Patterico's Pontifications

3/17/2013

THE RACISMS AT CPAC!!!1!!11!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:58 pm

Big Media and leftists (sorry for the redundancy) came to CPAC with an agenda, and high on the list was proving how racist CPAC is.

What is the evidence of this rampant and terrible racism?

Well, there is a recent story that is all over the liberal blogs, about a panel on minority outreach, that tells us 1) some racist white dude (Scott Terry) implied Frederick Douglass should have been grateful to his master for providing him food and shelter, and 2) a black woman reported from “Voice of Russia” (Kim Brown) was shouted down when she “repeatedly” tried to ask questions.

Let’s deal with the racist dude first. Is it fair to judge a) the group in the room or b) CPAC as a whole or c) the GOP as a whole based on one racist dude in the audience of a panel on race? To state the question is absurd. At most, you might go along with a) if you were foolish enough to believe Think Progress’s claim: “Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.” Immediately after making that claim, Think Progress embeds a video that gives the lie to their description:

It is simply a lie to say several people cheered and applauded. As you can easily see from watching this short video, most people murmured with a “can you believe this guy?” reaction. The woman in front in blue has her jaw dropped wide open, and is looking around at others in amazement. Others turn and look at the guy incredulously. A single person in the right foreground, seemingly dressed in odd garb and holding some implement, applauds — but it is impossible to discern what he or she is applauding, or whose side he or she is on. As the AtlanticWire reported: “When the crowd realized what Terry was suggesting, there were wide-eyed looks around the room. . .”

Now let’s go to the black woman who was shouted down. The lefties would have you believe that she is being shouted down simply for disagreeing with the right on race issues. Let’s look at one representative post, from Salon:

[T]he panel quickly began to devolve when another member of the crowd, a black liberal woman, took offense to Terry’s question, and was then repeatedly shouted down after saying Smith was being “disingenuous” for saying that the Democrats started the KKK and were the ones pushing to keep slavery in place. (Another female member of the audience twice dismissed her questions with a pointed reference to “women’s studies.”)

It got even worse when the woman tried to ask why Republicans won’t push back on racist comments and campaign ads made in the 2012 campaign, like one racially charged ad put out by Pete Hoekstra. The crowd got rowdy, saying things like, “We don’t want your question,” and “We don’t want to hear it.”

How horrible! All she was doing was asking questions and she got shouted down. Clear racism, right?

But was she being polite . . . or was she being disruptive? Well, that should be easy to determine. Let’s just look at the video and see, right? Surely these lefty sites gave us video of this exchange?! Right? Right?

Well, in the Salon piece, they have only video of the racist dude. In the Think Progress piece, they have only video of the racist dude. Same for Raw Story. Talking Points Memo has no video at all. The same goes for any other lefty site discussing this encounter. I have gone on Twitter asking if anyone can find video of the encounter. Nobody can.

Why do you suppose that is? Did they not take video of the black woman who was supposedly shouted down for merely expressing her opinions?

Of course they did. The fact that we’re not seeing it suggests to me that she was being disruptive — and deliberately so — in order to create a story out of nothing. My conclusion is bolstered by a passage wherein Talking Points Memo tries to score points by noting that “attendees” (they cite only one) were (was?) more upset by Brown than Terry.

Attendees interviewed by TPM afterwards expressed outrage at the way the event turned out. Not at Terry and Heimbach — they were mad at Brown.

Chad Chapman, 21, one of the few black attendees, said overall he enjoyed the event — except “there were lots of interruptions, mainly because of the woman.”

TPM includes this interview because Chapman was more critical of Brown than Terry. But maybe Brown was more disruptive than Terry — and maybe she meant to be, as a stunt, to prove the narrative that the media wanted (and always wants) from CPAC.

But wait! Is Patterico suggesting that groups come to CPAC with the explicit intention of creating viral videos?!?! Well, yes, I am — and I can prove it. BuzzFeed, to their credit, reported on one such instance, even after it didn’t work out:

Democrats hoped to catch attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference cheering the on-screen death of Ashley Judd at a screening of Olympus Has Fallen Friday evening.

But conference organizers told conservatives, a person at the screening said, to leave their politics at the door, and the gotcha devised by supporters of the actress, who is reportedly on the verge of launching a race for the Kentucky Senate seat, fizzled.

BuzzFeed says Democrats contacted BuzzFeed in advance and promised soon-to-be viral video of Republicans clapping and cheering when a character played by Judd, a possible Senate candidate in Kentucky, died on screen. But, sadly, “[t]he video that resulted shows a jerky and out-of-focus scene from Olympus Has Fallen and records audio of the small CPAC audience sounding unmoved.” Golf clap.

