Patterico's Pontifications

11/20/2005

Malkin Strikes Back

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General — Patterico @ 9:27 am



I am often astounded at the incredible level of vitriol Michelle Malkin puts up with. Today she strikes back because her husband is getting dragged into it. Good for her.

116 Responses to “Malkin Strikes Back”

  1. The Left’s shabby treatment of Michelle Malkin is yet another example of their knee-jerk racism. Every time some minority individual declines to knuckle under to the Lefty thought police and think for themselves, the racist smear merchants and their MSM attack dogs begin to bark.

    The “diversity” crowd doesn’t much care for diverse views anyway, but the idea that an Asian female might have the strength and courage to reject Dem dogma can’t be allowed. First they attack Michelle, then go after her husband. What’s next, the kids?

    The Left’s viscious campaign against minority Americans is wrong and should be stopped. Those who engage in it should be publicly exposed and castigated.

    Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Mike Steel are only a few of the individuals smeared by Lefty racists. It is not only wrong, it’s against the very foundations of American civil liberty. Racism is an ugly and continuing reality among America’s so-called Liberals. How these people can look themselves in the mirror escapes me.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  2. Black Jack, you ignorantly understand racism to mean that no one can criticize any person other than a Caucasian or the criticism is racist. Actually though, to stereotype a whole group of people is racist. I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting what racism is to further your own extreme political views. Get a grip.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  3. Michelle will be discussing this with us tonight on Pundit Review Radio. You can stream the show live at wrko.com at 9pm EST and call us toll free at 877-469-4322.

    More info here,

    http://www.punditreview.com

    Kevin (de8a04)

  4. OK Tillman, so if I assert “All politicians are corrupt, lying vermin”, stereotyping a whole group of people, exactly which race have I denigrated? I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting what racism is to further your own extreme political views.

    jd watson (e27eeb)

  5. Tillman,

    Legitimate criticism is fine and dandy, I don’t have any objections there, and I don’t consider criticism in and of itself, to be racist, that’s stupid. And, criticism isn’t the issue, but likely you know that and simply want to confuse the subject. Seems I hit close to the mark, you can’t handle the truth.

    Did you even read the MM post? Do you recall the way Judge Thomas was attacked, do you recall how Condi Rice was portrayed, do you know that Dems throw Oreo Cookies at Mike Steel?

    That’s racism, and I’m not misrepresenting anything. Racism is real and exists outside my level of intelligence and outside the scope of my political views. Racism is wrong, and objecting to racist attacks doesn’t qualify me for white sheets and a funny hat. You get that prize.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  6. “Today she strikes back because her husband is getting dragged into it.”

    I’m wondering who did the research for her ‘lock-em-up’ book.

    actus (c9e62e)

  7. Actually Black Jack, I was responding more to your comment than the post. You usually don’t point to specific examples and just rant on about alleged racism from the democrats, and that kind of criticism isn’t good for anything. If you’re going to use the race card, don’t just spew hate speech.

    As for Milken’s post, it is disingenuous of her to talk as if all of her mail from the left is racist. Besides, any blogger who spews as much venomous hatred as she does is going to attract some real bozos and ridiculous accusations. The left and right hurling vicious attacks at each other doesn’t solve anything. We should quit questioning each other’s motives so much. For example, calling Murtha a coward is no way to debate an issue.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  8. Tillman,

    Throwing Oreo’s at a black man isn’t “alleged racism.” It’s a specific example of Democrats engaged in overt racism in the public arena. Can’t you see that?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  9. I’m wondering who did the research for her ‘lock-em-up’ book.

    Yeah, and I’m wondering who posts all of the idiotic, baseless crap under Acthole’s name. Is it a real liberal, a conservative attemptin to discredit the left, some computer algorithm, or something else? If you have any evidence someone other than Malkin did all the research for a book you don’t like, let’s see the evidence. If you don’t, kindly do the rest of us a favor and STFU.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  10. Acty–

    Her research assistant is credited in the acknowledgments of the book, which you should be able to find just fine in your local bookstore assuming some helpful lefty hasn’t hidden or destroyed every copy.

    Go ye and read, and be not a playa hatah.

    See Dubya (d2a16e)

  11. I’m behind Mrs. Malkin 100%
    Screw these leftist attack dogs. When someone has a cogent argument against their position, they whine that it’s a personal attack. When beaten so bad even a dog would run away with its tail between its legs, they attack on the most personal levels and claim it’s fair game. No ideas, no intellect and no class.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  12. Racism is maltreatment of people based upon their racial, ethnic, or religious characteristics by the government (policies, regulations, laws, etc.). Most of the things mentioned here are bigotry, not racism.

    Charles D. Quarles (5d11c1)

  13. Charles, I don’t know where you get your information, but the word “racism” has nothing to do with government. Governments are no more or less capable of racism than anyone else.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  14. “Her research assistant is credited in the acknowledgments of the book, which you should be able to find just fine in your local bookstore assuming some helpful lefty hasnt hidden or destroyed every copy.”

    Just 1 research assistant? More would have been better

    “If you have any evidence someone other than Malkin did all the research for a book you dont like, lets see the evidence”

    The complaint is that the research was done shoddily, and I want to know who to blame.

    Eric Muller went into her research of the MAGIC cables and how it rehashed David Lowman’s work.

    Start at the linked text:

    I was, frankly, amazed at the speed with which Michelle researched and wrote the book, and then brought it to publication. She mentioned yesterday that she had been led to do much of the research for the book by a weblog dialogue (a “diablogue?”) between me and Sparky at Sgt. Styker that took place 16 months ago.

    That’s “the complaint.” But another “complaint” is that Muller’s complaint is unconvincing and unnecessarily snide. For example, early on, he links favorably to photoshops of the cover of the book, including one that suggested Malkin should be killed. He also whined about not getting a review copy. “Is that legal”? Sure. Is that convincing? About as convincing as an anonymous Actus demanding to know people’s names. — Patterico

    actus (c9e62e)

  15. If you don’t like Michelle Malkin, don’t read her blog and don’t buy her books. But to attack her and her family because you dislike her opinions is wrong.

    I’m sure there are examples on both sides of the political fence of personal attacks on people for their opinions or actions (insert obligatory “conservatives hate Clinton” reference here), but to engage in personal attacks on bloggers and their families is pathetic.

    DRJ (15ed57)

  16. For someone who likes to hurl invective and insults, Malkin is an awfully thin-skinned whiner.

    Geek, Esq. (411e6e)

  17. Geek, got an example?

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  18. Throwing Oreo’s at a black man isn’t “alleged racism.”

    It’s not even alleged. It’s an urban myth–it never happened.

    But, amongst Wingnut circles, it’s one of those “known facts” they like to bash liberals for claiming.

    Geek, Esq. (411e6e)

  19. Of what, Malkin whining, or hurling invective and insults?

    Geek, Esq. (411e6e)

  20. ” But another “complaint” is that Muller’s complaint is unconvincing and unnecessarily snide. For example, early on, he links favorably to photoshops of the cover of the book, including one that suggested Malkin should be killed. He also whined about not getting a review copy. “Is that legal”? Sure. Is that convincing?”

