You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Clinton's pastor was James William Fulbright - Klansman?

Clinton's pastor was James William Fulbright - Klansman?


By Native Texan - - Posted on 03 April 2008

Clinton's pastor was James William Fulbright - Klansman?

President Clinton presented  him with an achievement award in 1995 and erected a statue in 2002 in honor of his career (more like racism and citizen intimidation) Klansman and supporter of segregation.

 

Is it true the Clintons in 2002 honored a racist & biggot when celebrating the placement of a 7 foot statute of the Pastor?

Yes, Dana. That is true.
Gross mischaracterization which is not true.

For the record

No, Fulbright was not a minister.

Yes, he was close to the Clintons. Clinton started his political career as an intern working with Fulbright, who was also from Arkansas.

Yes, Clinton gave the dedication address at the unveiling of Fulbright's statue on the University of Arkansas Campus. This seems appropriate since the two are the most significant political figures to come out of the state, and since Fulbright helped launch Clinton's career. Clinton admitted in the address that he disagreed with Fulbright's stance on civil rights, but that he had great admiration for Fulbright and his career.

Yes, Fulbright voted against de-segregation proposals and along with thirty other Senators voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Al Gore's dad did, as well.

I have seached reputable sources and can find no evidence he was ever involved in the Klan, though a couple of the Senators who shared his political ideology were. (Honestly, I didn't even see any claims he was in the Klan from biased sources.)

 

I hope that helps straighten things out.

 

Thanks for injecting a bit of sobriety.

"Yes, Fulbright voted against de-segregation proposals and along with thirty other Senators voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Al Gore's dad did, as well."

However, the statement about Gore, Sr is inaccurate. Gore, Sr supported and voted for the '65 act. Legislation being the intertwined mechanism that it is, Gore, Sr voted against the Civil Rights Act '64.

What evidence did you locate to support the notion that Fulbright's belief system was based on racial superiority of whites over non-whites, thus accurately labeling him 'racist' or 'bigot'?

None either way. And he was conveniently overseas while Little Rock descended into chaos over desegregation. I get the impression he tried to say as little as possible on record about the matter, and instead let a couple of the others do the talking. But of course I don't have time to search the appropriate databases for all of the comments made from the floor.

Thanks for the correction. Gore voted against an earlier version of the voting rights legislation.

 

"None either way. And he was conveniently overseas while Little Rock descended into chaos over desegregation. I get the impression he tried to say as little as possible on record about the matter, and instead let a couple of the others do the talking."

He was either a member or Chairman [as of '59] of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a time of heightened tension with Cuba, the USSR as well Ike's early escalation in Vietnam where Fulbright was a staunch anticommunist. As an internationalist, it was in keeping with his normal agenda. With AR's blowhard Governor, tensions with Fed troops and Ike, the circumstances didn't need any more catalysts. At that point in history, not even Bobby Kennedy was the Bobby Kennedy most who are old enough primarily remember today.

I was reading a primary source document in which the citizens of Arkansas were voicing their disapproval that he paid so little attention to the events in Little Rock.

I realize he was doing his international work, but if I'm right in my theory that he tried to stay as "off the record" as possible on the segregation issue, it would still be convenient for him to be overseas at the time.  

 I'll admit I don't know anything about Fulbright. I think my mom was in kindergarten school when this stuff was going on. But I know that he's remembered in part for his Fulbright Scholarship and for his efforts to increase interaction and understanding among Americans and those abroad. It's hard to believe that someone with such a non-ethnocentric perspective internationally could really be a racist at home, but then again it's a complicated issue from a time that I fail to understand.

One of the most revolutionary periods this country has ever faced where when analyzing topics of fundamental importance, you could hold a position which would appear to contradict another facet of the same topic, yet both arguments would have their own unique integrity. It was also a time before elected officials felt pressure to spoon-feed the public daily 15-second soundbites intended to represent the totality of an issue of significance. The same goes for the media flea circus' representation on issues, none withstanding.

As busy and hectic as life can be for most Americans, this nation has to do better in order to get better. Doing better means taking the necessary time to digest the issues (and candidates) they are ultimately voting on. Otherwise, regardless of who holds office, the spiral only continues downward.

I believe Albright was a senator, not a pastor, from Arkansas, pre Clinton, and was more or less Bill's mentor.  The rest is true, and the Clintons paid tribute to him as you mentioned.  Isn'tit odd how they got a pass on that, and Trent Lott lost his job for a similar situation.  Double standards once again.....

