PDA

View Full Version : Biill Maher thought experiment


rfrobison
06-03-2010, 08:27 AM
Reading James Taranto's pseudo-blog on the WSJ website I ran across a link to Real Clear Politics, which in turn had this clip (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/29/maher_obama_not_acting_like_a_real_black_president .html) from Bill Maher's HBO show.

Now, for anyone who's game, I'd like you to watch the clip once. Then close your eyes and imagine your (least) favorite right-wing personality doing the exact same shtick. Can you imagine the media outcry? I can.

But let's leave questions of double-standards aside regarding racist repartée. Can we all, regardless of our politics, agree that Bill Maher is an arrogant jerk? Please?

nikkibong
06-03-2010, 10:57 AM
Reading James Taranto's pseudo-blog on the WSJ website I ran across a link to Real Clear Politics, which in turn had this clip (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/29/maher_obama_not_acting_like_a_real_black_president .html) from Bill Maher's HBO show.

Now, for anyone who's game, I'd like you to watch the clip once. Then close your eyes and imagine your (least) favorite right-wing personality doing the exact same shtick. Can you imagine the media outcry? I can.

But let's leave questions of double-standards aside regarding racist repartée. Can we all, regardless of our politics, agree that Bill Maher is an arrogant jerk? Please?

sure, conceded.

but who cares?

bjkeefe
06-03-2010, 11:10 AM
Reading James Taranto's pseudo-blog on the WSJ website I ran across a link to Real Clear Politics, which in turn had this clip (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/29/maher_obama_not_acting_like_a_real_black_president .html) from Bill Maher's HBO show.

Now, for anyone who's game, I'd like you to watch the clip once. Then close your eyes and imagine your (least) favorite right-wing personality doing the exact same shtick. Can you imagine the media outcry? I can.

Sure, and why not? People understand context and intent, and where someone is coming from. Bill Maher does not have the slightest whiff of racism about him, never has. He has the credibility to be edgy here, where someone else, like Limbaugh, say, does not.

Also, the joke itself is clearly not meant to disparage black people. It's a riff on a stereotype, to be sure, but one that is in many ways admired, especially by the audience Maher is playing to. I'll further observe that he could have told the same joke if, say, Mario Cuomo were the president, just by saying, "I thought we were going to get a real Italian president." (Only instead of lifting his shirt, he'd pull aside one lapel of his silk suit jacket, of course.)

But let's leave questions of double-standards aside regarding racist repartée.

He says, after raising a question about double standards regarding (what he calls) "racist repartée."

Can we all, regardless of our politics, agree that Bill Maher is an arrogant jerk? Please?

No. I don't find him to be so. Yeah, he conveys a bit of a 'tude, yeah, he's a little self-righteous and/or a bit simplistic at times, and I'm not going to say he's the most humble person on the planet. But, no, I wouldn't call him an "arrogant jerk." Part of his shtick is to be a smart-ass, like many comedians, from Jon Stewart to Dennis Miller, from Lenny Bruce to Tom Lehrer, and for that matter, from the Wonkettes to TBogg.

If you don't like this approach, don't watch or read them. Why does everyone else have to agree with you?

P.S. Read whatever reinforcement for your preconceived notions you like, if that's what blows your skirt up, but I gotta say, I don't think that Taranto piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280592552774042.html), which I presume is the one you were referring to, is the kind of thing you should wallow in. He's invariably (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=james+taranto&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks) a clown, but this piece in particular is really sad. Does he really get to write yet another piece whining about Teh Liberal Media™ -- linking to the thoroughly non-credible short-bus crowd at Newsbusters, to boot -- while at the same time gloating over examples of the so-called liberal media talking smack about Obama? And then whine about racism? Really? And get paid for it?

Ah, well. The wingnut welfare train never runs out of gravy, I guess.

bjkeefe
06-03-2010, 12:47 PM
And speaking of President Obama Not Being Black Enough, wait'll Maher sees this (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/06/03/paul-mccartney-rocks-the-white-house/).

The outrage!

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/415771/white-house-offered-job-to-another-democrat-which-is-legally-murder))

bjkeefe
06-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Sure, and why not? People understand context and intent, and where someone is coming from. Bill Maher does not have the slightest whiff of racism about him, never has. He has the credibility to be edgy here, where someone else, like Limbaugh, say, does not.

From 2008, another example (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/10/uh-oh.html), especially starting at about 1:15.

MYPERSPECTIVE
06-03-2010, 01:55 PM
Not sure I'm a big Maher fan myself or maybe it's that his style tends to be a little off putting, but I am a big fan of his movie Religulous, and I appreciate the fact that the message of that movie is not one that generally sees the light of day. Thanks to Maher, anyway, some effort to bring reason to a sea of madness emerged amidst the darkness, but of course the light has only enough chance as a flickering candle against the winds (of ignorance).

rfrobison
06-03-2010, 05:45 PM
Well, all I can say is you can blow all the rhetorical smoke you like, BJ, but what it boils down to is that lefty "comedians" as opposed to right-wing "clowns" can be as obnoxious as they like and we get [YAWN] c.f. Nikkibong's comments.

Somebody on the right makes a statement anywhere even half as bad and we get reams of commentary from the (dare I say it) liberal media--not to mention entire Bhtv user threads--about how this proves yet again that we righties are irredeemably racist.

You appear to think that's just fine and dandy. I find it annoying as hell.

When you say Maher has the "credibility to be edgy" I take it that by this you mean he adopts uniformly left positions and then crows about his supposed iconoclasm. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

You're right about one thing: I won't be watching "Mr." Maher. Much. He has clearly confused smart aleckiness for wit.

Thought experiment complete. Result: same as it ever was.

bjkeefe
06-03-2010, 06:20 PM
Well, all I can say is you can blow all the rhetorical smoke you like, BJ, but what it boils down to is that lefty "comedians" as opposed to right-wing "clowns" can be as obnoxious as they like and we get [YAWN] c.f. Nikkibong's comments.

Exactly wrong. You're making a serious mistake if you think nikkibong speaks for everyone, particularly me. I laid out a case that is entirely different from his attitude. You may not accept it, but it's not "[YAWN]."

Somebody on the right makes a statement anywhere even half as bad and we get reams of commentary from the (dare I say it) liberal media--not to mention entire Bhtv user threads--about how this proves yet again that we righties are irredeemably racist.

Of course you dare say "liberal media." It's your permanent bugaboo.

But anyway ... again, no. First, as I said, the source matters, as does context, as does intent. It is clear in that clip that Maher is coming from a place completely different from wingnut shock jocks, etc., who make the sort of racist and/or cryptoracist remarks that get people riled up. It is obvious Maher is not looking to be mean-spirited, or to perpetuate the notion of supposed inferiority for some non-white group, or whatever the intent so often is when an outcry is provoked.

You may not accept my perspective, but I'm telling you, my view is not an unusual one. It is at least a good first approximation to the reasons why people don't get all worked up about a bit like Maher's, compared to how worked up they get about different "jokes" from other sources. And I dare say, my explanation is a lot more sensible than your crazy notion that this is purely judged on whether the speaker is "right" or "left." Your view is just simplistic victimhood.

Further, despite the occasional bit of hyperbole, no one sensible actually believes everyone on the right is "irredeemably racist." It is true, I would say, that your side has a big problem, because a lot of your more power-hungry members are willing, even eager, to cater to the slice of the population that does, in fact, exist, and much more so on the right than on the left, but I do not think someone is a racist automatically upon hearing him or her espouse conservative views on other topics. Accept that or continue to wallow. I don't much care.

You appear to think that's just fine and dandy. I find it annoying as hell.

Cry me a river. Don't watch Maher if you don't like him. And spend more time chastising your own side for their racist moments, rather than running around looking for lefties who might have said something you can hold up as ostensibly equivalent. Because the fact is, few people not in the same rut as you (conservative as perpetual victim of double standard imposed by some hidden, yet all-powerful force) will ever buy your point of view, no matter how much you whine about it.

When you say Maher has the "credibility to be edgy" I take it that by this you mean he adopts uniformly left positions and then crows about his supposed iconoclasm.

You take it wrong. I mean he has the credibility to make a joke that has a race-related element without his being thought a racist or having his joke heard as a racist joke, because he is known not to be a racist. (Or, if you like, because there is no evidence to suggest that he is.) It doesn't have anything to do with his politics. I remember Dennis Miller playing in the same space, years ago, and very few people had a problem with this, even though they knew him to be anything but a liberal. Ditto Colin Quinn, if memory serves.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

You're right about one thing: I won't be watching "Mr." Maher. Much. He has clearly confused smart aleckiness for wit.

Each cat his own rat.

Thought experiment complete. Result: same as it ever was.

I didn't really think I'd be able to break you out of your cocoon, but you're welcome for my taking the time to give you a considered response. Sorry I'm not here to reaffirm what you already believe, and I guess I understand why you must resort to gracelessness and dismiss my effort as "rhetorical smoke."

