Patterico's Pontifications

12/7/2009

R.S. McCain Responds; UPDATE: Appears in Comments, Claims I Am Somehow Misquoting Him

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:59 pm



R.S. McCain has responded to my post from last night, in which I stated that he was the one who wrote this:

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

If anyone was wondering whether he really wrote this passage, McCain’s post ought to put that question to rest. While he doesn’t specifically acknowledge the quote or specifically explain what he meant, nowhere do I see the phrase: “I didn’t say that.” I assume that, if those weren’t his words, he would have said so clearly.

Here’s the closest he comes to an explanation:

Whom have I wronged, that I should seek their forgiveness? Granting that people have been offended, this was when they were led to believe (by the framing of the narrative) that I was expressing some personal doctrine of my own, rather than discussing the attitudes of others.

OK. He was talking about the “natural revulsion” of others at seeing interracial images. And he was telling us that when others feel this “natural revulsion,” it is “NOT RACISM.”

That this discussion has been fairly criticized, I cannot deny, but I wasn’t writing for publication, I was trying to prevent Wheeler’s attempt to hijack the League as a vehicle for his own purposes. That this preventive engagement was successful ought to be counted to my credit, rather than being cherry-picked in an effort to discredit me.

I assume that McCain is not accusing me of cherry-picking, since I put the entire quote of his in my post, with a link to the entire debate to see how that quote fit in context.

McCain says other things that, while not about the quote in particular, relate to his intentions in participating in that debate. I don’t want to be accused of mischaracterizing it so I won’t summarize it. It’s best to draw your attention to it and let you read the whole thing.

Also, Dafydd ab Hugh has written me by e-mail a defense of McCain, and I invited him to blog it or post it in a comment. He has offered to make it a guest post here, and I accept that offer. [UPDATE: Here it is.]

That’s all I plan to say about this for now. I’m not interested in getting in a blog war. I am happy to see the quote addressed, to the extent it has been — and to let you make up your minds as readers as to whether you think it has been addressed to your satisfaction.

UPDATE: Also, McCain has this post, which can also be considered responsive. Again, rather than summarize it, I ask you to simply read it all.

UPDATE x2: Here is my best stab at a representative quote from the second post:

Here, however, I can briefly say that I understand man to be a tribal creature by nature, prone to appeals of group interest.

While we today may identify ourselves by such labels as Republican or Democrat, Catholic or Protestant, Redskins fans or Cowboy fans, the underlying impulse is tribalism, and it is rooted in a basic sense of affinity that Edmund Burke addressed in his famous discourse about “little platoons.”

But read it all.

UPDATE x3: A commenter asks why I consider it a limited success that McCain now appears to have admitted that he wrote this passage. It’s because he previously denied saying it, in an interview with Alan Colmes.

UPDATE x4: McCain is now in the comments, and he’s apparently saying I’m misquoting him somehow:

You seem to be making the same mistake other people have made, supposing that what you think I said is the same thing as what I said.

This is coupled with some claims of victimhood and such, but I’m more interested in whether he is denying the quote or not. I have put the question to him directly in a comment: did he write the passage quoted at the outset of this post? I have never seen him directly in his own words answer that anywhere — but as I noted in my comment, he hasn’t been very clear about it. He denied it to Alan Colmes. He admitted it to Founding Bloggers. He failed to deny it in his latest post (when you’d think he would deny it if it weren’t his quote). Now he is accusing me of misquoting him.

Did he say it or not? Stay tuned to see if he answers the question directly here. I hope so.

I’m bumping this post to the top so that people will see this update.

UPDATE x4: Upon reflection, maybe he’s saying I’m misquoting him when I say he denied the statement in his interview with Colmes. But as my comment (and transcript) make clear, I’m not misquoting him there either.

Whatever it is he’s saying, he can clarify. I await his answer on whether he wrote the above passage.

259 Responses to “R.S. McCain Responds; UPDATE: Appears in Comments, Claims I Am Somehow Misquoting Him”

  1. He goes on to explain more here where I think he takes more of a stab at the natural revulsion deal.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  2. I think you did the best job in the blogosphere of addressing it. I do think RSM is telling the truth.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  3. happy,

    I added the link to that post as well. I don’t want to summarize it and be accused of missing the point, so I won’t even try. I’ll just add the link.

    Patricia:

    I think you did the best job in the blogosphere of addressing it. I do think RSM is telling the truth.

    What do you mean, exactly?

    Patterico (64318f)

  4. “I’m not interested in getting in a blog war.”

    Patterico – I think it’s a little late for that. You’ve kind of made a maniac of yourself on this. I fail to see why you keep raising doubts about whether he wrote the piece. What is your aim there?

    His explanation, fwiw, is pretty much along the lines of what I suggested last night that smacked of desperation, etc., etc.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  5. Patterico – I think it’s a little late for that. You’ve kind of made a maniac of yourself on this. I fail to see why you keep raising doubts about whether he wrote the piece. What is your aim there?

    If you read all the links to my first post, you know that he denied writing that passage in an interview with Alan Colmes. And he has made a big point on more than one occasion of denying that he posted material to “Reclaiming the South” — which, as I noted in my original post, was technically true, but had the effect of implying that he didn’t write this passage.

    If you think I was seeking a blog war, daley, that’s your problem and not mine. I was not. Nor do I think McCain is seeking one with me.

    I just wanted him to address directly whether he had written this, and what he meant. To that extent, I consider this a limited success.

    Patterico (64318f)

  6. This is great, for a second I was worried only Charles Johnson would waste time and energy on nitpicking other irrelevant people that have nothing to do with any of the major issues currently before our country.

    Please give me a heads up if you decide to spend your time analyzing other bloggers in detail, that way I can stop reading this blog and not get to invested in it like I did with LGF many years ago.

    In all honestly, I think you’re posts concerning this subject are best summed up by the phrase, “who cares?”

    Ben (6dc071)

  7. This is great, for a second I was worried only Charles Johnson would waste time and energy on nitpicking other irrelevant people that have nothing to do with any of the major issues currently before our country.

    Please give me a heads up if you decide to spend your time analyzing other bloggers in detail, that way I can stop reading this blog and not get to invested in it like I did with LGF many years ago.

    In all honestly, I think you’re posts concerning this subject are best summed up by the phrase, “who cares?”

    Ben (6dc071)

  8. Sorry for the double post. I clicked the button twice.

    Ben (6dc071)

  9. Patterico – I definitely don’t think RSM is seeking a blog war with you, but it will be interesting to see what other crap you’ve stirred up, whether you were seeking to or not.

    The Colmes interview was in 2006. I only listened to it once. RSM says he called in to talk about another matter. It sounds like Colmes ambushed him with questions about “Reclaiming the South” and the other stuff, which as you note he answered in a technically correct fashion. If a weasel like Alan Colmes did something like that to me I would not be very cooperative on his show either.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  10. which as you note he answered in a technically correct fashion

    He was also asked if he wrote the quote that I wrote about — and he said he did not. There’s nothing technically correct about that.

    Now, he appears to concede that he did — as he did to Founding Bloggers.

    Patterico – I definitely don’t think RSM is seeking a blog war with you, but it will be interesting to see what other crap you’ve stirred up, whether you were seeking to or not.

    Don’t care. I’m just out seeking the truth. I mostly wrote the post because I was confused by the contradictory statements and implications McCain had made about whether he wrote this passage. I still think he’s distancing himself from the passage; he never quotes it when he talks about it. Today included.

    Patterico (64318f)

  11. It seems like you are doing nothing except trying to win some professional PC points. Are you a white cop in Harlem or something? You are doing pure “gotcha” journalism. Or perhaps you are preparing something more meaningful that speaks to the subject.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  12. When I criticized Ebonie, the black racist who opposes interracial marriage, nobody here had a problem with it. Then I put up McCain’s quote, with a link to the context, and asked whether it seemed racist. Most here said it did.

    But I hadn’t identified the author.

    Patterico (64318f)

  13. At least we know that McCain thinks Ebonie’s revulsion to white women dating black men is “natural.” And “NOT RACISM.”

    Patterico (64318f)

  14. He’s not running around doing or saying racist stuff. That’s a big deal. I know the evidence is what the evidence is, but it’s still very easy to think the campaign that’s been going on against Mr. McCain could happen to anybody.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  15. It happened to Ebonie.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  16. People are in a very campaigny mood lately, hounding this person or that person. It’s the times, I guess.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  17. Exactly the point I made on that same thread, Patterico.

    I note, on a completely differently topic, daley once again attacks a messenger. It’s Colmes’s fault that RSM is a white supremacist, becaus ehe ambushed with his own words. How dare one read an author’s words to him! That is so wrong!

    timb (449046)

  18. I am not part of a “campaign.” I noted a quote he had denied and said I thought he had said it and that it seemed prejudiced. But that he should renounce it — or own it and explain it.

    As for the idea that anyone could be the victim of a “campaign” I will say that I don’t know anyone who speaks of the natural revulsion one feels upon seeing interracial images foisted upon them by the damn media and the damn Hollywood. It’s pretty easy not to say such things which makes it easier to avoid these campaigns.

    If you guys want to turn McCain into a victim I am not joining in. I’m more of an “own your words” type of guy.

    Patterico (64318f)

  19. I didn’t mean to say *you* were part of the campaign… did you see the link I had the other day to Barreett Brown? I like Barrett, but he got very, very obsessy with Mr. McCain… and the whack job what has the footballs what are both little and green. That campaign.

    I just wonder though but that condemning people without a showing of harms is probably not what the Internet is good for. Meaning just that I don’t think we can know Mr. McCain well enough to judge him, not really. The most we can say is hey that was very racisty, what you said there, buddy.

    I still think he has major issues with Adam Lambert though.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  20. You must denounce RSM as a racist white supremacist nazi skindhead fascist. This is your last chance. You have been warned.

    JD (c28a9e)

  21. Dan Collins likes him. That carries a lot of weight, really. A lot of weight. Because Dan has a big heart and he is intolerant of mean people except for thor. And this Smitty person has always been well-spoken of.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  22. No, you must defend him as someone who said nothing at all unusual. This is your last chance you have been warned etc.

    Patterico (64318f)

  23. Where have I f*cking defended him?

    JD (c28a9e)

  24. Mr. Frey,
    I would take a more cautious approach to this story. I believe this story started with RSM’s report about the SPLC in the Washington Times were he was told to keep silent in response. Beware the reporter with documentation.

    Kevinc (b33006)

  25. No one is defending anyone except a few people are defending Mr. McCain and I’m going to somewhat absurd lengths to defend Kevin Jennings and also some people are defending Sarah Palin who is being pummeled with vegetables. Bless her heart.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  26. I guess fruit, technically.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  27. JD

    I didn’t say you did.

    However, having seen his explanation, such as it is, have you changed your mind about whether the comment (not the man, I never claimed that) is prejudiced or racist?

    Are you in agreement with those who suggest I am wrong for raising the issue?

    Patterico (64318f)

  28. Sorry for cursing at you, Patterico. You did not seserve that. My opinion remains unchanged. It was racist then, it is racist now. It doesn’t make him a white supremacist, and I have no need to denounce him, he answers for his actions. Not I.

    JD (c28a9e)

  29. I agree with all that, JD.

    Patterico (64318f)

  30. McCain can speak for himself and has done so quite eloquently. The thing I fear most is that people wishing to marginalize and discount anything he says (and he says much that needs to be said) will now have an extra bit of ammo that they can warp into the ‘even conservative blogger Patterico admits he’s a white supremist’ form of smear.

    It’s not as bad as the Brooks/Frum form of backstabbing but it’s not helpful.

    harkin (f92f52)

  31. I am just tired of the douchenozzles and their this is your last chance to denounce him, BS. They do not bring this up in good faith.

    JD (c28a9e)

  32. “Then I put up McCain’s quote, with a link to the context, and asked whether it seemed racist. Most here said it did.

    But I hadn’t identified the author.”

    Patterico – WTF? The link identified the author, but even if the author had not been recognized by people, the context would have been the same, so WTF?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  33. timb – You dipshit try reading for comprehension. Read my comment again, think, then react. It said something about not cooperating with a weasel like Colmes who ambushes you. That’s not shooting the messenger. That’s interpreting what I heard on the clip.

    What was your spin?

    [Found in filter. — DRJ]

    daleyrocks (718861)

  34. that’s pretty much exactly how I experienced it daley cause of I was at work and the page was blocked as “Hate Speech” … that should have been a clew that the author was a white guy I guess but I was still thinking in terms of that weird Associated Press article….

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  35. timb – Have you sent any money to Morris Dees lately? I’ll give you a tip. He doesn’t need it. He’s sitting on a hoard of it from idiots like you and laughing all the way to the bank.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. timb is still pushing the “white supremacist” canard with out admitting taht Obama has made statements much more racist than anything RS McCain has ever written. Not to mention having a raving racist lunatic for a spiritual advisor.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  37. Excuse me if my memory is faulty, but I believe Colmes (or his caller) was asking me to deny having expressed opposition to interracial marriage. So, yes, I denied that. (Colmes’ caller, BTW, was that notorious douchebag who had to be restrained when stalking George Allen in 2006.)

    You seem to be making the same mistake other people have made, supposing that what you think I said is the same thing as what I said. You further seem to suppose that your accusatory method — “This, That and The Other,” as I’ve sometimes described this type of attack — can result in a perfect distillation of my beliefs. Liberals have composed similar laundry-list indictments of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, for similar purposes. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    By this method, you attempt to make yourself the arbiter of what is or is not to be admitted as evidence and then — j’accuse! — you declare that I be judged only on that evidence. And if I refuse to allow you to set the rules, you accuse me of not playing fair, despite the fact that I was minding my own business when you decided to arraign me in this manner, as if I were accused of some crime.

    You see that you are arrogating to yourself a most frightening authority. I am not a candidate for public office, and it is profoundly strange to find myself the target of this sort of opposition research project.

    Consider that I’ve been attacked like this since 2000, and was forbidden to respond while I was at the Washington Times. I quit the Times in January 2008, and nobody said anything about this until Charles Johnson targeted me on Sept. 12. So if it is to be demanded that I make a comprehensive declaration at this late date, there’s a lot of catch-up for me to do, at a time when I’ve got no shortage of more useful work to do.

    All things considered, some of this confusion is understandable. Your purpose in belaboring it is less understandable.

    Robert Stacy McCain (b2a74a)

  38. It seemed to me that McCain was proposing that IF you took his foundational premise as valid – which was the idea that their is a long-running “communist programme” of instilling a sense racial division as a means a causing disruption in the US, and that this system was both effective and has been bearing fruit — then it would be “natural” (as in, common sense, taken for granted, a natural outgrowth, etc) to expect people to react out of a conditioned response to their social “programming”. Not “natural” in the sense of it being an visceral, instinctive reaction based on some hard-wired racist tendencies.

    And that if you hold his conspiracy-theory premise to be true, then the bank-teller/not in-law reaction would be the result MORE of a carefully conditioned response to the programme, than that of “simply” racism, and therefore shouldn’t be called racism.

    I don’t agree with either his premise, or his conclusion. I disagree that the response isn’t racism, but I also don’t agree that having the temerity to suggest it by definition MAKES him a racist.

    That said, I haven’t read enough of his other writings to say whether his post indicates a trend of thought. Defense or apologia of racial purity, regardless of how academic the context, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a racist tendency.

    Of course, if he DID write it, of which there can be little doubt, then he should be willing to cop to it. Either defend it, retract it, or restate it. Don’t deny it in the face of pretty clear evidence. That, more than anything, damages his credibility, IMHO.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  39. This just isn’t ever going to stop being awkward I don’t think.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  40. I tend to agree, HF. I seems a strange petard upon which to hoist oneself.

    While I guess I can understand pursuing a certain Quest For Truth(tm), I don’t really understand the level of froth it’s generated.

    And I have to cop to the fact that I haven’t had a chance to fully read RS’ response, and so respectfully retract my last sentence above. Apologies to Mr. McCain.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  41. Steve B: Actually, I agree with both his premise and his conclusion if it is as you have said. But further, even if he wrote and meant what most of the people here think, I believe it is objective truth nonetheless.