And as long as we’re talking about people being shouted down, what about Orly Taitz? We’re told Birtherism is racist, and a CPAC audience shouted down Orly Taitz and her birtherism:

What Larger Lesson can we learn from that? Apparently, none.

Here’s the last example I can find of alleged racisms: a black man simply asking questions who got tossed out (at least, that is the lefty narrative):

But if you watch the video, it’s a black security guy telling him to leave. The security guy tells everyone they have to get out because they are creating a scene and can’t have a civil conversation without raising their voices.

I’d also like to address the question that the man is asking in the last video — why are there not more black people in the GOP? — by asking one of my own: why Democrats doing such a poor job of recruiting whites? It turns out that it’s not just white men who voted for Romney. A majority of white women did, too.

Why, oh why, can’t Democrats recruit whites?

Asking that question sounds kind of dumb, of course, but only because it brings into sharp relief the absurdity of appealing to ethnic or racial groups as ethnic or racial groups. It also reveals that Democrats blame whites with incredible inconsistency. Whose fault is it that racial group x did not vote for political party y? According to Democrats, it depends. If whites did not vote for the Democratic candidate, it’s the voters’ fault, because white people are racist. If blacks did not vote for the Republican candidate, it’s the party’s fault, because they did appeal to blacks, because white people are racist. The only thread of consistency is blaming the white people.

I’m sick of a point of view where parties see voters as customers who are always right, and have to be recruited or catered to. The fact is, some onus should be placed on voters to act responsibly. I’m the last to say the GOP’s messaging to minorities is good, or that it can’t be improved. But folks like the guy in the last video don’t claim the GOP is failing because of messaging. He just wants the GOP to espouse “progressive” policies. Watch the video. That’s what he says. Listen, dummy: Republicans aren’t going to become Democrats to appeal to black people. What they need to do is explain how programs like vouchers can help blacks. How the Social Security system is rigged against blacks. How less government regualation will lead to a rising economy, which will benefit blacks.

Finally, remember the woman at the end of this video on Jimmy Kimmel?

She very candidly admits that she voted for Obama because he’s black. Yet CPAC is being called racist because of one racist dude who made a scene. Imagine someone on national television saying he voted for Romney because he’s white. Jaws would drop. But we laugh at this woman! Ha, ha! There is a double standard at work here, and it runs throughout all the efforts to label Republicans racist because of the events at CPAC.

96 Responses to “THE RACISMS AT CPAC!!!1!!11!”

  1. This post is a dog whistle to SEK.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Patterico, indeed it is. I think most faculty lunchrooms are filled with ultrasonic racism-alert vibration. We should sell a detector on campus, and it would be a sweet deal: it doesn’t have to do anything, just have the detector painted as “ON.”

    Sigh.

    But on that subject, I continue to be quite concerned of how progressive Leftists treat conservative women and minorities. So racist comments directed at Ben Carson in the Washington Post are not…racist?

    If the Left wants to put any conservative organization under a microscope, that’s fine. If they want to screen what everyone associated with such an organization writes or says, fine. I just want them to hold their own organizations to the same standards.

    Or does partisanship trump racism and sexism? Yeah, I know: it does.

    Simon Jester (2d62a6)

  3. Conservatives are just raaaacists. Just accept it and please, move along.

    The liberal Dana (af9ec3)

  4. “Big Media and leftists (sorry for the redundancy)”

    – Patterico

    MEGA BURN

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  5. Taitz is shouted down by an audience who applauds Pam Geller and THAT’S evidence of no racism?

    tifosa (192171)

  6. Shorter trollfosa:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8GTHXTEvIc

    Simon Jester (2d62a6)

  7. I mean, I kept hearing how a President who sat for twenty years in Reverend Wright’s church, hearing that white people invented HIV to kill black people was no big deal. Not racist at all.

    Actually, I am more concerned about the crazyman aspect of it.

    But, as always with the Mr. Magoo segment, it’s always different.

    I just dream of a time when the liars on both sides are held accountable.

    Simon Jester (2d62a6)

  8. tifosa is absolutely not suggesting anyone is RACIST.

    And evidence of people shouting down an actual racist birther is evidence of the racisms.

    JD (b63a52)

  9. Think Progress is known for outright lying. They have been proven wrong so much; that they are a bigger joke than the Huffington Post, or Wikipedia.