Nice cloak.

rfrobison
06-03-2010, 06:36 PM
Hmm, well I guess on the question of Bill Maher and double standards, as on so much else, BJ, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry if my remarks were graceless. And you do take the time to respond thoughtfully--something I appreciate, and in fact it's why I post this stuff occasionally when I'm feeling cranky. Call it therapy.

Re: wallowing. Uh, well, one man's wallow is another man's leimotif, I suppose. It'd be nice if people on my side were cut a break occasionally for saying stupid stuff. Maybe they are and I don't know it, but...

Anywho, talk to you later. Gotta go work on turning my, er, "victim's cloak" into a technicolor dreamcoat or something.

bjkeefe
06-03-2010, 06:38 PM
Re: wallowing. Uh, well, one man's wallow is another man's leimotif, I suppose. It'd be nice if people on my side were cut a break occasionally for saying stupid stuff.

Now, that is wallowing.

Anywho, talk to you later. Gotta go work on turning my, er, "victim's cloak" into a technicolor dreamcoat or something.

Doesn't seem like it's going to be a quick job, but good luck, nonetheless.

P.S. Have some more T (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=leimotif).

rfrobison
06-03-2010, 06:48 PM
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Leitmotif.
Dang French.

listener
06-04-2010, 01:25 AM
rfr,

I watched Bill Maher's show for a period of time and found him amusing in small doses. He's smart and can be funny and incisive. However, after a while I did get tired of his shtick. That may have something to do with what you perceive as his arrogance -- I suppose there is a certain smugness there that can be grating.

Regarding the "would a right-wing person be able to get away with this" question, I find such comparisons tempting but ultimately not very productive. And I say this from the perspective of someone who has had similar thoughts from what I'm guessing would be the "opposite" political perspective from yours. It's easy to feel outraged, or at least to want to cry "foul!" when I feel that the "other side" is being given a pass on things that "my side" would not. I've heard claims from both "left" and "right" about this sort of thing, and as I've said, have felt those same feelings: "Imagine if Obama said that same thing -- he'd be tied to the mast and pilloried by Republicans!"

Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that it's not helpful or productive for me to go there -- that my protests come off as "victim-y" (for lack of a better word), and that I'm better off sticking to making a positive case for what I believe in (something that I actually think you are more skilled at than most of the other commenters I've seen here who hold conservative views).

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 01:59 AM
[...]

Nicely put.

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 02:00 AM
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Leitmotif.
Dang French.

And copyreaders.

;^)

rfrobison
06-04-2010, 03:55 AM
Thank you, both. As I have stipulated on several occasions, I battle with a persecution complex that sometimes verges on paranoia when it comes to political discussions--due partly to the company I keep, maybe, online and off. Can't say I'll never be whiney again, but yeah, better to stick to making one's (positive) case.

I'm looking forward to hearing the latest Drezner DV this evening. I've been keeping my powder dry over the latest Israel-Palestine flare-up, more out of despair than anything else.

And I was toying with the idea of throwing my hat into the ring on those Apollo dvs--something along the lines of "Are Japan's politics broken beyond repair?" but for reasons I can't fathom, my current employer has a "no blogging" policy. I'm afraid somebody'd get wind of it and my pontificating would cost me my job.

Oh well, maybe the subject will be taken up by one of the pros and I can bore some people to tears with comments instead.

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 04:16 AM
I've been keeping my powder dry over the latest Israel-Palestine flare-up, more out of despair than anything else.

I know the feeling. About all I can do is make jokes (gallows humor).

And I was toying with the idea of throwing my hat into the ring on those Apollo dvs--something along the lines of "Are Japan's politics broken beyond repair?" but for reasons I can't fathom, my current employer has a "no blogging" policy. I'm afraid somebody'd get wind of it and my pontificating would cost me my job.

Huh. Maybe you should just ask permission. He (she?) might see it as good publicity for your outfit -- "Hey, one of our guys is punditizing, on the teevee! Kind of!" -- and would see it as different from blogging.

I bet Baltimoron would like to do this with you, if you decide to.

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 05:28 AM
Hmm, well I guess on the question of Bill Maher and double standards, as on so much else, BJ, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We have put this one pretty much to bed, but as it happens, I just came across something relevant. Note last line of this post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=163955#post163955), and click the clicky when you get there.

Not saying "all." Just saying. There is a difference, at the very least in this particular comparison, and I hope you can see it.

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 05:23 PM
In further news of the right not at all having any strain of racism (except to the degree that Bill Maher does), how about this bit of delightful news, reported by the Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604arizona-mural-sparks-racial-debate.html), via Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-school-demands-black-latino-students-faces-on-mural-be-changed-to-white)?

A group of artists has been asked to lighten the faces of children depicted in a giant public mural at a Prescott school.

The project's leader says he was ordered to lighten the skin tone after complaints about the children's ethnicity. [...]

[...]

R.E. Wall, director of Prescott's Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town's most prominent intersections.

"We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars," Wall said. "We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics)."

Wall said school Principal Jeff Lane pressed him to make the children's faces appear happier and brighter.

[...]

City Councilman Steve Blair spearheaded a public campaign on his talk show at Prescott radio station KYCA-AM (1490) to remove the mural.

In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?"

Blair could not be reached for comment Thursday. In audio archives of his radio show, Blair discusses the mural. He insists the controversy isn't about racism but says the mural is intended to create racial controversy where none existed before.

"Personally, I think it's pathetic," he says. "You have changed the ambience of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that."

In other words, LibrulsAreTheRealRacists!!!1!

For the record, Steve Stockmar (http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubsectionID=834&ArticleID=81759), City Editor of The Prescott Daily Courier, reports that Blair's line was:

"I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's President of the United States today ..."

Other sources* (e.g. (http://www.rollingout.com/insiderohome/ro-today/9662-arizona-elementary-school-mural-ordered-to-change-child-too-black.html)) have transcribed the moment in a bit more detail:

On May 21, Blair said, "I am not a racist individual, but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's president of the United States today and based upon the history of this community when I grew up, we had four black families — who I have been very good friends with for years — to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?'"

Blair also admits that "whenever people start talking about diversity, it's a word [I] can't stand."

About that diversity thing, not to mention who served as the models for the artists, we turn back to the first source:

Faces in the mural were drawn from photographs of children enrolled at Miller Valley, a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott.

(previously (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=163957#post163957))

==========

* If you'd like to listen for yourself, visit the KYCA archives (http://www.kyca.info/archives.php?page=pm), in the "KYCA PM" section, and look for the 5/21 show titled "The Birthday Boy," with the blurb "Birthday boy Steve wraps up the week talking about the mural at Miller Valley School."

KYCA is, unsurprisingly, an affiliate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KYCA) of Fox News Radio.

bjkeefe
06-04-2010, 06:06 PM
[...]

Speaking of Arizona, how's this for the perfect touch in the It's All Connected Department?

In "what is believed to be the first city in California to approve a measure supporting the legislation," Yorba Linda has "approved a resolution this week supporting Arizona’s illegal-immigration law."

(Because those quotes came from the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/yorba-linda-approves-measure-supporting-arizona-illegal-immigration-law.html), a notorious member of The Biased Liberal Media, they omitted the modifier disgraceful before "Arizona's.")

Yorba Linda, as you may recall if you've been unable to block it from your memory, is best known as the birthplace of Richard M. Nixon. Who was also not at all racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the_Southern_strategy).

I can't add anything else to what Ken Layne has to say about it (http://wonkette.com/415808/nixons-gravesite-votes-to-support-arizonas-anti-mexican-law).

Wonderment
06-04-2010, 07:56 PM
Then close your eyes and imagine your (least) favorite right-wing personality doing the exact same shtick. Can you imagine the media outcry? I can.

I haven't read through this thread, so I probably shouldn't jump in at this point, but I will say that I did find the Maher clip offensive.

I don't think it's overtly racist, and I don't think analogies to right-wing blather about race are accurate. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is a race-baiting a-hole; Maher is not. Limbaugh's base is racist and resentful of minorities. He panders to them and exploits their rage. Maher does nothing like that.

However, Maher and others like Jon Stewart regularly do racial humor that perpetuates divisive stereotypes. Stewart has a whole cast of minority back-up comedians who also indulge in this type of humor. I find it distasteful, boring and designed to titillate the 20-something white demographic (of which I am not a member by several decades), but it's nothing like the kind of hate speech that Limbaugh regularly spews.

bjkeefe
06-05-2010, 04:58 AM
I haven't read through this thread, so I probably shouldn't jump in at this point, but I will say that I did find the Maher clip offensive.

Just so you know, responding to rfr's opening post didn't depend on reading the rest of the thread.

Starwatcher162536
06-05-2010, 05:10 AM
I didn't watch the clip; I'll take you at your word that he is being racist. No one cares what Maher says because few listen to him and he has no real political power to speak of, the same cannot be said of Limbaugh. The same dynamic explains why the right always gets bashed for various personalities but the left does not.

bjkeefe
06-05-2010, 05:10 AM
In further news of the right not at all having any strain of racism (except to the degree that Bill Maher does), how about this bit of delightful news, reported by the Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604arizona-mural-sparks-racial-debate.html), via Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-school-demands-black-latino-students-faces-on-mural-be-changed-to-white)? [...]

