Wow - the Huckster's Racist Connection

[Michael Tee]

<<ATLANTA (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is set to pick up the endorsement of a conservative black church leader on Martin Luther King Day.

<<The Reverend Bill Owens, leader of the Coalition of African American Pastors, cited Huckabee's strong track record as governor of Arkansas in promoting blacks to board posts and embracing racial reconciliation.>>

What a sleazy puff job the AP produced.  The Coalition of African American Pastors is a johnny-come-lately organization of Uncle Toms led by a black graduate of Oral Roberts "University," which supports right-wing nutcase crusades against abortion, same-sex marriages and similar causes dear to the heart of fascist Amerikkka.  Whenever some crypto-fascist "conservative" needs the illusion of black support, whether it's Samuel Alito or in this case the Huckmeister himself, he can count on the CAAP to deliver. 

For anyone who's interested in knowing a little more about the Huck's new-found black friends than the AP wants you to know, here's People for the American Way's capule profile of CAAP: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20342

[BT]

Apparently being asked to speak at a convention for the Council of Concerned Citizens does not equate to professing undying devotion to Hitler, at least it didn't for Dick Gephardt.

And apparently a demand for disclosure from some partisan blogger on HuffPo doesn't carry the same weight as perhaps one from The NYTimes.

What is known is Huckebee never addressed the assembly lo those many years ago.

[BT]

Huckabee is set to attend the Martin Luther King Day services at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King had preached. He's the only one of the presidential candidates who'll be there Monday.

Strange behavior for a racist.

[Michael Tee]

<<Huckabee is set to attend the Martin Luther King Day services at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King had preached. He's the only one of the presidential candidates who'll be there Monday.

<<Strange behavior for a racist.>>

I beg to differ.  Chasing after black votes and trying to cover up a racist past is not strange behaviour for a racist at all.  Even Trent Lott finally saw the light and began babbling about how little he had really known about Dr. Martin Luther King and how maybe making a national holiday to honour him wasn't such a bad idea after all.

You seem to think that being a racist is incompatible with being a hypocrite.  I on the other hand think that the two have to go hand in hand, especially now after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

[BT]

I think you are just grabbing at straws and trivializing the charge of racism.

You've got nothing.

[Michael Tee]

<<Apparently being asked to speak at a convention for the Council of Concerned Citizens does not equate to professing undying devotion to Hitler, at least it didn't for Dick Gephardt.>>

My point was that racist attitude amounts to something more than a preference in necktie patterns and a lot of people would think it very significant if a politician exhibited racist tendencies even as far back as the Dark Ages of 1993, which you seem to think is around the time of the discovery of the Copernican Theory.

<<And apparently a demand for disclosure from some partisan blogger on HuffPo doesn't carry the same weight as perhaps one from The NYTimes.>>

I really don't think the Huckster has anything to fear from the New York Times, they've covered up much worse than that.  But, yeah, I'm sure that Huck is aware of the Hufpo article, and the fact that he's not rushing forward with the tape speaks volumes.  He's hoping the whole thing will just blow away.  And you know, given the consolidation of the MSM and the marginalization of any news that the MSM doesn't see fit to print, I have to say that that is not a totally irrational or unrealistic hope.

<<What is known is Huckebee never addressed the assembly lo those many years ago.>>

Yeah that tends to happen when speakers accept an engagement and then blow off their hosts, forcing them to scramble for somebody else.  In this case it turned out to have worked out not too badly for the old Huckmeister.  Who knew back in 1993 that he'd be running for national office?

<<I think you are just grabbing at straws and trivializing the charge of racism.

<<You've got nothing.>>

Well, let's see.  I've got the C of CC and I've got the invitation.  They sure as hell weren't going to invite Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton.

I've got even better than the invitation, I've got the acceptance.  Nobody had to put a gun to old Baron von Huckstein's head.

And then I've got the reports of the taped address, which nobody has denied.

And then I've got the reports that the address was "very well received" by the C of CC

And then I've got the fact that while nobody will say that the tape does not exist, nobody will produce any copies of it.

Short of a video of the guy actually participating in a cross-burning with his hood off and full front face and right and left profile views, I think I've got quite a bit here.  But you just go right ahead and deny the reality of it all if it's not particularly to your liking.   Feel free to make up whatever alternative reality you like - - that Mike Huckabee is a passionate defender of civil rights, that sound good?  How about he marched at Selma?  Is that OK?  an Alabama police dog bit him in the ass and he's still got the scars to show for it? 