He was also the creator of the "Fulbright Scholarship" program that bears his name and which Clinton as well as other notables have taken advantage of over the years. Good and evil are funny, aren't they!

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

It never ceases to amaze me how good and evil can co-exist in the same person.  But few people are all good, or all evil.  I wonder if Hitler had any redeeming qualities?  Nahhhh, even if he didn't kick dogs, it could never be enough.

Well he did want to be a painter/artist... rumor has it his art teacher was a Jew who flunked him as a young student... that might be the seed of his discontent. If it is, talk about stupid...

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Thank God all students who get failing grades don't react in a similar manner. 

 

No question they have gotten a "Pass" on this & several other questionable pursuits... 

 

 

Well, there you go the same as Rev. Wright, who has helped so many in the poor community and in his 30 year career as a Pastor had (3-4) questionable sermons/videos with really harsh words and 1 Church bulletin.

 

  

Bingo!

 Now it is perfectly understood amongst the media that the Clintons are continuing to push the Wright controversy as stated by many political strategists on CNN, including David Gergen.  He pretty much said that he thought what the Clintons were doing was really foolish and potentially bad.  Basically, the Republicans don't need to do much but respond to the feeds that Clinton and her surrogates keep pushing.

Further evidence of the special code words to the heart of race in America was the exposure of the conversation between Richardson and Clinton in which, she told him repeatedly that "Obama can't win."  There something sinister dwells.  As one of the few Dems on this site, I have to say that I am extremely disgusted with my party that would allow this to happen.  Who knew that the party of diversity was so prejudiced.  Apparently racial enlightenment and equality does not exist when the white man or woman does not have the advantage and especially when people of color don't remember their place at the table, their place on the bus, or their place in society.  I don't even know if I can even express how sick I feel.

I have been watching the specials on Black America on CNN and it is beyond me that Andrew Young and other people of color; black, brown, red, yellow or multistriped, could continue to support the Clintons in light of what is happening right now in the political dialogue.   These thoughts are not complex enough to fairly express these things.  I grant to you that I am stymied and acknowledge that perhaps I am oversimplifying......contradictions and pain.

I am so sad tonight.  Thank you to RFO members who can see beyond the stupidity and futility of racism.  You give me hope, but I need to have a good cry.

MaggieCat, Heartbroken

Where does the evidence exist to support the claims made in the OP regarding Fulbright? Without a generous leap of the imagination, I'm quite sure all are aware that a voting record cannot be equated to being defined as a "racist and bigot and Klansman". Please refrain from posting blog posts and the sort as 'claims' do not serve as evidence.
Leatherneck, do you remember giving me the "lesson" about Dixiecrats?  Well, Fulbright was one.  And he admitted to being in the klan as a young man. 

"Leatherneck, do you remember giving me the "lesson" about Dixiecrats? Well, Fulbright was one."

I understand that, but that was 1947-48. Strom Thurmond much later denounced Fulbright for his well-versed positions against the bigotry of the hard right.

And he admitted to being in the klan as a young man."

You sure you're not confusing Fulbright with Byrd? I've never seen any implication to support that. Don't get me wrong. In my book, evidence is evidence and I'm not intending to heat up this thread, but if the claims can be effectively backed up, so be it.

Is there evidence that he was not, find it and post it please and that should put this to rest. Strom Thurmond is hardly someone I would hold up as denouncing Fulbright, a denouncement from Thurmond is akin to a shoplifter denouncing a bank robber.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Asking me to prove a negative? Seriously? You know better than that.

What evidence exists, post 1970, to support _any_ of the claims being hurled about Fulbright?

As for Strom Thurmond, being that he held his bigoted views throughout his life, yet was a hypocrite who fathered a child with a black woman, in secret, places him a few levels below a moral "shoplifter".

LN, I'm confused, what part of segregationist don't you get, voting record notwithstanding? A segregatioist is a racist and a bigot, although they don't neccessarily have to belong to the Klan, but chances are they weren't members of the NAACP or SCLC.:)

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

His record may have supported that contention [segregationist] until 1970 when he finally turned the corner and supported civil rights. I'm not a member of the NAACP nor SCLC either, for what it's worth.

Yeah, he turned the corner, it's called political expediency not because his beliefs changed, my goodness and if you think otherwise it's hopeless. I'm not a member of either of those groups either, not sure why that's relevant when we're talking about Fulbright.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

"Yeah, he turned the corner, it's called political expediency not because his beliefs changed, my goodness and if you think otherwise it's hopeless."

In 1970, such a change of position would not have be considered "expedient" in the Deep South. But, just as you said, if you believe otherwise .........