    How does not getting a review copy or liniking to photoshops make him less convincing? I think the argument that the research is more than 1 person could do in a short time is pretty convincing.

    actus (c9e62e)

  21. http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=622881&nid=428

    According to numerous reports in the Washington Times, Steele was “pelted” with Oreo cookies, which signifies a racial slur for being black on the outside and white on the inside.

    Times reporter S.A. Miller is one of the writers who referenced the incident in news articles on more than one occasion. Miller told WTOP he attended the event in 2002 and saw Steele get hit with cookies.

    When pressed, Miller said he couldn’t swear in court that Steele did get hit with cookies because he didn’t actually see it happen.

    On Tuesday, Steele told WTOP that he was never hit with Oreos and said the incident has been exaggerated.

    “I’ve never claimed that I was hit, no. The one or two that I saw at my feet were there. I just happened to look down and see them,” Steele said.

    Geek, Esq. (411e6e)

  22. The libs who have defended the attacks on Steel don’t seem to argue whether oreos were ever thrown. It’s all fair game to them. As for your request for a clarification of which example I was asking for, either. She doesn’t personally insulp people. Show me one example. (And no, calling someone a whiner, a sissy or a dumb liberal is NOT the same as calling them a slant-eyed gook bitch, which is what she’s standing up to.)

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  23. actus(much like Muller): Copy and Paste lib. Not a lot going on up here, eh?

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  24. geek: copy and paste lib.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  25. ” She doesn’t personally insulp people.”

    She just calls them unhinged.

    “actus(much like Muller): Copy and Paste lib. Not a lot going on up here, eh? ”

    Its my background in software development. No reason to redo work. Someone else has said it better.

    actus (c9e62e)

  26. Calling someone who tries to run over a Republican or who burns swastikas into Republican lawns “unhinged” is not a personal insulp… Try again.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  27. “Calling someone who tries to run over a Republican or who burns swastikas into Republican lawns “unhinged” is not a personal insulp… Try again.”

    I thought she was calling all liberals unhinged. Ok. Great! So she just calls crazy people unhinged.

    actus (c9e62e)

  28. So, now Michelle Malkin can’t have research assistants. That’s news! Perhaps the Lefty book police should swing into action. Call out the SWAT Team and pull another Waco. Where’s Janet Reno when Dems need her to take responsibility for killing innocent women and children?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  29. You just called them “crazy” … Quick! Someone call the sensitivity police! We have a verified meanie here!

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  30. You know Actus, there may have been more than one research assistant. I can find out for you if you’re willing to hire me to do your research for you.

    See Dubya (d2a16e)

  31. “You know Actus, there may have been more than one research assistant. I can find out for you if you’re willing to hire me to do your research for you. ”

    I’d rather pay you to do research for her.

    actus (c9e62e)

  32. Leave my family out of this!

    As I said, she’s a hypocritical whiner of the highest order. Consistently engages in gutter-level attacks against her opponents, and then pouts when she gets fecal matter stuck to her shoe.

    Geek, Esq. (921ef3)

  33. actus, more to the point, the actions of every person profiled in Unhinged are indeed “crazy.”
    If you can liken burning swastikas, and attempted hit&run (AND slashing tires, shooting out windows, burning lawns, taking chainsaws to campaign signs, ect) and the like to “crazy” behavior, maybe you can understand that said behavior might actually be deserving of the label, “unhinged” and not constitute a personal attack. Maybe?

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  34. ‘actus, more to the point, the actions of every person profiled in Unhinged are indeed “crazy.”’

    That’s great! I was worried that it was an attack, that it was about how liberals like me are crazy, rather than about crazy people.

    actus (c9e62e)

  35. Geek,
    Got one example of a “gutter-level” attack?

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  36. I think dragging someone’s divorce records into a political debate counts.

    Geek, Esq. (921ef3)

  37. actus: incoherent.

    (It’s an adjective, and a fitting one.
    A personal attack might be more like this: actus is a stupid corn-fed idiot who makes love to his sheep.)

    See the difference? We don’t need to stoop to that level because we’ve got you beat with facts alone.
    Call me Bill Bennette. It would be a compliment.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  38. geek, who’s divorce records did she drag up? (seriously, haven’t heard that one)

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  39. “We don’t need to stoop to that level because we’ve got you beat with facts alone.”

    Malkin has a way with those. I agree. She’s good with the facts.

    actus (c9e62e)

  40. Sheehan brought up her husband on her own, and when REAL reporters went to HIM for a comment? We get everything Michelle is reporting. Nice try. Got anything else?

    (The fact that Sheehan has built her entire anti-war mythology by putting words into a family member who can no longer speak for himself is irrelevant, I guess.)

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  41. Ms. Malkin can dish it out as well as she can take it and mostly even better. And she is, in my opinion, deliberately provocative — she invites a lot of the vitriol. Nonetheless, personal attacks on either her or her family are despicable and nothing more than a reflection on the character and morality of the attacker. Call her ideas whatever you like — “over the top” is a good description — but yes, definitely, leave out the vile name calling and LEAVE HER FAMILY ALONE.

    nk (ca8012)

  42. “actus: incoherent.”

    Is there a simpler way to say that Malkin is good with facts?

    actus (c9e62e)

  43. Perhaps you do not understand that in your attempt at snark, you are actually correct: Malkin is good with facts. They speak for themselves in the case of Unhinged, just like all of the attacks on her race and family make the very point of the book. That you are here to aid in the attempted personal destruction of what, if you were correct, would be an otherwise insignificant figure is even more telling of your connection with the unhinged left. Call that a personal attack if it makes you sleep better, but it’s the way I see it.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  44. “Perhaps you do not understand that in your attempt at snark, you are actually correct: Malkin is good with facts.”

    She has a knack for finding them. I’m really amazed at the amount of work she’s able to do, sifting via all the facts that are out there, and finding these.

    actus (c9e62e)

  45. Black Jack, there is some question as to the oreo incident here:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreo15nov15,1,4616553.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

    Assuming it happened, yeah – shame on them.

    But how many people were supposedly involved? Finding a handful of people who do foolish things (assuming the reports are true about the oreo incident) is easy to do. But it doesn’t prove or even provide much evidence at all that democrats are racist. You are using the ridiculous technique of Rush Limbaugh who finds some idiot doing something idiotic and talks as if all democrats approve of it. It’s just a ludicrous, fool’s game.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  46. ” Finding a handful of people who do foolish things (assuming the reports are true about the oreo incident) is easy to do”

    Is this an attack on Malkin? I resent that. She’s very good with facts!

    “You are using the ridiculous technique of Rush Limbaugh who finds some idiot doing something idiotic and talks as if all democrats approve of it. It’s just a ludicrous, fool’s game.”