Latest development: Steve Blair has been fired (http://wonkette.com/415815/arizona-councilmanradio-host-fired-for-racist-anti-mural-campaign) by the radio station that hosted his talk show. More here (http://www.prescottenews.com/news/latest/steve-blair-fired-by-kyca), including audio of an interview with Blair.

Also, if you're going to be in the area on Saturday 5 June, you might want to have a look at this Facebook page, "Protest Racism in Prescott, AZ! (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=122897291084373)" Could be that more info will be added to that page, so you might have a look in any case.

bjkeefe
06-05-2010, 05:21 AM
Latest development: Steve Blair has been fired (http://wonkette.com/415815/arizona-councilmanradio-host-fired-for-racist-anti-mural-campaign) ...

Interestingly enough, the news appears to have spread starting with Tweets from an account called PrescottTourism (http://twitter.com/prescotttourism). Starting a few hours ago, there were a bunch a @-Tweets, or whatever the term is, like this (http://twitter.com/prescotttourism/status/15463862665) and this (http://twitter.com/prescotttourism/status/15464254956), "sent out" to all sorts of people/sites that likely would have been commenting on earlier events in this story.

Note also this (http://twitter.com/prescotttourism/status/15463891922).

FWIW, of course, but it does suggest that there was a local groundswell of disgust regarding Blair's attitude, and that some of it was concerned with money. This could explain the rapid firing.

==========

Probably most of you already know this, but in case anyone reading this is even less fluent in Tweetspeak than I am: when a Tweet is posted beginning with an @ sign, followed by someone's Twitter account name, it is very likely that named person will notice the Tweet, even if that person isn't following the first account. Twitter itself makes this discovery process available with one click, and I'm sure the myriad of third-party tools add in things like email/text notification, etc.

bjkeefe
06-06-2010, 02:40 AM
Reading James Taranto's pseudo-blog on the WSJ ...

Speaking of things found on the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575284603821698386.html):

Hispanic Voters Drift From GOP

California Hispanics who registered to vote since the last midterm election are less likely to be Republican than those who registered just four years earlier, according to an analysis of party affiliation released Friday.

The report by the nonpartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, or Naleo, also shows Hispanics—the fastest-growing voter bloc—are increasingly prone to register as independent, mirroring the trend among all voters.

Among California Latinos who registered between the 2002 and 2006 midterm elections, 23% were Republican, 50% were Democrats and 23% declined to state. More recently, GOP affiliation among Latinos has begun to slip. For those who registered since the 2006 midterm vote, only 16% are Republicans, 56% are Democrats and 24% declined to state an affiliation. For non-Latino voters, the figures are 24% Republican, 44% Democrat and 26% independent since 2006.

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BG290_HISPAN_NS_20100603180017.gif

If only Bill Maher were available on Telemundo, this would all be different, amirite?

(h/t: DougJ (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/05/paint-it-white/))

rfrobison
06-06-2010, 02:53 AM
This I find far, far more alarming than anything Bill What's-His-Name mouths off about.

#%$!!* GOP nativists. They wanna push me and the five remaining center-right types out of the party and into exile (or worse, over to the to Dems), they're going about it just right.

Grrr! [SACKCLOTH, ASHES, WAILING, TEETH-GNASHING...]

bjkeefe
06-06-2010, 03:10 AM
This I find far, far more alarming than anything Bill What's-His-Name mouths off about.

#%$!!* GOP nativists. They wanna push me and the five remaining center-right types out of the party and into exile (or worse, over to the to Dems), they're going about it just right.

Grrr! [SACKCLOTH, ASHES, WAILING, TEETH-GNASHING...]

I completely agree.

AemJeff
06-06-2010, 10:48 AM
This I find far, far more alarming than anything Bill What's-His-Name mouths off about.

#%$!!* GOP nativists. They wanna push me and the five remaining center-right types out of the party and into exile (or worse, over to the to Dems), they're going about it just right.

Grrr! [SACKCLOTH, ASHES, WAILING, TEETH-GNASHING...]

What, aren't you a real conservative?

:)

kezboard
06-06-2010, 12:07 PM
Yes, I think it's racist. And stupid. Now, can you guys stop complaining about how left-wing comedians never make fun of Obama?

rfrobison
06-06-2010, 06:54 PM
Hmm, some things are worth conserving; others should be thrown out with yesterday's garbage.

Have to say I'm really disheartened to see John McCain spouting Minute Man-esque rhetoric on immigration. Up until about a year ago, I'd have sworn up and down that he has more personal integrity in his little finger than 90% of politicians have in their whole bodies.

And now that he's in a tough primary fight, there he is acting just a craven as the lot of them.

Gave the guy a hundred bucks for his lost-cause presidential run. Thinking of writing him a Dear John letter asking for my money back.

bjkeefe
06-06-2010, 07:07 PM
Hmm, some things are worth conserving; others should be thrown out with yesterday's garbage.

Have to say I'm really disheartened to see John McCain spouting Minute Man-esque rhetoric on immigration. Up until about a year ago, I'd have sworn up and down that he has more personal integrity in his little finger than 90% politicians have in their whole bodies.

And now that he's in a tough primary fight, there he is acting just a craven as the lot of them.

Not that it much matters, since you've already come to a better understanding of St. Maverick McStraightTalk, but for the record, you might like to know this most recent flip-floppery is far from the first time he has done whatever seemed expedient to keep him in power, or to advance his quest for more. You might see, for instance, how he back-pedaled his views of the "agents of intolerance." You might review his changing tone on things like torture, and how his once-admirable stance vanished once he got it into his head that he might like to run for president again. You might even look into the history behind his best-known piece of legislation, familiarly known as McCain-Feingold. Whatever one might think of the intent, or success, of that work, it is clear that he hatched it primarily as a way to recover from the bad PR he'd earned due to his associations with Charles Keating.

There are other examples, if you want them. Steve Benen, for example, put together a nice collection in 2008: "Jukebox John keeps changing his tune (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops)."

Gave the guy a hundred bucks for his lost-cause presidential run. Thinking of writing him a Dear John letter asking for my money back.

It might plant a seed, you never know. Maybe write it as an open letter, and send it to the Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html).

AemJeff
06-06-2010, 09:02 PM
Hmm, some things are worth conserving; others should be thrown out with yesterday's garbage.

Have to say I'm really disheartened to see John McCain spouting Minute Man-esque rhetoric on immigration. Up until about a year ago, I'd have sworn up and down that he has more personal integrity in his little finger than 90% of politicians have in their whole bodies.

And now that he's in a tough primary fight, there he is acting just a craven as the lot of them.

Gave the guy a hundred bucks for his lost-cause presidential run. Thinking of writing him a Dear John letter asking for my money back.

I liked McCain back in the 2000 race more than I did Gore (and way more than GWB.) Had he won the primary it's conceivable that I'd have voted for him. But it became clear to me that he wasn't real trafficking in integrity, but in "integrity." That suspicion was slow to form for me, but by the time he switched his views on torture... the guy squandered real moral authority on critical issue, something for which he was clearly deserving of enormous respect and personal credibility - and he spent it like pocket change in pursuit of a political win, which after all was said and done, he didn't even achieve. I have no respect left for him.

rcocean
06-06-2010, 09:03 PM
Hmm, some things are worth conserving; others should be thrown out with yesterday's garbage.

Have to say I'm really disheartened to see John McCain spouting Minute Man-esque rhetoric on immigration. Up until about a year ago, I'd have sworn up and down that he has more personal integrity in his little finger than 90% of politicians have in their whole bodies.

And now that he's in a tough primary fight, there he is acting just a craven as the lot of them.

Gave the guy a hundred bucks for his lost-cause presidential run. Thinking of writing him a Dear John letter asking for my money back.

Why do I doubt this? You have all the marks of a liberal moby - OTOH, you might be telling the truth about being 'center-right' - as long as you consider Barbara Boxer the 'center' and Colin Powell the 'right'. And if you write the Arizona Republic make sure you call yourself "a life-long Republican" and call it 'immigration' not 'illegal immigration'.

AemJeff
06-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Why do I doubt this? You have all the marks of a liberal moby - OTOH, you might be telling the truth about being 'center-right' - as long as you consider Barbara Boxer the 'center' and Colin Powell the 'right'. And if you write the Arizona Republic make sure you call yourself "a life-long Republican" and call it 'immigration' not 'illegal immigration'.

Cheese it! It's the Real-Conservative cops. You're screwed, Rob, no more pony rides at the Limbaugh estate for you!

Deny everything and maybe he'll forget he saw you.

rcocean
06-06-2010, 10:58 PM
Cheese it! It's the Real-Conservative cops. You're screwed, Rob, no more pony rides at the Limbaugh estate for you!

Deny everything and maybe he'll forget he saw you.

He never stated he was conservative, the most he'd admit to was "center-right".

bjkeefe
06-06-2010, 11:19 PM
He never stated he was conservative, the most he'd admit to was "center-right".