    When ever Think Progress ‘accuses’ anyone of anything; I have to take it with a kilo of salt.

    Debraraes (449a3e)

  10. Again, JD, I wouldn’t mind all the hypersensitivity…if it was not seen, Mr. Magoo style, through Coke bottle partisan lenses.

    Thus, if Left-leaning people were unhappy about a nutjob at CPAC spouting off nonsense, and ALSO criticized their fellow progressives for racist comments about Ben Carson, I would be happy.

    It’s just the partisan nonsense that reveals the supposed concern about racism as what it really is: a cudgel to use against the Right.

    Simon Jester (2d62a6)

  11. That is all it is, just like the wailing of homophobia, war on women, etc … They do not see individuals, they see voting blocks, and groups to pit against one another. And it works.

    JD (b63a52)

  12. Only thing, more preposterous the TS Student Union, is a reporter for Volodya’s police state;

    http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/58461469/86741730.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  13. The whites have their Duponts and Rochefellors and they have white trash like the Clintons. Rich whites and poor whites. yet the professional race establishment persists in acting as if all whites were rich and priviledged.

    I am less than shocked that one white snapped from the continous onslaught of guilt from the professuional race baiters.

    If if had been a black kid who has snapped, we would have been told is result of a life time of oppresion by whites. Whereas when a white kid snaps, it is taken as proof that all white are racist.

    David Lentz (39c95f)

  14. 1/09/2013: Log Cabin Republicans Take Out Full Page Ad in ‘The Hill’ Urging GOP to Support Gay Marriage. Oppose DOMA

    Not the whole GOP JD, and not always….

    tifosa (192171)

  15. Only the ones that agree with you are spared your nonsense. Cute, that.

    JD (b63a52)

  16. She very candidly admits that she voted for Obama because he’s black.

    But I bet she wasn’t being truly candid about her main reason for voting for Obama. She probably was disingenuous (either consciously or unconsciously) about the fact she’d have instead voted for the white guy if Obama were a black conservative running against, say, John Kerry or Al Gore.

    gallup.com, May 2008: Democratic candidates at the presidential level have traditionally received the overwhelming majority of black votes. In 2004, Kerry won over Bush among blacks by 88% to 11%. At this point, Obama is winning over McCain by a 91% to 5% margin. So, there is little difference in how Obama fares among blacks compared to how Kerry did in 2004, in part a result of the already very high, “pre-existing” Democratic tilt of black voters as seen in previous presidential elections.

    ^ If liberalism were a race, that would be the only “race” that a huge percentage of not just blacks but liberal whites, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Christians, GLBTers, etc, would care about. That’s why I’m being only partly sarcastic when I’ve said previously that if a huge percentage of black America suddenly became moderate to conservative, a lot of liberals (black and white) would start pining for the days of Jim Crow—or laws, by the way, that were implemented under the watchful eye of liberal/progressive President Woodrow Wilson and a Democrat-controlled Congress.)

    Mark (cb5008)

  17. I’m all out of racism at CPAC material

    suffice to say I’m saddened cause of how you people are, yes, cognitively blind

    it must suck to be you, running into cogs all the time

    and it hurts my heart

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  18. Log Cabin Republicans Take Out Full Page Ad in ‘The Hill’ Urging GOP to Support Gay Marriage. Oppose DOMA

    ummm…

    okay sure I’m in!

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  19. happyfeetoftheluckycharmhurtheart, fanned :)

    JD, not ‘agree with me,’ expand rights, you know, PROgress.

    tifosa (192171)

  20. I’ve said it before that I don’t fault any black for voting for Obama just because he’s black, although it makes much more sense the first time than the second. For a white to do so though is just racist, as would be voting against him for the same reason.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  21. Explain, Kevin M?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  22. The idea that leftists like tiffyosa advance liberty gave me the biggest laugh of the day.

    JD (4bb5d1)

  23. I’d just throw it back in their face. Like when Whippy Goldberg accused McCain of plotting a return to slavery.

    I’d say “You voted for a return to slavery by electiing a democrat. In fact the vast majority of black people voted for the same democrat party that instituted slavery. The same democrat party that instituted apartheit. The same Democrat party that made separate but equal a federal policy. The same democrat party that filibustered the equal rights amendment and wipe their ass on the bill of rights to this day.
    I can only imagine from the voting totals in the last election that your race collectively pines to be returned to shackles.”