    It is isn’t it?

    actus (c9e62e)

  47. actus: incoherent

    (unless of course that is an admission that everything [or anything] she’s written is indeed fact…)
    Nevermind. That vaccuum you consider a dry sense of humor is all too familiar.

    Run along and find something to cut and paste (and don’t eat all the paste this time!)

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  48. “unless of course that is an admission that everything [or anything] she’s written is indeed fact”

    I don’t doubt that she’s good with them. She clearly says some things that are opinion too. Do you think she doesn’t have any opinions?

    actus (c9e62e)

  49. you are eating too much paste. whether she has opinions or not is as irrelevant to this post as whether Muller had any good arguments against “Internment.”
    This thread has devolved to a sad level. Mrs. Malkin deserves batter. Bye Bye.

    Jeff In NC (5533ea)

  50. “whether she has opinions or not is as irrelevant to this post as whether Muller had any good arguments against “Internment.””

    Her writing opinions means that not everything she says is a fact. Some of it is opinion. As we would expect.

    I thikn Muller’s objection to how she can do so much work — and whether she has done all the work that one needs to do to make her claims — is relevant to her dicussion of who does her work.

    actus (c9e62e)

  51. I have looked at MM’s site only sporadically. Even if she was a terrible writer and used debatable material (which I am not conceding for a moment), neither she nor any other human should be subject to some of the foul things that are on the internet regarding her. In fact, I don’t see how anyone can seriously argue that material concerning derogatory sexual and racial terms should even be given the light of day, let alone defended. Freedom of speech and freedom of smut are not the same thing. Do I have the power to enforce this? No. Would I ever let a son or daughter of mine put forth such stuff? No. Would I defend an adult son or daughter writing this stuff? No, I’d help pay for the prosecution.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  52. I’m amazed that people can attack Malkin for allegedly (I haven’t read it) (a) writing a poorly-argued, sloppily-written book, while (b) writing the book so fast that no single human being could possibly have done it in that amount of time, so she must have had help.

    Wouldn’t (a) adequately explain (b)? If the book is so second-rate, doesn’t that make it very easy to believe that it was hastily written by one person? How much help does a professional writer need to crank out a second-rate book? Her enemies can’t even be bothered to make their criticisms consistent.

    Dr. Weevil (e0b7d7)

  53. You are using the ridiculous technique of Rush Limbaugh who finds some idiot doing something idiotic and talks as if all democrats approve of it.

    Well, let’s see… Dean the Scream has said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for ..” among other unhinged stuff and he IS STILL the head of the DNC.

    I’d say that rubs a bit off on all Dems.

    I find it really interesting in this day and age there are people (who claim they aren’t racist or sexist) who just cannot comprehend a minority woman with brains and drive.

    All their pet minorities know what’s best for them!

    Darleen (f20213)

  54. “Dean the Scream has said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for ..” among other unhinged stuff and he IS STILL the head of the DNC.”

    You’d think that would be a qualification. I mean, Everyone knows how big a heart tom delay has for democrats right?

    actus (c9e62e)

  55. The libs didn’t attack President Clinton for being influenced by his wife. Heck, you show me a married couple where one spouse doesn’t influence the other, and I’ll show you a couple who ought not to be married!

    And the libs didn’t attack President Clinton for using a speechwriter, nor Senatrix Clinton for having considerable help, if not an actual ghostwriter, for her book Lying History.

    But the funniest part is that there actually is a website called Malkin(s) Watch, devoted to nothing other than reading and spewing about Michelle Malkin, sort of like a fan club in reverse. I’d call that someone with a little bit too much free time on his hands.

    Dana R. Pico (3e4784)

  56. Are liberals writing these racits comments? How do we know? From what I see they are nutjobs first, anything else second. And the burden is certainly on anyone claiming that they are Democrats to prove it.

    I’m no Malkin fan but she gets to hit back if she wants to. On the other hand, this talk about the bulk of either major political party being racist, actually racist, is idiotic.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  57. actus

    Quit being tedious. Delay is the responsibility of those that elected him. Dean, like Mehlman, is chairman of his party.

    Show me where Mehlman has said “I hate Democrats and everything they stand for” and we’ll talk.

    The attacks on Michelle try to dismiss her ideas, not on point, but by saying they are not her ideas to begin with.

    It is racist to claim that because of her ethnic background she is not allowed her political opinions. It is sexist to claim that she is nothing but an empty vessel filled with her husband’s thoughts.

    Darleen (f20213)

  58. “Quit being tedious. Delay is the responsibility of those that elected him.”

    The congressional republicans that made him majority leader?

    “Dean, like Mehlman, is chairman of his party.”

    Yup. He’s got a real bit heart too.

    “It is racist to claim that because of her ethnic background she is not allowed her political opinions. It is sexist to claim that she is nothing but an empty vessel filled with her husband’s thoughts.”

    Absolutely. Those charges need to be based on her work, not her status.

    actus (ebc508)

  59. Re: #47,

    “Assuming it happened, yeah – shame on them.”

    Why qualify it? Shame on anyone who remains silent while a campaign of racist and sexist smear attacks is directed against minority Conservatives like Mike Steel or Michelle Malkin.

    Shame on anyone who would stoop to racism and sexism to try to prevent a black Conservative from a seat on the Supreme Court.

    Shame on the Left for using racist and sexist smears.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  60. Geek and Tillman, the oreo incident isn’t exactly on topic, but it’s not completely unrelated –it fits in very well with the theme of the political left excusing racism on the part of those seeking to advance a left leaning agenda or even merely opposing or shouting down conservatives.

    If you aren’t familiar with the incident and it s background, you should do a little reading from contemporary accounts (and not just those in the Baltimore Sun). The throwing of the oreos certainly happened. Tillman, you need to consider that the source of the challenge to Black Jack’s version is the Baltimore Sun, a newspaper that under no circumstances should be trusted to accurately report facts regarding anything involving Maryland partisan politics, particularly where the present Republican administration is concerned. During the 2002 campaign, the Sun itself said that Steele was on the ticket only because of his race, so its credibility on this issue in particular should be zero. It’s not that the Sun is racist; rather it’s that the Sun is so determined to oppose any Republican candidate for any office that it is willing to resort to racist demagoguery if it thinks it will be effective.

    The crowd at Morgan State, where the debate was held, was decidedly hostile and rude to Steele and Erlich — so much so that the moderator (Kwiese Mfume, if I recall correctly; I think the debate was sponsored or co-sponsored by the NAACP) had to tell the crowd to behave itself — very much like a teacher scolding a bunch of unruly elementary school kids (this was broadcast live). This was to be expected, as the atmosphere in which the debate occurred was one shaped by a determined effort by the Dems to lock up the black vote by portraying the Erlich-Steele ticket as racist with an Uncle Tom appendage (without any basis whatsoever, except perhaps the fact that Steel is both black and Republican).