I'm not going to argue that strenuously, although I'd be willing to give odds that I could find comments where rfr has identified himself as a conservative. What I really would like to do is ask a follow-up question: Are you saying that you would rather have those (impure?) types who self-identify as center-right leave the Republican Party?

opposable_crumbs
06-07-2010, 12:00 AM
Bill Maher thought experiment. Sounds like a good idea. (© Gandhi)

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 02:39 AM
Hmm, well, I'm not sure what it is you doubt. That I contributed to McCain's presidential campaign? I can show you the receipt. That I voted for McCain? Well, no proof there, I guess. You'll just have to take my word on it.

That I'm conservative? Well, gee, I guess it all depends on how you define it. If the measure is whether I'm to the right of about 90 percent of the commenters on this site, then yep, I'm pretty much a righty. If the measure is that I must, on every issue, march in lock-step with the editors of "National Review," then I guess I'm not.

Oh well, it ain't easy bein' me.

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 03:06 AM
Perhaps now some of you smarty pantses out there will be a bit more sympathetic when I have my next persecution complex flare-up!

;)

bjkeefe
06-07-2010, 03:25 AM
Perhaps now some of you smarty pantses out their will be a bit more sympathetic when I have my next persecution complex flare-up!

;)

Probably not, since I do not have much sympathy for conservative white American men feeling "persecuted," but I am always willing to listen.

And correct your misapprehensions. ;)

bjkeefe
06-07-2010, 03:27 AM
Probably not, since I do not have much sympathy for conservative white American men feeling "persecuted," but I am always willing to listen.

And correct your misapprehensions. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I can feel sympathy for someone who would like to call himself conservative, whose views end up getting him accused of apostasy from one side, and who gets pigeonholed by the other side, due to the immediate association in their minds with said accusers, due to their current control of the megaphones.

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 03:44 AM
Probably not, since I do not have much sympathy for conservative white American men feeling "persecuted," but I am always willing to listen.

And correct your misapprehensions. ;)

WASPs: You'll miss us when we're gone.

rcocean
06-07-2010, 11:34 AM
This I find far, far more alarming than anything Bill What's-His-Name mouths off about.

#%$!!* GOP nativists. They wanna push me and the five remaining center-right types out of the party and into exile (or worse, over to the to Dems), they're going about it just right.

Grrr! [SACKCLOTH, ASHES, WAILING, TEETH-GNASHING...]

Don't let the door hit you on the backside. If you think enforcing the immigration laws is "Nativist", you need to become a Democrat.

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Don't let the door hit you on the backside. If you think enforcing the immigration laws is "Nativist", you need to become a Democrat.

You're incredibly presumptuous. (But since I'm a liberal it doesn't matter what I say, you can just ignore it as biased and uninformed.)

All I can say is, if your point of becomes what prevails on the Right - welcome to the permanent minority. The shame of that is it'll hurt the left if their opponents really turn out to be this dumb.

nikkibong
06-07-2010, 11:55 AM
You're incredibly presumptuous. (But since I'm a liberal it doesn't matter what I say, you can just ignore it as biased and uninformed.)

All I can say is, if your point of becomes what prevails on the Right - welcome to the permanent minority. The shame of that is it'll hurt the left if their opponents really turn out to be this dumb.

Why should rc give a damn if the Republicans win, if said Republicans are pro-war and pro-amnesty? - a.k.a. things that rc opposes? Why should it matter to him if the elected have an 'R' next to their name? Put it this way: would you support "independent Democrats" like Joe Lieberman just because of the party affiliation that they claim?

What's wrong with actually believing in an ideology, instead of labels?

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Why should rc give a damn if the Republicans win, if said Republicans are pro-war and pro-amnesty? - a.k.a. things that rc opposes? Why should it matter to him if the elected have an 'R' next to their name? Put it this way: would you support "independent Democrats" like Joe Lieberman just because of the party affiliation that they claim?

What's wrong with actually believing in an ideology, instead of labels?

If you can't operate tactically, how do you enact any part of an agenda? I have the same problem with the purists on my side. Who's a real "conservative" or "progressive" are vanity questions that effectively shut down the conversation and close off democratic options. It allows people to posture without forcing them to think critically.

Lieberman doesn't offend me for a lack of ideological consistency, he offends me because he's a hypocritical prick whose schtick is to play his own side against the other for his personal benefit.

I'm also pretty certain that rc does care about "R"s in one critical sense, whether or not he thinks about it when he plays at arbiting the ownership of the word "conservative" - I'm certain that makeup of the judiciary is a matter of high importance to him (it certainly is to me) - without electing sufficient "R"s that's one major fight he'll have to concede.

(Added) Also - and importantly - why would anybody let rc, or anyone else, just make a pronouncement on a matter of consensus - particularly an important and contentious one? And, so far as I can tell, rc's only standard is consistency with some arbitrary authority that's indistinguishable from the point of view of Rush Limbaugh. That's not much of a standard.

bjkeefe
06-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Why should rc give a damn if the Republicans win, if said Republicans are pro-war and pro-amnesty? - a.k.a. things that rc opposes? Why should it matter to him if the elected have an 'R' next to their name? Put it this way: would you support "independent Democrats" like Joe Lieberman just because of the party affiliation that they claim?

What's wrong with actually believing in an ideology, instead of labels?

You have a point here, but I think you weaken it by your choice of Lieberman as a counterexample. I mean, there's purity carried to the point of ridiculousness (where rc often seems headed) and then there's dealing with a guy who claims to be with you on "everything except the war," and then who does everything possible to screw up your side's agenda, including actively campaigning for the other side's presidential candidate.

Probably would have been better to pick someone like Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., from PA. (Who, IIRC, is fairly vehemently anti-choice.)

nikkibong
06-07-2010, 01:51 PM
You have a point here, but I think you weaken it by your choice of Lieberman as a counterexample. I mean, there's purity carried to the point of ridiculousness (where rc often seems headed) and then there's dealing with a guy who claims to be with you on "everything except the war," and then who does everything possible to screw up your side's agenda, including actively campaigning for the other side's presidential candidate.

Probably would have been better to pick someone like Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., from PA. (Who, IIRC, is fairly vehemently anti-choice.)

you're right, casey is a better choice. not only because he illustrates the foolishness of supporting someone just because he has a "D" next to his name, but also the idiocy of supporting someone who's main argument was "My dad the a governor!!!"

I also love how he copied his dad's "I'm a pro-life Democrat" schtick.

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 01:55 PM
you're right, casey is a better choice. not only because he illustrates the foolishness of supporting someone just because he has a "D" next to his name, but also the idiocy of supporting someone who's main argument was "My dad the a governor!!!"

I also love how he copied his dad's "I'm a pro-life Democrat" schtick.

I voted for Casey, btw.

nikkibong
06-07-2010, 01:56 PM
I voted for Casey, btw.

Well, he was obviously a better candidate that Santorum.

p.s. you voted for sestak, i take it?

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 02:00 PM
Well, he was obviously a better candidate that Santorum.

p.s. you voted for sestak, i take it?

I was working the election as a Judge, and never got a chance to make it to my district to vote. I don't personally like Sestak, but I'd probably have voted that way. (I was also on the ballot myself, and won [with more votes than some of the up-ticket candidates in my district, I might add.])

nikkibong
06-07-2010, 02:06 PM
I was working the election as a Judge, and never got a chance to make it to my district to vote. I don't personally like Sestak, but I'd probably have voted that way. (I was also on the ballot myself, and won [with more votes than some of the up-ticket candidates in my district, I might add.])

Congrats -- Your Honorable Dog Catcher Jeff? Seriously, though, kudos.

Anyway, I would just say that supporting Sestak over Specter is no different from what rc is doing. You both have ideas of what an "ideal type" liberal or conservative is, and support the candidate that most matches that type. No prob on either side, in my opinion.

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 02:10 PM
Congrats -- Your Honorable Dog Catcher Jeff? Seriously, though, kudos.

Anyway, I would just say that supporting Sestak over Specter is no different from what rc is doing. You both have ideas of what an "ideal type" liberal or conservative is, and support the candidate that most matches that type. No prob on either side, in my opinion.

Thanks - that's High Exalted Committee-Person, to you. I could have voted for either of them, though - I had reasons to dislike each of them, and if I'd judged that Specter was more likely to squash Toomey, I'd have had no problem throwing Sestak under the bus.

listener
06-07-2010, 02:40 PM
WASPs: You'll miss us when we're gone.

Sorry, I don't know why I seem to keep posting this link over and over again, but again it seemed appropriate here:

http://vodpod.com/watch/1599654-daily-show-white-in-america-the-children

And to your more serious point, I appreciate your predicament vis-a-vis being pounced on by both sides.

bjkeefe
06-07-2010, 02:59 PM
Sorry, I don't know why I seem to keep posting this link over and over again, but again it seemed appropriate here:

http://vodpod.com/watch/1599654-daily-show-white-in-america-the-children

That is a good one, both biting and touching.

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 07:09 PM
Don't let the door hit you on the backside. If you think enforcing the immigration laws is "Nativist", you need to become a Democrat.