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  24. i wouldn’t say the part about pining for shackles it just

    I dunno

    it just sorta goes in a direction that doesn’t make for a productive discussion

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  25. But this a productive, course of action;

    http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/88757080.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  26. Mind you, they have some good information in there, but in a place where reporters, and politicians end up with lead and polonium poisoning, a little perspective is in order.

    narciso (3fec35)

  27. Papertiger, McCain could have handed it much more easily, he could have said, that he is REASONABLY WELL EDUCATED, and that he has been in the Senate for 49 years or so, and that he thanks Mister Whoopi for her/his lecture.

    Gus (694db4)

  28. “You voted for a return to slavery by electiing a democrat.”

    The dude (Lol Democrats are KKK) running that panel — not the white power dude (whats so bad about the confederacy?) — actually likened the slaves to the 47%. No matter how much you practice “trumping the race card” you’re just not going to get over that sort of not getting it.

    scone (595f9e)

  29. Explain, Kevin M?

    Blacks have a history in this country as a group. The first black to become president — no matter who — marked a sea change for them in their self-image and their place in the country. Even though Obama was, um, flawed, African-Americans would be hard-pressed to vote against him. The team needed the win. A lot of black Republicans kept their mouths firmly shut in 2008 and are quiet about how they voted themselves.

    And, yes, I think that had that first black candidate been, say, Colin Powell in 2000, blacks would have defected from the Democrats in droves (especially as Powell was a centrist (sure, he’s strayed further left recently but we didn’t know that in 2000)).

    Now, in 2012, having broken the color line, it wasn’t so imperative to re-elect. See the difference in Condoleeza Rice in 2008 and 2012.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  30. Also,

    “The same democrat party that filibustered the equal rights amendment.”

    I think here you mean something other than the ERA.

    scone (595f9e)

  31. Shorter answer: blacks voting for the first black president is a rational response to centuries of oppression. The second time not so much. Whites are racist if that’s their main reason, either way.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  32. Kevin M, Barry Odimbulb is the Jackie Robinson of American Politics. Except for the talent part.
    When they retire Obama’s number, it’ll be something like $23,000,000,000,000.00. That’ll be hard to fit on the OBAMA JERSEY on OBAMA day in the Major Leagues. Maybe INSTEAD they could use the food stamp number instead. It’ll be. 69,000,000,000.

    Gus (694db4)

  33. The dude (Lol Democrats are KKK)

    This was undoubtedly true. And in 57 and 64, they filibustered the Civil Right Act, not ERA.

    JD (b63a52)

  34. “This was undoubtedly true.”

    That’s the dude’s whole ‘frederick douglas republican’ shtick. That apparently the democrats are somehow still the party of confederacy, limited federal power, state’s rights and making sure black people don’t vote.

    And it only got more ridiculous when someone showed up and pointed out that those are good things.

    scone (595f9e)

  35. Do you deny that the KKK was Dem? Bull Conner? Byrd? Wallace?

    JD (b63a52)

  36. limited federal power, state’s rights and making sure black people don’t vote.

    The modern Dems obviously do not believe this. They believe in unlimited federal power, have a complete disregard for the 10th Amendment, and want anyone to be able to vote as many times as they wish.

    JD (b63a52)

  37. “Do you deny that the KKK was Dem? Bull Conner? Byrd? Wallace?”

    What’s to deny? This ain’t global warming. But the dude’s point is that’s what the democratic party is today. And that’s how kooky it was before the troll showed up!

    scone (595f9e)

  38. global warming lol

    tricksy marxists

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  39. speaking of the racisms, as some here are wont to do, there’s some professor guy named Deen Freelon who’s in big trouble for “hate tweeting”

    um

    for “hate tweeting” Mr. Dr. Ben Carson. He tweetered a hate tweet about Mr. Dr. Ben Carson is what happened. That’s bad. Hate tweets are a bad business.

    But anyhoo I went to his blog. The hate tweeter’s blog not the blog of the hate tweet victim, Mr. Dr. Ben Carson.

    It’s kinda neat here’s Deen Freelon’s last post, written well before he started upon his hate tweeting orgy of hate.

    I think it’s kinda fascinating actually. He compares Food Stamp’s Facebook stuff to Romney’s.

    It’s just interesting is all.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  40. Uh, will there ever be a day in America when a white guy can say “I’m proud of my people?” I agree with your take on the audience reaction, Pat. But I think America has really screwed the pooch on the whole race baiting meme. It is time to let everyone be themselves, honestly, openly, without the guilt trip baggage. No violence, no hate, but also no holds barred. No one in this country is above criticism, and it is high time we recognize this easily understood fact.

