern incarnation of the KKK). They also back Trent Lott, who recently said that American would have been better of under a Strom Thurmond led segregated society.

In the last election cycle, voters in Mississppi refused to amend their State Constitution to rescind its anti-miscegination clause (moot due to Federal law). Turnout on the initiative was enormous. "Decent" people came out in droves to pass the amendment, yet it still failed, because EVEN MORE people thought it was so important to get out and vote - to send a bigoted, hateful message. Guess what? Rest assured it was not Mississippi Democrats who were crying for anti-miscegination laws.

In fact, it was the Republican party under Nixon that courted racist Southerns. It even gave its strategy a name - the Southern strategy.

Even today, Republican politicians go on the stump for "State's Rights," which is "code" for Jim Crow. (If you think otherwise, Republicans and Conservatives would be supporting "State's Rights" when California legalizes Marijuana, Oregon legalizes euthenasia, or Vermont legalizes gay "marriage lite".)

Unlike those who blog here from Michigan, New York or wherever, I actually live in the South, and am a 4th generation Southener, born, reared, and educated here. I know of what I speak.

SO, are all Republicans racist? Of course not. But many are and their party as an institution has completely refused to look into its soul and eradicate it. Instead it encourages it ("States Rights" & "Southern Strategy"). We Democrats have our dark past as well - Dixie was solidly Democratic, but we searched our souls have carried the banner for Civil Rights ever since. For this we can be proud. No, Shrek, not self-righteous, but proud.

Well, they may not ALL be David Dukes but voter patterns in Louisiana have proven that at least those in the Bayou State are.

David Duke polled around 14-15 percent for governor leading up to his historic 2nd place finish in 1991. He beat a sitting Republican governor to force a run-off with crook Edwin Edwards. The reason? Republicans were embarrassed to tell a pollster they were voting for him but had no problem actually doing it.

He uses elections to live off of. That's why he's in jail. He is slime, and that's even before you look at his racist past and present. One only needs to go to http://www.davidduke.com/ to see that the racist past he alledges to have given up still lives on.

David Duke can only help Democrats at a time when Democrats need all the help they can get in the south.

WhoMe?,

Besides, it will be nice to see the true face of the Republican party. Duke is a man who says what many, many Republicans believe, but are afraid to openly say.

This is well beyond the pale of reasonable political discourse. As a Louisiana native and a Republican, I take great offense to the notion that 'many, many Republicans' carry with them the ideology of the KKK. There are racists on both sides of the political aisle, but they are clearly a fringe minority.

SO, are all Republicans racist? Of course not. But many are and their party as an institution has completely refused to look into its soul and eradicate it. Instead it encourages it ("States Rights" & "Southern Strategy"). We Democrats have our dark past as well - Dixie was solidly Democratic, but we searched our souls have carried the banner for Civil Rights ever since. For this we can be proud.

The GOP has always taken stances favoring de jure racial equality. It has been the Democratic Party that, throughout its history, has always insisted that the law view everything through a racial lens, and it still taints the party today. You have wackos like Rep. Ron Wilson dressing up in Klan garb for the sake of condemning a state senator with the temerity to oppose affirmative action. On the other hand, you have ex-segregationists like Senator Byrd out in West Virginia, and Hollings in South Carolina. Keeping them in the party sure was 'soul searching,' eh?

The GOP hardly has a perfect legacy regarding racial issues, but if you think that the Democratic Party has something to be proud of, you've got to fight more than the past. The present is pretty hard to defend as well.

monceaux,

Well, they may not ALL be David Dukes but voter patterns in Louisiana have proven that at least those in the Bayou State are.

David Duke polled around 14-15 percent for governor leading up to his historic 2nd place finish in 1991. He beat a sitting Republican governor to force a run-off with crook Edwin Edwards. The reason? Republicans were embarrassed to tell a pollster they were voting for him but had no problem actually doing it.

You do know that Louisiana has non-partisan primaries, right? Anybody, Republican or Democrat, was able to vote for Duke. As such, your numbers don't prove anything.

Owen,

It was not my party's candidate (David Duke) that did so well in LA. It was not my party's candidate (Trent Lott) that recently said American would be beter under a Strom Thurmond Presidency (i.e. segregation). It was not my party that came out in droves in Mississippi to defeat an amendment to the State Consitution to rescind its anti-miscegenation plank. It was not my party whose candidate for Governor in Mississippi (Haley Barbour) campaigned on a "State's Right's" platform, and who openly embraced the CCC, who bears the legacy of the KKK.

The foregoing is not ancient history or the acts of octagenerians who have or have not long ago realized the sins of their past ways. The foregoing is the present or VERY RECENT past.

Is the Democratic party pure from any vestige of racism? Of course not. We, as a party, however, accept this and have tried to make amends. The Republicans, as a party, keep right on with their Southern Strategy.

(I especially like your reference to Ron Wilson - it seems interesting that you had to pick someone who is essentially a Republican as he "got in bed" with the Republican leadership.)

WhoMe?,

It was Byrd, a Democratic Senator and former high-ranking Klansman, who said the word "n*****" on national television a few short years ago. It was a Democratic presidential candidate, Al Sharpton, who called those who disagreed with his vile race hatred "yellow n******." It was the Democratic candidate for governor of California, Cruz Bustamante, who used that same word while speaking to, of all things, The Coalition of Black Trade Unionists during his campaign. It was also Bustamante who was a former member of the radical racist group known as MeCHa.

These are all recent, buddy, and I can go on and on about it if you want. We can do this tit-for-tat nonsense until the cows come home, but spouting mindless anecdotes in a futile attempt to 'prove' that one party is racist gets us nowhere, and reeks of political desparation. The fact that you'd try to disavow Ron Wilson's pro-affirmative action display just shows how petty this can get.