Sorry pal, but you don't get to tell me what I need to do. Nor do I have a problem with "enforcing the law." I happen to think that GWB had it about right when he proposed the immigration reform plan in '06: People in the U.S. who are there illegally but who have broken no other major laws (i.e., nothing worse than say, a traffic ticket) should pay fines and back taxes. Then, depending on how long they've been in the U.S., they should be naturalized.

Two, the U.S. should institute a guest worker program that would allow employers to hire people from overseas on one-year contracts, renewable for five years. Those whose eligibility expires under the program should be evaluated at the end and again, if they have obeyed the laws, they should be allowed in.

Three, the U.S. should, for a start, double the number of B1-B visas for skilled workers from overseas and work with industry to ensure that key skilled jobs are filled when there aren't enough native-born to meet demand.

Four, people in the U.S. illegally who are guilty of a felony should be deported at the end of their sentence and barred permanently from the country.

Question: This proposal is somewhat similar to Bush's immigration reform package, which McCain had a big hand in shaping, I believe. Should they also become Democrats?

I'm sorry if people are unhappy that there are too many Spanish-speaking, brown-skinned folk in the U.S., but they'd best get used to it. Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the country.

The best way to "secure the border" is to help countries like Mexico grow economically so that people there have an incentive to stay home. Funny, but the same people who rail against free trade agreements are those who complain about illegal immigration.

The "round 'em up and ship 'em out" rhetoric on illegal immigration is just pointless at best. There are an estimated 12 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Call me crazy, but I think the cops have better stuff to do than hunt down an army of maids, landscapers, waiters, and construction workers.

The position taken by the anti-immigration yahoos is unworkable; it's motivated mainly by xenophobia--think of the "English only" propositions that keep popping up around the country. In a word, it's un-American.

Worst of all for the Republicans, of whom I am a life-long member, it's stupid politics. We can't win elections by being the party of White Southerners. The numbers just don't add up.

Sorry to be the bearer of unpleasant facts, RC.

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 07:11 PM
P.S. Should Ronald Reagan be posthumously expelled from the Republican party? He signed off on a huge amnesty for illegal immigrants in 1986 or '87, as I recall.

nikkibong
06-07-2010, 07:18 PM
Sorry pal, but you don't get to tell me what I need to do. Nor do I have a problem with "enforcing the law." I happen to think that GWB had it about right when he proposed the immigration reform plan in '06: People in the U.S. who are there illegally but who have broken no other major laws (i.e., nothing worse than say, a traffic ticket) should pay fines and back taxes. Then, depending on how long they've been in the U.S., they should be naturalized.

Two, the U.S. should institute a guest worker program that would allow employers to hire people from overseas on one-year contracts, renewable for five years. Those whose eligibility expires under the program should be evaluated at the end and again, if they have obeyed the laws, they should be allowed in.

Three, the U.S. should, for a start, double the number of B1-B visas for skilled workers from overseas and work with industry to ensure that key skilled jobs are filled when there aren't enough native-born to meet demand.

Four, people in the U.S. illegally who are guilty of a felony should be deported at the end of their sentence and barred permanently from the country.



I'm sorry, but I have a hard time agreeing with any of these proposals at a time when we have 10% unemployment, 20% underemployment, and stagnant wages. Now I realize that this position probably makes me a "yahoo." But can you tell me why should we be allowing an influx of guest workers at the present time?

Also, I know you were asking rc...but I think he would readily admit that he hardly saw McCain or Dubya as "real conservatives." Your "gotcha" moment failed to penetrate, I'm a'feard...

Having to characterize your opponents as "racists" and "nativists" generally indicates that your case is weak. You were better off just admitting that your proposals are little more than a cynical ploy to win the "Hispanic vote."

AemJeff
06-07-2010, 07:47 PM
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time agreeing with any of these proposals at a time when we have 10% unemployment, 20% underemployment, and stagnant wages. Now I realize that this position probably makes me a "yahoo." But can you tell me why should we be allowing an influx of guest workers at the present time?

Also, I know you were asking rc...but I think he would readily admit that he hardly saw McCain or Dubya as "real conservatives." Your "gotcha" moment failed to penetrate, I'm a'feard...

Having to characterize your opponents as "racists" and "nativists" generally indicates that your case is weak. You were better off just admitting that your proposals are little more than a cynical ploy to win the "Hispanic vote."

You won't be surprised to see me here disagreeing with you.

Don't let the door hit you on the backside. If you think enforcing the immigration laws is "Nativist", you need to become a Democrat.

Sorry pal, but you don't get to tell me what I need to do...

I think Rob had already won the exchange right there. rc's imperious, supercilious pronouncements on who gets to be a Conservative would piss me off too, if I were the subject of one of them. The rest of your argument just seems to be taking rc's side on matters of opinion - which is your right, obviously; but your agreement with him on this isn't a compelling argument one way or the other.

And of course, when arguing with somebody who likes to quote RS McCain and Steve Sailer to make his points, then "racist," and "nativist" don't exactly seem like weak retorts or especially out of line.

Wonderment
06-07-2010, 08:44 PM
But can you tell me why should we be allowing an influx of guest workers at the present time?

How else are you going to get your strawberries?

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 08:58 PM
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time agreeing with any of these proposals at a time when we have 10% unemployment, 20% underemployment, and stagnant wages. Now I realize that this position probably makes me a "yahoo." But can you tell me why should we be allowing an influx of guest workers at the present time?

Also, I know you were asking rc...but I think he would readily admit that he hardly saw McCain or Dubya as "real conservatives." Your "gotcha" moment failed to penetrate, I'm a'feard...

Having to characterize your opponents as "racists" and "nativists" generally indicates that your case is weak. You were better off just admitting that your proposals are little more than a cynical ploy to win the "Hispanic vote."


Nikki:

I'll try to address your points one by one. While it is true that allowing large numbers of unskilled foreign workers into the U.S. can depress the wages at the bottom of the income ladder among the native born, most of the studies I've seen cited in the media (I can't say I've studied the subject in detail myself) seem to indicate that automation has done far more to displace unskilled workers than immigration, legal or otherwise. The minute you can show me people standing at the unemployment office begging for the chance to pick strawberries for 12 hours a day in the hot sun for $6 an hour, or to turn down bedsheets at the Holiday Inn, or do the heavy lifting on a construction site, etc., I'll be more sympathetic to this line of reasoning.

"Ah-ha! Raise the minimum wage!" the critics will say. OK, fine. Now you've put the farmers in California out of business and blown a hole in the housing market by pushing up labor costs. You've made it more expensive for poor people to buy groceries, and helped kill off what's left of the furniture and textile industries and shipped them to Vietnam or someplace. The point is, there are no free lunches.

Moreover, there is a natural ebb and flow to the demand for labor, skilled and unskilled, as the economy fluctuates. Yes, the unemployment rate is too high, but illegal entries into the U.S. are also way down, precisely because the economy is on its back--and also because of stricter border enforcement, true. Any guest worker program would have to take these economic fluctuations into account, reducing quotas during downturns and raising them during booms.

But recall again when this latest ruckus began, say around 2005 or so. The economy was going like gangbusters and Lou "I-used-to-be-a-Wall-Street-cheerleader-but-now-I'm-Joe-Sixpack" Dobbs was railing every night about an "invasion" of illegal aliens.

And you had and still have ordinances meant to punish people whose English isn't great. In practical terms, the cops in Arizona aren't going to be looking for British people who've overstayed their visas, for example. They'll be asking to see the green cards of people with heavy Spanish accents. That's what convinces me on the xenophobia thing. Notice I didn't say "racist." There's no such thing as a Hispanic or Latino "race," as any ethnologist will tell you.

As for who rc thinks is worthy of the appellation "conservative," it makes me no never mind. It's true my position on immigration is much more libertarian than conservative, but Jimminy Christmas! If I'm not (broadly speaking) conservative then who the heck is left, on this site anyway? What've I gotta do? Show my Genghis Khan Fan Club card?

And I see nothing cynical about pointing out the need for Republicans to attract and retain significant numbers of Hispanic voters. The fact is, many are "natural conservatives"--entrepreneurial, believers in hard work and self-reliance; many are devout Catholics (and a growing number are Evangelical Protestants). I think many can and should find a home in my party, but the Limbaugh-ites can't get past the fact that they like to eat tamales instead of roast beef for Sunday dinner.

It's just plain dumb.

rcocean
06-07-2010, 10:09 PM
Why should rc give a damn if the Republicans win, if said Republicans are pro-war and pro-amnesty? - a.k.a. things that rc opposes? Why should it matter to him if the elected have an 'R' next to their name? Put it this way: would you support "independent Democrats" like Joe Lieberman just because of the party affiliation that they claim?

What's wrong with actually believing in an ideology, instead of labels?

Thanks Nikki - you state it better than I could have.

rcocean
06-07-2010, 10:38 PM
Sorry pal, but you don't get to tell me what I need to do. Nor do I have a problem with "enforcing the law." I happen to think that GWB had it about right when he proposed the immigration reform plan in '06: People in the U.S. who are there illegally but who have broken no other major laws (i.e., nothing worse than say, a traffic ticket) should pay fines and back taxes. Then, depending on how long they've been in the U.S., they should be naturalized.