    Is it an ugly truth? Perhaps. But to just label it racism is inaccurate.

    Gregory (f7735e)

  42. McCain’s response:
    “Granting that people have been offended, this was when they were led to believe (by the framing of the narrative) that I was expressing some personal doctrine of my own, rather than discussing the attitudes of others.”

    Part of McCain’s quote:
    THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

    It isn’t clear whether McCain is saying,
    A. McCain believes this is not racism no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.
    B. There are people that believe this is not racism no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

    liontooth (15a295)

  43. R.S. McCain says:

    Excuse me if my memory is faulty, but I believe Colmes (or his caller) was asking me to deny having expressed opposition to interracial marriage. So, yes, I denied that.

    You know what, Mr. McCain? There is an easy way to see if your memory is faulty. Click the link in the post. There is a section of a radio interview between you and Alan Colmes in which you deny it. I have just now transcribed part of it:

    COLMES: You have said, and I quote, “the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell it is.” That is not racism?

    McCAIN: I said it was not racism? Did I say that?

    COLMES: Did you?

    McCAIN: Or did Michaelangelo Signorile?

    COLMES: Did you say that?

    McCAIN: What was the source for that?

    COLMES: I’m asking you.

    McCAIN: What was the source for that?

    COLMES: He claims you posted it.

    McCAIN: He did claim I posted it.

    COLMES: And I’m asking you if you said that.

    McCAIN: He posted it four years ago.

    COLMES: Did you say that?

    McCAIN: I didn’t say that. What I said was that people have the right to their own opinions. If they’re not discriminating, they’re not harming anyone, they mean no harm to anyone in any way, they have a right to their own opinions, you have a right to your own.

    Colmes goes on to ask you whether it’s racism to refuse to do a transaction with a black clerk, and you seemingly have a hard time answering that.

    R.S. McCain also says:

    You seem to be making the same mistake other people have made, supposing that what you think I said is the same thing as what I said.

    Now you seem to be denying it again.

    And so, I will put the question to you directly, Mr. McCain, since you accuse me of “supposing” that what I think you said is the same thing as what you said. Did you write this or not?

    As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

    Did you write that, Mr. McCain?

    I’m not addressing your claims of victimhood until I get a clear answer to that question. You denied it to Colmes. You admitted it to Founding Bloggers. You didn’t deny it in your latest post. Now you’re here implying you didn’t write it.

    Did you write that or not?

    Patterico (64318f)

  44. “Whom have I wronged”

    I can’t see that McCain has wronged anyone, and he’s entitled to his opinion, he’s even entitled to be offended by interracial images if he wants to be.

    As to the paragraph McCain is defending…

    “As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind…”

    No, the media isn’t forcing imgaes into the public mind. If you don’t like what they’re showing, you’re at liberty not to watch. The media, taken as a whole has many faults, but forcing people to watch what they’re showing isn’t one of them.

    “…and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion.”

    No, I don’t believe that it’s natural to be revolted by “interracial images”, nor do I believe that a perfectly rational person would be offended by such images. I believe that a person who is rational on other subjects might be offended, but I believe that person is being irrational if they’re offended by “interracial images”. I don’t see anything rational about being offended by a picture of (for example) a white person holding hands with a black person.

    “The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM…”

    IMO, that would be pretty racist. That basically says “I’m o.k. with black folks, as long as they keep in their proper place”, or “Sure, black people are wonderful, but would you want your sister to marry one?” and I regard that attitude as racist.

    “Granting that people have been offended, this was when they were led to believe (by the framing of the narrative) that I was expressing some personal doctrine of my own, rather than discussing the attitudes of others.”

    I suppose that’s possible, but reading the paragraph Pat is citing, and considering McCain’s choice of words, I suspect that RSM IS expressing his own POV. But, whether he is or isn’t, what he says in that paragraph is a lot of hogwash, if you ask me.

    Dave Surls (de7f08)

  45. liontooth says:

    It isn’t clear whether McCain is saying,
    A. McCain believes this is not racism no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.
    B. There are people that believe this is not racism no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

    Wow. Is it really that unclear? He really means THIS IS RACISM but wrote THIS IS NOT RACISM — meaning (without saying so) that he was describing someone else’s views?

    Patterico (64318f)

  46. […] However, I think McCain ought to be clear about whether he said it or not. As the updates to this post show, he has not been entirely clear about it — and is still muddying the waters to some […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » The Right Way, the Wrong Way, and the Buckley Way (e4ab32)

  47. IMO, that would be pretty racist. That basically says “I’m o.k. with black folks, as long as they keep in their proper place”, or “Sure, black people are wonderful, but would you want your sister to marry one?” and I regard that attitude as racist.

    What you said, David S., enforces what RSM wrote.
    You didn’t like what he wrote about race. it made you uncomfortable. Therefore, he’s the racist.

    Patterico.. It’s not like you didn’t have access to RSM’s email to ask him about what he wrote before firing your first shot in this flame war.

    I mean, that would have been the responsible thing to do.

    DaveC (6d87b7)

  48. Could we avoid links to the Little Gnat Fuckers please?

    [note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]

    Roscoe (87ed63)

  49. Colmes goes on to ask you whether it’s racism to refuse to do a transaction with a black clerk, and you seemingly have a hard time answering that.

    Because Colmes if a f**king idiot who asks moronic questions that can flabbergast the most grounded of individuals.

    It’s like you’ve never seen an episode of H & C on Fox News before.

    DaveC (6d87b7)

  50. I fail to see how it’s irresponsible to discuss a public controversy publicly.

    If you’ve read my posts and links on this issue, then you know that I left a comment on his site a while back — when he was posting about Charles Johnson’s attacks on this issue — asking him to address this quote.

    My comment was never approved.

    Patterico (64318f)

  51. DaveC,

    I’m more interested in McCain’s answers (such as they are) than in Colmes’s questions.

    I listened to it. Did you?

    Patterico (64318f)

  52. What was the purpose of this volley against RS McCain? As an attorney, you should be able to see that there is enough doubt about what exactly he said, and the entire context in which he said it, before you start firing pot shots at him. If this blog turns into a version of LGF, I’m outta here. I read you because of the excellent work you do holding the press and politicians’ feet to the fire. These McCain posts are so bizarre that it seems like you’re simply trying to increase your traffic, since McCain is a popular target these days, and your attack will generate links from LGF.

    CC (b0f783)

  53. I think what he said and its context are clear.

    You are free to impute base motives to me and I’m free to ignore you when you do.

    Patterico (292e7b)

  54. McCain’s comment here is in the exact same pattern as the rest of his responses. He’s incapable of giving a brief, concise answer to the question. If this were a courtroom drama, now would be the time when the judge would direct him to answer yes or no, and THEN he could have his chance to explain.

    Of course, it’s a free country and he has no obligation to say anything… just as we have no obligation to give him any credence or respect if he refuses to answer the question, or if we don’t like his answers, or if we find his answers tediously evasive. For one, I thought his response was ridiculous back when I first saw it in the wake of the LGF bit.

    I mean, if somebody accused ME of being a racist, or of saying something racist, I would stop at nothing to clear my good name, no matter how screwed up I thought the accuser might be. Certainly there are people in today’s society who make that accusation at the drop of a hat with no real basis… but that’s not the case here. Those questioning Mr. McCain about this are not the perennial race-stirrers. I would not myself choose to respond to concerns expressed by serious people by saying I wasn’t going to defend myself without being paid for the writing, so if you hit the tip jar maybe I’ll stir myself to give a clear answer to some questions that have been raised.

    I would note that our host has done nothing more with McCain than what he has done countless times with leftist reporters, clueless bloggers, and vexatious litigants… ask simple, basic, fundamental questions, and hold firm until a clear and direct answer is given in response.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  55. Patterico- So you’re continuing the Charles Johnson line of questioning here? To what end, one does wonder.

    zaugg (6b8b3b)

  56. pathmv- “hold firm until a clear and direct answer is given in response”
    I have followed this kerfuffle from Sept. 12 with Chuckles frontal assault and I can say emphatically that RSM has had a “clear and direct” answer- No.
    Whether you chose to hear the “clear and direct” answer or not, is on you.

    zaugg (6b8b3b)

  57. CC, has not McCain been a member of the press in the past? Is he not now what we call a “citizen journalist”?

    Contrary to what Mr. McCain grandiosely suggests, this is not an effort to “play the role of tribal chieftain among conservatives, and to decide who is or is not eligible for membership in the tribe.” That rhetorical ploy is often played by those trying to dig themselves out of trouble by focusing on those exposing them rather than on the facts being exposed. Its an attempt to deflect criticism by saying that it is not really aimed at them, because the “victim” of the criticism is being attacked only as a symbol of the movement which they aspire to lead. It’s a close rhetorical cousin to many of President Obama’s routine tropes, that any attacks on him are motivated only by fear, or opposition to progress, or racism.

    Nowhere has Patterico tried to claim any right to decide who is and is not a “real” conservative. This isn’t part of the fight over the “wolverines” or “Brooksian wussyism,” as McCain again suggested with some egotism, here.

    Speaking only for myself, as a conservative, I don’t want to give prominence to any racist individuals in the movement. Conservatism cannot survive long in this country if we cannot persuade a much larger percentage of black people to join our ranks (without, I feel compelled to add, giving up our actual principles). We cannot do that if we have any tolerance or patience for real racism (speaking here not of the routine bilge spewed out by the likes of Al Sharpton, or the rhetorical attacks of Democrats like Harry Reid, who see racism in any opposition to big government).

    So, as an individual conservative blogger, it’s important to me, in deciding who to read, who to give links to, who to consider influential, to know whether that person holds or expresses racist views. I don’t claim to speak for anybody else, and I’m sure Mr. McCain couldn’t care less about my opinion, but that’s why the question is important nonetheless. For me, I’ve pretty much already made up my mind, based on both the initial quote, McCain’s fervent words in favor of the Confederacy (no matter how many disclaimers he throws in about how he supports only the non-slavery aspects of the Confederacy), and his response to this whole mess. Living in the South, I know lots of people who try to claim that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, that it was about “states’ rights.” But the bottom line is that the South was willing to fight a war to preserve one particular states’ right… the right to enslave human being based on the color of their skin. You are free to disagree with that… but if you do, I simply have no interest in you, and will not treat you as having a serious and significant voice in the political sphere.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  58. “No” zaugg? To what question? “No” to the question of whether he said it, “no” to the question of whether he himself finds a natural revulsion to interracial dating? If you just mean “no” to the question of “are you a racist,” I’m not any more compelled to accept that answer than I am compelled to accept Barack Obama’s assurances that he is not a socialist.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  59. The quote is from “The Great Southern League Race Debate”, a document compiled and edited by Dennis Wheeler. Wheeler was an out-and-out white supremacist who tried to turn the League of the South into an overtly racist group; McCain was one of those who fought him. Wheeler lost.

    Is it wise to rely so heavily on a document created by an embittered white supremacist?

    CChittleborough (34e482)

  60. Let me put it this way. You can do business with a bank teller who is a gay man. There is a natural revulsion in watching said man engage in gay sex with another man (for the majority of people).

    That does not make you homophobic.

    Dave C (6d87b7)

  61. PatHMV,

    I see McCain’s latest post assumes the mantle of victimhood and tries to steer the discussion to why I’m asking the question — rather than why he said what he said.

    Meanwhile, he is not answering directly whether he said this. Instead his post yet again implies he didn’t say it.

    I have put the question to him directly. We will see whether he continues to imply he did not say it, or whether he answers directly. My readers aren’t stupid and they recognize evasions when they see them.

    Patterico (292e7b)

  62. Patterico- I can put a question to you directly via CChittleborough “Is it wise to rely so heavily on a document created by an embittered white supremacist?”

    zaugg (6b8b3b)

  63. Zaugg, in what way has Patterico “relied” on that document? He asked a simple question, initially. First he asked whether that statement, unattributed by him, was racist. The consensus was that it was a racist statement.

    Then he posted the attribution, and said that it was alleged that RS McCain said it, but that the evidence was rather equivocal on the subject of authorship. That is a true statement. Patterico asked Mr. McCain directly whether those were his words or not. To date, Mr. McCain has not provided a concise answer to the question of whether or not those were his words, nor to the separate question of whether they reflect his views on interracial marriage. In no way is Patterico relying on the underlying document at this point. Not once has he declined to accept a denial by Mr. McCain by claiming that the document is clear… in part because Mr. McCain has made no such denial, and in part because Patterico has made it very clear exactly what problems the document has.

    Patterico can, of course, speak for himself, but to me he has made it very clear that had Mr. McCain issued a flat denial at any point that those words were his, he (Patterico) would have accepted that and moved on.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  64. Oh, Patterico. I think you do misunderstand the conversation with Colmes altogether.

    When McCain “denies” writing the words, he’s not denying writing the “words” at all, but the “words” as they are being characterized by Holmes.

    He’s denying writing what Alan Colmes says he wrote – denying Colmes implications, (McCain) saying he wrote something else (meant something than what Colmes implies must be the content based on the strict language of the excerpt).

    SarahW (692fc6)

  65. See, Daleyrocks? He always leaves it vague and implies he didn’t say it — and now his defenders are running with the implication.

    If he wants to defend the quote let him be forthright about it.

    Patterico (292e7b)

  66. Let it go (long before this, actually). You are getting into Charlie Johnson or Andrew Sullivan territory here – obsessing on things that are of less than central interest to your readers, and are not going to be resolved by beating them to death in any case (the subjects, not your readers; you’ll just chase them away.)

    Mahon (5e03e9)

  67. How long before you start the banning ala Chuckles? btw, long time reader of yours and only a relative newcomer to RSM.
    imho, you believe you have some ‘new’ insight to this ‘nontroversy’ but all you are doing is stirring the **** pot. Go and read back through all of RSM post’s on this. I know he is long winded and verbose but he does explain it.
    The entire list serv is gone from the mid-90’s and there is no smoking gun. You, on the other hand, have a link to Alan Colmes no less.

    zaugg (6b8b3b)

  68. Don’t call me a “defender.” I call it like I see it. Or hear it, as the case may be.

    You know the difference between the strict language of a statute and congressional intent.

    I think you miss a couple of layers in that conversation.

    State again what your goal is from McCain.

    He says he wrote “that”, but the “that” and what it means is not something he was willing to concede to Colmes.

    SarahW (692fc6)

  69. Zaugg… even you can’t directly answer the question. Did he write those words or not? You have not answered that question. We’re not in a court of law here, so just as Mr. McCain is free to decline to answer, we are all entitled to draw conclusions based on his evasiveness. I’ve read most of what he’s said on this subject, and I only come away from them more confused than before as to what he believes. It’s clear that he is now trying to paint himself as some martyr, that he’s being attacked for being a “wolverine” conservative rather than a “Burkian wussy,” which is of course a debate for another day. What’s not for debate, for me at least, is the motivation in questioning him and his motives and his attitudes towards race… I don’t want racists or racist sympathizers in the Republican party or the conservative movement. I’ve seen evidence that Mr. McCain might possibly have such attitudes, and I’ve seen him fail to respond other than by: (1) saying he’s not going to dignify the questions with a response, (2) saying he’s not going to respond because he’s not being paid to do so, (3) weaselly suggest that he wrote it while questioning the provenance of the document anyway, (4) refusing to address in more detail his on-going reverence for the Confederacy, and now (5) asserting that he’s being attacked because of his stance in favor of a “wolverine” conservative movement.

    Your own response, zaugg, appears to be little more than: “I can’t figure out the answer to the question either, and I won’t bother to defend McCain or that statement on the merits, but shame on you for daring to raise questions and cite Alan Colmes while attacking a good conservative blogger.”

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  70. Sarah… so where does McCain say precisely what he meant by that statement? For that matter, where does he actually, directly admit that he indeed wrote those particular words? I’ve waded through a lot of what he said, and I can’t find a simple, straight-forward, direct answer to either of those questions. Since you are so sure that he has, can you please provide a quote and a link?

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  71. I can tell what McCain was saying. That what you say I wrote is not what I wrote at all.
    IOW – I heard this transaction with Colmes

    “Any attempt to hold me to your (Colmes’) strict interpretation of the language used words will be challenged. Your rules for use of language are different than mine. Your code is different. Your imposed meaning is imperfect.”