"I'm not a member of either of those groups either, not sure why that's relevant when we're talking about Fulbright."

You entered the thought into the conversation. I just gave it relevance.

Yeah, well when you don't have the votes to continue opposing civil rights, you change now that the people who you've oppressed can actually VOTE and have it count and bounce your butt out of office. That's called political expediency deep south or not.

I entered the Klan reference as it relates to Fulbright, it needed no applification to make it relevant; your non membership hardly makes it relevant or are you saying you're a segregatioist who has turned the corner, similar to Fulbright?

 

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Firstly, let's not drag this out farther than it really deserves, ok?

You stated: "A segregatioist is a racist and a bigot, although they don't neccessarily have to belong to the Klan, but chances are they weren't members of the NAACP or SCLC.:) "

By stating that I was not a member of the NAACP or the SCLC, I was asking you to consider that I did not have to be a segregationist either, simply due to that fact.

Ok? Moving on .........

OK, agreed, but it begs the question why you question the posting of this piece and how you can say that a voting record is not an indication of being a racist or bigot or Klansman. When hasn't a voting record been used to judge a politician's feelings and personal beliefs about how this country should be governed.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Although my opinion may easily differ with it, I can appreciate and respect the cerebral aspect of what defenders of States Rights have to say. It's a multi-sided topic that cannot be conveniently placed into black-or-white aspects and those who generally attempt to drive it as pure bad VS pure good are simply race-baiting (from either side of the argument). States Rights is an overly easy umbrella to use for segregationism or separate but 'equal' type veiled messages, but there is more to the position than that which has some limited validity in my opinion.

How can I question the posting of the 'piece'? There is no 'piece', but a blurb of claims lacking any framework, whatsoever. If an adult holds a position until the age of _______ , but then wraps their brain around the higher arguments being made, changes position and takes actions to support these values, they should always be held with contempt because they were not always on the right side of any issue? How many years of good works must be achieved before the 'sins' of their past are forgiven?

There were two questions, what claims?  You chastised the poster in a not so nice way for asking questions, then you make a declarative statement about not posting such things; this is a discussion board; some s%^& is true, some isn't, lighten up. And, by the way, you can prove (disprove) a negative, it's done in science all the time.

State Rights encompasses many things, but in this thread it seems to be a diversionary topic, although relevant to segregation, but we all know federal courts have taken that "right" away from the states (and they did so long before Fulbright turned the corner). But we're talking about Fulbright and whether he was Bill Clinton's pastor, a racist and a member of the klan. No he wasn't his pastor, yes he was racist, I don't know if he was a member of the Klan. His segregationist views were not formed based on states rights.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

"There were two questions, what claims? You chastised the poster in a not so nice way for asking questions, then you make a declarative statement about not posting such things"

If the OP had announced that 'Yellow' was the best color while then asking the question: "Is it true that all other colors are obscene, vile, and less than acceptable?", any rational person would still be able to see thru the smokescreen as well.

"this is a discussion board; some s%^& is true, some isn't, lighten up."

My mistake. I was under the impression this was a part of the Obama campaign, not just another dime-a-dozen internet discussion board where s%^& flies without regard.

"And, by the way, you can prove a negative, it's done in science all the time."

This isn't science class where an elephant can be balanced on the tip of a pin. 'Ruling out' is not applicable to politics, as you well know. As I asked previously, what evidence exists, post 1970, that supports _any_ of the claims laid out by the OP?

The only diversionary topic is your slant on States Rights and the positions held by Fulbright prior to 1970 when a number of highly enabled thinkers [George Smathers, for one] were of a similar mindset. Does it take more courage to maintain the old-school high principles when the nation has already progressed beyond them en masse or more courage to change personal and professional course for the balance of one's life in the face of old compatriots?

"If the OP had announced that 'Yellow' was the best color while then asking the question: "Is it true that all other colors are obscene, vile, and less than acceptable?", any rational person would still be able to see thru the smokescreen as well."

Color preference isn't objective and neither is racism, and one could harldy use a color comaprison/choice with an inanimate object and expect the same reaction when those "colors" are applied to living breathing people. Moreover, it's qualitative (preference) as opposed to quantitative. I contend racism is qualitative.

"I was under the impression this was a part of the Obama campaign, not just another dime-a-dozen internet discussion board where s%^& flies without regard."

How do you get that impression? This board, as best I know is not part of the Obama campaign, but made up of individuals who support Obama, there is a difference.

"This isn't science class where an elephant can be balanced on the tip of a pin. 'Ruling out' is not applicable to politics, as you well know. As I asked previously, what evidence exists, post 1970, that supports _any_ of the claims laid out by the OP?"