Rigghttt, you have "no problem" with "enforcing the law". You just call anyone - including McCain (!) - a 'nativist' who wants to, well, actually enforce the law.

Two, the U.S. should institute a guest worker program that would allow employers to hire people from overseas on one-year contracts, renewable for five years. Those whose eligibility expires under the program should be evaluated at the end and again, if they have obeyed the laws, they should be allowed in.

Really? Why? Why do we need all these 'guest workers' when unemployment is almost 10 percent?

Three, the U.S. should, for a start, double the number of B1-B visas for skilled workers from overseas and work with industry to ensure that key skilled jobs are filled when there aren't enough native-born to meet demand.

Sigh. My naive friend. There are almost no jobs where "there aren't enough native born to meet the demand". The B1-B program is about keeping down labor costs not about labor shortages.

Four, people in the U.S. illegally who are guilty of a felony should be deported at the end of their sentence and barred permanently from the country.

Really? Sounds pretty 'nativist'. Hope BJ Keefe doesn't change your mind.

Question: This proposal is somewhat similar to Bush's immigration reform package, which McCain had a big hand in shaping, I believe. Should they also become Democrats?

Don't care. Next question.

I'm sorry if people are unhappy that there are too many Spanish-speaking, brown-skinned folk in the U.S., but they'd best get used to it. Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the country.

Really, who has said that? Answer: Nobody. This is just another way to cry "nativist" and "racist".


The best way to "secure the border" is to help countries like Mexico grow economically so that people there have an incentive to stay home. Funny, but the same people who rail against free trade agreements are those who complain about illegal immigration.

No the best way to 'secure the border' is to well, secure the border. What you want is defacto union with Mexico and then hope, maybe, that -eventually - conditions will improve in Mexico so there's no illegal immigration. Me, I just want to enforce the laws on the books.

The "round 'em up and ship 'em out" rhetoric on illegal immigration is just pointless at best.... blah blah... hunt down an army of maids, landscapers, waiters, and construction workers....blah blah.....anti-immigration yahoos... motivated mainly by xenophobia...blah blah...it's un-American..blah blah..it's stupid politics....can't win elections by being the party of White Southerners..blah blah...Sorry to be the bearer of unpleasant facts, RC.

Like I wrote, you're in the wrong party. The constant name calling against those who wish enforce the immigration laws is a Democrat strategy.

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 11:21 PM
rc:

You ever drive faster than the posted speed limit? By your logic, we should make sure that there are enough cops on the roads at all times to catch every last speeder and permanently revoke his driving privileges. Do you suppose that would make the roads safer? I'm guessing you'd have a bunch of unlicensed drivers tearing down the freeways with a real sense that they've got nothing to lose. That's what you're proposing with your illegal immigrant crackdown.

In the case of the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants, we have the economic equivalent of speeders--people whose only "crime" is wanting a better life for themselves and their families. If they're smuggling drugs, or stealing, or committing murders, or assaults, or littering in public, there are laws on the books to punish them for that.

I'm as big a fan of the rule of law as you, but we need a system of LEGAL immigration that meets the demands of our economy. The current one is totally broken.

You may not agree that xenophobia motivates a lot of the agitators on this issue, but I call 'em like I see 'em. It's ugly and mean-spirited --and political suicide.

I'm staying in your party--cry if you want to. I'm going to keep arguing my points and even calling out politicians like McCain--whom I would vote for in the current Senate race were I an Arizona resident--when the situation warrants it. If that makes me a bad Republican or consevative or whatever, so be it. From the look of things, the party could use a few more baddies.

What's Spanish for "tough noogies"?

rfrobison
06-07-2010, 11:24 PM
P.S. If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave out the "blah, blahs." Let my words speak for themselves. That's a crummy thing to do.

Blah, blah, blah!

bjkeefe
06-08-2010, 12:21 AM
Really? Sounds pretty 'nativist'. Hope BJ Keefe doesn't change your mind.

Don't care. Next question.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

rfrobison
06-08-2010, 10:10 AM
Listener:

Thanks for sharing that. It was hilarious. And I'm not Jon Stewart's biggest fan, either. He seems like a tamer version of Bill Maher to me.

I felt like that fat White kid in the class: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer."

From now on, whenever one of you REAL liberals--not fake ones like me (Got that, RC?) -- has me cornered rhetorically, I'll just say: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer!" Or, "ITAM?" for short.

I speaking of metaphors and such, I especially liked that car analogy:

All mah friiends/know the low rider...

It made me wanna post this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qk9NzAPOKQ)

Are you my friends? How 'bout you, RC?

bjkeefe
06-08-2010, 01:03 PM
It made me wanna post this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qk9NzAPOKQ)

That has always been one of my favorite tunes.

rcocean
06-08-2010, 07:16 PM
Listener:

Thanks for sharing that. It was hilarious. And I'm not Jon Stewart's biggest fan, either. He seems like a tamer version of Bill Maher to me.

I felt like that fat White kid in the class: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer."

From now on, whenever one of you REAL liberals--not fake ones like me (Got that, RC?) -- has me cornered rhetorically, I'll just say: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer!" Or, "ITAM?" for short.

I speaking of metaphors and such, I especially liked that car analogy:

All mah friiends/know the low rider...

It made me wanna post this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qk9NzAPOKQ)

Are you my friends? How 'bout you, RC?

Depends in what sense. But I certainly don't consider you an enemy in anyway.

listener
06-08-2010, 09:17 PM
Listener:

Thanks for sharing that. It was hilarious. And I'm not Jon Stewart's biggest fan, either. He seems like a tamer version of Bill Maher to me.

I felt like that fat White kid in the class: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer."

From now on, whenever one of you REAL liberals--not fake ones like me (Got that, RC?) -- has me cornered rhetorically, I'll just say: "Is this a metaphor? 'Cause if it is, I wanna change my answer!" Or, "ITAM?" for short.

I speaking of metaphors and such, I especially liked that car analogy:

All mah friiends/know the low rider...

It made me wanna post this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qk9NzAPOKQ)

Are you my friends?

I'm glad you enjoyed that segment, and thanks for posting the song in response. It made me laugh on a day in which laughing was not an easy thing for me to do.

As for Stewart vs. Maher, I give Stewart credit for actually showing a real heart now and then, and for having a far greater capacity for humility and self-deprecating humor than Maher.

And yes, I am your friends. :)

TwinSwords
06-09-2010, 01:33 AM
Now, for anyone who's game, I'd like you to watch the clip once. Then close your eyes and imagine your (least) favorite right-wing personality doing the exact same shtick. Can you imagine the media outcry? I can.


I'm curious which of the two worlds you are wishing for:

(1) Are you wishing for the world where Bill Maher would be criticized for being a racist for saying the kinds of things he said in this routine?

(2) Or are you wishing for the world where Maher would be allowed to make those remarks without criticism, and conservatives, too, would not be criticized for making racist comments?

I think the problem you have here is that unlike Maher (who is obviously not racist), your party (and the conservative movement) are, in fact, as you know, loaded with racists. By no means are ALL conservatives racists. But we both know that the conservative movement is the natural home for racists. I mean, come on. There's a constant, unremitting steam of examples like the one from South Carolina last week, in which the conservative and Republican state senator said Obama and the gubenatorial candidate Nikki Haley were "ragheads." If it wasn't for this constant stream of hate speech from Republican ranks, you wouldn't be so defensive and there would not be such a strong association in the public mind between race hate and conservatism. Unfortunately, that's just a reality you have to live with.

I admit, it's unfortunate for the many, many non-racist conservatives. But the same is true for a lot of people; life's not perfect. Take gay people, as an example. There's nothing about being gay, per se, that makes you support liberal economic or social policy -- apart, probably, from tolerance for gay rights. Same with being black: there's nothing genetic about being black and Democratic. It's just that if you're gay or black, you're almost certainly not going to associate with a political movement that is based, in large part, on hate for you. So Democrats get almost all the gays and almost all the blacks.

The difference in your case is that you're apparently either (a) willing to ignore the bad apples in your party and willing to ride on their shoulders to electoral success, even if it means giving them power to enact their foul, hateful ideology, or (b) able to convince yourself that, in fact, there really aren't a lot of racists and hatemongers in the Republican Party, despite all the evidence to the contrary -- the constant, unremitting, almost daily stream of high profile (and low profile) conservatives making clear their hatred for non-whites.

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 06:59 AM
I don't wish to reprise my entire argument with BJ here. I was registering a complaint regarding sauce for geese not being sauce for ganders. Nothing more.

I do believe it a shame that people are so sensitized to insult that humor has become more and more closed off as a pressure valve in our civil discourse. And this seems a bipartisan phenomenon to me. Perhaps that explains some of the nastiness on both sides of the political divide these days. (No, I don't think calling the president -- or anyone else -- "raghead" constitutes humor. It's offensive and stupid. Full stop.)

As for the rest, I dispute strongly your characterization of the Republican party as "loaded with racists." I can accept in the abstract that inasmuch as conservatives seek to "preserve the old ways," there are probably more out and out racists on the right, since racism was more acceptable in the past than it is today.