    SarahW (692fc6)

  72. I don’t see why you can’t just accept that McCain thinks it’s not racism for someone to be skeeved about someone marrying out of the tribe, per se. Race or color is a mere mcguffin. It doesn’t mean you think that race or color puts one in a lower caste.

    SarahW (692fc6)

  73. “What you said, David S., enforces what RSM wrote.
    You didn’t like what he wrote about race. it made you uncomfortable. Therefore, he’s the racist.”

    No, it doesn’t make me uncomfortable. I couldn’t care less if RSM or anyone else has racist feelings or ideas. As long as you aren’t hurting people, you can think or feel anything you please as far as I’m concerned.

    My evaluation of McCain’s statement isn’t based on emotionalism, because I just don’t have any strong feelings about racism.

    And, if someone says that they can’t accept someone as a family member because of their race…that’s racism. McCain says that it isn’t…but it is.

    Dave Surls (360e41)

  74. I don’t see McCain denying that he wrote the quote in question. I see him denying the implications, and motivations, ascribed.

    I don’t see why you can’t just accept that McCain thinks it’s not racism for someone to be skeeved about someone marrying out of the tribe, per se.

    I’ll admit to being cloudy on the difference, but I think McCain’s point is floating on this statement. Such as, is there a difference between “sub-conscious racism” (i.e., being “naturally” revolted by the thought of an individual dating outside of their race) and being overtly racist (i.e., actively campaigning for the subjugation of one race to the benefit of yours). It appears that McCain does not believe the former deserves the same categorization as the latter.

    It’s a legitimately debatable point, IMHO, and the accusations being flung at McCain MAY BE unfair. As someone in a mixed-race relationship (and isn’t it insane that I feel I have to qualify that in order to deflect any accusations towards me?), I’ve never really felt that “natural revulsion”, but I’m not ready to preemptively condemn someone who has as “racist”.

    RWL (4400c6)

  75. So McCain DOES stand by that statement, and thinks that it is a correct thing to say, Sarah? You agree then that zaugg and others questioning whether McCain ever said that are wrong, because he did say it and he does stand behind it?

    As to the substance of your comment #71, it depends on what he considers to be “the tribe.” If, to use old-fashioned gutter words, he’s got no problem with his sister marrying a Mick or a Spic or an Eye-Tie, but would be concerned with her marrying a n****, then that’s an indication that he sees his “tribe” as being “white people” as a group, rather than “Americans” or “Floridans” or “middle-class professionals” or whatever. That is, the self-identification with particular tribes is what sheds some light on racial attitudes. Where is it set in stone that one must see black people as a member of some other tribe? If one is so insular than one only wants one’s sister to marry somebody of a similar professional background from one’s own city, of one’s own politics, than yes, perhaps opposition to her marrying a black man is based on generic tribalism. But if one accepts and considers oneself to be a member of a number of larger, overlapping tribes (American, conservative, etc., etc.), then the personal decision to consider black people in general to be part of a separate tribe not suitable for intermarriage is a significant, and racially-motivated, decision.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  76. RWL… your analysis is correct. It is possible that McCain is saying that as long as somebody is willing to engage in professional relationships with other races and is not actively trying to segregate or harm them, then we should not care what their racial inclinations are. That is, as you say, a reasonably debatable point.

    But the problem with Mr. McCain is that he is refusing to debate it. He’s not saying either that he did say it and he stands by it. He’s not saying that he didn’t say it. He’s not saying that he did say it, but he meant “revulsion” in a different way or “natural” in a different way than it’s been taken.

    He currently shows an unwillingness to stand up for that belief, if it is his belief.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  77. “Let me put it this way. You can do business with a bank teller who is a gay man. There is a natural revulsion in watching said man engage in gay sex with another man (for the majority of people).”

    “That does not make you homophobic.”

    According to the dictionary, homophobic means:

    “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”

    I would say that if you have an aversion to watching homosexual acts, then you could safely be described as homophobic. Of course, if you have an aversion to watching ANY sexual acts, then matters are somewhat different.

    For myself, it doesn’t bother me to see someone else doing it, but it would sure bother me if I had to do it.

    And, on that score, I am indeed homophobic. I have an aversion to engaging in homosexual acts.

    So what of it?

    Dave Surls (360e41)

  78. it comes down to this. in mccain’s hypothetical he is arguing that its not racism to treat someone different according to race. and the answer is of course it is. and by excusing it, he outs himself as racist.

    His undercover explanation sounded better. but its indefensible as an honest statement.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  79. On 4 March 1966 John Lennon said, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink… We’re (The Beatles) more popular than Jesus now—I don’t know which will go first, rock and roll or Christianity.”

    The statement initially went almost unnoticed, but about 6 months later it was published in the US. The reaction was immediate and strongly negative. Beatles records were smashed, the Ku Klux Klan got involved and threats against Lennon greatly contributed to the band’s decision to stop touring at that time.

    Later, Lennon took responsibility for his statement, “I said what I said.”

    ropelight (50e7c8)

  80. irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

    I have a problem with the “or” clause in the definition of homophobia that you list. The European parliament has the better conjunction “and”. A simple aversion to homosexual acts does not make one phobic, a fear of them might. To be fair, the only qualifying issue over whether the attitude towards gay people is problematic is if it is discriminatory.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  81. “You are getting into Charlie Johnson or Andrew Sullivan territory here”

    No, patterico isn’t.

    He’s being polite and intelligent about this. He is giving everyone a chance to make their best argument, and he’s not condemning or kicking or screaming about this.

    If you can’t tell the difference between this and LGF’s insane tirades, then you don’t understand what was so bad about LGF.

    This is his blog… if he wants to discuss this issue, that’s up to him. It clearly interests a lot of readers. I think race is a really interesting topic, and I wish RSM had focused on the ideas. I know he’s been treated poorly by jerks out there, but I wanted him to explain this quote…

    to some extent, he did… he told me who he was talking to, for example. He was very polite about it, too, and I think he’s a honorable man. But the heart of this issue has been much better fleshed out by the commenters here.

    Bashing Patterico for being some kind of jerk is ignoring that you’re able to argue against him right here. Why’d he bring this up now? I think racism is a rapant problem in our ‘ruling class’ right now, so making it’s timely enough. RSM’s an easy target, but I don’t see Patterico piling on.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  82. Speaking for myself, racism can intersect with tribalism, these may overlap but they are not precisely the same thing.
    They are different sets each containing elements with points in common but they are not identical sets and have points not in common.

    Are there some of you who disagree with this proposition?

    SarahW (692fc6)

  83. oy, this conversation gets weirder by the minute. so far i have seen people compare being black to being homeless, to being blind, and now to being gay. which is a false comparison, because in the end there are real differences in all those other examples, but the difference between white and black is literally skin deep.

    Indeed the gay one is just bizarre. I didn’t realize the test for tolerance or a pairing was being willing to witness the actual consumation. silly me.

    As for the subject of the thread, it seems mccain admits to saying it. as for what to think of it, we have argued over the course of something like 3 threads over it. the fact is you can’t take race conscious revulsion and call it something other than racial prejudice. i am willing to accept that its involuntary on some level, and that despite that revulsion you would try to make nice with a daughter-in-law of another race. okay, i guess that is all we can expect. a man can’t control all of his demons. but don’t pretend there isn’t an element of racism there, okay and don’t excuse it. it is wrong to feel that way. know that and admit that and maybe someday you will deprogram yourself.

    and i don’t know what more can be said on this topic.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  84. I’d be much more interested in his answers to these:

    – Why, when writing articles for racists like American Rennaissance, did McCain use, as a pseudonym, Burke C. Dabney? Dabney seems an odd choice in particular.

    – Or could he explain this passage which he wrote on that racist website under a racist pseudonym:

    If crusaders against teenage motherhood were serious, they would concentrate on the black and Hispanic girls who account for more than half of teenage births. Targeting whites as part of a general campaign is yet another form of racial suicide.

    Don’t be vague or coy. The weasel language and name calling with Colmes is milquetoast compared to some other stuff McCain has written. No time for more linking just now, but I may later.

    carlitos (57cfe1)

  85. I’m not sure what you’re saying, Sarah. If we’re going to look at things from the standpoint of tribalism, I would suggest that racism would be defined as a subset of tribalism in which one identifies skin color as being a significant defining feature of which tribe one belongs to.

    These days, we each decide for ourselves which “tribes” we consider ourselves to belong to. America being a nation of mutts, mostly, we’ve bred ourselves largely out of defining ourselves by our ancestral ties to some Old World country or region. My own ancestors are English, Welsh, Irish, German, Scottish, and no doubt others as well. To which “tribe” do I belong by genetic heritage, some mythical northwestern euro-tribe that never actually existed?

    In America, at least, I get to decide for myself which tribes I choose to identify with. If I choose to decide to identify with tribes based on superficial characteristics such as skin color or genetic heritage, I am certainly free to do so. The extent to which I practice my tribalism in that regard would also be relevant, of course. I may choose to identify with such tribal factors loosely, by celebrating one or more components of my genetic heritage, while not letting that self-identification influence my opinions or actions towards others of different genetic heritage. I celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, let my Hispanic neighbor celebrate Cinco de Mayo, and not worry about that heritage in between such celebrations.

    But if I choose to identify my tribalism so deeply that I consider non-tribal members to be so “other” as to affect any of my significant relationships with them, then that would say something about my character and the choices I have made in life, would it not?

    Or are you suggesting that tribal characteristics are so innate that we humans cannot choose to overcome them? That we are somehow compelled to tribally identify more with those who more closely resemble us, physically? Are you saying that it is somehow unnatural to choose to identify oneself by class, profession, character, etc., rather than physical characteristics?

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  86. This is the same nonsense with SEK but in reverse.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  87. Carlitos, thanks for the timely reminder.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  88. A.W.

    First, the differences are in the eye of the beholder and like it or not you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable comparison for others. Second, the comparison with gay people is over the idea of “natural revulsion” so your idea that it is a silly one quite misses the point. Lastly, it is very dishonest to try to shift the argument to one of tolerance when the discussion is not on that subject. It is very possible to be tolerant of a great many things but still not care very much for it. Likewise, it is possible to have a “natural revulsion” to something and still not be a bigot. Stop using claims of racism as a shield to actual thought, as a stepladder to elevate yourself, and as a club on people who have the audacity to speak freely.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  89. btw, for the record, there is more than one famous dabney in history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabney

    And for that matter, more than a few burkes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke

    i wouldn’t assume that the nickname is racist. for all we know maybe he lives in Burke Virginia and happened to have a copy of the movie “Short Time” on his desk when he came up with the name.

    And it is worth noting that the famous and sadly racist dabney is also known as one of Stonewall Jackson’s biographers. So a person with an innocent desire to learn about the military struggle in the civil war might be drawn to the subject.

    mind you, i think mccain has outted himself as a racist. but this isn’t the clear evidence of it, and should be left out of the discussion.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  90. A.W. -I’m really under the gun here, but McCain used to post at “American Renaissance.” which is really only a few shades shy of stormfront, in terms of racism.

    His online handle at FreeRepublic (where he once posted an approving link to overthrow.com*) was BurkeCalhounDabney

    Not sure about Burke, but I’m curious as to whether “Calhoun” couldn’t refer to the Calhoun that wrote “slavery is a positive good.” And I’m sure “Dabney” refered to actor Dabney Coleman, not Jackson’s biographer. Or something. Odd confluence of nicknames, but hey, maybe he just doesn’t like “Stacy.”

    Oh, that’s not it, because he used to post as “RStacy2229″ when he was back on Usenet, dreaming up bumper stickers! These are hilarious!

    RStacy2229
    View profile
    More options May 21 1996, 3:00 am

    I’d rather be wenching in the quarters
    or
    Have you whipped your slaves today?

    *don’t go to that website

    carlitos (57cfe1)

  91. By the way, meanwhile Eugene Robinson at the WAPO is apparently upset that tiger didn’t use quotas when picking his women. Sigh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120702944.html

    Makewi

    > First, the differences are in the eye of the beholder

    Yeah, yeah, its funny how quickly bigots adopt so many tropes of the modern left. There is no truth only perceived truth.

    Except there is actual truth. For instance, blind people can’t see. That is the truth. That is a real drop off in ability. And I say that as a handicapped man. And homeless people are generally homeless because of crap they did to f— up their lives. And as for gayness, well, I will get to that in a moment. By comparison there is no provable difference between black people and white people except that which can be traced to environmental factors.

    > Second, the comparison with gay people is over the idea of “natural revulsion” so your idea that it is a silly one quite misses the point.

    Um, respectfully no. See part of what it is to be a hetero man is to not want to see men naked. That is why there isn’t a large hetero male market for playgirl. And unlike a lot of this stuff there is good reason to accept that this is instinctual at least in part, given that it actually helps promote the evolutionary success of one person over another.

    > Lastly, it is very dishonest to try to shift the argument to one of tolerance when the discussion is not on that subject.

    Well, I am not the first, I am just responding.

    > Likewise, it is possible to have a “natural revulsion” to something and still not be a bigot.

    That’s just it. ITS NOT NATURAL. IT’S LEARNED. How do I know this? Because I have never learned to feel that way.

    > Stop using claims of racism as a shield to actual thought,

    Except you are the one claiming that 1) it is an instinct, that 2) should be followed. Not much thought there.

    > as a stepladder to elevate yourself,

    So you say after accusing me of using this to shield myself from thought. Projection is a funny thing.

    > and as a club on people who have the audacity to speak freely.

    Sorry but if you speak freely expect to be criticized for what you said, freely.

    Now maybe you are conflating me with the idiots who claim that the tea party movement was racist or something like that. That’s not me. I am basically right of center. I voted against the disaster currently in the white house, even knowing how tremendous it would be to have our first black president, I had a sinking feeling he would stink as president. I hate being right.

    But if you want to talk strategy, when we leave unreconstructed racists in our fold, we expose ourselves to the charge of being racially motivated. The fact is RS has discredited himself; every time he criticizes obama, his views will be dismissed by moderates as coming from a racist. Fair or not, that’s how it goes. And to pretend there isn’t a problem there just isn’t honest.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  92. AW

    OK. I get it. You make the rules, based on your understanding of yourself, real or fiction, and the rest of us just need to get in line. Some people call that narcissism. No need to discuss this with you further because you are only interested in sermon.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  93. makewi, I don’t think you read AW’s thought out comment very carefully.

    No where does he claim to be the rulemaker.

    He’s just explaining a common sense view. Of course there’s a fundamental difference between gays and straights, and there is no difference between blacks and whites. All are equal under the law whether they have differences or not, but this isn’t rule making… it’s simply being accurate.

    And revulsion at a different race entering your family, natural or not, is racist. It is deeply racist. It is very racist. It is purely racist. Is it natural? Impossible to prove either way, IMO, but I don’t really care. It’s wrong, and we are capable of recognizing it.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  94. Just as a further example of the point I made earlier, McCain’s desire to continue fighting the Civil War is sufficient to arouse my contempt for him. For example, at this website, he begins his guestbook posting with “Greetings from the Third Military District, Occupied C.S.A.”. Sure, that was 13 years ago, but the man is what, 52 now, meaning he was about 39 then? Hardly youthful indiscretions.

    None of this leads me to conclude that he is a virulent racist who must be destroyed, and I’ve seen nobody actually claim otherwise. He seems to have been fairly devoted in the 90s to debunking the idea that the South and the South alone was responsible for slavery. For example here he describes the participation by the north and European nations in the slave trade. There is a substantial amount of anti-Southern bigotry out there, a lot of people in the northern part of the country who think that most white folks in the south are ignorant, bigoted hicks. It is entirely proper to oppose that, and remind folks that no part of the Union was free from the taint of the sin of slavery. But that is also all the more reason that to ensure our own credibility, the people pointing out that others have sinned in regards to race relations to are not tainted by their own actions.

