-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 135 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Political Hay
The DNC’s Bold Lies
DNC website caught lying about party’s civil rights record: Wasserman Schultz, Virginia Senate nominee Kaine involved.
The lies are big, bold and prominent.
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been caught. And the website scandal may also impact the Virginia U.S. Senate race that has former Governor Tim Kaine as the Democrats’ nominee against ex-Senator and Governor George Allen. Why?
As reported in all manner of media outlets in September of 2010 (here at the Huffington Post, here on The Today Show and here in a 25-minute presentation at George Washington University posted on YouTube) it was then-DNC Chairman Kaine on whose watch the new DNC website was launched.
Now the fibs are the centerpiece of the Democratic National Committee’s revamped Obama-saluting website as the Democrats gather for their Charlotte convention. And Wasserman Schultz, of course, is the DNC chair — succeeding Kaine —by the grace of the Obama White House. Which certainly had the ability to block or change the contents — and hasn’t.
What are the lies?
Lie Number One: Check the “Our History” section, found here of the DNC’s website. See it? The history section — now written to reflect the history of the Obama administration — begins with this breathtakingly bold lie:
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights…..
Lie Number Two: Then check here to see the DNC’s “Issues” section on civil rights. That section begins with a second bold lie. This one:
Democrats have a long and proud history of defending Civil Rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans.
The DNC website in both its history and issues sections is literally wiped clean of any reference that this is the party that spent platform after platform after platform building a culture of racism.
Playing the race card, as it is politely called today.
There is zero indication on the revamped DNC website that not only are those first lines in each section blatant untruths, but that in those “more than 200 years” the party was a ferocious supporter of every race-judging idea imaginable, including slavery, segregation, and lynching.
Kaine even agreed to a short video version that begins by briefly saying:
Democrats are the party of Jefferson, who declared that we are all created equal. And we worked long and hard to make that real.
The video immediately skips from Jefferson — to the 1900s.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/the-dncs-bold-lies
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 9.4.12 @ 6:19AM
now suppose i was a lying sack of crap. ans suppose i worked for the DNC.
but i repeat myself
Moe Blotz| 9.4.12 @ 7:01AM
You would then be Debbie "Blabbermouth" Wasserman-Schultz.
Joellen| 9.4.12 @ 6:57AM
Or suppose I was a lazy, lying, sponging, hypocritcal, backstabing, unpatriotic traitor and suppose I worked for the DNC - but thus I too repeat myself.
Jack in Wi| 9.4.12 @ 7:13AM
There are 3 terrible old hacks running for the Senate this year as Republicans. Orrin Hatch in Utah, Tommy Thompson here in Wisconsin and Geroge Allen in Virginia. It is a sad commentary that these 3 guys are still stinking up politics. I have to vote for Thompson. His opponent is much worse. Allen is going to have a tough time. He has a tough opponent. I expect him to lose.
Stephie| 9.4.12 @ 8:34AM
I'm not fond of George Allen but I will vote for him over the lying viper Kaine who is nothing but an obama puppet.
And the lies in the article are not surprising. Moochelle said to an adoring crowd in CA after the immaculation, "we need to change our history and our traditions". And when the govt schools don't teach true history, they can say whatever they want. Not feelin' good about the election today.
spike59| 9.5.12 @ 5:41AM
Kaine, a 'tough opponent?' here in VA, he's a joke, another of ObaMao's little flying monkeys
Nancy in NC| 9.4.12 @ 7:56AM
One of the problems I see in my local GOP is little involvement in the primary. They keep letting the elite in Raleigh choose our candidates. But we are beginning to push back, and it sure ticks them off. Several primary candidates supported by the elite lost here in NC, and we are exposing their corruption and devious ways. Of course, the same thing happens on the national level, but we are pushing back there as well, but we were foiled at the convention. There are many young people coming into the GOP and they plan on changing the future. We can only pray they won't be corrupted along the way.
Track| 9.5.12 @ 2:51AM
Don't give up,Nancy. Politics is a very corrupt business. I've been asking people for 30 years when Roget's thesaurus would link politician and target as synonymous. Lets hope we can reclaim the party and the nation before it comes to that.
Derek Leaberry| 9.4.12 @ 8:25AM
If arguing over the long past is silly, arguing over the shorter past is often as pointless. For instance, many modernist Republicans like to point out that a larger percentage of Republican Senators supported the 1965 Civil Rights Law than Democratic Senators. Largely forgotten is that most of the Republican Senators of 1965 were of liberal vintage, would be condemned today by conservatives as RINOs, and couldn't be nominated today in a Republican primary. As for the southern supporters of segregation, almost all of them and their children and grandchildren migrated to the Republican Party in the forty-seven years since.
