9/11 Families Slam Hearings
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 04-14-2004 - 5:55pm |
Forty relatives of 9/11 victims are slamming the so-called independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that too many on the panel are using the probe to "grandstand for political gain" in a bid to damage President Bush in an election year.
In an open letter released to the New York Post on Tuesday, the 9/11 relatives blamed the commission for fostering "the incredible notion" that President Bush knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing.
"I see the commission going partisan and that's not the way it's supposed to be. If it does that, it will be nothing but a political disgrace," former United Firefighters Association chief Jimmy Boyle, whose firefighter son Michael died on 9/11, told the paper.
Instead, said Boyle, Bush deserved praise for the way he's conducted the war on terror since 9/11, saying, "It's a whole new world as of Sept. 12 and I believe President Bush is the right man."
The letter also praised National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, saying: "We believe Dr. Rice when she says that the president 'would have moved heaven and earth' to prevent a terrorist attack had he known such an attack on our homeland was imminent. Any suggestion otherwise is incredible and inflammatory."

Pages
That is pretty funny.
The one thing I found interesting, is how the writer stated that many of the traditional people who had voted Democrat, have changed their party's allegiance. I guess if you did an analysis, the same would probably hold true for the Republican party as well.
I have heard a lot of Democrats (some are family members) say the same thing. They say that the current Democratic party leans toward socialism and that the Democratic party left THEM.
I am a moderate Republican, and I am turned off by some of Bush's positions, but if I were ever going to vote for a Democrat, Kerry certainly wouldn't be the one-he's about as lefty as you can get. I might have considered voting for Lieberman, but he's not in the "Bush is the Devil" camp so he didn't stand a chance of being nominated by the Democratic party. If you're counting on moderate Republican support for Kerry you're in for a big disappointment.
Republican Advancement of Civil Rights
Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves
1866: first civil rights act passed by Radical Republicans over a Presidential veto, blacks granted citizenship, segregation was forbidden
1868 Republicans passed the 14th amendment passed granting equal protection
1871 Republicans passed voting rights
Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to invite an African-American to dinner in the White House.
1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.
1957 civil rights act pushed by Ike, passed . Sen Kennedy voted against it, A Democrat Senator filibustered it for 24 hrs, Senator Johnson watered it down so that it lacked enforcement
Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock to integrate Central High
1960 another civil rights act, again Dems kept enforcement measures out of it
1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Over eighty percent of Republicans voted for both.
Nixon created the EEOC and expanded civil rights law.
Ronald Reagan signed the bill making MLK day a public holiday
Today the three highest ranking black government officials are all Republicans (Powell, Rice and Thomas)
Anybody care to debate this?
Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act
by R.D. Davis
Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?
On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."
I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."
The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).
At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."
The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
>"America's two-party system is as old as the country itself, but the first two political parties weren't called Democrats and Republicans. They were the Federalists and the Republicans, who actually had more in common with today's Democratic Party than with today's Republican Party. This timeline starts with the Federalists and Republicans of the 1790s and tracks their transformation into today's parties. Along the way, it also describes some of the major third parties that have played an important part in national politics."<
Quote from..........
http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties/
Pages