The Most Racist Republican Ad of the Political Season

This flyer by the New York Republican Party makes the “Call Me, Harold” ad in Tennessee look tame.  A black hand covers the mouth of a white female and says “If Democrats Gain Control of Congress, Our Values Will Be Destroyed.”

What exactly is the message of this flyer?  What values, exactly, will be destoyed if Democrats gain control of Congress? 



  1. drjay says:

    it was not entirely clear to me from the picture that the hand belonged to a person of color–but i’ll take your word for it.

  2. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I think you’re looking a little too hard, Decatur. My hands are darker than that, and I’m not black.

    However, I think that, in this time of hypersensitivity across the board, the appearance should definitely have been taken into account and avoided.

    Two additional thoughts:

    (1) Her eyes are kinda purty

    (2) I don’t think this quite touches the Democrat-run ads that said if Republicans were elected, black churches would burn, OR the one which tried to implicate Pres. Bush in the Byrd dragging death.

  3. Mad Dog says:

    Oh no!

    Are we going to debate the racial features of hands?

    I’ve looked at the flier through the link. Are you sure that’s a real woman? If you are, what color are her eyes? Tricolor?

    Like drjay, I can’t clearly see that as hand of color by the printing process.

    I think there is a message underlying the hand over a white woman’s mouth. That would be racial and right out of the 1960’s.

    I think the ad walks right into the racism pits of Hades.

    If you don’t agree, change the wording of the ad to read, if the Republicans gain control of Congress, our race will be destroyed.

    Make her eyes brown or black and remove the dark tint from the hand.

  4. Clint Austin says:

    Lame, especially from the Democrat Party of Georgia – which has sent mail pieces openly linking Republicans to Klan members.

    You’re just frustrated those race-bomb mail pieces don’t automatically generate huge minority turnout anymore…

  5. me says:

    Oh, yeah … I remember that Democratic mailer … this guy in West GA was selling pictures of the founder of the Klan on his website, so they sent out a mailer saying he represented the worst in GA with pictures of Klan members on it.

    Seems like a pretty direct parallel.

    Seems pretty just to call someone out for glorifying the founder of the Klan — and certainly isn’t racist.

    The only false think was that the dumba** never actually SOLD any of his hate pix, but he tried, LOL.

  6. veritas says:

    Just to be historically accurate:

    The Klan was founded by Democrats and was successful — with help from Democrat legislators (poll taxes, grandfather clauses) — at suppressing black voter strength for more than 100 years.

    It has become fashionable to paint Republicans as racists, but the evidence is slim.

    The first African-American elected to the U.S. House from Georgia was Republican Jefferson Long of Macon (he was also the first black American to deliver a speech on the House floor).

    The first 41 blacks to serve in the Ga. General Assembly were all Republicans. They served until the Democrats regained control in the 1870s and tossed them all out.

    Black voter strength continued to be suppressed by Democrat gerrymanders until the early 1970s (not all that long ago), when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened.

    In very recent history, black Republican candidate Alan Keyes finished third in Georgia’s 2000 GOP primary, behind Bush and McCain, but well ahead of better-funded Steve Forbes.

    In the 2004, Herman Cain finished second in the U.S. Senate primary, ahead of U.S. Rep. Mac Collins.

    Right now, black Republicans are running for governor in both Maryland and Pennsylvania.

    On the national level five black Americans have served in the U.S. Senate. Three have been Republicans.

  7. Jeff Emanuel says:

    One quick correction to that very nice summary: the gubernatorial candidates are in Penn. and Ohio; in Maryland Michael Steele is running for Senate. Of course, he’s been having oreo cookies thrown at him by those non-racist Democrats who don’t like him.

  8. me says:

    Stop hittng the vino, veritas. I said nothing about the Rpeublican party. I said something about a guy who tried to sell pictures of the founder of the Kan on his website.

    Abut you know, it’s interesting that the only thing you can point to in the last 30 years are three extremely uncompetitive candidates (the fact that robo-candidate Steve Forbes bombed so badly aside).

    It’s ridiculous to claim racially progressive bona fides for the Republican Party generally. How many Klansmen today do you figure are Democrats any more? The parties changed positions on this one. It’s cost them, as LBJ said it would, but Dems took the high road.

