If David Duke didn’t exist, the Democrats would have to invent him

David Duke


The Daily Beast:

White Supremacist Stampede

Add to the growing list of candidates considering a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 America’s most famous white-power advocate: David Duke.

A former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and Republican executive-committee chairman in his district until 2000, Duke has a significant following online. His videos go viral. This month, he’s launching a tour of 25 states to explore how much support he can garner for a potential presidential bid. He hasn’t considered running for serious office since the early ’90s, when he won nearly 40 percent of the vote in his bid for Louisiana governor. But like many “white civil rights advocates,” as he describes himself to The Daily Beast, 2012 is already shaping up to be a pivotal year.

Former (and current) Neo Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Confederates, and other representatives of the many wings of the “white nationalist” movement are starting to file paperwork and print campaign literature for offices large and small, pointing to rising unemployment, four years with an African-American president, and rampant illegal immigration as part of a growing mound of evidence that white people need to take a stand.

Holy cross burning, Batman! That sounds really scary.

But wait! There’s more:

Most aren’t winning—not yet.

Hmmmm. They’re not winning?

That doesn’t sound quite so scary.

Legal Insurrection:

Duke is an anti-Semitic kook who is far more likely in recent years to be hobnobbing with anti-Israel European leftists and Islamists than with anyone associated with the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement.

Yet The Daily Beast trots out a possible (inevitable?) Duke run for President to try to back up a false meme, that there is a “stampede” of Neo-Nazi candidates running in elections as Republicans.

[…]

But the facts elicited in the article defeat the headline. Only nine candidates who expressly spout white supremacist ideology were identified by the SPLC in the article, out of thousands of candidates who run in races nationwide

I’m not going to defend David Duke or any other racist piece of shit. But the truth is the vast majority of Republicans don’t want anything to do with them either.

Duke has run for office as a Democrat, a Populist, and a Republican. The last time Duke ran for the GOP nomination was in 1992 when Republican party officials tried unsuccessfully to block him from participating.

He got to run as a Republican but received less than 1% of the votes. His sole electoral victory was in 1989 when he ran in a special election for a Louisiana House seat. Duke won a runoff with 8,459 votes (50.7%) and defeated John Treen, who polled 8,232 votes (49.3%)

Are there racists in this country? Sure, but not all of them are white.

The point of the Daily Beast article was not to expose the existence of the racists or their hateful beliefs, the point is to tar the entire Republican party with the same brush.

This is very predictable. As the Klown said yesterday:

Obama will raise a gazillion dollars and use it to run the most negative, race-baiting campaign since 2008.


If you say yes, it's you.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to If David Duke didn’t exist, the Democrats would have to invent him

  1. Rocky Hussein Squirrel says:

    This new RNC ad is so racist it’s outrageous!

  2. WMCB says:

    Scare tactics. *yawn* Race-baiters. *spit*

    They really are making jokes of themselves. But maybe they can scare folks into running to vote for Obama again, lest all those white-hooded racists that are the major driving force of the GOP reinstate slavery, like Michelle Bachmann said she wanted to do.

    • Mary says:

      Frankly, I think the majority of the American public is so sick of it all, they want to move to real post-racial by voting OUT the Obama crew that loves to play the race card.

      I’m reading that Obama has volunteered even MORE cuts to Medicare/Medicaid to get a deal on the debt limit.

      And that’s in addition to the $500 billion they already cut in Obamacare.

      They’re desperate…….thus, the David Duke race cards. It’s disgusting.

    • angienc says:

      You joke, but I remember Whoopie Goldberg asking McCain with a straight face on The View if she “should be worried if he won that he’d bring slavery back.” He was shocked, but I was impressed that he didn’t slap her. I thought he showed more “coolness” than anything Obama’s every done.

  3. WMCB says:

    Barack Obama on raising the debt ceiling in 2006 (which he voted against) Evidently, massive debt is only an issue when it’s the other guys doing it:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    That was about 6 trillion ago. If the Republicans had a brain in their heads, they would be reading that passionate condemnation aloud at every opportunity, in every TV interview.

  4. Mr. Mike says:

    What else does Team Obama have besides the race card going for them?

    Wall Street banksters are walking free and unfettered by financial regulations. We are fighting in more countries than we were under Bush the Lesser. The GLBT community is pretty much under the bus along with women’s reproductive rights.

    We got some minor credit card reforms and Lilly Ledbetter, what else?

    • WMCB says:

      Wall Street banksters are walking free and unfettered by financial regulations.

      Oh, there are going to be regulations – the Frank-Dodd bill’s particulars are still being written.

      The problem is that it will be the usual bullshit of creating a byzantine, complicated, loophole-riddled monstrosity that will NOT solve any of the problems and abuses. But it will indeed be a lucrative nest of places to hide political favors for the “right” companies, and exceptions to favor the “officially approved and connected” businesses over honest financiers or traders who just want to be left alone to make a mostly honest buck.

      That’s the problem with the argument over “too much regulation” vs. “not enough regulation”. Because both sides are right. There is an incredible load of massive govt interference and compliance costs for companies and businessmen who are not politically connected. And a complete dearth of any effective restraints whatsoever on those who are. The favored get waivers, and loopholes, and regulations written to their benefit that actually serve the function of the govt wiping out their competition FOR them.

      Both sides are right about regulations.

      • Mr. Mike says:

        I’ve alway said that if a law or regulation made no sense or was overly complicated it was because a politician was paid to make it that way.

        The American public would be aware of this and demanding real change from their Senators and Representatives but the media feeds them a steady diet of dead children and missing blond cheerleaders to cloud their minds.