    As long as conservatives are willing to back away on the issue, lefties and Dems (but I repeat myself) will jam hard with it. The left has repeatedly made hay on this issue in the media, academia, and the political sphere because most of its opponents will retire without a fight. (The hot shot in the Shark Tank video only proves my point) This thing is a loser only because everyone is willing to let it be so.

    Dirty Old Man (3f81aa)

  41. This post is a dog whistle to SEK.
    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/17/2013 @ 3:59 pm

    — This comment by our host MADE my St. Paddy’s Day!
    😉

    Icy (615265)

  42. Annual liberal freak out that CPAC is almost as white as MSNBC broadcast lineup and Media Matters Senior Editor list.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. Plantation mentality pervades progressive political commentariat.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  44. “Uh, will there ever be a day in America when a white guy can say “I’m proud of my people?””

    A bunch of them spent yesterday drunkenly conveying some notion of that.

    “Plantation mentality pervades progressive political commentariat.”

    The next ‘trump the race card’ panel just needs some more Bob Marley:

    “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.”

    Should do wonders with the fratty bros.

    scone (595f9e)

  45. “Uh, will there ever be a day in America when a white guy can say “I’m proud of my people?””

    A bunch of them spent yesterday drunkenly conveying some notion of that.

    Why must every leftist troll have that exact same passive-aggressive douchey condescending tone?

    JD (4bb5d1)

  46. #47, JD, it allows them to recover from the uncomfortable shock of being exposed for frauds and it lets them get back to reassuring each other how virtuous they are a bit more quickly.

    ropelight (0fa55f)

  47. Can’t you just imagine some MSNBC producer instructing an intern: “Okay, blacks make up 13% of the US population; I want you to walk through CPAC and see if there is one black for every 87 non-blacks.”

    Icy (039244)

  48. Memo to World:

    Life ain’t fair, get over it!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  49. Icy, I can just imagine someone from the Left using such math.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  50. It’s turtles all the way down;

    http://freebeacon.com/study-fox-reports-msnbc-decides/

    narciso (3fec35)

  51. what would be cool is if they were chocolate turtles and you could bite the heads off em and inside there was a prize

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  52. What they need to do is explain how programs like vouchers can help blacks. How the Social Security system is rigged against blacks. How less government regualation will lead to a rising economy, which will benefit blacks.

    The real problem with this tends to be that blacks, being liberals, don’t want to listen to any viewpoint opposed to the one they believe in.

    I’ve pushed FACTS into the face of blacks a number of times. They come back with individual anecdotes — never their own, always some random event purporting to somehow extend to EVERYONE — and blow off all the rest of the evidence. Then they start calling YOU racist, which means they don’t have to listen to you any more.

    It’s hard to get past that kind of visual blind spot. It really is. Especially since few blacks today have experienced true racism as it was before the 70s. You have to be over 50 to have really encountered it and had sufficient maturity to understand it for what it was.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (98ae1f)

  53. “Uh, will there ever be a day in America when a white guy can say “I’m proud of my people?””

    What, Americans? I’m proud of them almost all the time.

    Well, except for the politicans.

    But then, like the black sheep of any family, who the hell is ever proud of them???

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (98ae1f)

  54. Ohhh… Were you implying I should be racist, like you, and differentiate between “me” and “my people” on the basis of skin color?

    Sorry, I was raised with the Martin Luther King view of the world — where I judge those around me by their behavior their character — rather than their skin color.

    If only liberals were so enlightened these days.

    But then, they’ve been racists for so long — a century and a half, now — they seem utterly unable to Just Get It.

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (98ae1f)

  55. “You have to be over 50 to have really encountered it and had sufficient maturity to understand it for what it was”

    Yes make sure to share the fact of their lack of maturity or ability to understand history with them.

    scone (595f9e)

  56. Kevin M wrote:

    I’ve said it before that I don’t fault any black for voting for Obama just because he’s black, although it makes much more sense the first time than the second. For a white to do so though is just racist, as would be voting against him for the same reason.

    You will have to explain to me how a black voter can cast his ballot based upon the candidate’s race, and it’s just fine, but a white voter casting his ballot based on the candidate’s race, that’s racism.

    The Dana who doesn't see the logic (af9ec3)

  57. If it is legitimate for blacks to vote for the black candidate, solely because he is black, to win one for the team as Kevin put it, why wouldn’t it be legitimate for white voters to cast their ballots for the white candidate, because they want to keep their team’s wining record going?