    The Dems strategy was as bad as its candidate, who must have been one of only a very few Democrat politicians who could fail to win a gubernatorial race in a state in which probably 60% or more of the voters would ordinarily vote for any Democrat with a pulse, and of those, probably a fair number would vote for a Democrat with or without a pulse. Even so, given the likelihood of a high turnout among deceased Democrats, the Dems might have had a fighting chance had they not pursued a strategy of offending as many voters as possible voters by deliberately and obviously trying to polarize the State along racial lines.

    Using an all-white gubernatorial ticket as the platform from which to call the Republicans — who had just put up the first black candidate for Lt. Governor — racists and nazis could be described as arrogant and amateurish only if one were to be overly charitable to the Dems.

    The reason that the Dems pursued such a strategy is that they assumed, as they always do, even when a black candidate is on an opposing Republican ticket, that blacks will always vote Democrat no matter how badly they are treated by the Democrat party, whereas whites are intelligent enough to vote for their own self- interests and will make choices on factors that go beyond partisan loyalty, such as character or economic issues.

    The racism in that message was clear. And so was the other message implicit in the Dems’ 2002 strategy: in order to be truly black, one must think the way the liberal-Democrat massa wants; no blacks are allowed off the liberal plantation. That was the theme for the whole Democrat Maryland gubernatorial campaign in 2002, so it would be surprising if something like the oreo incident had not occurred.

    So, don’t try to shove the oreo incident down the memory hole by calling it an urban legend, and don’t pretend that one would have had to throw the oreos for the incident to have been racist.

    TNugent (58efde)

  61. TNuget, I know you’re not going to agree with this, but I’ll explain it the best I can anyway. You were respectful in your comment, so I’ll try to do the same and respond even though I really don’t like talking about racism because I live in a city that has a long history of racial strife and, frankly, I just get sick of thinking about it. If it makes a difference – I’m a white man. So feel free to argue with me freely (like Black Jack does 🙂 ).

    If someone mistreats a black person, for example, there can be multiple reasons. If a republican does it, I suspect it is because they are bigoted. Why? Because I know too many republican racists for one thing and have lost a lot of friends because I try not to be racist myself. (Yes, I said try – I think we all have to fight it. I’m just being honest.) So no, I don’t think it is a coincidence that David Duke ran on the republican ticket. But let me hasten to add that I do not believe that all republicans are racist. That is definitely not true.

    On the other hand, if a democrat gives a black republican a hard time, it can be because the democrat thinks that they’re siding with the wrong party. It depends on what they are saying at the time too. I mean, if someone is saying “You dumb black so and so – what makes you think you have a right to run for office,” obviously that is just bigotry. But if someone says “You dumb-ass, don’t you realize that the republicans are not on your side,” then that is a different matter and I wouldn’t call that bigotry. The anger is not from the same place. The anger is not from the color of a person’s skin alone, but behavior.

    So the difference is, a bigot just hates, period. But a democrat giving a black person a hard time for being a republican isn’t necessarily racist – it is chastisement for being foolish.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  62. But a democrat giving a black person a hard time for being a republican isn’t necessarily racist – it is chastisement for being foolish.

    Yes, heaven forfend a black person leave the Democrat plantation. Poor black doesn’t realize that melanin content controls political thought and “going Republican” (even if said black person finds they are more comfortable with a value system of personal responsibility, pro-life, capitalist, etc) makes him/her an “inauthentic” black person.

    Gawd, what chutzpah, Tillman. Take a good look in the mirror before attempting to lecture on what racism and bigotry looks like.

    Feh.

    Darleen (f20213)

  63. Yeah right Darleen, I’m a racist if I think that a black person shouldn’t support the party of David Duke? The party that laughingly tried to convince people that racism is dead only a couple of years ago or so? What a shallow, inept accusation.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  64. Tillman, why should a black person want to belong to the party of Sen Byrd of the KKK?? Who does Minister Farrakhan vote for? This is a more valid slam than saying the Republican Party is the Party of David Duke.

    I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, judgement by the quality of a person’s character, not by the color of their skin. Hence whether one is white or black should not make any difference who they vote for.

    If you think Republicans are mean and stupid and that anyone is foolish to belong to them, therefore it is ok to spew the filth (the word should be dripping green and stinking) that has been sent Michelle Malkin’s way, please be smart enough to realize there’s no arguing with us and go home.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  65. Tillman, …the party of David Duke… incomprehensively ridiculous assertion.

    Sort of doesn’t square with this “insightful” comment, though:

    Actually Black Jack, I was responding more to your comment than the post. You usually don’t point to specific examples and just rant on about alleged racism from the democrats, and that kind of criticism isn’t good for anything. If you’re going to use the race card, don’t just spew hate speech.

    Oops. I guess we’re a little conflicted here.

    Sure lifts the level of civil discourse, though. What informed insight into the republican party. Your response to TNugent was equally well reasoned …

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  66. Tillman

    What is this “Party of David Duke” crap? That’s so over the top, or do I need to tell you the Republican party actively ran against Duke?

    Indeed, why can’t I say that Democrats are the party of David Duke considering his frequent public support of the Dem Darling Mommy Sheehan? Or that the KKK was a Democrat organization to keep black Republicans from the polls? Robert Byrd, Tillman?

    When you demand that people line up their political alliances and their values according to melanin content, you are acting in a classic racist/collectivist manner. Not much different than black kids who eschew education because it means they are “acting white.”

    Darleen (f20213)

  67. Tillman, calling one party “the party of David Duke” does not make you a racist, but it does makes you an idiot. Neither party has the power to prevent any particular idiot from registering with them and running on their ticket, so calling one party “the party of David Duke” is every bit as dishonest as it would be to call the other “the party of Lyndon LaRouche.” The most that either party can do against guys like them is exactly what the G.O.P. did do when Duke ran in Louisiana: support his opponent, even if the opponent is a corrupt S.O.B. like Edwin Edwards. Besides, the G.O.P. isn’t the only party Duke has graced with his presence over the years. Duke was a Democrat for many years before that, so since you claim to know what’s best for all black people (and manage to convince yourself that such a condescending attitude is not racist), then perhaps you’d care to explain why black people should prefer the party of David Duke, the Klansman to the party of David Duke, the ex-Klansman.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  68. Tillman, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican party reject the racists and other anti-Americans who purport to be among them; whereas the Democrat party embraces its racists and other extremists (including those who, if not actual Stalinists, are not embarrassed to lock arms and march with apologists for the worst sort of totalitarianism) and hands them its megaphone.

    Republicans who pay any attention at all to David Duke view him as merely an embarrassing sideshow — not really a Republican, and certainly not someone who the party points to as one of its own.

    Democrats, on the other hand, by and large do not publicly condemn the virulent anti-liberals and anti-Americans on the left. Rather, they perceive those extremists as useful rallying points from which to gather opposition to Republicans and their policies. So, Moveon.org, a defacto arm of the Democrat party, treats nutcase Cindy Sheahan as a celebrity and promotes protests in which the Stalinists of International ANSWER are prominent participants. In doing so, they implicitly reject Liberalism, even though they claim to be liberals. There’s nothing liberal about favoring policies that deny economic liberty at home and liberty of all kinds abroad, which is exactly what the Democrats have done — consistently during Bush’s presidency, and more enthusiastically lately.