    There’s a great deal that he has said, in the course of a very prolific writing history thus far, which is either non-controversial, admirable, or at least appropriate for debate, such as here, in which he makes the entirely proper point that European white males are hardly the only group in the history of mankind to seek to assert their own power and dominance over other groups. I would argue that while that is entirely true, it need not remain the perpetual state of human affairs, but that is a very legitimate debate for another day.

    But other things he have said are more questionable, as here, where he describes racial segregation in the post-War south as having been enacted by the southern aristocracy as a way to limit the anti-black violence being perpetrated by the “lowest caste of Southern society.” Perhaps the historical research shows that indeed this is what Southern white conservatives chose to set forth as their rationale for the Jim Crow laws. I don’t, myself, for one second believe that they really were thinking of the best interests of black people at the time. Moreover, the solution was morally wrong at the time anyway, as being capitulation to those who would enact violence against others. In that sense, even assuming those good motives which McCain ascribes to the Southern “conservatives” of the post-War period, it is no different from Yale capitulating to the violence of radical Islamists by not publishing cartoons which might incite violence. It punishes the non-violent for the actions of the violent against them.

    The latter discussion is an example of what McCain is, I think, trying to say by way of defense. He was doing battle with the really virulent racists during that time period, trying to explain to them the error of their ways, and using the authority of his credentials as being a died-in-the-wool southerner to do so. I don’t doubt that that was his motivation, and on the whole, based on the selected portions of what I have read, I’m fairly certain he was doing good work in doing so, fighting against at least the worst forces of racism and racial hostility.

    BUT that doesn’t excuse his reactions to the continued questions about any number of other things he has said. He is reacting defensively, at the moment, treating questions from serious bloggers like Patterico no differently from the attacks by race-baiting lefties, and egotistically assuming that he is being attacked for some ulterior motives to assault his position in the conservative movement or something similarly ludicrous.

    He had difficult race conversations with the virulent racists in the past. The current conservative movement, as I think these threads demonstrate, need similarly open and honest discussions. But McCain is not providing that; by being evasive he is not debating underlying issues, not honestly explaining his own thinking, not either standing up for or challenging any actual issues under discussion.

    Let me close by quoting Mr. McCain himself one more time, explaining just why it is important that we judge our friends by the same standards as we judge our enemies, because the standards of truth require it:

    This goes to show why we should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines among our friends, because soon or later, our enemies are liable to coopt those same doctrines and use them against us. Even the ridiculous absurdities of the Afrocentrists are scarcely more idiotic than what is taught by Christian Identity, Aryan Nations and the Odinists, who sometimes sound just like Afrocentrists in their pretzel logic and dubious standards of proof.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  95. PatHMV On the contrary – The “naturalness” of humans dividing themselves or setting themselves into sets or groups is not limited to heritable traits, and humans will cross and blur the edges of any sort of category you could possibly come up with.

    That said, will the Nerd accept the Jock’s invitation to the prom? Maybe not. Whatever bar there is to interaction, can be overcome, but not everyone will want to overcome, or feel any desire in the first place that would necessitate overcoming obstacles.

    Wanting to go out with someone who looks, talks, acts, like you is not everyone’s cup of tea. Some like the exotic or want something they feel they lack in themselves, that balances them. But liking someone similar to you is many people’s cup of tea and I think it’s even the majority of people’s cup of tea. That doesn’t mean you don’t think “miscegenation” between nerds and jocks undermines the foundations of a stable society and the right order of things. It just means that maybe you want a guy who can discuss Vitgenstein more easily than how to fake out a goalie.

    SarahW (21aae1)

  96. carlitos

    well, if c stands for calhoun, then that does seal it. i mean there are alot of other famous calhouns, but at some point, you have to at least say the guy is a neo confederate, if not an unreconstructed racist.

    Look, i have already pronounced his comments on interracial marriage racist, so its only a matter of how bad does it get. And sort of like the tiger woods scandal, at some point more is just more, without significantly increasing our outrage. as for the bumper sticker, how can i say this? even for a neo conferate that just seems too out there to believe he wrote it as a reflection of his views. i could see a context where maybe he was goaded into imagining how slavery might be sold today, or something like that. The jokes are tasteless, then, but not necessarily approving of race.

    But then i had a step grandfather who made slavery jokes and that humor reflected racism down to its core. So who knows? i will check your sources when i get home.

    In general let me tell you how I view the phenomenon of southern pride. First the people who say history is written by the victors are missing a nuance. That is only true in nations that don’t enjoy freedom of speech. The fact that people like this Dabney character could write overtly pro-confederate books right after the war and escape jail shows that history is not written by the victors.

    I wish I could say the truth wins, but in reality what actually wins is the market. Now truth helps, but its not the end all be all.

    Now look at the market for civil war history: what part of this country dominates that? The south. They are culturally much more into the civil war than everyone else. My father for instance went to a reenactment (as an observer) where it turned out that ahistorically the people wearing southern uniforms vastly outnumbered the Yankees. So then some “southerners” had to be forced to put on the blue to their chagrin and then the announcer had to caution them, “now you guys who had to switch to the blue, when the shooting starts, don’t all of you fall down at once. It didn’t happen that way and we want to make this look good.” My father says he said it that way like as if it was a recurring problem.

    So the books sell a fairy tale to the south, because they dominate the market. So they tell them its not about slavery, its about “state’s rights.” Never mind that the confederate government then proceeded to stomp all over state’s rights. Because this is not about truth, this is about selling them a fairy tale. “No, of course your ancestor didn’t die for slavery, which was so evil that it rivaled the holocaust. No, that was the history written by the victor. The truth was we were fighting for states’ rights.”

    So in my opinion the vast majority of people who say today that they support the southern cause to one degree or another, have no idea what that cause was. And if they could be made to believe it was about slavery, they would instantly renounce it. But they have been told this fairy tale and to a certain degree they just want to believe, so we get people waving the confederate flag but also treating black people as equals even as the ancestors they think they are honoring turn over in their graves.

    So back to mccain, my presumption is that he doesn’t think slavery was okay, and I would need pretty powerful evidence to the contrary. And maybe tonight when I check out your sources, I will decide that the evidence is there.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  97. Also Patterico, I don’t speak for Stacy McCain.

    If there’s something you want to hear him say, ask him clearly. If he doesn’t care to answer, that’s his deal.

    SarahW (21aae1)

  98. I’d be interested to see how the individuals accusing RSM of being “racist” reconcile that view with his outspoken comments against racism on that very same thread of e-mails.

    Do you believe RSM is schizophrenic?

    RWL (4400c6)

  99. Sarah, you said: “If there’s something you want to hear him say, ask him clearly. If he doesn’t care to answer, that’s his deal.”

    That’s precisely what Patterico has been doing. And McCain has refused to answer.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  100. Excellent post, PatHMV.

    He had difficult race conversations with the virulent racists in the past. The current conservative movement, as I think these threads demonstrate, need similarly open and honest discussions. But McCain is not providing that; by being evasive he is not debating underlying issues, not honestly explaining his own thinking, not either standing up for or challenging any actual issues under discussion.

    I don’t know if I could describe this series of posts by Patterico as entirely “honest”. He admittedly partook in some sleight of hand in introducing the subject. If I were RSM and I saw how discussion on this topic started I’d probably be a bit wary, too.

    RWL (4400c6)

  101. Makewi

    > OK. I get it. You make the rules, based on your understanding of yourself, real or fiction, and the rest of us just need to get in line. Some people call that narcissism.

    Ah, so what you are saying is that a little bit of racism is just “natural” and therefore universal, or nearly so in the human condition. So which should I believe? What you say about human nature, or my own lying experience.

    But I get it. it is your rationalization and lots of people don’t like their rationalizations pierced.

    Likewise, you seem to be upset that I use a dictionary understanding of what it means to be straight. Ooooh kay.

    > and the rest of us just need to get in line.

    [channeling the Frenchman from Monty Python and the holy grail] “or else I shall taunt you again!”

    Seriously, you make it sound so fascist when all I am doing is using words.

    > No need to discuss this with you further because you are only interested in sermon.

    Yeah, that’s the problem. I am not open minded enough to believe that I felt or thought something I didn’t. okay.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  102. “Also Patterico, I don’t speak for Stacy McCain.

    If there’s something you want to hear him say, ask him clearly. If he doesn’t care to answer, that’s his deal.

    Comment by SarahW ”

    You weren’t accused of speaking for Mccain (I think you were used as evidence of his supporters, which perhaps is unfair, but doesn’t seem super unfair), and Patterico has repeatedly, almost annoyingly, asked Mccain to clearly accept that this quote is accurate. Since his supporters are claiming it is not accurate, obviously if it is accurate and Mccan lets that slide, that’s an act of dishonest omission.

    “I don’t know if I could describe this series of posts by Patterico as entirely “honest”. He admittedly partook in some sleight of hand in introducing the subject. If I were RSM and I saw how discussion on this topic started I’d probably be a bit wary, too.

    Comment by RWL ”

    That’s a load of crap. He partook in a sleight of hand? You mean when he pointed to a statement that was exactly the same, logically, but with the races reversed? That’s no slight of hand… that’s getting to the actual logic of the statement by forcing those who would defend either racial preference to see both sides of the racism coin.

    It’s not dishonest. At worst, it’s untimely, but I think Obama’s friends in the media chanting about racism have made racism a timely topic.

    There is no fraud: Patterico was simply asking us to consider the statement itself before we focused on who said it. There was no deception: Patterico does this kind of thing all the time. Therefore, there was no dishonesty, just because he happens to be making a nice guy look bad for something that actually is bad.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  103. A.W.

    No, you don’t “get it”. In fact you can’t even accurately portray what I am saying, preferring instead to reinterpret my arguments so that you can more easily argue against it. It would be cute behavior in a child. In an adult, it’s boring and rude.

    Natural is not a synonym for universal. You are not the model for the human condition, you are merely one example of it.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  104. What was really interested in the prior thread on this was how people kept talking about how some black people are scary. Bringing up rap artists and alley gang thugs, and saying ‘well, sure, I would feel revulsion at a black sister in law because of this stereotype’

    Of course Patterico had to show us this statement with the races reversed first. Some people just don’t get what a race is. They really think it matters that someone is black. They think a black woman rejecting white dates is making a bad decision because whites are good people, not because race is a fake category.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  105. Makewi, you’re the one being caustic and rude. And you’re the one reinterpreting others remarks in post #92 so as to have an easier time dismissing him.

    You think it’s natural to be racist. But that’s obviously irrelevant to whether something is racist. Mccain’s confused quote seems to say something isn’t racist if it’s natural and racist. But it is. And more importantly, it’s horrible even if it’s natural, and we must not do it even if it’s natural… and it’s probably not natural since most normal folks don’t do that these days.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  106. This is the worst kind of blog war — a pointless skeleton-rattling, dead-horse-beating blog war.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  107. In the end, letting race be a factor in our decisions hinders us from following the Commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. If I say to a man: “You are a member of another tribe, and I will not countenance your marriage into mine,” then I am not loving him. There is only the human race, no matter how trite the phrase may sound.

    Even if we say: “I do not wish my loved one to marry you, much as I like you personally, because of how others will react,” then we are still betraying that commandment, because we are capitulating to sin and evil. Saying “I don’t want you to marry this guy you love, because of the hardships you will face,” is not different in principle from asking your loved one to pay protection money to the mob. It may be true, but it is not the right thing to do.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  108. Kevin, it’s pointless to have a debate about racial issues in our society?

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  109. A.W.

    He explained the Burke Calhoun Dabney name in the Colmes interview.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  110. Unless you think fantasies about indicting Lincoln for war crimes make you an unreconstructed anything, I’m not sure. Another usenet posting by McCain:

    WANTED for WAR CRIMES: Abraham Lincoln

    * Violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
    * Unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties in Ohio and other states
    * Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
    * Disbanding the legislature of Maryland
    * Aggression against the Southern Confederacy

    So, then, if Lincoln was not an advocate of racial equality, and if hatred of black people was at the core of the “free soil” movement, why do Americans today continue to associate the Confederacy and the South with racism?

    Certainly, chattel slavery was no ideal economic or social system. Even many slaveholders such as Thomas Jefferson recognized that by stigmatizing labor, slavery encouraged sloth in both master and slave. Though most 19th-century white Americans, North and South, subscribed to racial theories that consigned blacks to an inferior status as “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” it is incorrect to say that slavery was a system based upon racial hatred. Indeed, both white and black Southerners of the era have left us testimony to the cordial and affectionate relations which generally existed between the races in the Old South.

    Having read the diary of Frederick Douglass recently, I’m calling BS on that cordial relationship. Whipping =/= cordial.

    h/t link above is from holocaustcontroversies.

    carlitos (57cfe1)

  111. That’s a load of crap.

    Well hello. Aren’t you a friendly little chap.

    He partook in a sleight of hand?

    Yes. As I wrote, he partook in sleight of hand.

    You mean when he pointed to a statement that was exactly the same, logically, but with the races reversed?

    Yes, that is exactly the scenario I am speaking of. Thank you for paying attention.

    That’s no slight of hand… that’s getting to the actual logic of the statement by forcing those who would defend either racial preference to see both sides of the racism coin.

    Now we’re moving past the posturing and to the meat of the allegation. Thank God!

    If you don’t believe that Patterico pulled a sly trick by placing the comments of a popular conservative blogger into a non-attributed quote while soliciting feedback on whether that said quote is racist (especially in the context of comparing them to a currently controversial quote) then I don’t know what to tell you.

    I mean…Patterico even had a big “reveal” post (“That Quote Most of You Called “Racist” Was Written by Robert Stacy McCain”). Why bother hiding the name of the author (at least for those too lazy to follow the links provided) until comments on whether the quote was racist or not were received?

    There is no fraud: Patterico was simply asking us to consider the statement itself before we focused on who said it.

    Which is a neat “trick” (or, one could say, “sleight of hand”) utilized to focus the audience’s attention on the content of the post. As I said, however, if I were RSM I wouldn’t be too convinced that there will be an honest exchange of ideas when such a “trick” is used to begin the conversation.

    RWL (4400c6)

  112. You think it’s natural to be racist.

    Is there no one who will argue this without strawmen? Make an actual argument that doesn’t leap to conclusions based on faulty logic.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  113. “This is the worst kind of blog war — a pointless skeleton-rattling, dead-horse-beating blog war.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 12/8/2009 @ 1:03 pm”

    It’s so awful that you contribute a comment to the hundreds in the last day. This is what a lot of people want. Only yours doesn’t attempt to touch on the actual arguments in play. Is this even a blog war? Mccain was really polite in how he answered Patterico. While it’s not the clearest answer, it wasn’t much of a war. Patterico’s being quite civil too. Blog war?

    deadhorse? Makewi, Sarah, AW and many others are willing to dig into the nitty gritty of a major aspect of our nation’s culture. They are arguing with passion, and there’s clearly a lot of disagreement. This horse is alive.

    Skeleton Rattling? Yeah, you’re right on that one. That’s been the root of Mccain’s complaint about Patterico’s approach… that it’s seems like a sudden time to talk about it. He’s got a point, but what else is there to talk about? Patterico’s got a lively discussion of a deep topic, and I don’t see that as much of a problem.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  114. “You think it’s natural to be racist.

    Is there no one who will argue this without strawmen? Make an actual argument that doesn’t leap to conclusions based on faulty logic.

    Comment by Makewi”

    You’re still playing games. What logic are you calling faulty? You condemned someone for saying that racism is not natural. You went on and on and on.

    Do you think racism is natural? You keep demanding everyone not leap to conclusions. Why don’t you man up? Do you think racism is natural?

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  115. by the way, I noted that it was irrelevant if racism is natural, so you cherry picking that point, when it’s not part of my logical structure, and in fact mentioned in order to isolate it out of the argument, while crying about faulty logic, is ridiculous.

    Do you even understand what logic is? Regardless, since you dispute my claim, I ask you tell me if you think racism is natural. Yes or no.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  116. Dustin

    Nowhere did I call racism natural. In fact, the question in play is whether a natural revulsion qualifies as de facto bigotry. Another question that came up, and where I became involved in this discussion, is whether you can make a sound comparison to the common “natural revulsion” over seeing gay men practicing their love and the “natural revulsion” when it is a racial mix.