    The University of Kentucky has won 8 NCAA national championships; should I somehow root for Gonzaga instead, because they’ve won zero, or would you expect me to continue to vote for Ashley Judd’s alma mater?

    (Ignoring the fact that UK stunk this year, and was left out of the NCAA Tournament. :( )

    The University of Kentucky alumnus Dana (af9ec3)

  58. Dana, I haven’t followed enough to know what happened, and I didn’t want to ask my dad in fear of upsetting him… did they have injuries? did they not get their freshman 1 year and gone this year…or what?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  59. “The University of Kentucky has won 8 NCAA national championships; should I somehow root for Gonzaga instead, because they’ve won zero, or would you expect me to continue to vote for Ashley Judd’s alma mater?”

    Just root against the kenyan muslim socialist.

    scone (595f9e)

  60. Anyone recognize this clown?

    JD (b63a52)

  61. Too bad Patterico used the “The Racisms at CPAC!!!” blog entry to focus on the dumb accusations raised by liberals about supposed bigots speaking at CPAC instead of posting a video of someone who also spoke before the CPAC group. Namely someone as refreshing and down-to-earth as Ben Carson—a neurosurgeon who just just so happens to be (1) black and (2) generally conservative. But — surprise, surprise — various liberals (who fall for the notion they’re such compassionate, tolerant, humane, open-minded, wonderful, beautiful human beings) dumped on Carson as much as the way they treated any of the white speakers at the convention.


    inthecapital.com, Tess VandenDolder:

    CPAC 2013 has come and gone, but not without its fair share of controversy, as the twitter world exploded last night in response to liberal attacks on the presence of “token blacks” in the Republican speaking line up for the event. [Certain people] who share my [liberal] political leanings have disappointed us all, by claiming such moves were designed to pander rather than include. Many of the tweets followed a speech on Saturday by Dr. Ben Carson. a new, moderate voice in the Republican party. He made a name for himself as a successful neurosurgeon, being the first doctor in the United States to successful separate a pair of conjoined twins.

    Of course his moderate views (he supports the assault weapon ban for example) have been ignored by members of the left-wing, who have been comparing him to Herman Cain despite the two sharing absolutely no common political views. American University professor Deen Freelon in particular found himself in some hot water after his racially tinged tweets, one of which read; ”I don’t think I realized Ben Carson was conservative until last month. Shame he’s becoming the right wing’s go-to black token.” As more and more people jumped in on the dialogue Freelon attempted to defend himself saying it was the Republican party with the “minority problem.”

    The reason this whole thing is so disheartening, is that my fellow liberals felt so threatened by the signs of a more inclusive and moderate Republican party that they resorted to the lowest of the low with racial name calling.

    It’s ludicrous to expect that one racial segment of the American population is expected to share the same political views; that’s not what our democratic system is designed around. And to suggest that the shift within a party to be more diverse and moderate in its membership is just a political ploy rather than a positive movement to a more enlightened way of thinking demonstrates just how jaded we have come in how we view our political system. I hope the Republican party continues down a more inclusive path, and I urge my fellow liberals to stop embarrassing us with hate speech.

    ^ This is why I now realize it’s not really an act of flippancy or pure sarcasm when I theorize that if much of black America suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously became moderate to rightwing, a lot of white liberals would start yelling “go to the back of the bus, all you colored people!!!”

    Mark (4bc834)

  62. If it is legitimate for blacks to vote for the black candidate, solely because he is black, to win one for the team as Kevin put it, why wouldn’t it be legitimate for white voters to cast their ballots for the white candidate, because they want to keep their team’s wining record going?

    Because the records are so different. It is a great thing that America elected a black president. There’s nothing wrong with appreciating that this is possible after America’s racial history. Obama is a very poor president, and I don’t feel making racial history justifies voting for him by any stretch of the imagination, but if that weren’t the case, I guess I would agree with Kevin on this one.

    America has come a long way on race… we still have a very long way to go, as we can see with the cheers Sherrod received when justifying racism. Unfortunately, very few people are willing to get truly frank about the topic.

    Dustin (73fead)

  63. Anyone recognize this clown?

    I do. It’s none other than our old friend, imadimwit.

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  64. Ding ding ding !!!

    JD (b63a52)

  65. This post is a dog whistle to SEK.

    It might’ve helped if you’d linked to what I’ve written about it, and made me defend that. You’ll remember that my initial comment was that conservative writers weren’t even addressing the issue at all — that they were, in effect, pretending it didn’t happen because it’s unflattering. And that I complimented you for at least having character enough to address it, as you’ve done here.