    I don’t really think most Democrats are anti-liberal or anti-American. Most, if pushed, will not support such policies — for example, the recent vote in the House to reject immediate withdrawal from Iraq 401 to 3, or something like that. But all that tells us is that Democrats lack the courage to back up their rhetoric with action. The nation needs an opposition party whose rhetoric is responsible and whose courage is sufficient to enable them to stand by that rhetoric. The Democrat party fails on both counts.

    The oreo incident is the least of the Democrat party’s failings, but it is indicative of the level at which it is capable of playing. That’s not going to change until responsible Democrats find a way to put grown-ups back in charge, and gets rid of the buffoons who are now running the show within that party. Sadly, there’s no prospect of that happening any time soon.

    TNugent (58efde)

  69. Unfortunately Ann Coulter is in part correct when she asserts, with admitted exageration, that conservatives make intelligent arguments and the left throws food.

    And on the subject of whether Oreos were thrown at LT Gov Steele, I really loved Geek’s quotation: “I’ve never claimed that I was hit, no. The one or two that I saw at my feet were there. I just happened to look down and see them,” Steele said. Yep, that proves it, no Oreo cookies thrown … it’s clear that LT Gov Steele had them in his pocket and they fell out at his feet … Perhaps he was eating them during his speech and he dropped a few …

    I think I’ll stick with Ann Coulter’s observation.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  70. “Tillman, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican party reject the racists and other anti-Americans who purport to be among them;”

    You know, things would have been much better if we had listened to strom thurmond.

    actus (ebc508)

  71. actus, you make my point. Republicans were embarrassed by that remark, and it cost Trent Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader. There is no similar accountability among Democrats. Most Democrats are seemingly incapable being embarrassed by the conduct of their fellow travelers, regardless of how outrageous.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  72. Democrat hypocrisy:

    Dems say they support women, except when women accuse Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. Then they smear women and attack them, like second class citizens.

    Dems say they support minorities, except when appointed to high office by Republicans. Then they use racist smears and manufactured attacks. But say it’s for their own good.

    Dems say they support better education for children, except Teacher Unions come first. Then school children take a back seat and are trapped in failing schools. Kids don’t vote.

    Dems say lots of things they don’t mean, and have no expectation they will ever be called to account. They get mad if asked to explain themselves.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  73. “actus, you make my point. Republicans were embarrassed by that remark, and it cost Trent Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader”

    So he’s at the position of Robert Byrd now. Great!

    actus (ebc508)

  74. actus, your comment could be interpreted as an expression of embarrassment over the continuing presence of Byrd in the Senate chamber. I’ll take a wild-ass guess and say you’re a Democrat. If so, congratulations! you’ve just taken the first step, on behalf of your party, back toward civic responsibility. Unfortunately, the odds are against Dem leadership joining you.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  75. David Duke got 55% of the white vote in Louisiana when he ran for governor. Bobby Jindal lost the governorship because a number of Louisiana Republicans refused to vote for a non-white.

    Bottom line is that white folk from Louisiana suck.

    As far as the Oreo incident is concerned, the only people who reported the Oreos being thrown were Republican operatives, including a reporter from the Moonie Times.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  76. white folk from Louisiana suck

    Hmm… If I pointed to the debacle in New Orleans, majority of responsibility of the fiasco laying at the feet of the residents (majority black) and Mayor “what buses?” Nagin and concluded “black folk from Louisiana suck”, wouldn’t that be considered a bigoted or racist statement?

    Damned straight.

    only people who reported the Oreos being thrown were Republican operatives

    Oooo…I know this one… BECAUSE OF THE NEOCON-ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!!

    feh

    Darleen (f20213)

  77. Geek, you’re not paying attention. There’s an explanation why it was reported only by a Washington newspaper, and not by the local newspaper, the Baltimore Sun. The Sun was itself a figurative oreo-hurler, having made its own racist remark about then-candidate Steele — saying that he was on the Republican ticket only because of his race.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  78. Well, I knew you wouldn’t like that.

    Harry Arthur, I’m not spewing hate speech – you’re reacting as if I called all of you racists – but of course that’s not true. I also gave specific examples rather than just saying something stupid like “All republicans are racist.” Am I a communist because I’m a democrat? Of course not. But I must admit that they certainly prefer Democrats over Republicans.

    At least some of you do admit that racists are more attracted to the Republican Party. When democrats are for policies like affirmative action, it should come as no surprise that most racists aren’t too keen on the likes of that idea.

    Thanks for the laugh Actus! You just give ‘em hell don’t you?

    BTW, Robert Byrd is going on 90 years old – way back in ’53 when he first became a House Member, I don’t think he would have ever even been elected if he didn’t at least believe in segregation. But a person can change a lot in 50 years. I don’t believe that he still has the same views that he did that long ago.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  79. Tillman

    Affirmative action that is marked by racial quotas is racism.

    Anyone that believes in set-asides, quotas, test-norming, etc., is nominally acting in a racist manner.

    Period.

    Thanks for playing!

    Darleen (f20213)

  80. OK, I’ll bite this time Darleen. Why is using quotas for race, racist? I’m not saying that I agree with using quotas, but they were originally put in place to counter-balance the effects of racism. Are you saying that any differential treatment whatsoever on the bases of race is racist?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  81. Tillman, If someone mistreats a black person, for example, there can be multiple reasons. If a republican does it, I suspect it is because they are bigoted. Why? Because I know too many republican racists for one thing and have lost a lot of friends because I try not to be racist myself. (Yes, I said try – I think we all have to fight it. I’m just being honest.) So no, I don’t think it is a coincidence that David Duke ran on the republican ticket. But let me hasten to add that I do not believe that all republicans are racist. That is definitely not true.

    And when you were informed that republicans actively opposed Duke, your response was … that you rethought your prejudice regarding republicans … ?

    Sorry, Tillman, but you are calling all of us racists, you’re just using weasel words when you do it. For example, look at your own words above. If a republican mistreats a black person you automatically assume that it’s due to racism because you know a few republicans who are racist? And from that you leap to the generalization that there must be millions of racists, not all of them of course, just most of them. Enough at least to qualify them as the party of David Duke. Poppycock!

    No stereotypes at all to your observations. That’s the most bone-headed, illogical and self-righteous bit of tripe I’ve heard recently. You really ought to examine your own prejudices before you deem to lecture others.

    And you have the nerve to continue to assert that republicans tend more toward racism than democrats. On what do you base this ridiculous assertion … why David Duke once ran as a republican of course. And then you spend an entire paragraph attempting to provide an alibi for Robert Byrd, because he’s probably “grown”. This is the same Robert Byrd who within the past few years informed us during a televised interview that “there are ni**ers, and then there are ni**ers”. Sure, he’s grown all right. He’s pathetic and so are his apologists.