    My point was quite simple, that people not being made from the same mold, are likely to vary wildly in whether they feel this revulsion and vary even more wildly in why or why not. Simply claiming it is obvious racism is not an actual argument. Sarah made a good argument along this line of thought.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  117. Makewi, it’s a simple question:

    Is it your opinion that racism is natural?

    Your last several comments have been very similar: so and so is a bad person, so you are upset with them and don’t have to argue with them. It’s a cowardly way to argue, and it’s inherently illogical. You repeatedly chided someone for saying racism is not natural, and I know you think it is natural. You do. Admit it.

    You are quibbling ridiculously, but your last comment makes clear that you think people can be born racist. So you are a total liar about your own views. A man who can’t even state his own opinion with authority is not a man at all.

    If you really don’t want to argue about this, then go away.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  118. Me

    Nowhere did I call racism natural

    Dustin

    Is it your opinion that racism is natural?

    Really what more is there to say?

    Makewi (0864f9)

  119. What more is there to say?

    Yes or no.

    it’s a simple question, and you’re acting like a coward. Answer the question.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  120. Makewi

    > In fact you can’t even accurately portray what I am saying

    I am doing my best, but you are more than a little vague.

    > Natural is not a synonym for universal. You are not the model for the human condition, you are merely one example of it.

    I will say this. I have seen too many children raised from babies to believe in that there is any significant number of people an actual instinct toward racial aversion. In truth humans have very few instincts. Its one of the most important advantages we have: our adaptability. A horse smells smoke, and freaks out and runs; no one has to teach it, it just does it by instinct. By comparison my niece picks up a curling iron, and literally burns her hand, crying, but not letting it go (true story—she is basically fine but has a nasty scar on her hand). She literally didn’t learn yet to let go of a hot thing as it burns you. Children don’t understand things that you and I take utterly for granted, like that if you jump from a high place, and land on the ground, it will hurt (based on another story from my niece; that time I caught her, thank god). They are truly blank slates to an extent that it is hard for us adults with lots of ingrained knowledge to understand. So to hear you talk, even though it is an established fact that we don’t have instincts such as “run from fire” or “gravity is a harsh mistress” you think we instinctually are repelled by seeing someone else being with someone different. I find it hard to believe and what do you know? Science says it isn’t true.

    I think it is really easy to confuse deeply ingrained knowledge and behavior with instinct. For instance, probably every person reading this knows how to ride a bicycle. And even if you haven’t ridden one in years, you could literally jump on one and be fine. indeed, we have a cliché based on it: “like riding a bicycle.” Now it would be easy to think that riding bikes is simply instinctual, except for the fact that we all remember that at one point in our lives we didn’t know how. Typing, for me at least,* is similar. I literally don’t have to think about what individual letters I type. I just think of what I need to say and my fingers seem to know where to go. It would be ludicrious to say that this is instinctual, but that kind of ingrained knowledge and learned behavior, just automatically knowing something without even consciously thinking about it, you could see how it could be mistaken for instinct if you don’t know better.

    So then you have people like Mr. McCain who has learned to mostly be normal around the black woman at his bank, then sees his son kissing her. And suddenly all of the bad attitudes he was taught about it come in as revulsion. It comes right back to him, like riding a bicycle. And it is so automatic, so instant, so “natural” that he mistakes it for something that is the result of instinct rather than ingrained behavior.

    But I know also revulsion can be learned. For instance, my wife is asian and I am not, and one element of their culture is that I find a little off-putting what I joking call “food with faces on it.” when I was growing up, meat was an anonymous slab. So it’s a little off putting to me when I go to a birthday party with her and they bring out an entire pig with an apple in its mouth and everything. And I admit I am revolted when they go up to the pig, stick a fork in its cheek and rip out a chunk; and most of my friends who are not in that culture agree. It’s a source of amusement. I love pork, but I can’t eat it as the animal is looking at me!

    But that isn’t “natural” either. Its learned. By comparison my little cousin-in-law is downright vicious, in that she is so comfortable eating meat with their heads still attached that at one barbeque, she held up a finding nemo toy to the chef and said, “cook fish?” That’s right, she loves Nemo… served with steamed rice. My revulsion was not natural; it was learned, and truth be told I will probably never unlearn it, if only because I don’t have any particularly good reason to do so.

    So you can insist all you want that its natural, but it doesn’t line up with what I know: what science tells us, or what experience does.

    ——

    * That disability I mentioned before makes it hard for me to write by hand but not to type. So my comfort level with keyboards might be unusual.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  121. Answered before it was even asked Dustin. A more perceptive person might have latched right onto that fact.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  122. RSM’s comments about Lincoln and slavery, if true, are damning beyond question.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  123. AW

    What science are you referring to? Because in my experience humans are wary to the point of hostility to that which even appears different. It is tolerance and acceptance that is learned.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  124. Bradley, I know… but if they are true, why didn’t LGF put a blinking banner linking to them? I mean, so many people have been gunning at this guy, so it’s hard to accept. I hope the ‘Have you whipped your slave today’ bumper sticker was some kind of (tone deaf) satirical criticism, and not a simple ‘ha ha ha’ thing.

    Makewi, then you would easily be able to tell me whether you think racism is natural or not, again, with a simple yes or no. you refused several times, pointing to quotes of you that do not answer the question. Why do you do that? Why not just say ‘yes or no’. Is the ‘Y’ key broken on your keyboard?

    by the way, any answer other than yes is going to get you called a liar again.

    “people not being made from the same mold, are likely to vary wildly in whether they feel this revulsion and vary even more wildly in why or why not. Simply claiming it is obvious racism is not an actual argument”

    Of course, if someone is naturally racist, they are still racist, which was my earlier (and obviously true) point. For some reason, RSM doesn’t agree, and neither do you, but all you say is that it’s not an argument to say that when something meets the definition of racism, it is racism, but it is a formally recognized logical argument (mode that affirms by affirming, or modus ponens in latin).

    You’re simply refusing to answer the question, yes or no, as to whether you think, in your opinion, if racism is natural. YES OR NO.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  125. Patterico

    I think i might be hopelessly handicapped in my discussion of mccain himself by the fact that i really haven’t paid him much attention at all until one day someone, i think maybe charles johnson tried to claim that palin was racist because her alleged ghostwriter also wrote a book with mccain. of course i find it weird to try to play six degrees of kevin bacon with racists, but then i was curious because, well, the allegations were so over the top i thought, “oh, come on, no one really thinks that anymore.” so i found where he answered saying that the comments were fake, and i shrugged my shoulders and said, “the burden of proof is on the accusers, and for now i don’t see it.” That was like a month or two ago and i haven’t paid him more attention since then.

    But it sounds like to the bloggers, its almost like an in the family kind of thing. sounds tough.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  126. AW, that’s exactly been my experience! Charles Johnsons’s ridiculous attack of anyone who has ever talked to RSM was so ridiculous and harsh, and accompanied by absolutely no evidence. I simply assumed that RSM was the victim of a smear, and he said he was, and the accusers produced no evidence. I have a similarly low exposure to the facts, until Patterico started this discussion.

    I’m much more interested in the discussion of visceral racism.

    Johnson’s been so ugly to anyone who disagrees with him, even outing a commenter, using their private info from a tipjar hit, and letting admin leave N word comments on Hot Air, that I simply joined RSM’s side because he was being attacked by cretins. I really wanted RSM to clear the air about this quote, mainly because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It’s a shame he didn’t, but that’s his business.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  127. Dustin

    Seriously, I suspect you are the only person at this point who doesn’t understand that I have already answered your question. I find it delightfully ironic to be called a liar by someone who repeatedly and insistently continues to misrepresent my statements. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Makewi (0864f9)

  128. So this tribe in Africa has caught a missionary and they have him in a big pot with water and a fire underneath. The chief comes back to the village, sees it and is incensed. “What are you idiots doing?”, he yells. Nervously they say, “We’re boiling this missionary for dinner, Chief”. He says, “You morons, can’t you see he’s a Friar?”

    nk (df76d4)

  129. I don’t like friendly fire. It is teh suck.

    JD (a79349)

  130. nk, bravo.

    Makewi, you refuse to just say yes or no.

    Just answer the question clearly. Please.

    Is it your opinion that racism is natural? Stop blustering and bragging that I can’t penetrate your code. Yes. Or. No.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  131. OK, because I like JD.

    No, I don’t that racism is natural.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  132. Dustin,
    Bradley, I know… but if they are true, why didn’t LGF put a blinking banner linking to them?

    Indeed. I’m not jumping to conclusions on this. We need a good Internet sleuth to track down the truth.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  133. people not being made from the same mold, are likely to vary wildly in whether they feel this revulsion -Makewi

    So some people, upon their making (when they are born), feel ‘this revulsion’ (revulsion that the woman who is your brother’s new wife has dark skin, when you have light skin).

    In other words, plainly, racism is a natural phenomena.

    “Nowhere did I call racism natural”. – Makewi

    OK… but I said you think it is. I didn’t say you had already typed those words, out.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  134. No, Dustin. The leap you are making is that “natural revulsion” is a synonym for racism.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  135. I see you finally answered. thanks. I think you are confused about your views, and frankly, I do not fault you for that. This is a topic where honest people often find some personal confusion. There’s guilt, there’s love, there’s regret, there’s hope… and there’s hate. not each in all of us, but in our culture, quite a confusing mix.

    I do fault you for arguing in an unprofessional and needlessly aggressive way. You think this is a pissing match.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  136. you said ‘this natural revulsion’, in a thread about how Mccain used the term revulsion to describe a natural feeling people have when their brother marries out of the race.

    Yep, the leap I am making is that natural revulsion is akin to racism. Leap of faith.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  137. I apologize, but I have slacked off at work and need to finish something. I’ll be back.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  138. Makewi

    > What science are you referring to?

    Biology, or more specifically anthropology. Seriously this is Anthro 101 type knowledge. Humans have only one documented instinct: if you touch a human’s cheek they will instinctually suckle. That need is pretty obvious.

    Now let me ask you the questions you keep dodging with Dustin and a few more.

    First, do you think racism itself is natural?

    Do you think certain race-based reactions are natural?

    Do you think it is natural to feel revulsion by the pairing of a white person with someone who is not white?

    Do you feel that kind of revulsion? If so, keep going; if not, you can stop.

    Have you ever seen the matrix or its sequels? If so, were you revolted when Neo and Trinity were together?

    How about when watching the old TV show “Lois and Clark” with Terri Hatcher as Lois. When Lois was with Superman/Clark Kent, were you revolted?

    Does your answer regarding the matrix change when I point out that Keanu Reeves is about fifty percent asian? And the actor playing Superman/Clark Kent on that show was half Japanese?

    Just how white does a person have to be for you to avoid being revolted at seeing that person paired with a white person?

    Would you be revolted at the sight of Tia Carrera being romantic with Chung Yao Fat? Does your answer change if you learned Fat is Chinese and she is a Filipina?

    Did you watch Mississippi Masala? Were you revolted by the sight of Denzel Washington being romantic with an Indian woman?

    Are you revolted by the thought of Tiger Woods’ parents being together? Are you revolted at the thought of Tiger being with an asian woman? How about a black woman? How about a white woman? Does it change your view to know that Tiger actually has white ancestors?

    What if the person was different in other ways. For instance, suppose the man was a paraplegic war vet and the woman was not, but the races were matched. Are you revolted? How about if one is blind and the other is not? How about if one is deaf and the other is not? There is a Kay Jewlers ad right now where a hearing man gives his deaf girlfriend a piece of jewlry and she kisses him. Have you seen it? and if you have, does it disgust you? Just how different does the couple have to become for it to disgust you?

    I look forward to your answers.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  139. To be fair, I’m not sure you telling me what I think is a productive move. I am not confused about my views, nor am I racist. I am also not bothered by the mixing of the “races”, physical or otherwise.

    Let’s try this. If I have a natural revulsion for mushrooms, does that mean I hate mushrooms or that I will take action or inaction against them?

    Makewi (0864f9)

  140. Mak

    ah, saw you already answered one question. my bad.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  141. Makewi – No need to do anything different on my account. I was just noting that it is kind of teh suck when friends argue. I have no need for my friends to get along, just noting that aiming downrange is better.

    JD (a79349)

  142. Dustin

    Re: Johnson and how we came to learn about this…

    Goes to show you the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. :-) But yes, I agree, Johnson is presumptively wrong about everything these days. Him and Andrew Sullivan. To paraphrase Frank J. Flemming, did a creationist run over Johnson’s dog or what?

    [lol, before I fixed it, I accidentally said “did a creationist run over his Johnson or what?” Well, that would surely explain things, wouldn’t it?]

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  143. Racism was natural for millenia… entrenched in man’s nature as it were

    SteveG (da0c5a)

  144. you said ‘this natural revulsion’, in a thread about how Mccain used the term revulsion to describe a natural feeling people have when their brother marries out of the race.

    Yep, the leap I am making is that natural revulsion is akin to racism. Leap of faith.

    Interesting, especially given that the point McCain was making is that a natural revulsion is NOT necessarily a sign of racism.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  145. It does seem inarguable that Mr. McCain is arguing against some blatantly racist stuff on that one page, and if he’s a racist he lacks conviction I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  146. My take is rather long and it under the assumption that Robert Stacy actually wrote the post. It is here.

    Full disclosure I consider Robert Stacy a friend.

    datechguy (ccf661)

  147. That was a pretty damn fine post, datechguy.

    JD (48a9d6)

  148. Bradley, I know… but if they are true, why didn’t LGF put a blinking banner linking to them?

    Actually, I just found that LGF did write about this.

    Doesn’t make it true, I know. Let’s see what RSM says.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (5b226e)

  149. GREAT post datechguy – you say more in one post that just about the entire comments section (as well as the OP).

    Everyone read it and maybe you’ll have the ability to chill and discuss something worth discussing.

    harkin (f92f52)

  150. PatHMV, no it’s pointless to spend all this effort analyzing one or two paragraphs as if they define a person.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  151. A few thoughts.

    PatHMV seems frustrated that RSM is not responding or engaging satisfactorily. He has no obligation to do so and as Patterico himself said in a comment on one of the threads, Patterico would not feel an obligation to respond to certain things. He has engaged to a certain degree, let him proceed.

    I think SarahW hit the nail on the head when she tried to differentiate between the written word an its interpretation and RSM did this as well in some of his explanation. In the Colmes interview, which took place in 2006, the Signorile piece was written in 2002, RSM kept asking Colmes “did I say that”, not did I write that, to me questioning Colmes’ interpretation of the words. That’s why to me Patterico’s question of whether RSM wrote the words, used in some places here, is the critical question. Other places, the question flips to did you say the words, where interpretation comes in.

    It’s clear from the thread that different people have different understandings of the word natural and the word racism. When taken together with the purpose of RSM’s posts on that thread, there is a ginormous potential for misunderstanding. I’m sticking to my original thoughts that RSM was describing the way things are and not necessarily his own views. That seems to be echoed now by datatechguy and others and brings in the learned tribalism concepts of different cultures and ethnicities in our nation, without the personal judgement whether it is right or wrong.

    Just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  152. Carlitos

    Well, let’s see here. I got home and here is what I found. he did act all scared that white people are dying out. So that is pretty bigoted.

    As for the bumper stickers, its ambiguous at best, because he is such a neoconfederate he apparently believes the south was not only subjugated, but that the Yankees are still oppressing the south. So literally he might have meant white southerners when he talked about slaves.

    As for the indictment of Lincoln, well, that doesn’t look like racism, so much as being a neoconfederate. Some of what he says has some validity. Just like liberal weenies are mad at bush for keeping us safe, civil libertarians whine about how Lincoln saved the country. Mind you I am not saying they are right, just that they aren’t completely outside of the mainstream of thought on the subject. So for instance,

    > Unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties in Ohio and other states

    Well, he didn’t let vallingdignham speak entirely freely, but um, seriously, the very concept of a civil war allows you to determine who your enemies are and who your friends are in part by what they say.

    > Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

    Actually 100% true. I would say that this was another case of trying to give prisoners of war too many rights.