    You’ll also note that in my posts about it — here and here — I didn’t claim that everyone at CPAC was a racist, but that the response, and lack thereof, is significant. This isn’t the case of some random liberal ranting on the Internet about 9/11 being an Inside Job; this was a delegate at the CPAC convention espousing a segregationist philosophy, both there and in his online writing, who was only being denounced because he made an off-color joke. The fact that the middle-ground, such as it is, was only offended by the gratitude crack, and not the whole concept of Frederick Douglas Republicanism, is another conversation entirely.

    SEK (74bb56)

  66. People who like shoe shines are racists.

    JD (b63a52)

  67. Specially, when they do them for the Maryland state assembly,

    narciso (3fec35)

  68. It is incumbent upon everyone to denounce Terry, because he is the face of the Republican party, because SEKs says so, and you don’t want him to passive-aggressively insinuate you are a RACIST.

    JD (b63a52)

  69. Simon Jester:
    Just use the fake security cameras with “Racism Detector” stenciled on them. They cycle every 15 seconds. The resulting Pavlovian results would be a scream to watch!

    Richard M Nixon (R-Deceased) (653250)

  70. Frustrated intellectual SEK is singlehandedly injecting the Madness into March.
    Unfortunately for him, he’s the proverbial #3 seed that inevitably gets punked by a #14 seed in his first game.

    Elephant Stone (1be49d)

  71. You are responsible for the actions of a student from Towson State at a convention. Every conservative must denounce, and failure to properly prostrate yourself at the altar of leftist faux outrage and predictable asshattery will result in your tacit endorsement of every view and action of every person the left claims to represent you.

    And, shoe shines.

    JD (b63a52)

  72. Terry who?

    SPQR (768505)

  73. Terry is you, and you are Terry. His actions speak for you, and define you.

    JD (b63a52)

  74. Now. Derrick Bell, who’s primer Obama taught from, and Jeremiah Wright, who married him, preached to his kids, those are just folk, he came across.

    narciso (3fec35)

  75. hey scone take flying
    fook at a rolling donut
    only glaze you get

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  76. SEK – What is a delegate to the CPAC convention?

    “You’ll remember that my initial comment was that conservative writers weren’t even addressing the issue at all — that they were, in effect, pretending it didn’t happen because it’s unflattering.”

    Is this similar to liberal writers burying Fast and Furious and the Benghazi cover up in your mind?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. nurse said now honey
    better leave this one alone
    he’s scone to teh bone

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  78. sidney blew menthol
    hillary’s teat in ringer
    a hacker’s delight

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  79. now it can be told
    wacked-out hillary clinton
    unfit for office

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  80. ‘Tis the season for liberals to cue up their traditional conservatism is dead, conservatives are racist, etc., boring standard posts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  81. astro-turf truck bed
    just arkansas trailer trash
    ain’t no Friend of Bill

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  82. lib victory mince
    you speak teh Truth daleyrocks
    weak sucks all of ’em

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  83. Stole many a man’s soul and faith… AND he cheats at golf!

    Colonel Haiku (55f309)

  84. get thee behind me food stamp

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  85. Here’s an alert: Did you know that young people today really don’t give a crap about accusations of racism?

    I only know this because I’m a parent of a couple of young adults. Somehow or another they have friends of all races, creeds or cultures.

    According to them they don’t care about which friends are white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim or even Mormon :).

    I’m perfectly fine with that, but I think the left must be pretty scared right now. If you can’t divide people by beliefs, culture or race, how in the heck can you make people believe they are victims?

    I like to think it’s progress, but Progressives, by definition, need victims.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  86. that my initial comment was that conservative writers weren’t even addressing the issue at all

    I think your ilk through the past several years has forfeited any right to spew about the racism or bigotry of others, if only because most liberals continue to swoon over the couple described below, such as at last year’s Democrat convention or anywhere else. Besides, most on the left — if they’re being honest with themselves and others — know that deep-down the one thing that really bothers them about racism (or “racism” or true racism) isn’t racism per se, but only whether it’s emanating from the mouth of a liberal or conservative.

    Again, the two-faced nature of many liberals’ disdain of racism is evident when they know full well about the nature of the beloved couple below, but still direct hugs and kisses in their direction.

    BTW, a similar asterisk applies to the NOW crowd, which also forfeited a lot of its seriousness and credibility when it looked the other way over the, er, uh, transgressions (and I won’t even mention talk about rape and the name “Juanita Broaddrick”) of one of the people described below.

    dailymail.co.uk, Sept 2012: Bill Clinton made an insensitive racial remark about Barack Obama while his wife battled him for the Democratic nomination vote, it was claimed today. The former U.S. president, whose wife Hillary battled Obama in the 2008 primary campaign, is said to have remarked of the current president: ‘A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.’

