Two days ago at a hearing on a law that would require voters to display their photo ID before voting, Senator Bob Bacon (D-Ft Collins) said that such a law shouldn't go to the voters because "a fair number of voters" are racists. So far no mainstream media have reported on this allegation.
But they have given plenty of coverage to every time a Democrat says the Republicans have a "war on women" or are "racists."
Calling someone a racist is a damning indictment of them and one you better be prepared to defend if you make that accusation.
Will Bob Bacon defend his accusation? How many Coloradans are racists, Senator Bacon? What proof do you have for slandering the people of this state?
Right now, Senator Bacon is probably thanking the high heavens that the media is refusing to pick up his insult — if enough people don't hear about it, there won't be pressure to explain or apologize.
After the amount of coverage the Denver press corps has given to Democrats' accusations this session you would think they would want to cover this one too.
Guess we'll have to wait and find out.
…was supported by conservatives, not liberals. McCain eventually supported it. Ward Conneley (spelling?) championed it. In fact, its race-blind language was the sort of thing that conservatives LOVE. The opponents of the CCRI were, to a person, liberals. Liberals opposed it because some of them liked the ability to impose “targets” or quotas or affirmative action goals.
Let me look it up so I'm not going by memory.
From the Chronical of Higher Education:
By PETER SCHMIDT
“The prominent affirmative-action critic Ward Connerly appears well on his way to getting up to five states to vote in November 2008 on ballot measures banning the use of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies.
“And, according to political analysts who monitor the states that are the targets of Mr. Connerly’s planned “Super Tuesday” on affirmative action — Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — he stands a very good chance of getting measures passed in all of them.
“… [E]ach of the five states has witnessed a recent backlash against illegal immigration — a sentiment that reflects, and has worsened, tensions between their white and Hispanic populations.
“[The anti-preference campaign has] already made some effort to tie the issues of affirmative action and immigration together by raising the prospect of illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and then being favored over American citizens in the competition for jobs and college slots.
“Political analysts say the immigration debate will only help Mr. Connerly’s cause.
” ‘I have seen Republican message testing that shows that the illegal-alien issue can move voters,’ says Ronald Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma and president of the Southwestern Political Science Association. In Oklahoma, Mr. Gaddie says, the illegal-immigration issue ‘is fertile ground for exploiting’ because the state’s predominantly Protestant non-Hispanic white population and its predominantly Catholic and rapidly growing Hispanic population are clashing ‘across the board — on language, on culture, and on religion.’
“Mr. Connerly says he is optimistic that ‘a critical mass of five states’ will pass his group’s proposed ballot initiatives, sending ‘a message that could not be interpreted in any other way except to say that the American people do not want their government engaged in granting preferential treatment on the basis of race or gender or ethnicity.’
“Like the three state referenda that have already been passed, the latest ballot measures cover public employment, public education, and public contracting, and call for agencies of the affected states to be barred from discriminating or granting preferential treatment in those areas based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
“The measures threaten to complicate public colleges’ efforts to diversify their faculties, administrations, and student bodies.
“Of the five states it has chosen as targets, the American Civil Rights Coalition has received the go-ahead to begin gathering petition signatures in three: Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Its signature-gathering efforts in Oklahoma are already well under way.
“The group has begun its efforts in Nebraska quietly — without the press releases and news conferences that marked the beginning of its other campaigns …
“The American Civil Rights Institute and its state campaign affiliates also have a winning record in the many court battles that have been fought over their ballot measures. Just last month they persuaded the Colorado Supreme Court to narrowly uphold the language of the proposed Colorado Civil Rights Initiative in the face of opposition from affirmative-action supporters, including the Colorado Women’s Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, who argued that the measure violated a constitutional requirement that such referenda deal with only one subject.
You can post opinion pieces, but the actual initiative is pretty clear. The goal was to provide objective evidence of Senator Bacon’s allegation. The following is from Wikipedia: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in…
The ballot title as approved reads:
An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting; allowing exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide qualifications based on sex are reasonably necessary or when action is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funds; preserving the validity of court orders or consent decrees in effect at the time the measure becomes effective; defining “state” to include the state of Colorado, agencies or departments of the state, public institutions of higher education, political subdivisions, or governmental instrumentalities of or within the state; and making portions of the measure found invalid severable from the remainder of the measure.
The most objective evidence of Colorado voters demonstrating “racism” occurred on election day 2008. On that day, the majority of Colorado voters were in favor of continued racial profiling as demonstrated by their votes against the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative. In every previous statewide vote, in any state, citizens voted significantly against racism when given the chance. In Arizona, in 2010, citizens voted to end racial profiling with over 60% of the vote by passing the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative. I do not like to believe Senator Bacon is correct, but this objective evidence is hard to refute.
…the CO Civil Rights Initiative, Amendment 46? It was on the Nov. 2008 ballot and it failed, not passed, by a couple of points (49 to 51).
You mean something else, but I'm not sure what. Please tell.
Yes, just as I posted. The only state to ever vote against civil rights.
Bacon's comment underscored a particular concern that most Republicans/conservatives have about Democrats/liberals — that they detest and distrust ordinary Americans. I'm sure you've seen the dripping-with-condescension remarks made by liberals about conservatives. Now, before you do the tit-for-tat stuff, by accusing conservatives of doing the same, ask yourself whether conservatives express the same disdain, in both quantity and quality, toward ordinary liberals? I think not.
I'd agree that conservatives are disgusted with obama, and routinely “diss” the D leadership/media/academe/Hollywood, but Republicans, for the most part, do not disdain ordinary people. In fact, R enjoy and trust ordinary people. They see civil society, writ small, as a locus of goodness. They see organic institutions, that is, institutions of civil society that emerge from the grassroots without government funding or intervention, as preferable than the top-down organizations controlled by the government.
That's why, Aristotle, Bacon's comment so rattles us. its just another example of liberal bigotry and distrust of ordinary Americans, in this case, Americans who want to make sure that elections are honest and not usurped by non-Americans. For Bacon to accuse Americans of being racist is another way of saying, once again, that the left doesn't trust the values and ideals of most ordinary Americans. I'm an ordinary american. I don't want to see kids under the age of 18 voting, or foreigners, or dead people, or whatever. I want the vote to reflect the choices of real, living Americans. What's so racist about that?
… because there is virtually no evidence that fraud of this type has occurred. When someone proposes a sledgehammer solution to a nonexistent problem, it’s fair to speculate about the true motives behind the policy.
Mostly, though, here I’m answering Peak’s take on Bacon’s statement, which is to spin the undoubtedly true statement that some voters are racist into an attack on Coloradans in general. That’s why I posted the racist anti-Obama images that Peak took down. They wanted proof, and I gave it to them.
If you haven’t heard conservatives expressing venomous contempt and hatred for liberals, it’s probably because you don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch guys like Hannity and O’Reilly, or read absurd books like “Liberal Fascism.”
Now, what defines “ordinary people” and why would a perfectly factual statement constitute an attack on them? Is this a case of conservative projection? The original diary went out of its way to say Bacon was speaking from an “ivory tower,” which to me is a typical right wing attack on academia.
I’m waiting for an answer…
I’d appreciate your thoughts on my entire comment, but you really must answer this question.
How, exactly, was the comment you pulled “off topic?”
Images of racist anti-Obama signs, stickers, and shirts falls under “otherwise offensive,” even though they were all legitimate expressions of anti-Obama sentiment that exists within the right.
Was that it?