Still, it takes a pretty selective reading of history to say that the Republican party is more racist than the Democrats. I would remind you that more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. Ancient history? Not to me.

In any case, the attempt to delegitimize conservatism in this way is at least in part politically driven. Blacks will never vote for Republicans in large numbers if Democrats can persuade them that the party is riddled with haters.

I could just as easily tar your side by saying liberalism is the "natural home" of marxists--followers of an ideology every bit as murderous and destructive of the human spirit as any system based on racial supremacy--at least for my money.

I'll make you a deal: I will denounce racism whenever and wherever I see it. In return, I would be grateful if you would refrain from even implying that I am either:

a) Deluded in thinking the Republican party isn't the respectable face of the KKK; or

b) Worse, willing to "ride the tiger" all the way to the White House.

That's pretty presumptuous of you, given that you've never met me face to face.

Do we have a deal?

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Will the real rfrobison please stand up?

Don't let the door hit you on the backside. If you think enforcing the immigration laws is "Nativist", you need to become a Democrat.

I think the problem you have here is that unlike Maher (who is obviously not racist), your party [Republican] (and the conservative movement) are, in fact, as you know, loaded with racists. By no means are ALL conservatives racists. But we both know that the conservative movement is the natural home for racists. I mean, come on. There's a constant, unremitting steam of examples like the one from South Carolina last week, in which the conservative and Republican state senator said Obama and the gubenatorial candidate Nikki Haley were "ragheads." If it wasn't for this constant stream of hate speech from Republican ranks, you wouldn't be so defensive and there would not be such a strong association in the public mind between race hate and conservatism. Unfortunately, that's just a reality you have to live with.

I'm only going to ask this once, so please listen carefully: Is there anyone from ANYWHERE on the political spectrum who would like to tell me what it is I have to do? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Henceforth I am no longer rfrobison, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed liberal Democrat wannabe. Nor am I rfrobison, Republican krypto-Nazi.

I am: Party Of One.

Help me out here. How do I change my username?

Ocean
06-09-2010, 09:42 AM
Will the real rfrobison please stand up?

I'm only going to ask this once, so please listen carefully: Is there anyone from ANYWHERE on the political spectrum who would like to tell me what it is I have to do? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Henceforth I am no longer rfrobison, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed liberal Democrat wannabe. Nor am I rfrobison, Republican krypto-Nazi.

I am: Party Of One.

Help me out here. How do I change my username?

Don't change anything, man. Just be yourself. We love you the way you are. Don't listen to discouraging voices!

But, do accept criticism from time to time. We all need that.

:)

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 09:45 AM
Thanks, Ocean! Wanna join my party? :D

Ocean
06-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Thanks, Ocean! Wanna join my party? :D

:)

listener
06-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Don't change anything, man. Just be yourself. We love you the way you are. Don't listen to discouraging voices!

But, do accept criticism from time to time. We all need that.

:)

I second that emotion!

bjkeefe
06-09-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm only going to ask this once, so please listen carefully: Is there anyone from ANYWHERE on the political spectrum who would like to tell me what it is I have to do? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Henceforth I am no longer rfrobison, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed liberal Democrat wannabe. Nor am I rfrobison, Republican krypto-Nazi.

I am: Party Of One.

Help me out here. How do I change my username?

I wouldn't care to tell you what you have to do, but I have two suggestions.

First, don't use underlining for emphasis when posting online. Web conventions cause most readers to expect a hyperlink when they see an underlined word, which means that you distract and possibly irritate some readers when things don't work as they expect. Why incur that cost, even if it's not huge, when you have available italics and boldface for the same amount of formatting work, and all caps for just a bit more?

Second, don't assume that the most outspoken people online, on a site principally dedicated to political discussion, are representative of the entire spectrum. More often than not, what you get as responses come from near one endpoint or another of the spectrum, and/or from the most activist or at least outspoken types. Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of people on this board, let alone the population of the US, are perfectly happy to let you define yourself and align yourself as you see fit.

I can't tell if your exasperation is partly tongue in cheek. If it is, and I've not been able to see it, I apologize. But if I take your post as written, I will repeat what I've said elsewhere, that I think you indulge a little too much in feelings of persecution. I think you let most mild commentary at or about you pass without much notice, and react quite sensitively to -- and maybe even store up -- only the stuff at the edges. There's a reason some scoring systems, that use multiple judges, toss out the lowest and highest scores, if you see what I'm saying.

P.S. I advise against changing your username. You've already built up a fair amount of cred associated with your current one (as a thoughtful person unwilling to be pigeonholed, for example). Why toss that away, in a fit of pique, or whatever it is you're currently experiencing?

bjkeefe
06-09-2010, 05:04 PM
I wouldn't care to tell you what you have to do, but I have two suggestions. [...]

To follow up on my second suggestion in that last post, a thought occurs to me. As part of catching up on my backlog of unwatched diavlogs, I am just now watching the more recent Frum/Goldberg (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27859) one. (I'm about ten minutes in.) Whether or not you agree with Frum on specific issues, you might reflect on how he argues his fundamental point -- that he considers himself a conservative, and feels fully entitled (as he should) to criticize his own side's shortcomings as he sees them.

A label that some other individual else slaps on you is ultimately not that important a thing. In fact, you should take it as a point in your favor when someone who represents some of the very aspects of the movement that you object to is the one calling for your banishment. Not saying {you=Frum and rcocean=Jonah}, but there's a useful parallel there, I think.

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 06:15 PM
BJ,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. Good advice, as usual. I was half joking (but maybe only half--had a pretty lousy day at work yesterday and TS's remarks just sort of capped it off.)

You are, of course, right that it really doesn't matter what labels others ascribe to us. What counts is that we are true to our beliefs--and that those beliefs allow us to learn and give others their place in the sun.

See you in the sun.

Rob

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 07:14 PM
You're in too, Listener. Wow, the party has tripled in membership in a matter of hours. Soon we'll need to start coming up with a party platform and letting the congressional lobbyists take us on junkets to the Caribbean.

Can't wait.

Of course, "Party Of (X)" is a problem as we'll have to keep printing up new campaign literature every time somebody joins...

listener
06-09-2010, 08:03 PM
You're in too, Listener. Wow, the party has tripled in membership in a matter of hours. Soon we'll need to start coming up with a party platform and letting the congressional lobbyists take us on junkets to the Caribbean.

Can't wait.

Of course, "Party Of (X)" is a problem as we'll have to keep printing up new campaign literature every time somebody joins...

Count me in! (I've always been a sucker for junkets, especially the Caribbean variety. Which leads me to my first proposed amendment to our platform -- that the name be changed to "Par-tay of (X).") [h/t Brendan (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=157734&postcount=1)]

bjkeefe
06-09-2010, 08:27 PM
Of course, "Party Of (X)" is a problem as we'll have to keep printing up new campaign literature every time somebody joins...

I was going to propose "The Party of N+1," but alas, that name has already been taken (http://nplusonemag.com/).

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 10:22 PM
I was going to propose "The Party of N+1," but alas, that name has already been taken (http://nplusonemag.com/).

I was thinking exactly the same on my way to work.

Great minds.

**************************************
Re: platform

To all Party of N+(X-1) members:

Drawing up a platform is such a hassle and nobody reads them anyway. I move that we steal one from one of my favorite movies as a teenager, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure."

Resolved: The platform of the Party of N+(X-1) shall read, in its entirety, as follows:

Be excellent to each other.

Signed,

rfrobison
President Pro Tempore (whatever the heck that means)
Party Of X+(N-1)

All in favor...

rfrobison
06-09-2010, 10:27 PM
I like your name better.

I move to amend the previous resolution mutatis mutandis (whatever the heck that means) such that the aforementioned party shall be known henceforth as Par-tay Of (X+1)

So moved.

All in favor...

listener
06-09-2010, 11:28 PM
I like your name better.

I move to amend the previous resolution mutatis mutandis (whatever the heck that means) such that the aforementioned party shall be known henceforth as Par-tay Of (X+1)

So moved.

All in favor...

Aye.

listener
06-09-2010, 11:28 PM
I was thinking exactly the same on my way to work.

Great minds.

**************************************
Re: platform

To all Party of N+(X-1) members:

Drawing up a platform is such a hassle and nobody reads them anyway. I move that we steal one from one of my favorite movies as a teenager, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure."

Resolved: The platform of the Party of N+(X-1) shall read, in its entirety, as follows:

Be excellent to each other.

Signed,

rfrobison
President Pro Tempore (whatever the heck that means)
Party Of X+(N-1)

All in favor...

Aye again.

TwinSwords
06-10-2010, 12:23 AM
RF,
First of all, please accept my apology for what was bothersome to you in my previous post. It really was not my intent to offend. You and I have always had a friendly, respectful rapport, and I've always regarded you as a thoughtful and valuable participant in this forum; I genuinely enjoy reading your posts, appreciate your perspective, and did not intend to deviate from our historic good relations in my recent post. I was just speaking directly and honestly, and didn't mean to give offense.