    Your real reason for branding republicans racist has nothing to do with David Duke in reality. There are really two reasons. One, it’s good politics to pit the races against each other, particularly if black people tend to vote democratic. Just imagine if they ever come to the conclusion that they’re being scammed by race hustlers who are democrats and just a few percent decide to try to work within the republican party for a while. Imagine the electoral results. Well we can’t have that, can we?

    Two, a good stereotype beats the truth any day and it’s easier to argue racism than make a cogent, intelligent case for racial preferences in hiring, college admissions, etc. I mean, it’s got to be tough having to make a logical case for selecting a rich black kid for law school over an asian or a poor white kid, for example, based on nothing more than skin color. It’s also got to be tough arguing affirmative action when history clearly shows that affirmative action largely benefits middle class white women while largely ignoring poor black men.

    So, do us all a favor. If you want to argue a point, argue the point and lose the stereotypes and generalizations, at least if you want us to take you seriously. Otherwise, you just come across as another lefty whiner who, absent any real ideas, just keeps throwing horse-hockey against the barn door hoping some of it will stick.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  82. “actus, your comment could be interpreted as an expression of embarrassment over the continuing presence of Byrd in the Senate chamber.”

    I’m embarassed by unapologetic racists. Thankfully, Byrd has apologized for his racist past. But I will admit to knowing very little about his policies on civil rights. He’s not my senator, so I’m not familiar with him. Nobody is my senator, because I live under taxation without representation: DC.

    actus (ebc508)

  83. actus, I see your point but would suggest another take. I’m not at all embarassed by racists – they embarass only themselves as they expose themselves for the little people they truly are, and the fear that they feel for other people who are “different” than themselves. As far as I’m concerned they deserve our contempt and nothing more.

    The problem I have with the term “racist” these days is that it is often overused. Unfortunately, when overused to indicate a simple disagreement with a particular program or viewpoint the term loses its impact.

    I would also submit that the term is not applied without bias. This is why we have Senator Lott’s ridiculous comment about Senator Thurmond characterized in one way and Senator Dodd’s equally ridiculous comments about Senator Byrd hardly mentioned if not excused. Yet, arguably neither of these gentlemen are racists simply on the basis that they attempted to flatter a couple of old men who, at least at one point in their careers, arguably were.

    Here’s my point. We might chose to disagree with a particular policy designed to ensure that no one is denied opportunity to succeed based on their race. That disagreement may derive from a racist viewpoint but not necessarily, especially absent any additional evidence of racist thought or practice.

    Unfortunately, in today’s political environment, we hear arguments similar to Tillman’s that assume that because you are a conservative or a republican and disagree with some particular tactic alleged to produce an equal opportunity society that you are a racist. These stereotypical arguments then place the recipient in the position of having to prove a negative.

    I would assert that we should be able to critically argue the facts of any particular program or viewpoint, including whether the results match the claim, without resorting to the ad hominem race-bating responses we often hear.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  84. Hmm… If I pointed to the debacle in New Orleans, majority of responsibility of the fiasco laying at the feet of the residents (majority black) and Mayor “what buses?” Nagin and concluded “black folk from Louisiana suck”, wouldn’t that be considered a bigoted or racist statement?

    I don’t know–in this hypothetical did they vote for the Klan?

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  85. So, Geek, is it your point that in order to qualify as a racist you have to vote for the Klan? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it seems to me that you are at least implying that only white people can be racists.

    Is it possible for non-white races to be racist?

    Is it possible for non-white races to be racist toward members of their own race?

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  86. Geek, Bobby Jindal lost the governorship because a number of Louisiana Republicans refused to vote for a non-white. Really? “A number” means exactly what? I suspect the analysis of his loss was somewhat more complicated.

    Hardly proof of generalized republican racism as Tillman suggests … “the party of David Duke”. Your analysis seems a bit anecdotal to me.

    As far as the Oreo incident is concerned, the only people who reported the Oreos being thrown were Republican operatives, including a reporter from the Moonie Times. And of course Steele himself who observed some oreos laying at his feet. Of course those either fell out of his pockets or he was eating them during his speech and forgot that he dropped a few. OK.

    Let’s see, conservatives make arguments and lefties (I won’t use the term liberal in deference to real liberals who know how to make cogent counter-arguments and do so) throw food … That’s my anecdotal assertion.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  87. Harry, I am not calling anyone racist. I just dont think that the republicans are willing to go the lengths that democrats are for black people. Im not trying to claim that I agree with all of it either. I concede that the quota system was probably a bit much. But to disagree with quotas is not (by itself) racist. I will say that republican policies are not in the best interest of black people though. But they already know that anyway.

    And you have the nerve to continue to assert that republicans tend more toward racism than democrats. On what do you base this ridiculous assertion

    Harry, I live in the South (US) where there are a lot of racists and a lot of republicans. I know people who are republicans primarily because of their racism. But that doesnt mean that all republicans are racist. Racists like republicans since they dont pander to black people the way that democrats do, thats all.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  88. Tillman,

    I will say that republican policies are not in the best interest of black people though.

    How so? This perception may or may not be logically valid but I’d honestly like to hear more about particular policies that are “not in the best interest of black people” as you suggest.

    I live in Virginia which I presume still qualifies as the south. I have lived in Alabama and Georgia for extensive periods and have worked in or visited several other southern states. I haven’t found southerners to be any more racist than, say, New Englanders.

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree on your take on there being “a lot of racists” (not sure what that means exactly) and that they are somehow linked to large numbers of republicans. Racists like republicans? Some people are republicans because they are racist? Maybe, but I honestly think it’s a stretch to draw general conclusions from your anecdotal experience. I don’t want to be excessively snarky but perhaps you’ve just chosen your friends and associates poorly.

    I realize these are among the democrat talking points designed to scare black people away from association with republicans but I’m at a loss to understand how they comport with reality. Especially since without republican votes LBJ would never have been able to pass the civil rights act, not to mention the fact that all of the segregationists in the south were democrats.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  89. Racists like republicans since they dont pander to black people the way that democrats do, thats all.

    Fair enough, but if pandering is all the party of Lyndon LaRouche can offer blacks that the more recent party of David Duke does not, you can scarcely blame blacks who ignore the pandering, and who pick their party according to other issues instead. I assume you are charitable enough to allow blacks to oppose gun control, abortion rights and unlimited immigration, support school choice, etc. without being deemed Uncle Toms.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  90. Xrlq, excellent observation succinctly made. I believe the modern democrat party has run out of ideas regarding racial relations, thus ad hominem, vague generalities and stereotypes are all they have left.

    That Lt Gov Steele, Justice Thomas, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Secretary Rice, Secretary Powell and others have come to different conclusions than those “allowed” by the majority, is so inexcusable as to be cause for suggesting that they are not truly “black”, whatever that means.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  91. Secondly, Tillman may very well be charitable enough to recognize black people as adults but I do not believe the preponderance of the modern democrat party, particularly the race hustlers therein, are charitable enough to avoid the Uncle Tom libel.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  92. I’m not saying that this necessarily has anything to do with either political party, but you know what’s sad? Not too many years ago I lived in Jackson, Mississippi for a year. What really shocked me is what I had to learn about race relations in that area. While living there, if you’re walking along and pass by white people and acknowledge their existence by saying “Hi” or “How ya doing?” then you will get an appropriate “Hi” or “Fine, how are you?” in return.