    > Disbanding the legislature of Maryland

    True. In fact he did something arguably worse: he fixed the vote in Maryland. But really does anyone think the president will allow the capital to be swallowed in enemy territory?

    And of course McCain makes no note of the south’s vote fixing in Virginia and Tennessee. Why? Well, to be fair a lot of southerners don’t know about that, and the reason why is because it rips this state’s rights thing wide open. Whatever the argument is for a right to secede, everyone should be opposed to forced secession, sort of like everyone in the abortion debate should be opposed to forced abortions. The “pro choice” side shouldn’t like the lack of choice, while the anti-abortion shouldn’t like the abortion part; and those who are against all secession should oppose abducting Virginia and Tennessee out of the Union, and those who are pro-choice on secession should be appalled by the lack of choice. But the south committed the ultimate hypocritical act of forcing secession, of not respecting a state’s right not to secede, and thus Andrew Johnson refused to leave his seat because he felt his state had not actual legally seceded; and West Virginia seceded from secession, for which they were never forgiven. That kind of extreme hypocrisy tells you that this was never about states rights but in fact about three things: slavery, slavery and slavery. There was never a single federal power opposed or states right they failed to support, that advanced the cause of slavery, even while denying basic states rights and massively expanding the scope of the Federal Government.

    Take another example, the fugitive slave act of 1850. First, class, where was the federal power to retrieve slaves? Don’t say the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, because all that says is that the free states cannot liberate fugitive slaves. But the Supreme Court found that this clause created an implied power for the federal government to actively pursue the slaves. The fugitive slave act in particular allowed the feds to conscript any man into the pursuit of such slaves, with no exception for contentious objectors. Further the alleged slave had no opportunity to prove he or she was rightfully free. A free black man could be declared a slave and hauled off into chains based on nothing more than an affidavit before a special federal judge called a commissioner. Further, the act actually built in a bribe. The judges were paid by the decision: $5 if they declared a man to be free, and $10 if they declared him a slave. As one wag put it, it placed the price of a black man’s freedom at $10 and a white man’s conscience at $5.

    A principled state’s righter would then say that the north was justified in interposing itself between the accused slave and the Federal Government and offer at the very least the modicum of due process that this statute denied. But of course that didn’t happen. Mind you the Yankees who supported such interposition were hypocrites, too, but whereas their hypocrisy revealed concern for the slaves and freed black people, the hypocrisy of the south revealed that they supported nothing but slavery itself.

    He also complains that the confederacy had a right to secede, which was hogwash. And his claim that there was aggression against the south was a hallucination. He claimed sending reinforcements to sumter was an act of aggression, as though they were not allowed to defend themselves when the south attacked. Its lunacy.

    The big irony is that McCain stupidly labels all of these war crimes. Um, no. At worst they were impeachable offenses.

    A.W. (185232)

  153. SarahW consistently makes the Internet better.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  154. A.W. – Just because you disagree with his view of history does not make him a racist, correct? Just asking. People may dispute the lengthy discourse you just gave if it was relevant to the topic.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  155. “SarahW consistently makes the Internet better.”

    feets – I agree and also the Dana what spends all her time barefoot in the kitchen.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  156. daley i made it pretty clear. being neoconfederate is not inherenly racism. indeed, most southerners don’t even know what the confederacy was really about, i.e. slavery.

    A.W. (185232)

  157. A.W. – Just checking, especially with the slavery, slavery, slavery bit. As RSM points out on his blog he goes to at least one reenactment a year, which may put carlitos over the top, but I have no problem with it. There is a lot of anti-southern bigotry out there which I see all the time as a northerner.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  158. Anybody who can find justification in breaking this great country into two, making her into just another Canada and just another Mexico, is not worth taking seriously.

    nk (df76d4)

  159. daleyrocks… where did I ever say that McCain owes any of us a response? To the contrary, I have several times said that he is under no obligation to respond. I simply observed the corollary, that if he chooses not to respond, others are entitled to use his failure to respond, or the evasiveness of his responses, to evaluate whether he is someone with whom we wish to associate.

    As I’ve noted several times myself, I have little patience for those who fantasize about the wonderful old South. Not all who do so are racists, nor is the south deserving of the northern bigotry against it which daleyrocks correctly references. But I don’t think that much good purpose is served by trying to find ways to defend the old, pre-War South, nor do I think trying to excuse the post-war Southern aristocracy for imposing segregation, on the grounds they were trying to minimize the opportunity for potentially violence-causing interactions between poor southern whites and blacks, really helps anybody today, and I think McCain’s obsession with doing so is a bit odd. It is certainly an indication that I don’t particularly want to associate much with him, no matter how much we may agree on a number of political issues.

    More immediately, he has clearly done a lot of thinking and debating during his career on the subject of race relations. Yet today, when the subject comes up and he is criticized on the subject, he refuses to engage in the debate at all, responding only evasively and combatively, while (now) starting to play the martyr card. I think that also speaks poorly of his character.

    You are, of course, free to come to a different opinion.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  160. Kevin, kindly show me who has used the one quote, standing alone, to define the entirety of R.S. McCain?

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  161. I’ve been busy at work. Other than attacking my motives, has McCain responded? Or are we just proceeding with the status quo where he drops these little false implications that he didn’t write the passage, and we all make up interpretations in case he did?

    People seem to want to know why I did this. OK. I saw Charles Johnson’s posts and I was frankly skeptical. Then o listened to the Colmes interview and it surprised me how evasive he was. I read the Dennis Wheeler thing and it sounded like him and I thought it sounded bad but then he seemed to be denying it. I wasn’t sure what to think.

    Then a story came out about a black woman who was down on interracial marriage for blacks. She said she might not have voted for Obama if he had a white wife. I thought she sounded racist. Most of you agreed.

    It reminded me of McCain — and then I found his admission to Founding Bloggers and I felt like he had tricked people with his Clintonesque technical denials, his flat-out denial yo Colmes that some of you are willing to excuse — and last I saw he’s still doing it. The last post of his I saw seemed like another implicit denial.

    It’s that kind of stuff that bothers me in addition to the disturbing nature of his comments.

    Many of you seem to excuse what I see as racial prejudice. I don’t know how you excuse this temporizing and pattern of false implication.

    Me, I notice when people choose not to answer a question but instead try to make it about me.

    Hell, I figured I might be giving him a chance to clear the air. I didn’t attack him as a person. I asked whether he said this thing and whether he renounced it — or would admit it and explain it.

    He won’t confront it directly. That much is clear — which suggests to me that he doesn’t feel he can stand behind his words.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  162. “daleyrocks… where did I ever say that McCain owes any of us a response?”

    PatHMV – I think you are just repeating yourself. You claim you do not say RSM has an obligation to respond, but the comment from which I pulled the sentence above goes on to essentially imply he does as do the two paragraphs below from your comment #94 in my opinion.

    BUT that doesn’t excuse his reactions to the continued questions about any number of other things he has said. He is reacting defensively, at the moment, treating questions from serious bloggers like Patterico no differently from the attacks by race-baiting lefties, and egotistically assuming that he is being attacked for some ulterior motives to assault his position in the conservative movement or something similarly ludicrous.

    He had difficult race conversations with the virulent racists in the past. The current conservative movement, as I think these threads demonstrate, need similarly open and honest discussions. But McCain is not providing that; by being evasive he is not debating underlying issues, not honestly explaining his own thinking, not either standing up for or challenging any actual issues under discussion.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  163. Patterico- RSM has addressed this on his own blog. He has cleared the air but he didn’t do on your blog so you won’t count it.
    His explaination makes sense to me.

    zaugg (2d20d1)

  164. “Hell, I figured I might be giving him a chance to clear the air. I didn’t attack him as a person.”

    Patterico – No, you attacked him as a writer, which is different, it’s his livelihood. Plus, the ground has already been covered, so WTF, the more the merrier.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  165. Kevin Murphy,

    I know when you say that all this effort is going to Defining a person by one or two sentences, you’re not talking about me. Since I said: “I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time.”. Also I said I always liked him as a funny and sensible guy.

    I don’t like the tactics he’s using to address controversies about his own words, though.

    Is he thinking that ignoring my fair questions won’t be noticed for the evasion it is? That attacking my motives will scare me?

    Patterico (a007a6)

  166. Zaugg, you will accept anything he says. This much is clear. His post implies he didn’t say the words, so as far as I am concerned he’s running from his past statements.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  167. So what does everybody think about that idiot who’s pissed at Tiger Woods for screwing only white whores?

    nk (df76d4)

  168. Daleyrocks,

    I didn’t criticize him as a person or writer. I criticized a thing he said.

    Now I am criticizing his evasive and personalizing tactics.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  169. Just come up with a survey of several questions for all to answer and then we can check how many answers we got “correct” and discover where that puts us on the Patterico “how racist are you” scale.

    I don’t think you’ll do that because we’d learn too much about you by which multiple choice options you’d include and which ones you’d leave off the test.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  170. I think a lot of white hoochies were screwing a black whore, really.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  171. All I know is that Wilt Chamberlain is unimpressed with tigers effort

    SteveG (da0c5a)

  172. Seriously, there’s some clown complaining about Tiger’s lack of diversity and affirmative action. I can link it, if you want your brains polluted, or you can take my word for it.

    nk (df76d4)

  173. 167

    It’s funny because all these women on the TV machine who are commenting on the Tiger Woods thing find it real easy to talk about “cheating down” and somehow are able to determine the human value of these women just by photographs. And it’s not just the cheating that is leading to the demeaning comments because these commenting women must think there is something called “cheating up” as well. It’s like they have nazi tendencies and are really pissed that Tiger was cheating on an his Aryan wife with a bunch of inferior “orange skinned” and “manufactured brown hair” “rough looking” women.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  174. Is that different than the AP guy that started this mess, nk? … Jesse somebody I think it was… maybe. That’s very deranged thinking. My feel is maybe they’re just making stupid media noises to drown out people what are more blunt in their assessment of Mr. Tiger. Well… actually a lot of people have been sort of protective of him.

    I think he’s a fraud.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  175. Why is it so difficult to phone people in China?

    Because the country is so full of Wings and Wongs that every time you wing you get the wong number.

    nk (df76d4)

  176. Groan … (but I liked it anyway).

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  177. Is he thinking that ignoring my fair questions won’t be noticed for the evasion it is? That attacking my motives will scare me?

    You know there’s no way I can think of to actually defend the man’s quote – and I spent about twenty minutes trying to think of a valid, honest way to do so earlier today – but you should turn the strident self-righteousness down a little bit. Maybe it’s just me but the tone in that quote just gets my hackles up no matter who made it or ones like it.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  178. Roald Dahl’s The Glass Elevator, sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, from where Great Britain used to be and before political correctness.

    nk (df76d4)

  179. “I don’t like the tactics he’s using to address controversies about his own words, though.”

    “I didn’t criticize him as a person or writer. I criticized a thing he said.”

    Patterico – Who is creating the controversies over his words? Focus on RSM’s words about that. I would say you started off by criticizing and gaving virtually all your commenters criticize something he wrote and then criticizing things he said on the Colmes interview. Your interpretation obviously varies.

    I never heard of this guy before the summer. I enjoyed how he and Dan Riehl took down the circle jerking Alaska Palin haters planting all the rumors about her. Joe the blog whore apparently enjoys it over there.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  180. Chaos,

    I am finding it instructive where people are directing their criticism: at a racially prejudiced statement, or at a blog post that notes it, and notes the evasions of someone who made it.

    That’s all.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  181. daley, your last comment shows a repeated fallacy being made by you and others defending McCain (including McCain himself)… you ask us to focus on what McCain has said about who is creating the controversies over what he has said. You thus assume (as does he) that Patterico’s questions are part of some pattern, at best, or part of some conspiracy to take down RS McCain, at paranoid worst.

    There are two responses to that fallacy. First is that the truth is independent of the motives of any attacker or challenger, so I could really care less who started criticizing McCain or why. Second is that Patterico has been very clear about what led to his initial post of McCain’s quote. He is not part of some leftist conspiracy trying to discredit a rising conservative blogger, or whatever fantasy McCain seems to be making as he tries to turn the controversy to some kind of advantage to him, rather than directly addressing the issues.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  182. “Patterico – Who is creating the controversies over his words?”

    The guy who said them. And the guy who implies he didn’t say them.

    You admit he’s being evasive. Why, do you suppose?

    Let me guess: the answer has something to do with his being a victim and/or a martyr.

    I didn’t hold a gun to his head and make him say that crap. Time for him to man up and own his words.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  183. Patterico: You still haven’t proved that racism is unnatural. Nor have you quantified “revulsion”. I was expecting you were working up to it, but now I’m not so sure.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  184. It’s not unlikely he’s maybe a little embarrassed. That whole listserv conversation was gooftarded way apart from any racisms involved.

    happyfeet (2c63dd)

  185. One thing you learn quickly as a litigator… if someone evades answering a question, there’s a reason for it. It means they don’t WANT to answer the question. Sometimes this is because they simply don’t think the answer is any of your business, but most times, in my experience, it’s because you don’t have a satisfactory answer, or you know that answering would reveal something about you that you don’t want them to know.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  186. I am not jumping through your little hoops, j Curtis. I am stealing time while working (at night) and won’t waste time on the unconvincable unless there is a valuable point to be made while doing so. You are fine with some discussing the “natural revulsion” one feels for interracial images. I find that a prejudiced view. We’ll leave it at that.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  187. Basically I need not quantify revulsion for interracial images because the nonracist does not feel it or excuse it.

    Patterico (a007a6)

  188. #183 – j curtis

    Patterico: You still haven’t proved that racism is unnatural.

    — j curtis: can you ID the post wherein Patterico labels racism as “unnatural”?

    Icy Texan (8b985a)

  189. “daley, your last comment shows a repeated fallacy being made by you and others defending McCain (including McCain himself)”

    PatHMV – I completely disagree with your assertions. I believe Patterico has been anything but clear on his reasons for bringing this up and how it came to his attention until today on this thread. I thought he was caving in to yimb’s repeating whining on the subject rather that Crazy Charles Johnson. I’m also not as much, although it seems that way, defending RSM as not ready to convict him as you and the others are based on the evidence at hand. I’ve already stated my interpretation of the paragraph in question.

    I think Patterico has gone about this exercise on a bass ackward fashion to illustrate a point about substituting a white author of theoretically racist statement with a black author of a supposedly racist statement. The problem with the white author’s staement is that there is so much controversial context surrounding it as can be seen from this thread and Daffyd’s post and that of Donald Douglas at American Power, that it is not an easy subject for a gotcha example for Patterico to use.

    Patterico would have been better off just describing the history of the controversy first, rather than asking everybody if they thought it was a racist staement. RSM is basically saying you don’t understand what I’ve written and I don’t want to play the game by your rules. It’s not hard to understand. That’s none of this complex legal analysis bullshit. Patterico is trying to railroad him into something he didn’t ask for months after the Charles Johnson incident occurred. Hooray, let’s stir up a bullshit argument again!!!!111!!eleventy!!

    Oh, I forgot, Patterico argued there is no statute of limitations on racism, so go for it.

    This was just misplayed.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  190. I’ll come back here in a few weeks when Patterico perhaps is blogging about something interesting.

    Clavius (b00448)

  191. Quantified revulsion?

    WTF? At having a black sister in law? She and your hypo brother are in love, and you feeling revulsion… of any ‘quantifiable’ variety? Just at the knowledge this new sister is black?

    I don’t think it matters if it’s natural. I’m so damn literal about it that I think it’s hard to see how every sin and virtue isn’t at least somewhat (or entirely) from nature. It’s not relevant except to point out what’s being used as an excuse. It’s wrong. It’s irrational. If it’s natural, then it’s just as natural for our evolved species to think it though and reject it.

    I have noticed a lot of prominent conservative bloggers bringing up race now. Even if this isn’t a semi-coordinated effort, it’s important to get rid of these demons now. Hash out the conversations. See who is credible and who is not. And that will make it much easier to deal with the race cards in 2010 and 2012. Now’s the only time we’ve really got to have this conversation.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  192. “Interesting, especially given that the point McCain was making is that a natural revulsion is NOT necessarily a sign of racism.