  9. Decaturguy says:

    And veritas, it is interesting, isn’t it, that the Georgia Republcian is now the majority party in Georgia because those “old Democrats” have now become Republicans.

    I particularly like that Sonny radio ad that says “the same old people had been running this state for over 100 years.” Sonny, you are those “same old people,” remember, you were a Democrat! Kind of like your spokesman, Zell Miller, he was one of those “same old people” too.

  10. Mad Dog says:

    Jeff Emanuel and Veritas,

    ahhh, which ‘National’ party passed the Voting Rights Act, sent in the National Guard in various southern states to stop Jim Crow laws?

    And, what did LBJ say about the Civil Rights Act at the signing?

    It will be two generations before the South votes democratic again. ? Help me with that. I don’t think I got it quite right.

    And, a fresh reminder that Zell and Shady Sunny were both old enough to legally discriminate based on race. And, both were Democrats at the time. Both hate the modern Democratic party for …. “abandoning our values.”

  11. Mad Dog says:


    There’s nothing white about that hand. Why? How can I say that?

    Her eyes. The color isn’t real in her eyes, therefore, the colors in the ad are not meant to be real.

    Symbolic representations, not accurate color representations. The ad is a metaphor.

    THAT makes the hand colored, and a symbol of black on white rape.

  12. veritas says:

    Thanks, Jeff, for the correction.

    Note to “me,” I did not suggest that you said anything about “Republicans.” The word “Republican,” however, was on the title of the initial post.

    Re: your comment “It’s ridiculous to claim racially progressive bona fides for the Republican Party generally,” I am not sure what you mean by “racially progressive.”

    I do know that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments each passed without a single Democrat vote.

    The first significant piece of civil rights legislation after Reconstruction passed in the 1950s, when the GOP held the presidency and both houses of Congress.

    The 1965 civil rights bill would not have passed with out Republican votes. Despite Democrat majorities in both houses, LBJ could not muster a voting majority without help from GOP members.

  13. me says:


    Point taken as to why you responded to Rpeublican generally.

    But again, you’re citing examples from 60-100 years ago. The parties’ positions have flipped, and in a way that does not reflect well on Republicans.

    There’s a reason it’s approximately 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic. It’s not mass insanity.

  14. Veritas, I’ll give the Republicans the upper hand on race relations for what they did 50-150 years ago when you give the Democrats the upper hand on security and terrorism issues because they were in charge when we won World War II.


  15. MediaGuyAtl says:

    New York! Who cares… Only a few Republicans ever win in New York anyway, at least the districts around the city. I love how people think because of this ad every republican is a rascist! Hell, I’m a republican and I’m for civil unions, my son’s Godfather’s are gay, My son’s go to a public school that is 30% Black, 30% Hispanic, 30% White, 10% asian. The true rascists in my opinion are people like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Jackson, David Duke, I could go on but please let’s stay away from lopping everyone into one group because of one ad. Can’t we all just get along and live our lives peacefully. Some of the rage I am seeing from the left during this election cycle is ludicrous! Taylor even admitted he had to “attack” Purdue to have a chance of winning, how about telling me what YOU are going to do to change the direction of the Peach State? In Athens, the liberals are threatening election workers with lawsuits and the polls haven’t even opened yet! It’s obvious they want power back and I worry that what Pelosi said yesterday could come true. If the Republicans win, they cheated, if we win everything is fine. Hey “Mrs. Speaker” what about the 4 indictments in Missouri handed down Friday with that Leftist group ACORN for voter fraud? Okay, Finished.. See you at the polls!

  16. me says:

    Hey, Chris —

    The 13:27 hour tracking program numbers show that an overwhelming 142% believe that Veritas has been OWNED by you. Th elone dissenter is Veritas, who says that just proves that Dems like you deep down favor slavery.

    – mi-mi-mi-miiiiiii

  17. veritas says:

    I am new at this so I don’t know if you guys are joking or are just obtuse.

    National policy during World War II was embraced by both parties. In fact, I think Wendell Wilke (1944) ran a campaign largely devoid of any criticism of FDR.

    I fail to see the connection between World War II defense policy and the long-record of racial intolerance (and indeed actual white-on-black violence) that are facts of Democratic Party history.