Well again, you said "you're asking me to prove a negative" now you choose to qaulify that statement. And as you've said on numerous conversations that we've had, what is past is prologue, besides, the man died in 1974, so he didn't have that much time to right that ship but "past is prologue."

"Ruling out is not applicable in politics"

Yet you want us to discount, rule out what Fulbright did prior to 1970? And as a political science major I can tell you this, ruling out is used all the time when it comes to politics and policy decisions. Politics isn't merely showing up to vote, it is  science that involves trade-offs, compromises, analytical analysis, interpretation, math and yes "gut feeling" among other things.

I didn't bring up state's rights, and you know that states rights, like the bible was used to protect the status quo so it's not a slant of states rights, again, courts ruled there was no state's rights when it came to the issue of segregation and seperate but equal. Besides, racisms starts before one enters politics. I doubt if you asked any average Joe at the time about why they were for segregation (racist), state's rights would not be one of the reasons offered up, it was a justification used by politicians to uphold their racism in southern states instead of calling it was it was, bigotry.

"Does it take more courage to maintain the old-school high principles when the nation has already progressed beyond them en masse or more courage to change personal and professional course for the balance of one's life in the face of old compatriots?"

I don't know, you tell me, just because it doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean you forget about it or wash it away, we've progressed alright, so much that Obama's skin color is still an issue with a good number of Americans. Bill Clinton is an adulterer, no matter what he does from here on out, he's still an adulterer. Unfortunaltey I don't know what's in Fulbrights heart, but as a public official, he came down on the side of segregation more often than not  

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

"How do you get that impression? This board, as best I know is not part of the Obama campaign, but made up of individuals who support Obama, there is a difference."

Is it your position that Republicans for Obama is not an adjunct to the Obama campaign?"

"I didn't bring up state's rights, and you know that states rights, like the bible was used to protect the status quo so it's not a slant of states rights, again, courts ruled there was no state's rights when it came to the issue of segregation and seperate but equal."

Yet, just as Smathers held, Fulbright determined this to be due to judicial over-reach, an argument frequently made by the GOP about 'liberal-activist' judges to this day. Was their assessment based on racism or principle? There is no evidence to side that it was the former, the position you and dd hold, yet it is the most inflammatory position most easily spun for reasons unspoken.

As I've previously expressed, there is a cerebral aspect to the general subject of States rights, which I can both respect as well as differ with. Casting the generic assumptive net such as done in this thread is very shallow.

"I don't know, you tell me ........"

One isn't required to be religious to appreciate the value of "Let he who is without sin ......."

@ Barbara- You're clearly aware of what a leading (and loaded) question looks like. So am I. Also, I've not condescended to anyone (yet). I'm sure if would be preferable for all concerned to leave it that way.

LN, I go back to Dana initial inquiry, no he's not Clinton's minister, yes he was racist and I don't know if he was in the klan.

And as far as I know, this site isn't an adjucnt to the Obama campaign (which to me mean it's not run or funded by his campaing), but you'd have to ask one of the leaders of the board that quesiton. Do you support Obama?

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

"LN, I go back to Dana initial inquiry.........."

-"President Clinton presented him with an achievement award in 1995 and erected a statue in 2002 in honor of his career (more like racism and citizen intimidation) Klansman and supporter of segregation."

-"Is it true the Clintons in 2002 honored a racist & biggot when celebrating the placement of a 7 foot statute of the Pastor?"

Seems that dd is questioning the very statement made within the same post.

Where is there any evidence, from birth until death, that Fulbright expressed the belief in racial inequality? Certainly, in his lengthy Congressional career, from '42 until '74, in one of the hundreds, if not thousands of speeches, in public or on the floor of the House or Senate, in any of his writings, that such evidence was presented and easily obtained.

Lastly, I've mentioned several times that I'm supporting Obama.

Glad you support Obama.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

For some reason I thought you were undecided on Hillary v. Obama.

 

Not sure where that came from. The defense of civility and accuracy of one's representation of a candidate's record and statements, even a candidate you may oppose, is the hallmark of Obama's campaign.

I'm aware of that. I think it's imporatant to analyze all three candidates accurately - both their strengths and their weaknesses. 

Maggie, I can understand how you feel, it sickens my heart too, AND makes me angry.  But please know that Clinton is not representative of your party.  Or of America as a whole.  I admit that racism exists, in every culture, sad to say.  But it isn't as widespread as the media would have us believe.