Neither party is free of racial politics, but to pretend that the DNC is some repentant saint is as bad a lie as any that has been perpetrated by the demagogues we now deride.

Owen,

I am sure that those on opposite sides of the political aisle can go "tit for tat" with examples of racism (which of course ignores that some are exceptions to the norm, while others may not be).

There will always be individuals of either party who make foolish remarks. The question is which party has, AS A PARTY & AS AN INSTITUTION, tried to deal with the problem. When the RNC openly, AS A PARTY, embraces a "Southern Strategy" and from "top to bottom" supports "State's Rights," this shows true colors. Where are all these decent unbiased Republicans within the party telling their leadership to stop it NOW!! Why do Republican Administrations slash funding for DOJ Civil Right's enforcement?

Anyone can look to individual examples no matter how isolated and claim "all sides are guilty." (Which is a perverse form of inductive reasoning) The real question is, "What do the parties, as a whole, do about these issues."

To me, the most telling, and disgusting incident, was that people came out in droves in Mississippi to kill an attempt to rid the State Consitutiuon of a clause that says blacks and whites cannot marry. Last time I checked, Mississippi was a "Red / Bush" State that has two Republican Senators, has voted for the Republican Presidential candidate for at least two decades, and just elected a Republican Governor who openly pandered to racists (CCC). (Thus, the majority of Mississippi is Republican and these Republicans voted against the Amendment)

Forget what the Republican candidates do or say, what is key is that the Mississipi Republican VOTERS voted against the amendment because of base hatred.

Keep in mind, my original comments were limited to those Republican voters in the South.

Owen:
Please know what in the blue hell you're talking about before you lecture me. He finished second in the primary (as I said) to force a run-off with a Democrat, Edwin Washington Edwards. It was Edwards in the 1970's that instituted the most progressive election system in the country.

My numbers do prove something because EWE smoked him in the run-off. In the general, Duke carried all of North Louisiana, which is Baptist, pro-life, conservative Republican, following in the voting patterns of Reagan in 80 and 84, Bush in 88, Duke in the senate in 1990. Edwards carried Cajun Country and New Orleans

67 percent of white republicans voted for Duke in the general. He swept northeast Louisiana, central Louisiana, and the parishes near the delta. It was virtually identical to what rural populist Huey P. Long did in 1932.

In the runoff, however, he was only successful in northeast Louisiana, far western/central Louisiana, and two parishes north of NOLA and east of Baton Rouge.

EWE polled close to 1.1MM voters in the run-off, adding 535,000 from the general. 80% of voters turned out to send Duke packing -- 74% of which were registered democrats at the time.

Democrats came out in the run-off to beat him. End of story.

Monceaux,

You forget that Edwards was known as a criminal at the time, and is currently behind bars. You can't simply ascribe the Duke vote to pure racism, many voters simply decided that he was the lesser of two evils. There is a valid case to be made that Duke was a greater evil, and I don't know enough about Bayou politics to argue the point, but the Duke vote was as much or more anti-Edwards as it was pro-Duke.

Similarly, if the GOP is so racist, why did Jindal spank Downer 33% - 6% in the primary. Either there is a maximum of 6% of the population in Louisiana that is racist, or a substantial number of racists are voting Dem ... or the voters aren't the bigots you think they are. Jindal lost in the General because of an effective last minute attack ad he never refuted, not because the voters are racist.

Sherk

Duke is also currently behind bars.

Comparing his vote to Downer's vote isn't very fair since they all compete in the same election. Only 2 of about 20 candidates were republicans and they garnered less than 25 percent -- meaning the democrats (and specifically three prominent Ds: Blanco, Ieyoub, and Leach) were left to fight and split a ton of votes. The three combined for 650,000 votes or about 48%.

Despite that, I think the state has grown up a bit in the last decade. Mike Foster, a republican, has a lot to do with that. 10 years ago, the voter roles were skewed well to the left; not the same any longer. Foster was immensely popular and his ringing endorsement of Jindal helped him come on strong before the general.

Yet even with the growing up, in the general, he beat Blanco by 190,000 votes, yet lost to her in the run-off by 55,000. A lot of that is attributed to people in Cajun Country voting for the Cajun (Blanco) but also a lot of people coming out of the woodwork to vote against him. The attack ad hurt, and was stupid politics not to respond, but I think he would have lost regardless.

WhoMe?,

When the RNC openly, AS A PARTY, embraces a "Southern Strategy" and from "top to bottom" supports "State's Rights," this shows true colors.

So appealing to the south automatically makes a party racist? I've got news for you -- this isn't the 1960's. All southerners aren't racist, and invoking the mantra of federalism doesn't equate a naked appeal to the days of Jim Crow. This seems to be a constant problem of Democrats -- living in the past.

Monceaux,

What Sherk said. You're still wrong about LA Republicans being largely racist.

Using the term "racist" is a trickier thing these days because different people define it in different ways. It is even more confusing and perhaps unproductive when used among individuals that clearly have different definitions. "Racist" is clearly a heated, loaded term. That's why anyone called a racist is going to be deeply offended and defend that they are not in fact racist. There are a bunch of fancy latin words to distinguish different kinds of racism but it comes down to at least two big distinctions: blatant, deliberate hatred or discrimination against people of color versus more subtle, less intentional biases and assumptions which when combined with actions and power can actually be just as damaging and occasionally even moreso. There's also some kind of sociological definition that says that all whites are inherently racist and that people of color can't be because they don't have societal power. I find that academic definition to be both offensive and detrimental to dialogue and understanding. Getting back to the point: My white conservative grandmother in South Carolina would never do something deliberately mean-spirited to an African-American. At the same time, she'd probably never vote for an African-American for Governor or President. Is she a racist? Depends on your definition.