    “Me,” you say the party positions “have flipped,” but you cite no examples of systematic black oppression on the part of the GOP, nor any official party position that has opposed racial equality, black voting rights, or the like.

    What is your evidence? I have given you plenty of specifics. You have given me none.

    I have not suggested in any way that current Dems favor slavery. To suggest so is bizarre and demonstrates a unwillingness to engage in serious conversation about serious matters.

    I am only saying that Democratic Party history on “race” issues in quite negative. I do not find that to be true of the GOP.

  18. me says:

    We are joking to the extent that we say you accuse us of slavery. We are highlighting the ridiculousness of the fact that you would even suggest that the Republican party does not have a problem — and even more so that you imply that the Democratic party has a questionable record.

    You are describing the parties the way they were almost 50 years ago. So what?

  19. SpaceyG says:

    Mr. Atwater is beaming from his place (in hell) no doubt. Ahhhh, the role model he was. The race stuff worked so great before, in SC primaries, why not try it everywhere!

    (Joking or obtuse??? On a blog? Why I never…)

  20. defnotrep says:

    umm who tried to not extend the voting rights act this last session… of our very own republican congressman I believe.

    To me Veritas you have offended me. I should be more like ME and be humorous about it.

  21. benevolus says:

    Democratic National Committee v. Republican Committee, C.A. No. 86-3972, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, entered on July 29, 1987, remains in effect. That decree resulted from the RNC engaging in so-called “ballot security” programs targeted at challenging minority voters in African American and Hispanic communities.

  22. Demonbeck says:

    After having done extensive research and hand comparisons in various pictures with different lighting, I have come to the conclusion that it is the hand of one Gary Condit of Modesto, California.

  23. veritas says:

    There were legitimate arguments for not extending the Voting Rights Act, among them that the Act puts legal and reporting burdens on some states that it does not put on others.

    Another argument is that the egregious problems the Act was originally meant to resolve have (we can all be grateful) faded into history. At what point do we cease scratching at a wound and move forward?

    I’m all for humor. The problem is that some people “humorously” toss around allegations without evidence — in this case, trying to indict the Republican party as a bastion of racial intolerance with citing any specific examples.

    I do not think the assertion that the GOP is systemically racist is backed up by either historical or contemporary evidence — in Georgia or anywhere else.

    If you have a substantive, evidentiary argument to make to contrary, make it.

  24. mercergirl says:

    It wouldn’t come up on my computer.

    However… what if it were a black hand on a white mouth? Let’s just assume that. Ok well what if it were a white hand on a black mouth? Oh my God- what if it were black on black or white on white? Which is worse? Either way, someone would be bent out of shape because -gasp- “one of the races isn’t represented”. Please. I’m so tired of race ALWAYS being used in some way. It’s getting slightly ridiculous. I’m all for more blacks being elected- why don’t we talk about the fact that there have only been 5 black senators since Reconstruction- 2 of which were during Reconstruction (thank you to my Race and Politics class for giving me that knowledge today)? How about the fact that only 3 blacks are even running for Senate this year? Let’s talk about something of substance please.

  25. Chris says:

    But from the image alone, I’d think that women’s voices are being targeted for suppression, as in “Shut up and get back in the kitchen, bitch. You have no rights.”

    But apparently that’s not the intended message is it?

  26. Chris says:

    And I agree with mercergirl that the double standard is pretty obvious and injecting race into every single aspect of politics is getting pretty tiring. We’re all Americans, and we all want to make life better for us.

  27. Honestly, if you’re upset about the lack of black politicians running for statewide office like Governor and Senator, you need look no further than the Republican redistricting policies of the ’70’s, ’80’s and ’90’s.

    No state in the country is overwhelmingly black to the tune of 70% or higher. Yet Republicans consistently push to create black legislative and Congressional districts with these types of numbers. Few black Congressman or state legislators have the opportunity to represent swing districts because of this…the adjustment to running for statewide office is pretty difficult.

    Meanwhile, in Georgia Michael Thurmond is one of the most popular statewide officers and got his start representing a majority white district in Athens.

    But that’s a little besides the point. The fact of the matter is this: Republicans had a good record on racial issues until the 1950’s or so. And at that point, they had to make a choice going forward. The Democrats chose to be the party that addressed these issues and the Republicans chose to move South and pick up the scraps left behind by the racists who were upset with the Democrats new tack on these issues.

