Reply #117: I was already beginning to suspect Lewis's character based on the

[The Backlash Cometh]

CNN article. He was a militant and it wasn't in his nature back in 1963 to compromise or look for a moderate, diplomatic solution to the Civil Rights issue. In fact, he claimed to pursue non-violent protest, but he said just the opposite. He even sees himself that way:

"We came with a different philosophy, we came with different attitude," he said. "We were a little impatient. We had a degree of militancy."

The original text of Lewis' speech promised a "scorched earth policy" to march through the South the way Sherman did, burning Jim Crow to the ground."

Lewis pointed out that the speech called for only nonviolent actions. But, the words were too militant. March organizers wanted them out."

If he still felt the same way in 2001 when he accepted that award, and if he still doesn't give Kennedy credit for the ideas behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I wouldn't have any trouble identifying this man as a hypocrite.

I understand now why I never heard of him before. His view is salted with misdirected bitterness, assuming that's how he still feels today. How can you claim to pursue non-violent protest, and then talk about scorched earth? The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

And could you clarify who he was referring to when he talked about cheap political leaders who build their career on immoral compromise? Please tell me that's not JFK he's talking about?

Because, for him to say that about JFK in 1963 and swing to the following words in 2001: "People often ask, how did others and I continue our non-violent protests through the sixties with the likelihood that we would be beaten, imprisoned or even killed. President Kennedy is my best answer to this question. In 1963 he said "The question of race is a moral issue. It is as old as the scripture itself." Well, that's either hypocrisy or something worse.

Here's his quote in full:

"...This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromise and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation. What political leader here can stand up and say, "My party is the party of principles"?

Sounds like he has a split personality, or, he's a hypocrite. Anyway, the more I learn about this fellow, the more I wonder why you brought his name up to begin with?