Surly Curmudgen| 9.4.12 @ 6:24PM
That is an old and long discredited canard. Republicans of the sixties tended much more conservative than today. The racists of yesteryear where Democrats and today are still Democrats. That is another example of a Democrat lying to further their agenda.
2Anglico| 9.5.12 @ 9:55AM
Thanks Surly, I tried to make a similar point but Spectator's website was malfunctioning.
I think mine was...BS Derek.
Von Mises Jr| 9.4.12 @ 8:26AM
I think we should give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt. They moved past hunting down blacks and enslaving them. Now they simply want to enslave everyone outside the political elite.
If they are unsuccessful destroying Middle Class home values with the Sub-prime crises, and can't force us into an Agenda21 work farm, then they will simply take the whole nation down with LIBOR rate swap scandal and trillions in national debt.
I bet in their well thought out plans that they get to keep their stuff.
spike59| 9.5.12 @ 5:42AM
oh, they're still enslaving them in Section 8 plantations, rationing out their food and clothes with EBT cards
Kwan| 9.4.12 @ 8:31AM
The "Big Lie" is alive and well in Democrat Party propaganda hocus-pocus. But don't expect the suckers, saps, and morons that slurp this hokum up to very much care. As long as dat dere gub-a-mint cheese keeps a comin deys OK wid it.
JimP| 9.4.12 @ 8:36AM
I agree with Mr. Lord that the Democrats are lying, but I'll play Devil's advocate, be fair and balanced and offer another very likely explanation. I do believe that F. Lee Bailey, or an equally talented criminal defense attorney, could present a strong case arguing that the Dems are not liars, but just supremely ignorant of history. You know: "57 states", FDR talk to the country on television, etc. Now that I say that it occurs to me that a good attorney could argue instead that the Dems are not guilty by reason of insanity. When I think of DWS or Nancy Pelosi I always think of insanity. Anyway. This is my good deed for the day. I've been "nice" to the Dems.
Ned Ferguson| 9.4.12 @ 8:54AM
As long as Lincoln as deified and depicted as an honest man of unassailable character, the Republican's don't have a lot to complain about as far as rewriting history is concerned. That's all I'm saying. Both Democrats and Republicans have regrets over slavery, but it was Republicans who destroyed federalism forever, killing hundreds of thousands of fellow countrymen in the process, all while abandoning the conventional restraints on conduct in times of war. Why don't we all be honest about our history, or is that too painful?
Alej| 9.4.12 @ 8:28PM
Absolutely correct, sir.... especially as concerns Lincoln.
2Anglico| 9.5.12 @ 10:32AM
Ned, the Founding Fathers entrusted the Executive with Commander in Chief status to put down "insurrections", not just to conduct foreign wars. Lincoln used the power he was AUTHORIZED to use by the Constitution. At Gettysburg, Lee came within a whisper of totally destroying the Northern forces. If that had happened, he would have been able to march his Army into D.C. (82 miles), virtually unopposed. War is a nasty business so you will have to excuse President Lincoln for "abandoning the conventional restraints on conduct in times of war", HE HAD TO WIN or the U.S. would have CEASED to exist!
As far as the destruction of Federalism goes, direct election of Senators, activist judges and Socialist Presidents AFTER Lincoln (notably Wilson and FDR), did FAR more damage than Lincoln. After all, Lincoln died as a result of the war too.
Lastly, Lincoln's successor, Johnson, was impeached because he wanted to follow Lincoln's policy of "reconciliation" with the South. The Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South, much like Germany was punished after WWI. That worked out well, didn't it?
Cobalt| 9.4.12 @ 8:55AM
When you see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on TV, just hit the mute button on the remote control.
She is toxic.
JoeB| 9.4.12 @ 12:17PM
On June 19, 1964 The Civil Rights Bill was passed by the U.S. Senate. Quoting from the NY Times : "Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans. " If it were not for the Republicans in the Senate, the bill would never have passed. BTW.. all the Democratic votes against the bill came from Southerners (except Byrd) .
Alej| 9.4.12 @ 8:31PM
"BTW.. all the Democratic votes against the bill came from Southerners (except Byrd) ."
As Ned's following post shows, they were the far-seeing ones.
Ned Ferguson| 9.4.12 @ 6:19PM
BTW, voting against the CRA does not make one a racist. There are very good, principled arguments against such laws. In toto, the act has done more harm than good -- but you can't say things like that in an age of mind-numbed robots and easy sound bytes.
"When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed." -- Tom Sowell
Well, they certainly were lying through their teeth, weren't they? Sowell further points out that the act has had little practical effect on minority employment. In fact, the sense of entitlement has arguably produced the opposite effect.
WhatAboutBob| 9.4.12 @ 7:10PM
Good points, Jeff. You forgot one rich source of anecdotal evidence that the Dems are racist to the core: Woodrow Wilson.