    For the past 50 years, the Democrats have overwhelmingly been the good party (the Democrats who wouldn’t vote with Johnson and all Republicans now, and as of tomorrow the “good Republicans” from the northeast will all be Democrats) and the Republicans have overwhelmingly not been so good. Why they think they can run a candidate every few years who happens to be black and have other black voters overlook 50 years of a bad record is beyond me.

    To Decaturguy, not sure I get the outrage on this flier. The Ford ad is much worse. This mail piece in New York lacks focus. I have no idea what the hell the piece is trying to get across and I suspect most of the people in New York have no idea either.

  28. Maurice Atkinson says:

    didn’t look ethnic to me, just looks like the fellow doesn’t know how to wash his hands. Those fingernails are nasty.

  29. Mad Dog says:

    Just curious as to what Eisenhower thought when Truman desegregated the military?

    And, wondering why veritax didn’t point out Truman as a Democrat that hated blacks?

    And, dear veritax, you said, “Another argument is that the egregious problems the Act was originally meant to resolve have (we can all be grateful) faded into history. At what point do we cease scratching at a wound and move forward?”

    You really meant to say scar and not wound? Eh? Scar would imply the wounds, and there were many, healed.

    I don’t see that the wounding has stopped. I’ve seen it in several places of employment, including banks. Very, very often in banks. That segregation is not the “law of the land” doesn’t mean that discrimination by race has ended.

    Just because you don’t see the black hand, doesn’t make it white.

  30. mercergirl says:


    I am so glad you brought that up. Let’s look at redistrictring. It was started in 1964 by the Voting Rights Act of 64 (granted I could be wrong about the particular act, it’s early in the morning). Redistricting, at least in Georgia, was done to ensure that blacks were guaranteed at least 3 districts here in Georgia. But here’s the problem- since it boxed in all of these black voters into 3 districts it also meant that the small amounts of black voters left in so-called “white” districts basically had their votes eliminated- and of course no black person would run in those districts.

    If I am not being clear please let me know- what my point that I’m trying to make is if that happened in Georgia it certainlt happened elsewhere, and while the intent was to give blacks a guaranteed district it also limited the number of districts they could win. This was also a bi-partisan effort. From what I learned in class Cynthia McKinney was instrumental in this process along with Bush Senior’s Judicial Department, which was acting in 1980 according to the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

  31. me says:

    Redistricting always occurred from time to time, but some (predominantly Southern) states did not do it for decades. The Supreme Court effectively required redistricting with its one person one vote series of cases. (A piece of trivia: From its first use, the phrase was “one person one vote”; its not the case that it was “one man one vote” and later made gender neutral as many people think.) It is not a matter that Congress has a choice about.

    As to majority-minority district, the stature does not directly adress them. The Supreme Court interpreted the Voting Rights Act, ahich prohibits practices which have the “purpose or effect” of “infringing” the right to vote of any racial (or, since the ’70’s, language) minority, to require districts in which such groups have “a fair chance” (the praseology differs from case to case) to elect “the candidate of their choice” (that phraseology is stable). How that is determined is inordinately complicated, much disputed, and still in flux.

    In the 1990 redistricting, the Bush I Justice Department groundlessly asserted that those decisions required that state’s draw as many black majority districts as it was technically possible to draw with the largest black majorities it could (often called a “max black” plan). It was scathingly rebuked by the Supreme Court for acting in bad faith in obvious contradiction to the law.

    Two black legislators in the entire country worked with the Bush I justice department to draw themselves districts. Hardly a bipartisan effort in any substantial sense.

  32. mercergirl says:

    Ok finally saw the ad- that person’s hand is the same color as mine. Again- making a mountain out of a molehill: ridiculous.

  33. me says:

    Still, redistricting was forced by the Supreme Court’s one-person one-vote decisions (for example Reynolds v. Sims), which predated the VRA. They are unrelated.

    Regardless, the max-black goals of the Bush Justice Department were NOT bipartisan in any meaningful sense.

  34. mercergirl says:

    I don’t have any evidense otherwise so I can’t argue, however I will bring up what you said in class tomorrow 🙂

Comments are closed.