Howard’s Historical Inversion

On February 28th, Howard Dean managed to free himself from his restraints just long enough so that he could “address” the assembled at Georgetown University. His “address” was supposed to be in reference to Black History Month. Howard used the solemn occasion to forward his extensive knowledge of history, black or otherwise, which quickly transformed itself into an undisguised and exemplary opportunity to attack his political adversaries.

Thank Goodness that 2008 was a leap year because Black History is apparently so important to Howard that only it took him twenty-eight out of the twenty nine days available to finally get around to talking about it. Well, “kind of” talking about it.. Based upon his screed, he and Mary Mapes were apparently the ones vetting his “historical” speech… Remember that Dr. Howard Dean is not a historian, he just plays one on TV.

Unfortunately, Dr. Dean was not discussing spastic colons, heart disease or sinusitis. He was supposed to be talking about Black History when he decided, as all good liberals do, to invent a little “history” of his own.

Howard said, “the Republican field looks like the 1950’s and talks like the 1850’s..” He also mentioned the Democrats “work” on the “landmark legislation like the Voting Rights Act.”

For the sake of argument (and to not beleaguer the point relative to Howard’s obvious afflictions) we will assume that he meant the “1860’s and the 1960’s”. For all of you aspiring liberal “historians” like Howard who may be reading along without a helper, those were the years of the Civil War (1861-1865), the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965), three events of paramount importance to “Black History.”

Additionally, we will also eliminate any discussion of any other possible causes for the Civil War other than the abolition of slavery. This should help Howard narrow down the decades in question just in case he has used all of his “life lines” as he dazzles everyone with his insightful insinuations.

Howard’s “insinuations” are obvious and as a liberal, they are based solely upon his own hallucinations, the evidentiary facts be damned. Never the less, that one little half sentence that he spoke, those twelve words, deserve the spotlight of truth as to exactly who was doing what “work” during these momentous decades a century apart.

Just prior to the 1860’s, the Republican Party was formed. The party came into being partly due to the uproar over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. We all have Democrat Stephen A. Douglas to thank for both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the creation of the Republican Party. As well, the founders of the Republican Party and the abolitionists believed slavery to be socially and morally wrong. Note to “Historian Howard”: The Democrats disagreed with both the Republicans and the abolitionists rather vehemently on that point. They disagreed to the point of committing at least four years to the adventure and at least 600,000 lives as well. That is the kind of “work” the Democrats were doing..

In 1857, under the tutelage of Democratic President James Buchanan, the Lecompton Constitution was forced onto the state of Kansas. As an antecedent to Bill Clinton, Buchanan (whose Presidency was the 19th centuries template for the abysmal Carter administration) offered patronage appointments and cash bribes for votes in order to push the legislation through. (Buchanan never married. His niece, Harriet Lane “acted” as his First Lady. Bill had Hillary who “acted” as his First Lady as well. It is not known if Lane later claimed to have “a lifetime of experience” due to her acting job..)

Buchanan even thought of Cuba as fertile slave ground endorsing the Ostend Manifesto of 1854 and was in complete agreement with the Dred Scott “decision” of 1857. This Democratic leader was just another of the long litany of Democrats who were at “work” for the cause of slavery. Coincidentally, in 1856, the Republican convention in Howard’s home state of Vermont (and many other states as well) called for “the divorce of the government from slavery, the repeal of Fugitive Slave Laws and no more slave states.” The Democrats had different ideas they were “working” on, Howard..

As we move to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we see that the times have changed but the Democrats certainly didn’t. The Rules Committee Chairman, Howard W. Smith, “indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.” Chairman Smith was from Virginia and as fate would have it, he too was a Democrat. The Democrats, who were busy at “work” fighting against the Civil Rights Act, were led by Kleagle/Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., the father of today’s “environmental dirigible” and failed Presidential aspirant, Al Gore. The Democrats barely managed to scrape together 60% of their members to support the landmark legislation. The Republicans put together over 80% of their party in support of the measure. As President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was standing directly behind him. This was the same Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that had been wire tapped by the FBI at the behest of Democratic deities John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in 1961.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 basically “outlawed the requirement that would-be voters in the United States take literacy tests to qualify to register to vote.” The voting rights protests and the Selma to Montgomery marches took place under the watchful eye of Alabama’s Democratic Governor George Wallace. Wallace did such a wonderful job of protecting not only the civil rights, but also the lives of the marchers that it is hard to believe that the tragic death toll during those events wasn’t higher. Wallace also made it to the national spotlight earlier in 1963 with the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door”, where he refused entry to two black students to the University of Alabama which was “partially or wholly orchestrated with the Kennedy administration to allow Wallace to save face with Alabama voters.” It is just a few more of the instances of the fine “work” done by the Democrats in the name of democracy and equality that didn’t make it Howard’s Black Historical radar screen.

The question therefore becomes, is this simply the “default uber-liberal myopia” or is he, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, that uninformed or, if you prefer, uneducated? For Howard Dean to stand at the podium and white wash, if you will, the realities of the Democrats true involvement with Black History while taking credit for the Republicans contributions, is an abomination.

The truth is a bitter pill to swallow but taking into account the number of pills Howard has to swallow in order to restrain his symptoms, it should not be that difficult of a task..


2 responses to “Howard’s Historical Inversion

  1. Larry,
    Helen I and just read your article and we think you are very smart!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s