[BT]

You know, Huckabee could very well be a racist. He could be a bigot also. Not real happy with his treatment of Romney. But the fact is he didn't speak at the convention, either the first or second time so you'll have to come up with something a little stronger than some smoking gun tape where he expresses regret for not being able to attend.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . so you'll have to come up with something a little stronger than some smoking gun tape where he expresses regret for not being able to attend.>>

Ah, but I did.  It's too bad that you didn't read the article that I linked to more carefully.  The tape was much more than a simple expression of regrets:

<<Baum's account of Huckabee's videotaped message was confirmed by a CofCC newsletter . . .

<<[quoting from the newsletter] " . . . Huckabee . . . sent a terrific videotape speech, which was viewed and extremely well received by the audience,"  . . . >>

The article further described the C of CC, whose invitation to speak the Huckster had enthusiastically accepted:

<<In its "Statement of Principles," the CofCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.">>

Nice.  THAT'S the group that received the Huckster's taped address "extremely well."  Hmmm.  Guess he must have told them that all men are created equal and then sung "Blowin' in the Wind" for them.  Or maybe "Jesus Loves the Little Children."

[BT]

From your article;

In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'"

And it doesn't matter how well it was received. What does that have to do with Huckabee?

And they weren't too eneamored with him because in the same article they denounced him for being insufficiently intolerant.

the CofCC has since rebuked Huckabee for his insufficiently intolerant political behavior.

Guess that escaped your cherry picker.

[Michael Tee]

 <<In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'">>

YOU'RE the one who's cherry-picking, BT.  Sure, in one part of that article, it said that.  But if you read the whole article, it's very plain that the taped address said more.  "A terrific videotape speech" which was "very well received" by the racist audience.  Does that really sound like "Sorry I can't come this year, can I come next year?"  Why would a bunch of racists (a) consider that to be a "terrific" speech and (b) receive it "very well?"  What's so "terrific" about sending regrets?


<<And it doesn't matter how well it was received. What does that have to do with Huckabee?>>

Well, BT, in the real world, audiences, particularly political audiences, get very enthusiastic and pumped up over speakers who they feel are on their side and can help them achieve their goals.  They don't get enthusiastic over speakers who they perceive to be unsympathetic to their cause.  So I would figure out from all this esoteric wisdom that something that the Huckster said must have appealed to this audience.  Now here's the tough part:  WHAT IS IT that Huckabee could have said that would have appealed to this audience of white racist pigs?  Tough question, BT.  THINK.  Think hard, man.  It'll come to you.  I KNOW you can figure this one out.

<<And they weren't too eneamored with him because in the same article they denounced him for being insufficiently intolerant. >>

No, actually if you followed the article and the link to the denunciation, it was some four years after the 1993 invitation.  The Huckster began taking on a slightly more liberal appearance (I think he set aside some $700K of state funds to memorialize some aspects of the civil rights struggle) and this pissed off the C of CC.

I think the voters have a right to know what the Huckmeister actually said on that tape in 1993.  Obviously the Huckmeister himself is none too anxious for anyone to find out.  I can figure out why even if you can't.

[BT]

Since the CoCC had possession of the tape, the an release it  Seems Baum is the only one talking about it. Perhaps it doesn't corroborate his version of events.

[Michael Tee]

The tape is an embarrassment to Huckabee who happens to be the best friend those racist pigs have in the race.  Whatever they think of Huckabee, they think worse of all the other contenders, so it makes no sense at all for them to embarrass the least unfriendly of all the candidates in the race.

Even if the tape is never released, you are still gonna have a problem white-washing the Huckster because in fact (a) those racists invited HIM and (b) he accepted the invitation.  These guys were hardly some undercover group of racists maintaining an egalitarian facade and fooling everyone.   Huckabee certainly can't plead ignorance of who they were.

[BT]

I have no intention of white washing this episode in Huckabees life. He isn't a candidate i am considering. I didn't like his treatment of Romney.

But i also don't think you made your case that he is a racist, based on the ruminations of a known racist who questions the purity of Huckabees politics. Perhaps this is payback for standing the group up all those years ago.

[Michael Tee]

It's not payback for anything, not in the sense of fabrication.  Nobody denies the invitation or the acceptance.  There's nothing harmless in the group and they saw something they liked in Huckabee.  Huckabee saw something he liked in them.  The taped address has too many uncontradicted little factoids clinging to it to be waved away - - no one denies its existence, no one denies that it pleased the audience of racists, and no one denies that a second invitation was issued and accepted, just that Huckabee backed out when he found out that a less reputable racist was also going to be speaking.

All the dots are there, BT, just waiting for a child's pencil to connect them.

[BT]

I look forward to the tape either proving you right ...... or wrong.