Clinton has a "win at any cost" agenda, and if she has to set race relations back a generation, she would have no compunction in doing so.  Luckily, we have Barack Obama to balance that, and show us how far we have come, and what hope we have for an even better tomorrow.  I saw a poll tonight showing the damage done to Obama with the Rev. Wright situation, compared to the damage done to Hillary by her sniper story.  Clinton was down as a result much more than Obama.  People realize that SHE spoke her words, and Obama is merely associated with the one who did.  Also, they had the head of the United Church of Christ, a predominatly white denomination, on CNN tonight.  Their leader praised Wright, as often speaking a hard truth, with Bible based theology. He has asked that the churches address this problem on May 18.  I hope ALL churches do this, not just his denomination.  He sees this as an opportunity for dialogue and growth.  Like Obama.

  As for Andrew Young and his peers, I can't expalin them.  They just are what they are.  They must have their own agend to be able to still support her.  We just have to accept that, and look to the leaders that have more wisdom.

So don't lose heart my precious friend.  There are more like us than there are like them.  Remember, "We are the change we have been waiting for", and we WILL prevail.  Maybe then, by example, we can help Obama to lead them, and all Americans, to a new understanding, and a truly UNITED States of America.

 

Suzi,

Thank you and know that through tears I appreciate you for your loving perspective.  I guess I am a bleeding heart liberal, after all.  God love us all and keep us safe.

Hope springs eternal. He who has hope has everything.

MaggieCat

Pardon me for interrupting.

Leatherneck,

Perhaps it's not necessary to be quite so antagonistic and condescending in your request for Dana to provide sources. Regarding her post, she has as much right to start a thread as you do, and she (it appears) was simply repeating a rumor she'd heard and asking for help in sorting fact from fiction. She had only one (factually accurate, incidentally) declarative sentence juxtaposed with two interrogatives. So it's hard to argue she was making unwarranted claims in her original post.

If you're concerned about inaccuracies in the ensuing dialogue, it may be more helpful and certainly more efficient to provide some sources to help us understand the complexity of the figure instead of just verbally berating the thread's author and launching a tangential sub-thread that has little factual relevance to the topic at hand.

Golf,

Leatherneck is correct that the burden of proof generally falls on the proponent of the claim, not upon the skeptic. It's the old celestial teapot argument.

 

Carry on. 

 

 

Golf,

Leatherneck is correct that the burden of proof generally falls on the proponent of the claim, not upon the skeptic. It's the old celestial teapot argument.

However if Dana is posing a quesiton, based on rumor and is asking for clarification, one is hard pressed to ask the person who is inquiring about something to provide proof of the contrary. A question to me mean's "I'm looking to you for help with the facts or an answer." Otherwise it wouldn't be a rumor.

Sorta like the thread where I posted the KKK endoresed Obama, remember that? LOL. 

 

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Okay....I sorted it out.

Some guy on youtube put up a whole bunch of videos claiming Fulbright was an "open Klans member" and showing all kinds of graphic images (that have nothing to do with Fulbright) of lynchings. That's probably where the rumor got started. The guy seems pretty obsessed with getting his message out there.

Sheeple will be sheeple. ; )
It's possible that I did confuse Fulbright with Byrd.  I just seem to remember reading somewhere that he was involved in the klan as a very young man.  If I wrongly stated it as truth, I apologize, especially to Dana, for giving you incorrect information.  But the fact remains, that although he did much to be proud of in his later years, he was still a segregationist, therefore, in my book, a bigot!

 

Hello to all,

I'm back and what spirited comments, Thanks for the clarification. 

.

Initially I did not know much about James William Fulbright and only in the last few years have I become more interested in Politics; so the information all of you provided is helpful.

.      

How similar to Obama's response to Rev. Wright:

Clinton admitted in the address that he disagreed with Fulbright's stance on civil rights, but that he had great admiration for Fulbright and his career. 

***********  

New

Clinton started his political career as an intern working with Fulbright, who was also from Arkansas.

Clinton gave the dedication address at the unveiling of Fulbright's statue on the University of Arkansas Campus. Fulbright helped launch Clinton's career. Clinton admitted in the address that he disagreed with Fulbright's stance on civil rights, but that he had great admiration for Fulbright and his career.

Yes, Fulbright voted against de-segregation proposals and along with thirty other Senators voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Al Gore's dad did, as well.

I have seached reputable sources and can find no evidence he was ever involved in the Klan, though a couple of the Senators who shared his political ideology were. (Honestly, I didn't even see any claims he was in the Klan from biased sources.)

 

 

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.