    On the other hand, since I’m a white person, if I walked past a black person and said “Hi,” they would look at me wide-eyed as if to say “Why are you talking to me?” or “What did I do?” At first I took offense and was confused, but then I observed that white people greet each other, but not black people. So when a white person simply greeted a black person, it was threatening to them. That’s just deplorable.

    Anyway, Xrlq said in #91:

    I assume you are charitable enough to allow blacks to oppose gun control, abortion rights and unlimited immigration, support school choice, etc. without being deemed Uncle Toms.

    Yes, that is a correct assumption and a great argument. For example, I respect Colin Powell a lot and wouldn’t chastise him too much just because he is a republican. He seems to be conservative in a lot of ways and the Republican Party probably fits him better than the Democratic Party. (But don’t get me started on “unlimited immigration” – that’s not even conservative to me. I guess I’m “old school” conservative on that one.)

    Tillman (1cf529)

  93. Tillman, another way of saying that “republicans aren’t willing to go the lengths that democrats are for black people” is “republicans aren’t willing to go to the lengths that democrats will in order to maintain black people in a condition of dependency on the government.” Self-sufficiency appeals to more people than dependence; that’s the biggest reason that Democrats insist on conformity among what they view as their minority-group serfs, particularly black Americans.

    The Democrat establishment invariably reacts in a racist manner to blacks who act on their realization that the Democrat program for them is economic dependency and subservient status — the Dems attempt to deny blacks the same political choices that they acknowledge for every other person. If republicans were really the racists that the Dems so often claim they are, you would expect that republicans would attempt to characterize political issues as racial ones, just like the Dems do when dealing with blacks. Imagine if white republicans were to call white democrats disloyal to their race, or the like, for supporting the Democrats’ programs. That’s exactly what Dems do to black republicans. Racism is indeed the right word for it.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  94. Tnugent, let’s not dance around this issue in vague terms. You think that welfare encourages dependency, right? I’ve been around long enough to have heard the meme about 20 years ago complaining that “Black people are too lazy to work.” Later, guess what the meme was? “They’re taking our jobs!” What a double-bind that is – if they don’t work, they’re lazy. If they do, they’re taking my job. No matter what then, there is a reason for white people (who are so inclined) to complain.

    To me, since the latest saying is that jobs are being taken and you see a lot of black people in the middle class these days, welfare is not as much of an issue as is it once was. During the Clinton administration, welfare was scaled back too. Sure, it has been abused at times and is not an ideal solution. But any nationwide program is subject to abuse – people always find a way to take advantage of any set of circumstances. But at least it kept mothers and children from being hungry in the streets.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  95. TNugent,

    You accurately pin the racist tail on Dems. Racism is the default club the Left uses to keep Blacks in line, it doesn’t work as well on Hispanics or Asians. They try to slime Michelle Malkin, but only sully themselves. Look at some of the comments here. Disgraceful.

    But, if one of the Black field hands gets uppity and starts thinking outside approved Lefty constraints, out come the Oreos. Yes, Jim Crow is alive and foaming at the mouth at a Democrat HQ near you. Slavery ended over 125 years ago, it’s about time Dems got the message.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  96. Black Jack, the approval rating amongst black people is only 2% for your Dear Leader. Do you honestly think your party’s strategy is working?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  97. Don’t put words in my mouth, Tillman. Welfare, if you mean AFDC or Medicaid, and the like, doesn’t produce or perpetuate dependency, because those programs are carefully limited and, in any event, they serve only a very small part of the population. Blaming welfare recipients of whatever color is just a distraction from the real problem, which is the growth of government at the expense of the private sector. Dems aren’t the only big governent culprits, but they are the primary ones, and they are also the only ones who use race to define what is heresy and what is orthodoxy. The Dems have managed to convince many people of all races that their interests are better served by policies that promote a more centrally managed economy featuring high levels of regulation and direct government occupancy of the GNP pie graph, rather than private sector growth and job creation; but they single out blacks for race-based persecution should they subscribe to what Dems deem the Republican free market, small-government heresy. In effect, they presume to tell a certain group of people, defined by skin color, what it is permissible to believe. That’s racism, just as surely as if they were coming right out and saying that blacks aren’t smart enough to think for themselves.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  98. In effect, they presume to tell a certain group of people, defined by skin color, what it is permissible to believe. That’s racism, just as surely as if they were coming right out and saying that blacks aren’t smart enough to think for themselves. – TNugent

    So it is racist to argue that it is in the best interest of black people to support affirmative action? With all due respect TNugent, you’re not making any sense to me. Assume for the sake of argument that what you say is accurate, then would you say the same to republicans arguing that black people don’t need to rely on affirmative action? Is that not telling a “certain group of people defined by skin color, what it is permissible to believe?” You also talk as if someone is ordering them to believe it “or else,” which is obviously not the case.

    To put this in a different light, is it condescending or racist to all Christians when Jack Black talks as if every democrat is an atheist? No, it is just political argument. (It is a bad, inaccurate argument, but an argument nonetheless.) Then what makes it racist?

    Moreover, we’re not talking about something highly philosophical like epistemology or phenomenology here, so your high level of abstraction is not only unnecessary but needlessly obfuscates the issue. As a philosophy major, I’ve read plenty of such lofty talk – it just makes me suspicious more than anything else.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  99. Tillman, So it is racist to argue that it is in the best interest of black people to support affirmative action? I think you’re arguing a point not made by TNugent. It is not the argument for or against affirmative action from which the racist attitude derives, it is the response to the argument against affirmative action.

    No, it isn’t racist to “…argue that it is in the best interest of black people to support affirmative action…”. But I would submit that it is racist to argue that unless black people support affirmative action that they either aren’t “really” black, or are uncle Toms. What is really being alleged is that these people aren’t smart enough or adult enough to make up their own mind about their personal beliefs and political affiliation.

    I would further submit that it’s racist to draw stereotypical cartoons of Secretary Rice, to suggest that Lt Gov Steele is an oreo cookie, that Secretary Powell is a “plantation house ni**er”, that Justice Thomas is stupid, or other such ridiculous ad hominem attacks.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  100. What is really being alleged is that these people aren’t smart enough or adult enough to make up their own mind about their personal beliefs and political affiliation. — Harry

    Then when republicans argue to Christians that they should vote republican and imply that if they don’t, then they’re not “true” Christians, that’s racism too? It may be condescending, but race had nothing to do with it.

    The tactic of using isolated incidents of idiocy should be dropped by both parties. Sure, you can find cases where a handful of people do horrible acts – but to use such cases to vilify an entire party is only a cheap partisan exploit. When you can point to evidence that most people or at least a large segment of people act like x, then let me know.