Starting with segregation of the armed forces, screening of "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, and numerous other episodes for which the "Party of the People" should be ashamed, but never is.
greatj| 9.4.12 @ 8:20PM
Wasserman Schultz repeats over and over and over forever the same lying nonsense and attacks then when someone asks her a question she never answers it but goes on and on again.Frankly Wasserman Schultz is disgraceful and unwatchable.
Surly Curmudgen| 9.5.12 @ 5:55PM
D.W.S. HMM DWS drunk while stupid.
Finzi Holst| 9.4.12 @ 9:51PM
The Federalists, with the desire for a strong central government and central bank, were more in keeping with the Democrats of today. The Democrat Republicans of Jefferson are far more in keeping with Republicans, or more's to the point to conservatives and libertarians, with the desire for a small central government and states' rights. Of course the current Democrat party would get it "wrong" (aka lie), just as they lie about the Democrat role in racism, striking down civil rights and the Republican's role in fighting racism and supporting civil rights.
On the plus side, more and more people are coming to understand the above.
Tarmangani| 9.4.12 @ 9:56PM
The democrats also harrassed the first black congressmen, who happened to be republican, elected after the war between the states. And the democrats, led by LBJ, fought Eisenhower's civil rights act.
E.T.| 9.5.12 @ 12:33AM
This is also taught in schools. Tell a lie often enough. I hope everyone relays this to all your liberal friends.
Sonderegger | 9.5.12 @ 3:29AM
The DNC website in both its history and issues sections is literally wiped clean of any reference that this is the party that spent platform after platform after platform building a culture of racism.
Playing the race card, as it is politely called today.
There is zero indication on the revamped DNC website that not only are those first lines in each section blatant untruths, but that http://www.chaussuresfree.com/ in those "more than 200 years" the party was a ferocious supporter of every race-judging idea imaginable, including slavery, segregation, and lynching.
Big Bob| 9.5.12 @ 6:40AM
Lying has various levels of pathology. A 2- or 3-year old usually lies cuz he/she don't want a whoopin. A teenager might lie to impress a peer. An unfaithful spouse lies to avoid be caught, which is different from worrying about the punishment, as a 2-year old might. On the other hand, a serial liar has very very different pathology. After watching dinesh's movie, 2016, this president's lying is pathological in the purest sense of the word. He is angry, bitter, jealous, and selfish, all at once. Some might label him a narcissist. But whatever the pathology, the lies are there to promote an agenda he is committed to that he would NEVER be able to advance if he told the truth. The American public has been caught offguard, (or some of them have been, anyway) and have a very difficult time believing that one person could lie so easily and quickly without any shame whatsoever. We thought Billy Clinton had the corner on that. But he couldn't hold a candle ideologically to Mr. Clinton. Thus, we have a little boy, still trying to convince someone that he counts, trying to run a country into the ground in order to satisfy a childhood insecurity. At the most primeval understanding, I think that's what we have. Shame on us if we give him another 4 years to try to prove himself.
Bill8472| 9.5.12 @ 9:21AM
Speaking of the Democrat Party and its reputation during the era of slavery, what was the party plank of the Democrats during the 1860 Presidential election? I know that the Democrats stood for a recognition of the slaveholding Confederate States of America and a peace treaty ending the Civil War in the 1864 Presidential campaign, during the height of the fighting. I know (as they continue to do in contemporary times) that they portrayed the Republican candidate as an ape, but I don't know what their position was just as the Civil War was beginning to brew up in 1860. Did they support South Carolina's secession declaration? The continuation of slavery in the United States?
I know that even in 1964, the Democrats didn't show a stellar strength of spirit in backing legislation intended to guarantee blacks their civil rights, and that was over a century later.
obadiah| 9.5.12 @ 1:09PM
Republicans argue that Democrats are corrupt, dishonest and pushing ruinous policies. Republicans are correct in their arguments.
Democrats argue that Republicans are corrupt, dishonest and pushing ruinous policies. Democrats are correct in their arguments.
America is fortunate in having two political parties both of which are correct in their arguments.
Big Bob| 9.5.12 @ 1:26PM
And wait, let me guess...right there between the two corrupt parties, is you!! Obadiah the genuine one!! Somehow, I find that a bit of a stretch. In fact, I find those who see no difference and blame both parties, to be naive and indecisive!! Good thing there were none like you among our founding fathers!!!
Dr. S| 9.10.12 @ 11:39AM
You forgot to mention the first "lie" perhaps not as bold as the rest of them. Jefferson was a member of the Democratic Republican party, an ancestor to both the current Republican and Democratic parties. Perhaps if Obama were facing a Whig opponent, it would be appropriate to call on Jefferson.....