    Comment by Makewi”

    Thank you for granting as much. Indeed, this is his point by my reading too.

    It’s frankly pretty shitty that I have to drag out what you meant, and that I would have little hope of dragging out what Mccain meant. Most of his points are that he doesn’t like the discussion occurring now (and he has some good points there, but it’s not relevant). When someone asks you to clarify your position, with a yes or no question that is answerable, just answer it. It’s normal philosophy form to express the view you are criticizing, in your own words, before explaining what’s wrong with it.

    We’re both anonymous anyway. If one of us makes the other look like a jackass, we both learn something and lose no real face (unlike Mccain, who indeed is probably having his career harmed, albeit by his own hand). So it’s better to just help eachother clarify what we mean.

    If feeling artificial or natural or mystical or ethereal revulsion to interracial love is not racism in your book, then you have some kind of misunderstanding. Intolerance of another race, such that race entering your family being revolting, is clearly a basic definitional example of racism.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  193. I’ll come back here in a few weeks when Patterico perhaps is blogging about something interesting.

    Never saw you comment before.

    Patterico (64318f)

  194. RSM is basically saying you don’t understand what I’ve written and I don’t want to play the game by your rules.

    You find me where he clearly admitted that he wrote it. Come back when you have it.

    Patterico is trying to railroad him . . .

    You know, I don’t want to say something I will regret.

    Come back when you have found his admission that he wrote it.

    Patterico (64318f)

  195. I’m not a big fan of the phrase “Blackie O” either, daleyrocks, if you’re going to get personal.

    But again, I don’t write people off that I otherwise like just because they say one thing I find appalling.

    Patterico (64318f)

  196. “Patterico is trying to railroad him into something he didn’t ask for months after the Charles Johnson incident occurred. Hooray, let’s stir up a bullshit argument again!!!!111!!eleventy!!

    Oh, I forgot, Patterico argued there is no statute of limitations on racism, so go for it.

    This was just misplayed.”

    Comment by daleyrocks

    A) it’s not bullshit, apparently.

    B) this wasn’t much of a railroading job. Patterico gave a lot of benefit of doubt, and gave ample opportunity for lots of people, including ‘the accused’ to make a defense.

    C) of course there’s a statute of limitations on racism. The clock tolls out at the time the view is disavowed. Patterico set up those terms, when he asked for clarification. Mccain could have said ‘look, I had a mistaken view… the way I articulated that point was wrong in [this way] or I have changed my mind.’

    Charles Johnson is a douchebag, which has granted RSM a tremendous amount of sympathy and benefit of the doubt, from Patterico and probably many others. But Charles Johnson is not relevant. No timeline is really all that relevant. This specific notion that it’s not racism to hate other races, because it might be natural in a specially ethics freeing way, is the relevant issue. If RSM denied the quote, and we let him off the hook, this view is still the relevant thing to discuss. The right, generally, has a more racially neutral manner of dealing with the world. It has a rich history of helping overcome some racially stupid ideas, such as the democrat notion that slavery was OK because blacks were naturally different.

    We are headed into a storm of race cards, and it’s a worthwhile thing to discuss whatever race cards are played (such as black women being mad when black men date whites), and also have a forum for conservatives to think through the various arguments in favor of and opposed to racism.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  197. I’m told Clavius has commented before. I’m told he’s normally sensible, too.

    But Clavius saves his criticism, not for the guy who says then denies a racially prejudiced comment, but for the guy who points it out.

    Personally, he can take a break from this site if he likes. I won’t miss him, personally. Anyone who feels that good ol’ natural revulsion at interracial images is welcome to join him. Anyone else pissed off at Hollywood and the damn media for forcing these images on us is welcome to join him. Your choice entirely, but I really don’t care. I won’t miss anyone fitting that description.

    Patterico (64318f)

  198. And I blog about what interests me. If it doesn’t interest you, don’t come on here and tell me you’re not interested. Just go. Don’t come back. If what I say doesn’t interest you, shut up and read another blog.

    Patterico (64318f)

  199. What bothers me, daleyrocks, is that I know you are very smart and that you see what McCain is doing — yet you won’t take the next step and ask why.

    You say:

    The current conservative movement, as I think these threads demonstrate, need similarly open and honest discussions. But McCain is not providing that; by being evasive he is not debating underlying issues, not honestly explaining his own thinking, not either standing up for or challenging any actual issues under discussion.

    I asked you why he is being evasive and then you come back with: he is saying you don’t understand what I wrote and I’m not playing by your rules.

    Bullshit. He’s not even ADMITTING what he wrote — yet he did to Founding Bloggers — yet he denied it to Alan Colmes. And he implied he didn’t write it again today.

    If he were being forthright about this I would feel quite differently. He is not and you know he’s not.

    Patterico (64318f)

  200. Oh. I guess you didn’t say that, daleyrocks. I now see that although the quote was in your comment, you were quoting PatHMV and it just looked like you had said it yourself.

    Well, it was a sensible thing to say.

    Patterico (64318f)

  201. Patterico

    Either people understand why you asked, or they don’t. And you have been more than fair. If this is a cross examination this is a classic case where you gave him the rope and he hung himself.

    Daley

    I hope you understand now that I do differentiate modern support for the confederacy from racism. If you want to get how I see things more, look at #96. I draw a sharp distinction between what the confederacy was actually about, and what people think it was about. I am pretty sure the values of the average modern southern white guy would send his ancestors spinning in their graves. They may think they honor those ancestors, but they don’t.

    > Oh, I forgot, Patterico argued there is no statute of limitations on racism, so go for it.

    I think most people allow for personal growth, but mccain can’t avail himself of that argument because he is clearly being evasive about what he said.

    NK

    Well while I identify fully with the pro union side, look rebellion is not inherently bad. it depends on what you are rebelling for. The Islamic revolution in Iran way back in the 70’s, bad. the possible revolution against that revolution now? good. And when southerners are taught a fairy tale about what the confederacy is all about so that they think the death of that leads in a direct line to the gross overreaching of the federal government now, well, it all seems less crazy.

    And yes, I mentioned Eugene robinson’s silly column. I think what it comes down to is that Robinson himself is a racist.

    J. Curtis

    > somehow are able to determine the human value of these women just by photographs.

    I think it is self evident that he is cheating down. First, does anyone really think that he chose those ten women for their personalities? Nope, he chose them because they were easy and available and sexy enough to do. their looks and a loose set of morals is all they have going for themselves. Second, his wife has one leg up on any other woman tiger has slept with (as far as I know): she is the mother of his children.

    And by the way, if you don’t get that racism is not natural by now, I can’t help you. You just have to grow up a little.

    A.W. (185232)

  202. Either people understand why you asked, or they don’t.

    Yup. Not much point in saying anything else, for now.

    And you have been more than fair.

    Thanks.

    Patterico (64318f)

  203. Patterico – If he admitted he wrote the paragraph to Founding Bloggers, I don’t understand why he needs to reaffirm it. In the Colmes matter, I already explained my theory on that – saying versus writing, but I don’t have the transcript in front of me to verify RSM’s quotes – “Did I say that” is what I recall him saying to Colmes.

    Yesterday on his blog RSM referred to the Southern League thread in the following two paragraphs among others, which is an admission that it was controversial and to me an admission that he wrote it:

    “That this discussion has been fairly criticized, I cannot deny, but I wasn’t writing for publication, I was trying to prevent Wheeler’s attempt to hijack the League as a vehicle for his own purposes. That this preventive engagement was successful ought to be counted to my credit, rather than being cherry-picked in an effort to discredit me.

    Yet it would be dishonorable to say that the end justified the means, so if my readers feel more explanation is due, I will try to satisfy that demand. Over and over, I’ve said that this is a long story, and a story of such value that I did not intend to tell it for free, merely to defend myself against an accusation that my friends know to be false. I am not a “white supremacist” or a “segregationist” or whatever other perjorative label my enemies wish to attach to my name.”

    I thought the “Blackie O” bit was an apt but over the top Kennedyesque description that fit the spirit of the moment which was not intended to be taken seriously by anyone. I apologize if it gave offense.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  204. “What bothers me, daleyrocks, is that I know you are very smart and that you see what McCain is doing — yet you won’t take the next step and ask why.”

    Patterico – I see what he’s doing, but I also see what you are doing. He’s also explained why he’s responded the way he has. People seem to agree he has no obligation to respond. He seems a little ticked off that this is coming out of left field and I can understand that. Why do you have an issue accepting that responding to you on your terms may not be the highest priority on his list – that is the issue here isn’t it? He doesn’t have an obligation to explain himself and because he isn’t or appears to be equivocating in your mind he’s digging a deeper hole, but he doesn’t have any obligation to respond.

    I think I’m getting it. Plus litigators, as PatHMVs can testify, know the reasons why people don’t want to respond to questions.

    This is really getting silly.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  205. #197 OK, douchebag. See ya!

    This place is pathetic.

    greginsewa (2aee56)

  206. Patterico – If he admitted he wrote the paragraph to Founding Bloggers, I don’t understand why he needs to reaffirm it.

    Because he has denied it elsewhere.

    Transcript here.

    “I didn’t say that.”

    Ah, he wrote it! How Clintonesque, if that is his defense. Words mean things, and yes he said it.

    Yesterday on his blog RSM referred to the Southern League thread in the following two paragraphs among others, which is an admission that it was controversial and to me an admission that he wrote it:

    The post you discuss begins as follows:

    Although I can’t vouch for the accuracy of everything collected in Dennis Wheeler’s “The Great Southern League Race Debate,”

    To you it’s an admission he wrote it. Tell CChittleborough who said:

    The quote is from “The Great Southern League Race Debate”, a document compiled and edited by Dennis Wheeler. Wheeler was an out-and-out white supremacist who tried to turn the League of the South into an overtly racist group; McCain was one of those who fought him. Wheeler lost.

    Is it wise to rely so heavily on a document created by an embittered white supremacist?

    Tell zaugg who said:

    Patterico- I can put a question to you directly via CChittleborough “Is it wise to rely so heavily on a document created by an embittered white supremacist?”

    Where do they get the idea he didn’t admit it? McCain today wrote a post repeating his comment here, which said:

    You seem to be making the same mistake other people have made, supposing that what you think I said is the same thing as what I said.

    Although here it was more clear that he was (falsely) denying his Colmes-interview denial of the quote, his blog readers will assume he is referring to my citation of the quote.

    And that is just how he wants it.

    Patterico (64318f)

  207. #197 OK, douchebag. See ya!

    This place is pathetic.

    Buh-bye.

    Patterico (64318f)

  208. So he wasn’t obligated to respond. What is the point of that comment?

    He did respond. We know that he’s being evasive about whether he said this, and that it’s pretty obvious he did say this. If some want to hold him accountable for this until he changes his view, that’s their business. Ideas matter to credibility.

    RSM quoted me and said he didn’t understand why I would say he needed to be forgiven for saying it’s natural, and therefore not racist, to be revolted at interracial marriage. So there you go. He said that within the last 48 hours. It’s a fresh comment. I respect his tone a great deal, and I respect his capacity to work hard for a story quite a bit more. However, RSM doesn’t understand why I would personally be pissed off that someone would be revolted at my parents marriage and my opportunity to be born as a mixed race child. That I was doing him a favor at offering him a chance to earn my forgiveness and regain credibility, if he either disavowed the comment or explain it without being a jackass.

    No, RSM is so RIGHT that he can’t even be forgiven! And he has no obligation to talk to any of us, and he’s being smeared, and he brings it up all the time, but we better not.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  209. I see greginsewa feels that natural revulsion.

    Patterico (64318f)

  210. my 208 was responding to 204 (daley)

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  211. He has no obligation to respond, but he spends a lot of time and effort explaining that he is too busy to respond to this smear, and also, people who raise it are really bad people and let me tell you how bad they are.

    Patterico (64318f)

  212. It’s not the silence. It’s actively saying misleading things and then when asked a question that might reveal the false implication — NOW I can’t hear you, but here’s another post with another false implication and I’ll attack your motives to boot.

    But again, those who will not be convinced will not be convinced.

    Patterico (64318f)

  213. To amplify a point made by Dustin in #208… in teaching law students and young lawyers how to be effective advocates before a court of appeal, the most difficult lesson to get across is that it’s a GOOD thing when a judge interrupts your argument to ask questions. He’s telling you where his concerns are, what issues you need to address if you hope to sell him on your argument.

    In these threads you find a number of people, from Patterico on through to the commenters, who are all saying, basically, “look, I’ve heard or read good things about this RSM guy, and I want to support him if I can… but I’ve read some criticisms of him, where he seems to have said some racist stuff in the past, so let me ask him directly whether he said what his critics claim he said, rather than just speculate without bothering to ask him.” McCain COULD have taken the opportunity to say: “You know, I can see how taken out of context, that might sound bad; I appreciate that people are asking me serious questions about whether I said it and what I meant by it, so let me address their concerns.” Instead, he chose to either ignore or evade, at every turn. We gave him the opportunity to explain why he doesn’t think what he said was racist; by not answering, he declared that he really doesn’t care whether we think he’s a racist or not. So be it.

    PatHMV (003aa1)

  214. Funny, that was greginsewa’s first comment as well as his last.

    How I will miss him!

    Patterico (64318f)

  215. PatHMV,

    Go ask McCain if he will give you a guest spot to take my side — like I gave Dafydd a guest spot to take his side.

    Because I’m all about the crushing of dissent like Charles Johnson.

    Patterico (64318f)

  216. If feeling artificial or natural or mystical or ethereal revulsion to interracial love is not racism in your book, then you have some kind of misunderstanding. Intolerance of another race, such that race entering your family being revolting, is clearly a basic definitional example of racism.

    What you are doing here is problematic as I see it and I’ll try to explain why. First, you assume that the first idea – that of a natural revulsion to an interracial marriage – must lead to the second, that this must involve intolerance. It’s that damn or clause again.

    I posit for it to be racism there must be at least one of 2 factors involved. The first, an action or inaction that is directly or intended to be detrimental to the group in question. The second, a belief that a particular racial grouping is in some way worth less than others.

    Hopefully this better explains my thinking on this. I know people who would claim to have a natural revulsion to homosexual acts, and yet would never act in a way that is detrimental to homosexuals nor believe that the individuals are worth less.

    Anyway, there you go.

    Makewi (23cd00)

  217. Patterico at #45:
    Wow. Is it really that unclear? He really means THIS IS RACISM but wrote THIS IS NOT RACISM — meaning (without saying so) that he was describing someone else’s views?

    My impression from the beginning was that McCain was quoting Kent Steffgen’s views from BONDAGE OF THE FREE (the entire quote including “THIS IS NOT RACISM”) and that Wheeler didn’t make that distinction when he quoted McCain’s email. Why would someone in 1996 say, “the media now force interracial images into the public mind”? Interracial images in 1996 were a big yawn.

    Steffgen’s book was written in 1966, which was before Kirk had kissed Uhara on Star Trek and before the SCOTUS decision in Loving V. Virginia, which ended ‘all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States’.

    liontooth (15a295)

  218. What you are doing here is problematic as I see it and I’ll try to explain why. First, you assume that the first idea – that of a natural revulsion to an interracial marriage – must lead to the second, that this must involve intolerance.

    Personally, if I feel a revulsion toward ANYTHING, then it is something I don’t want to be associated with in any way and I want to avoid it, and not tolerate it.

    liontooth (15a295)

  219. The “Dabney” in “BurkeCalhounDabney” is, indeed, Robert Lewis Dabney. McCain so attests in the Colmes interview. As a matter of fact, his explanation of the pseudonym’s elements may be the only clear statement he makes in that interview.

    For those who didn’t hit the Wikipedia link, Dabney was a Confederate officer; before and after the war, until his death in the 1890s, he was a theologian whose primary ax-grinding interest seems to have been scripturally justifying the practice of chattel slavery.

    Thomas L. Knapp (f1a580)

  220. My impression from the beginning was that McCain was quoting Kent Steffgen’s views from BONDAGE OF THE FREE (the entire quote including “THIS IS NOT RACISM”) and that Wheeler didn’t make that distinction when he quoted McCain’s email. Why would someone in 1996 say, “the media now force interracial images into the public mind”? Interracial images in 1996 were a big yawn.