        • WMCB says:

          Yup.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Some of the incredibly stupid people in my congressional district voted a liberal woman out of office and replaced her with a man who’d protected predatory lenders when he served in the state assembly. Is it any wonder that we have ineffective banking regulations?

        • Three Wickets says:

          Geithner Wistful for Goldman Sachs What a surprise.

          Geithner might love to land a job at Goldman, and senior folks there may welcome this chance to repay their man in Washington. But given this background, it may be too shocking even for a man who did such things to take such a job.

  5. ralphb says:

    I’m a raycist
    you’re a raycist
    we’re all raycist
    wouldn’t you rather be a raycist to?

    Palin/McCotter 2012

  6. JeanLouise says:

    I was asked my one of my closest friends and neighbor if I opposed Obama because of his race. While it didn’t quite destroy our relationship, it has forever changed it. After all, I was the only person in my neighborhood who’d actually had black people who weren’t handymen in my home.

    Why shouldn’t she call me from her lily-white home and accuse me of racism? Of course, she’s a dyed-in-the wool Democrat who believes anything the Party tells her.

  7. JeanLouise says:

    Thanks, votermom, but I really don’t think it will happen. She’s probably forgotten that she said it. Just like the Obots who race-baited, I think it’s so ingrained that I’d have to marry a black man (something of which she’d surely disapprove) to change her mind.

    • myiq2xu says:

      In the alternate universe where Obots live the racism of the Hillary supporters in 2008 was worse than the sexism and misogyny of the Obots.

      If you married a black man she’d probably say you “finally came to your sense.”

  8. WMCB says:

    From Gay Patriot blog. I would say this is a big tinfoil nothingburger, were it not for the fact that I’m aware of the horrible crap the govt is pulling with fucking ARMED RAIDS on organic farmers and small organic egg and neighborhood raw milk sellers and local food coops. I don’t trust them not to use something as seemingly benign as this to grab a lot of land for Big Agriculture.

    Lost in last month’s Weinergate nonsense was Obama’s June 9th signing of Executive Order 13575, which bears eerily close resemblance to a United Nations program known as “Agenda 21.”

    For those of you unfamiliar, Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you by the good people over at the UN. George H.W. Bush (thanks a bunch, George) and 177 world leaders agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively injected the central planning virus into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

    Now, “sustainable development,” on it’s face, sounds harmless enough, until you consider just what it is Agenda 21 purports to accomplish, given the UN’s long-held hostility to the idea of “private property”:

    “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/07/05/guest-post-obama-to-farmers-we’re-the-ones-you’ve-been-waiting-for/

    • WMCB says:

      The libertarians at Reason did the interviews about the film, but the film itself was not done by them:

    • Dario says:

      It seems to me that there’s a leap between “ARMED RAIDS on organic farmers and small organic egg and neighborhood raw milk sellers and local food coops.” and Agenda 21. I’m not saying there’s no link, but not from what I’ve read here. I know there’s been a war on small farms, not because of the land, but because, as I understand it, it gives choice of better products. I’ve read that corporate farming sees small farms as a threat because they stand for everything that would make corporate farming not as profitable.

      • WMCB says:

        Maybe it is a leap. Maybe I jsut have my tinfoil hat on today. 😀 But I am long out of the habit of assuming that govt action is usually benign, whereas corporate action is usually suspect. Because I see too many instances where the two intersect in curious ways.

        IMO, our govt, rather than protecting our rights, has become in large part the “hired gun” of monied interests. And I’ve seen them too many times dress that up in language about serving the People. As Ralph pointed out below, isn’t it odd that the govt flooded all that farmland, and now the billionaires are swooping in to buy it up.

        • Rocky Hussein Squirrel says:

          Three biggest lies in the world:

          1. Obama’s the One

          2. I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

          3. I won’t cum in your mouth

      • myiq2xu says:

        Why did the cops come in with guns drawn at an organic food co-op? Are DFH’s that dangerous?

    • ralphb says:

      George Soros, through a subsidiary, and others are buying a lot of the land which was flooded in the Missouri River basins by the Corps of Engineers. with government backing. It’s taking a lot of acreage out of the hands of small farmers.

      Fits really well with XO 13575.

  9. ralphb says:

    Another shark jumper: Bill Clinton likens GOP effort to Jim Crow laws

    Former President Bill Clinton Wednesday compared GOP efforts to limit same-day voter registration and block some convicted felons from voting to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes.

    In a speech to liberal youth activists Wednesday, the former president called out proposals in battleground states like Florida and Ohio that could limit the voter rolls.

    He know better. My respect for him just took a nice nosedive. If he keeps this up, he’s going on my shit list with Dick.

    • WMCB says:

      I am really disappointed in Bill over that one. He’s either dead wrong, lost his damn marbles, is sold out to the Party itself, or is going overboard in his “hand them an anchor” strategy.

      It’s ridiculous to say that simple ID is an undue burden. We use simple ID for every damn thing we do in this country. You have to have one to drive, to get foodstamps, to get welfare, to get a job, to use insurance, to fill a prescription, to get unemployment, to get on a plane, to cash a check, etc. It’s not a poll tax, or a literacy test – it’s an item that almost all Americans. black, white and brown, already routinely have.

      There is no reason whatsoever why any citizen should not be able to show an ID to vote.

      • WMCB says:

        My mistake. I stand corrected. I am very relieved that he is not talking about voter ID (though other Dems have likened that to Jim Crow laws). The other measures I could have a quibble with, so I won’t get pissed at him about that.

        I am, however, still disappointed that he used the race card to argue against it.

  10. Pingback: This Week in Automotivators, July 4-10 « The TrogloPundit

  11. Pingback: This Week in Automotivators, July 4-10 | Right Wing News

Comments are closed.