    The ill-advised comment follows claims of another remark attributed to Clinton in 2010, where he is said to have commented: ‘A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.’

    The ex-President is quoted as having made the other remark in the book ‘Game Change’ by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

    sonic.net: Patterson stated that Bill and Hillary Clinton would frequently argue with each other using the worst expletives known to mankind, sometimes in the presence of their daughter Chelsea. Some of the anti-Semitic slurs with which she commonly laced her tirades against Bill were “Jew motherf—–,” “Jew Boy” and “Jew Bastard.” [NewsMax, 15 and 17 July 2000]

    “If she disagreed with Bill Clinton or she disagreed with some of the Jewish community in Little Rock — or some of the ethnic community — she would often make these statements.” “She would say ‘Jew Bastard’ or call her husband a ‘Jew boy’ or a ‘motherf—— Jew’,” Patterson told the WABC New York radio audience. [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

    Patterson said he heard Hillary “utter anti-Jewish epithets between 10 and 20 times over the course of his six years at the Arkansas governor’s mansion.” [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

    Larry Patterson confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use “n—-r” to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black leader Robert “Say” McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton’s use of “n—-r.” “Not only did he use the ‘N’ word, he called him a ‘GDN’ [goddamn n—-r], if you catch my drift,” Browning told Fox News in 1999. [NewsMax, 17 July 2000] Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. “He has used the ‘N’ word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks behind their backs.” [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

    Patterson said Hillary was no stranger to the “N” word either. He heard her say “n—-r” “probably six, eight, ten times. She would be upset with someone in the black community and she would use the ‘N’ word, like, you heard they’ve got the president’s brother on tape using the ‘N’ word.” [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

    ^ The left wouldn’t be so disgusting if it at least didn’t fall for the notion that its biases stem from such a wonderful, loving, humane, tolerant, compassionate part of the human spirit.

    Mark (f1ea74)

  87. If anyone here hasn’t read Frederick Douglas’ autobiography, you really should.

    carlitos (2ae3a6)

  88. Totally random, but one year ago today, I met Bill Clinton.

    carlitos (2ae3a6)

  89. The Philadelphia physician wrote:

    Dana, I haven’t followed enough to know what happened, and I didn’t want to ask my dad in fear of upsetting him… did they have injuries? did they not get their freshman 1 year and gone this year…or what?

    They lost Nerlens Noel, their best player, to an ACL tear a month ago, but they weren’t living up to expectations even before that. UK has a bunch of talented players, but they never jelled into an actual team this year. Two of the freshmen are still projected as lottery picks, and two more could go late first round, if they all declare for the draft, but, other than Mr Noel, they really aren’t NBA ready. They have the physical talent and tools, but they lack the mental toughness.

    Coach Calipari has said that this was the worst job he has ever done coaching a team.

    When UK won the title last year, part of it was due to the NBA lock-out the previous year: Terrence Jones and Doron Lamb stayed for their sophomore seasons, and, along with some top incoming freshmen, UK had the tools it needed. If some of this years freshmen stay, with the incoming class UK has for next year, they could be tough again . . . if Coach Calipari can turn them into an actual team.

    The University of Kentucky fan Dana (3e4784)

  90. Dustin wrote:

    Because the records are so different. It is a great thing that America elected a black president. There’s nothing wrong with appreciating that this is possible after America’s racial history. Obama is a very poor president, and I don’t feel making racial history justifies voting for him by any stretch of the imagination, but if that weren’t the case, I guess I would agree with Kevin on this one.

    America has come a long way on race… we still have a very long way to go, as we can see with the cheers Sherrod received when justifying racism. Unfortunately, very few people are willing to get truly frank about the topic.

    No, it is not “a great thing that America elected a black president.” It would be a good thing if we just flat didn’t notice or care what color the President happened to be, but I suppose that will never happen.

    The argument you have given is just another version of the arguments for Affirmative Action, arguments I find repugnant.

    The Dana who recognizes that this will never happen (3e4784)

  91. Carlitos wrote:

    Totally random, but one year ago today, I met Bill Clinton.

    Did you wash your hands afterward?

    The hygenic Dana (3e4784)

  92. Lol. He seemed very clean.

    Oh.

    carlitos (3ebb76)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8776 secs.