    I will agree, however, that people shouldn’t attack black people as not being “really black” or “Uncle Toms.”

    Name one thing besides self-sufficiency that republicans offer black people. Self-sufficiency is another way of saying: “Nothing.” I think from a black person’s perspective, what they hear when you say that is: “Well, we admit that racism exists, but tough. We aren’t going to lift a finger for you and we will criticize anyone who does.”

    Also, I was probably too critical of you TNugent. You make some interesting comments and I appreciate that you took the time to debate me on campaign finance reform a while back too.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  101. Christians aren’t a race.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  102. That’s part of my point though Clam. Being condescending or disparaging to individuals, in and of itself, isn’t racist.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  103. It is when it is based on their race.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  104. “…Jack Black talks as if every democrat is an atheist…”

    Tillman, I can’t recall doing that. It’s not a position I hold. Now, I do have a good many disparaging things to say about Dems, all demonstratively so of course, but making them out to be atheists isn’t one of them. Some are and some aren’t, it’s of little interest to me.

    Please retract your comment.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  105. Put another way Clam, if it is OK to chastise Christians that way (i.e., “you ought to vote this way”) without it being taboo, then it is OK to talk to black people that way as well. Part of the reason is because you are talking about behavior as opposed to skin color. I’ll admit that if a white person calls another person an “Uncle Tom,” it isn’t right – but to me it isn’t racist per se either.

    Black Jack, I was referring to this statement you made:

    When Dems celebrate Thanksgiving, who’s getting thanked?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  106. OK, Tillman, thanks, I see your connection. I said what I said, it was a flippant, smart ass comment which overstates the point. I don’t think Dems are mostly atheists. Some are but that’s irrelevant.

    However, now I wonder who’s getting thanked when atheists celebrate Thanksgiving. No response required. Happy Holidays.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  107. Tillman,

    Then when republicans argue to Christians that they should vote republican and imply that if they don’t, then they’re not “true” Christians, that’s racism too? It may be condescending, but race had nothing to do with it.

    Agree that race has nothing to do with the ridiculous implication by some republicans that God is a republican, but you’re arguing against a straw man here. The instant discussion was about whether when a black person elects to espouse republican or conservative beliefs it is racist for those who disagree with these beliefs to single out that black person strictly based on the color of his or her skin for criticism and ridicule as if he or she was not able to make that decision independently. We have cited several examples of this being done by liberals, democrats and “black leaders”. This is really a simple concept.

    You have now indicated the following:

    The tactic of using isolated incidents of idiocy should be dropped by both parties. Sure, you can find cases where a handful of people do horrible acts – but to use such cases to vilify an entire party is only a cheap partisan exploit. When you can point to evidence that most people or at least a large segment of people act like x, then let me know.

    But Tillman this was precisely your line of stereotypical reasoning earlier when you indicated that republicans were “the party of David Duke”, that you know several republicans who are racists, that racists like the republican party because it suits their racist beliefs, that the republican party is pretty much full of racists especially in the south, and that generally the republican party doesn’t care about black people the way democrats do. As for your statement cited above, I’m in total agreement. Unfortunately your previous rhetoric does not match your current statement. That’s why I chose to disagree previously. If you’ve changed your mind then we seem now to be in agreement.

    Name one thing besides self-sufficiency that republicans offer black people.

    Why, there’s no difference in what the republican party “offers” to white people than to black people. Should there be? I’d suggest some conservative tenants would be lower tax rates, smaller government, a robust national defense, and, yes the opportunity to become self-sufficient, i.e., to be treated as equals, among others.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  108. Here’s an interesting story about the New Orleans public school system. I believe the city has been run by democrats for the last few hundred years.

    Washington, DC is another basket case run by the party that cares about education. The public school system there is by any measure horrible. At least it’s horrible enough that virtually every one of our representatives in Washington sends their children to private schools.

    Of course democrats care far more about education than do republicans.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  109. Sorry, missed adding the context. I believe we were talking about what each party offered black people. In the case of the New Orleans public school system, at least the black family in the cited article was offered … private schools … if they wanted a quality education for their children.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  110. OK, Harry, I’m tired of talking about this. I must have really made you mad. Nevertheless, as I said – quotas aren’t ideal either. So I don’t believe that the democrats come out smelling like a rose on this thorny issue either.

    I don’t know a lot about the public schools in New Orleans or anywhere else really. All I know is that the republicans have been against them since they’re no longer teaching about God in school.

    But it was fair game to for me to bring up Duke. Because of his support, he wasn’t just some rogue player. I would agree with you if he had less support from voters. But at the same time – I’m not denying that there were a lot of republicans who abhorred the thought of him running on the republican ticket.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  111. Tillman, you didn’t make me mad. I’m trying to get you to think outside the stereotypes you’ve accepted as factual descriptions of republicans in general and conservatives in particular.

    But just when I thought I was making progress you said:

    I don’t know a lot about the public schools in New Orleans or anywhere else really. All I know is that the republicans have been against them since they’re no longer teaching about God in school.

    First, I’m surprised that given your attitude that republicans are “against” public schools that you admit that you aren’t really all that informed about the current state of public education. I would think that just given the fact that your taxes pay for public education that you would have some interest. You did attend public school yourself, didn’t you?

    I know you’re tired, but do you really believe your statement about republicans being against public schools because they no longer teach about God? I guess that topic will have to wait. Just suffice it to say that again your perception is profoundly wrong for many reasons.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  112. Republicans care about education because as people become able to think for themselves, they increasingly take personal responsibility for their own welfare, and usually become more likely to vote for GOP candidates.

    Democrats, hostage to teacher unions, are willing to turn their backs on children, and accept the failed public school system, so long as teacher unions provide cash contributions and campaign workers during elections.

    Dems want to keep children, especially minority children, dependent and ignorant. That way, they’re easier to manipulate and exploit. That’s why Dems employ racist smears in attacks on people like Michelle Malkin, Clarence Thomas, Mike Steele, and Condi Rice.

    The Dem message to minorities is clear, toe the party line and collect your welfare check, think for yourself and get trashed.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  113. BlackJack, don’t forget about the “teaching about God in school” thing that we conservatives support so fervently.

    Other than that, I think you’ve connected the dots on virtually every comment in this thread.

    Interesting that we conservatives who hate the public school system so, overwhelmingly tend to send our kids to public schools. Of course the other myth that we didn’t even breach here, though I was expecting to hear it at any moment, was that all republicans are rich, so given that, I wonder why we bother.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  114. […] But some of the folks whom he carries water for are not quite so cleverly subtle. Let’s start with Michelle Malkin, whom Patterico correctly says we have a particular animus toward. Patterico has defended Malkin on repeated occasions from lefty attacks, and has happily touted his association with her several times. All of which is well and good. But for someone who thinks it’s “crazy” to believe there is a widespread media conspiracy to help the enemy, Patterico sure did pick an odd horse to hitch his wagon to. […]

    Sadly, No! » Fair is Fair (d83a19)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1317 secs.