    And yet McCain didn’t clearly say this is the case.

    1/2 of you say he of course admitted it, and the other 1/2 say it’s not proven he said it. And nobody will acknowledge how he is enabling both arguments.

    So much for conservatives owning their own words.

    Patterico (64318f)

  221. Because I thought that’s what set us apart: that we do that. I own my words.

    Patterico (64318f)

  222. Here’s the thing. The quote is going to put a different image in each reader’s mind. Each reader will project the particular interracial image that popped into their mind and the degree of revulsion they personally had to it, onto McCain.

    Those who get most worked up about the comment are those who experience the highest degree of revulsion. You are asking McCain to answer for your own degree of revulsion to the particular image that you see in your mind’s eye.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  223. j curtis

    > Each reader will project the particular interracial image that popped into their mind and the degree of revulsion they personally had to it, onto McCain.

    > Those who get most worked up about the comment are those who experience the highest degree of revulsion. You are asking McCain to answer for your own degree of revulsion to the particular image that you see in your mind’s eye.

    That is stupid. What you are saying is that those who object to it probably feel the same way. So i guess you mean me, right? You think I am revolted by the idea of interacial marriage or sex, since i think McCain is being a racist.

    If that’s the case, then why did i marry outside of my “race?”

    *puts a dunce cap on you*

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  224. J. Curtis

    I mean seriously, what do you think is the more logical explanation for my anger. the fact that this guy has bigotry toward me? or your fantasy that i share his bigotry?

    Occam’s razor you idiot.

    And don’t get pissy with me for the ad hom. your entire argument is itself an ad hom.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  225. When does the crushing of dissent start?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  226. daley

    when does the whining about “my dissent is being crushed” end?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  227. repeated- Patterico- I can put a question to you directly via CChittleborough “Is it wise to rely so heavily on a document created by an embittered white supremacist?”
    I am going to take your answer as Yes.

    zaugg (6b8b3b)

  228. Well, if I took McCain seriously, I might be upset. Because …

    I don’t think “natural” is synonymous with “reflexive” no matter what Dafydd says.

    And McCain is not making it clear at all that he is being descriptive and not prescriptive.

    And I saw an implication of approval of the attitude in his sentence structure and choice of words.

    But were I to defend it, I could, not for the racism, but for the principle of imposing political correctness in public but not in private life.

    nk (df76d4)

  229. As a very infrequent commenter, my comment was feedback on my level of interest as a frequent reader.

    Yes, I know I can just go away and not come back, but since you have open comments I thought I’d provide feedback. That’s what comments are for, aren’t they?

    Clavius (b00448)

  230. 221. Patterrico, I’ll stipulate you “own” your words. But I see you looking for cover with regard to your own interpretations.
    You don’t reveal, let alone own your feelings or your judgement unless you can carefully set down a line of fire to protect your advance.

    Let us also stipulate that those written words attributed to RSM are
    his very own from his own hand and his own mind – not some quotation from someone else – and are part of a sincere argument, not a ruse or method of advancing a conversation within a group with a member whose opinions are adverse to the ideas you want to forward.

    What then. Are those words, is that statement as written, on its face, racist? Do you hold that declaration to be racist?

    There is a flat question for you to answer.
    Would you answer it wihout reference to anyone else’s opinion at this time, without reference to the potential for mitigating context?

    SarahW (692fc6)

  231. The charm of this site is the openness of the comments, Clavius. Just don’t expect our host and other commenters not to verbally kick your butt. I’d say, be yourself and let the chips fall wherever the cattle wander.

    nk (df76d4)

  232. Sarah, I think most of us, including Patterico, have made it pretty clear that the words appear to be racist. But prior to flatly declaring them so, Patterico asked Mr. McCain to respond whether they were his and to provide context that might provide some other interpretation.

    Speaking solely for myself, my reading of those words are that they are racist, that declaring that interracial dating or marriage would lead to a “natural revulsion” is in fact racist, contrary to the claims of Mr. McCain (assuming he is in fact the author of that statement). BUT, how could I do so without then referencing the potential for mitigating context? Were I to stand there flatly and say that those words must be racist, no matter what, then I would indeed be prejudging Mr. McCain’s motives in the absence of HIS explanation, and you would no doubt be soundly criticizing me for doing so.

    As others have noted here, there are other potential explanations or interpretations of those words. I don’t give much credence to those other explanations, as I think the phrase “natural revulsion” has a pretty clear meaning. But I remain open to being convinced otherwise, if the person who said the words would bother to respond. I’d be happy to debate the issue of whether it is racist to not want your sister to marry a black man, simply because he is black, if there is anybody willing to have that debate and stand up to defend the claim that it is not.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  233. I think that if it is racist it is privileged racist in that it is confined to private life and not public life.

    nk (df76d4)

  234. Can’t like everybody.

    nk (df76d4)

  235. nk #231

    The charm of this site is the openness of the comments, Clavius. Just don’t expect our host and other commenters not to verbally kick your butt. I’d say, be yourself and let the chips fall wherever the cattle wander.

    I’ve got no problem with a butt-kick or two.

    I was just trying to clarify, given the magnitude of the reaction.

    ’nuff said. I’m a happy reader….

    Clavius (b00448)

  236. Patterico #220:
    And yet McCain didn’t clearly say this is the case.

    McCain hasn’t clearly said anything. I’ve already agreed with you on this point.

    I could understand him not addressing the quote when Johnson and Johnson’s sychophant brought it up. It was orchestrated by someone on the left to smear Palin via McCain’s quote. Johnson was simply the ‘useful idiot’ to beat the drum so Rachel Maddow could go on Meet the Press October 4, 2009 (after Johnson’s jihad began) and proclaim:

    MS. MADDOW:–the last person who she co-authored a book with was called “Donkey Cons” and it was co-authored with a guy who’s widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she’s chosen Lynn Vincent, who’s written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she’s the biggest name in Republican politics.”

    MS. MADDOW: But why would you–you can pick anybody to be your ghostwriter.

    MS. MADDOW: You could–no, I don’t think she is. But when you can pick anybody, why would she pick somebody who’s associated with the League of the South, who said that Americans are revolted by the idea of having a black sister-in-law. I mean, she–this is who she picked to write her book.

    MS. MADDOW: It’s guilt by choice. It’s guilt by choice.

    Ace previously uncovered the completely bogus Palin video smear orchestrated by Dem PR people if you think I’m simply making random connections.

    Having said all that, I think you have asked the question in a reasonable way and you are a reasonable person. McCain doesn’t need to explain himself to anyone and can simply ignore it or sidestep the issue. But going forward, the reality is unless he explains the context directly, or the circumstances,he shouldn’t be surprised when he is ostracized by people on the right, because they don’t want to be associated with those views being attributed as his own. Clearly Patterico, you are a prime example that it is already beginning.

    I agree with McCain’s sentiment that he has nobody to apologize to because ‘who has he hurt?’. He is a victim in that it shows the double standard of how Obama’s racist pastor (and Obama’s association with him) has been given and continues to receive a free pass but McCain is put under a microscope. But that is the reality.

    liontooth (15a295)

  237. […] claim is that he is after the Truth, that truth he seeks presumably being whether or not Stacy McCain is a racist, or wrote things that can be construed as racist by “reasonable” people once […]

    On blogging and its discontents. (38c333)

  238. I really don’t have time to comment much, but I would encourage those of who who don’t like Charles Johnson to sift through where he found the material.

    Can’t make links for some reason…usenet posts are here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/10/meet-robert-stacy-mccain-neo.html

    As feets noted, the usenet posts were geektastic, so there is that embarassment as well…

    Second link is to a long rambling post from FreeRepublic where McCain BurkeCalhounDabney “isn’t trying to justify” the lynching of Emmett Till, who certainly did more than “whistle at a white woman.” No, he did a lot more than that. Not that McCain was defending his murder or anything, not at all, he just resents Till being annointed sainthood.

    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2006/04/soft-white-homonculi.html

    Let me just say, that I have no idea who is a racist or not. But Mr. McCain’s priorities seem a little screwy to me. As a sorta-conservativey, libertarianey Rethuglican, I don’t think that we should let guys like this do the speaking for the party. My personal bias.

    I could do another post on his associations with white supremacist creeps, but I got lambasted the last time I did that here. :)

    I’m traveling, so won’t be discussing. Just thought these links might provoke discussion.

    c

    carlitos (3b339e)

  239. ” He is a victim in that it shows the double standard of how Obama’s racist pastor (and Obama’s association with him) has been given and continues to receive a free pass but McCain is put under a microscope. But that is the reality.

    Comment by liontooth”

    I’m pretty sure Patterico has a problem with Rev Wright too. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright Has Formal Role in Obama Campaign and Plays Significant Role in His Life

    This was one of several posts where Patterico condemned Rev Wright as a racist. With plenty of evidence, and an obviously greater degree of anger.

    There is a double standard out there. LGF is the most ridiculous example of it, but Patterico is not. You know, he started this discussion by pointing out how some black woman had this same revulsion.

    You say RSM has nothing to apologize for. I think he actually owes me an apology. He’s not minding his own business, after all. He put these comments out into the public domain, and gave excuses for horrible racism as though it was unavoidably natural, and somehow therefore not really racism. That’s something that a lot of people do, and it causes damage to society. This is merely a matter of honor and credibility, though. He has an ethical obligation to own what he said, and reverse the damage he has done (albeit it’s not huge damage, but that doesn’t matter). I won’t lose a second of sleep over it. But an apology is owed, nonetheless.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  240. […] the record, I do not buy Pat’s argument that anyone who has hangups about interracial dating and marriage is racist. For one thing, if one […]

    What Goldstein Said. | Little Miss Attila (62389c)

  241. I’m sorry you are a witch hunter Dustin. Will that do?

    Makewi (0864f9)

  242. carlitos provides another example of who RSM owes an apology to: the political movements he has represented and spoken for. The media groups that relied on his good sense.

    Charles Johnson famously helped found Pajamas Media, which used to employ RSM. I suspect strongly that LGF’s problem with Mccain is that he perceived PJM as being sloppy in who they associated with, jeopardizing their hard earned credibility. Now, PJM hasn’t used Mccain for some time, but it’s embarrassing for them to have been associated with someone who says these things and won’t really own up to his words. Many other movements and leaders affiliate with RSM in the trust that he doesn’t have this skeleton in his closet. When RSM hides the reality of this comment, it gives him a professional advantage and brings a risk to those who mistakenly rely on him.

    I know, I’m really being too hard on Mccain. I like him, and I wanted him to just own this mistake and improve. In this climate where the race card is being employed to some effect, it’s just not safe to ignore this issue, though, and I just don’t want the GOP to have people like this as its voice or heart.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  243. Makewi, you gave me a chuckle.

    I do feel like a witch hunter. I know that RSM and you are probably great people, with a sense of honor, and no intention to hurt anyone. Probably not in the top ten thousand list of problems I should be concerned with.

    That doesn’t mean this racial justification (or denial) is OK with me, though.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  244. Makewi

    you know what? criticism is not suppression.

    indeed by your own logic, you are suppressing Patterico and Dustin’s right to criticize mccain.

    orrrrrr…

    we could just say that in a free society the answer to bad speech is good speech and then we let the marketplace of ideas decide. and that this kind of discussion is not witch hunting but simply the rough and tumble in the freedom of speech that americans have literally died for, for centuries. just a thought.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  245. I’m glad, I thought it was pretty funny too. I never got your take on what I said in #216.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  246. AW

    Oh, you can criticize all you want. You just shouldn’t feel as free to use such a loaded term as racist when the evidence is less than compelling.

    BTW – here’s the Princeton definition of racism. I think it’s good one.
    – the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
    – discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

    Makewi (0864f9)

  247. Makewi

    > Oh, you can criticize all you want. You just shouldn’t feel as free to use such a loaded term as racist when the evidence is less than compelling.

    Right. We established that McCain judges his daughter-in-laws not by the content of her character, but by the color of her skin. But that’s not racist. Good luck with that one.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  248. Right. We established that McCain judges his daughter-in-laws not by the content of her character, but by the color of her skin. But that’s not racist. Good luck with that one.

    No, YOU established and embellished and leaped in logic and then finally condemned. It was really a sight to behold.

    I see now that the claim has morphed from McCain saying that it isn’t racism in others to actually now being the racist with the natural revulsion issues. You should be so proud.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  249. Makewi, that’s a damn good point. Mccain is simply saying it’s natural and not racist, not endorsing the revulsion explicitly. At least not in this particular quote.

    I grant that. If you think his quote is not accepting this revulsion, that’s up to you. I read it as saying there’s nothing immoral going on, but you are right that I am reading into it. I’ve seen a lot more material lately though. Did you read comment 90 in this thread?

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  250. Think about this from my point of view. You see someone beat his wife (to use your earlier metaphor), and when you say STOP! he says, I’m not really beating my wife… this is naturally how men deal with women.

    Now, he didn’t say it’s OK to beat his wife. He’s just saying it’s natural.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  251. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with comparing say, a Jewish mothers anxiety (or revulsion if you will) at her daughters plan to marry a good Catholic boy, with a wife beater. There would need to be some proof of the naturalness of the claim for it to considered, would it not?

    Makewi (0864f9)

  252. “We established that McCain judges his daughter-in-laws not by the content of her character, but by the color of her skin.”

    A.W. – Who is “WE”? I think should feel comfortable speaking for yourself or naming others holding a similar position, but I have not noticed unanimity here. I think there are a number of folks who feel that RSM may have been describing the arttitudes of others in that terrible racist paragraph rather than his own attitudes, but that’s just my observation. RSM seems to imply that over at his place.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  253. My metaphor in 250 is wrong. Instead of RSM being the wife beater, telling me it’s not wife beating because it’s natural, he’s a passerby telling me that this obvious thing is not what it is, and provides some vague excuse of nature.

    I think that’s clearly sympathetic to the wife beating.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  254. Dustin – I suggest that you go over to RSM’s blog and tell him he owes you an apology. It doesn’t do a whole lot of good to drop the comment here.

    You seem to have been all over the map on this one, just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  255. Daley, no offense taken, but I don’t think I’ve been all over the map.

    I was an RSM supporter and fan who is now a disappointed reader. I probably should engage him directly, but his threads are boring and he’s not directly engaging anyone on this topic. I think a lot of people screw up society and owe apologies for what they do. This doesn’t mean I will go ask for them.

    All due respect, but you’re the one being psycho, telling people they are wrong to even bring this up. You don’t want this conversation to even take place, but you want to tell me and patterico and everyone else how they engage in this. It’s none of your business. Leave it alone, please, or admit this is a healthy debate to have.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  256. With all due respect you seem only willing to “debate” this issue on your own terms Dustin. I’ve given 2 examples of the sort of natural revulsion that wouldn’t necessarily be classified as racism, and I’ve even given a definition of what I think would need to be included for it to be racism, and you’ve ignored it.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  257. “It’s none of your business.”

    Dustin – Nicely played. You have been all over the map. I have had the bad manners to tell anyone to shut up. I told Patterico he misplayed it and I still think he did and explained why.

    People keep saying RSM doesn’t have to respond yet criticize him for not doing it. PatHMV calls him a coward for not responding – no pressure there. It’s stupid. The conversation is fine, but it started in the wrong manner and has continued down the wrong track – one sided by manufacture.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  258. Dustin at #239:
    There is a double standard out there. LGF is the most ridiculous example of it, but Patterico is not.

    Did you actually read what I wrote in that same post?
    “Having said all that, I think you have asked the question in a reasonable way and you are a reasonable person.” Who do you think I was talking about??????? Hint: Patterico.


    You say RSM has nothing to apologize for. I think he actually owes me an apology. He’s not minding his own business, after all. He put these comments out into the public domain
    ,

    What the hell are you talking about? McCain’s ‘comments’ were on an email list srv that Wheeler edited together and Wheeler posted it on the internet, without McCain’s consent.

    liontooth (15a295)

  259. […] 2: I was so intent on my own writing I didn’t see update here, here and here at […]

    My take on the Patterico business « DaTechguy's Blog (5c299c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7381 secs.