How George W. Bush Ruined The Commission on Civil Rights

8:57 am EST July 28th, 2010 | Conservative, Republicans | 5 Comments

TPM looks at an organization that thanks to Bush’s conservative-loading of the commission, has now prioritized racism against whites at the expensive of racism vs. minorities. Again, another reason George W. Bush was the worst president ever.

The Panthers investigation — which uses an isolated incident in Philadelphia to allege a widespread conspiracy — is part of a much larger pattern. Many of the cases the commission deals with are complaints not of racism against minorities, but against white Americans.

One of the two Democratic commissioners, Michael Yaki, told TPMmuckraker it’s a ‘shame’ that the commission has chosen such a path — one that, he said, aims to ‘dismantle the civil rights program that exists throughout this country.’

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

5 Responses to “How George W. Bush Ruined The Commission on Civil Rights”

  1. Jay says:
    July 28, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Wow. Could that article be written any more poorly?

    Let’s examine shall we?

    It says, “Many of the cases the commission deals with are complaints not of racism against minorities, but against white Americans.”

    Ok, which ones? It doesn’t say at all.

    The article then goes on to say the commission “wrote letters.”

    That’s it. From that, you and the hacks at TPM come to the conclusion that the Commission on Civil Rights “has now prioritized racism against whites at the expensive of racism vs. minorities.”

    What a joke.

  2. PRIMALDATA says:
    July 28, 2010 at 9:29 am

    @jay the cases it mention were: the health care bill, the sub prime mortgage issue, Youngstown, OH in the case of them hiring white males, females and minorities from two different lists, The matthew shepphard hate crime bill.

    Pretending things aren’t there doesn’t cause something to be poorly written it just causes you to be looked at as a partisan liar who refuses to at least engage on the issue. You could agree with the commissions stances, you could disagree but to claim they weren’t there when anybody who can read can easily see them is just being disingenuous

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    July 28, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Jay thinks “things I don’t agree with” = poorly written. It’s an odd sort of logic, but he’s gotten by with it for years.

  4. Jay says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Primaldata, where is the evidence of the main charge? The article says:

    “Many of the cases the commission deals with are complaints not of racism against minorities, but against white Americans.”

    It goes on to provide several examples that do not in any way prove this allegation.

    First, let’s look at the Youngstown Ohio case. The city council was warned by the Mayor and by the city attorney that the practice of two separate lists should not be maintained because of a federal appeals court ruling in Louisiana that declared separate lists to be unconstitutional. God forbid a city actually you know….follows the constitution when engaging in hiring practices. The commission suggested the city maintain one list and then provide scholarships and additional training to civil service applicants. The horror.

    Second, with regard to the Shepard hate crime bill, all it takes is a little bit of searching to see that the opposition to the bill by 4 members of the commission is due to issues they have with how the legislation would circumvent constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

    On the sub-prime mortgage issue, TPM attempts to conflate “discriminatory” with “disproportionately.” The NCRC report TPM cites itself states (on page 16):

    While persistent racial/ethnic disparities across all income levels do not prove discrimination, it would appear that policymakers and stakeholders could take action to narrow particularly large disparities between middle- and upper-income minorities and whites. Large disparities at all income levels, particularly middle- and upper-income levels, suggest a lack of competition among lenders and other market barriers that can be reduced through concerted action.

    The bottom line is, TPM is attempting to create this grand controversy, when nothing of the sort exists (at least according to the flimsy “evidence” they have provided). That is why the article is poorly written.

  5. Sean D. Martin says:
    July 28, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Oliver, nit pick: …has now prioritized racism against whites at the expensive expense of racism vs. minorities…