I was registering a complaint regarding sauce for geese not being sauce for ganders.
I really don't agree that this is the case. I think the problem is that we're always finding real racists on the right, and that's what puts conservatives on the defensive - not the left's accusations. It's worth noting that those conservatives who feel defensive wouldn't be defensive if they didn't genuinely regret being associated with racism. But the solution is to purge the racists, not to condemn the left for pointing out that racists exist. Too often, the energy of non-racist conservatives is spent denying the reality of the conservative coalition, and this denial amounts to providing cover for the racists in their midst.

I'm glad you are vociferous in your opposition to racism and your desire to disassociate conservatism from racism, in this thread and elsewhere. Conservatism as a political philosophy is obviously distinct from racism. But conservatism as a political movement is infused with racism.

You've frankly stated that the current nativist direction of the party, and it's current formulation as a Southern, white-only party will not fly. The question is whether the conservative movement could be sustained without the racists; given the fact that racists are one of the dominant constituencies in the party, it's easy to understand the reluctance to try to reformulate the party without them. Republicans have been enormously successful in the last 50 years with a coalition that includes racists, and one could make a strong case that this coalition was the key to Republican electoral success starting with Nixon and continuing since.

I dispute strongly your characterization of the Republican party as "loaded with racists."
"Loaded with racists" is an imprecise measure. (Does "loaded with racists" mean 1% of the party ? 5%? 50%?) It's also true that if you judge the party from the official pronouncements of the leadership, there is relatively little overt expression of racist sentiment; racism is sufficiently taboo that a lot of energy is expended concealing it. To find the racism on the right, you have to look at two things: (1) The constant stream of "slips" and "gaffes," such as the one in South Carolina last week (the raghead comment), and (2) the Republican rank and file. And I think if you do this -- either in "real life," interacting with actual human beings in your community, or witnessing the opinions express by conservative rank and file where they gather online -- you cannot escape the conclusion that racism is widespread and openly expressed on the right.

Have you ever lived in the South? I was born and raised in liberal Michigan. When I was in my 20s, I spent a few years living in Cincinnati (which is, effectively, "the South"), and Louisville, Kentucky. When I lived in the South, I was stunned by the fact that in both places, racism was open and nearly universal among whites. People would just openly say racist things -- even to groups of strangers! -- that people in Michigan would never think of saying. I've since moved back to Michigan, but for the past 20 years I've maintained a considerable number of relationships with people in Cincinnati, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma, and I spend a lot of time interacting with them. The experience continues to be the same: among ordinary white conservatives, racism is common if not dominant. This manifests itself politically in the agenda of the Republican Party, where the arguments are made in intellectual terms devoid of overt racism, but which nevertheless are intended to cater to racists and their wishes.

I find it rather amazing how cultural norms can differ so significantly from state to state. The racism appears to be no less widespread online, where you just can't escape it if you spend any time at all in quarters occupied by conservative rank and file.

Still, it takes a pretty selective reading of history to say that the Republican party is more racist than the Democrats.
Wait a minute. Are we talking about history, or what is true today? You're mixing the past and the present in the sentence above.

Clearly the Democratic Party has an ugly history of racism; but the Republican Party has completely captured the racist constituency. You know the history as well as I do: following the Civil Rights Movement, Republicans made a conscious and deliberate play for the votes of white racists. This was the political strategy that gave rise to the current configuration of our two party system, which is today divided -- not accidentally -- along nearly the same lines as the Confederacy and the Union.

I would remind you that more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example.
Only barely. And I would remind you that opposition to civil rights in the 1960's was centered in the white, conservative South, formerly Democratic, but currently Republican. Racism used to be a bipartisan affair; there was no party that was against racism. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Democrats gradually became associated with civil rights and opposition to racism. The result was that the solid Democratic South became the Solid Republican South, as Republicans made a deliberate and conscious play for the votes of whites with racial grievances. It's a formula that Republicans continue to use to this day. Just look at the Sonya Sotomayor episode, for one example. Or the immigration issue. (You've spoken eloquently in this very thread on this subject.)

Or the reaction of conservatives to Muslims in America since 9/11. We could go on and on, but you know the details as well as I do.

Ancient history? Not to me.
It's not ancient history what the Democrats used to be like, before the two parties completely redefined themselves along racial lines in response to the Civil Rights Era. But it has little relevance to the question of how the Republican Party is currently formulated.

Blacks will never vote for Republicans in large numbers if Democrats can persuade them that the party is riddled with haters.
It's rather infantalizing of you to suggest that blacks learn about racism from white Democrats who are trying to manipulate them for political gain. Blacks don't learn about racism or figure out who's racist by listening to Democratic politicians; they learn about it from their daily experience. And yet, this is one of the dominant themes of the right: infant-like blacks are "kept on the Democratic reservation" by whites who manipulate them into feeling like victims. To be honest, I think it approaches racism to infantalize blacks in this way -- to suggest that black people are so easily manipulated and unable independently gauge where racism exists in the real world.

I could just as easily tar your side by saying liberalism is the "natural home" of marxists
I take your point, but no, you really couldn't, because (a) there really are not very many actually existing marxists in the US, much less in positions of power or influence, in the Democratic Party or elsewhere; the same could never be said of racism and the right. And (b) liberalism is distinctly opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism. If you had said you could tar "the left" (as opposed to "liberalism") as the natural home of Marxists, you would be correct; communism as it has existed in the 20th and 21st centuries has been a form of left-wing authoritarianism, sometimes totalitarianism. But liberalism (as the term is most commonly understood) stands in direct opposition to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Perhaps a better analogy on your part would be to say something like liberalism is the natural home of homosexuals, or blacks, or union members, or teachers, or people who support affirmative action, or Social Security, or public education. Because all of those things are true, and they are all directly analagous to saying the Republican Party is the natural home for racists.

Why? Because not everyone in the Democratic Party is gay, or even supportive of gay rights. But if you're going to be in the Democratic Party, you're going to be in coalition with (a) actual gay people, and (b) a political movement dedicating to advancing the rights of gay people. If you can't stand that association, you shouldn't be a Democrat. Likewise, not everyone (by a longshot) in the Republican Party is a racist, but it is the party racists adhere to, and where they go to achieve their political aims, and anyone who joins the Republican Party knowingly joins a coalition with those people, except to the extent they can rationalize or deny this reality.

I'll make you a deal: I will denounce racism whenever and wherever I see it. In return, I would be grateful if you would refrain from even implying that I am [...]

Do we have a deal?
I never said that the Republican Party was the respectable face of the KKK; I'll write this off as hyperbole, but let's be clear that this isn't an accurate reflection of my views. Still, I'll accept your deal. I shouldn't have talked about you, personally, in my previous post, and should have remained focused on conservatives in general.

TwinSwords
06-10-2010, 12:26 AM
Nor am I rfrobison, Republican krypto-Nazi.
I never said you were a racist, much less a crypto-Nazi. This is a pretty significant distortion of my post.

listener
06-10-2010, 12:30 AM
I never said you were a racist, much less a crypto-Nazi. This is a pretty significant distortion of my post.

I think at this point in his post it was pretty clear that rf was being intentionally, and even humorously, hyperbolic.

I was happy to read your previous post in this thread, though. I am all in favor of rapprochement and mutual respect.

TwinSwords
06-10-2010, 12:41 AM
I think at this point in his post it was pretty clear that rf was being intentionally, and even humorously, hyperbolic.
There was clearly some humor in the post, overall, but I think he was making a serious point that he was stuck in the middle, being attacked from the right as a liberal, and from the left as a racist. One or more of the replies to him suggest that this is what he was understood to be asserting. But I didn't accuse him of being a racist, nor say anything that could be remotely characterized as calling him a crypto-Nazi, and I don't want my post to be mischaracterized in this way.

Here's what I actually did say:

The difference in your case is that you're apparently either (a) willing to ignore the bad apples in your party and willing to ride on their shoulders to electoral success, even if it means giving them power to enact their foul, hateful ideology, or (b) able to convince yourself that, in fact, there really aren't a lot of racists and hatemongers in the Republican Party, despite all the evidence to the contrary -- the constant, unremitting, almost daily stream of high profile (and low profile) conservatives making clear their hatred for non-whites.

In retrospect, I admit that (a) is in error, because in fact, he's not ignoring the racists in the Republican Party; he's condemning them far more vociferously than most Republicans, and was pretty clear that an all-white Southern Republican Party isn't likely to be successful.

listener
06-10-2010, 12:46 AM
There was clearly some humor in the post, overall, but I think he was making a serious point that he was stuck in the middle, being attacked from the right as a liberal, and from the left as a racist. One or more of the replies to him suggest that this is what he was understood to be asserting. But I didn't accuse him of being a racist, nor say anything that could be remotely characterized as calling him a crypto-Nazi, and I don't want my post to be mischaracterized in this way.

Here's what I actually did say:



In retrospect, I admit that (a) is in error, because in fact, he's not ignoring the racists in the Republican Party; he's condemning them far more vociferously than most Republicans, and was pretty clear that an all-white Southern Republican Party isn't likely to be successful.

Okay, fair enough.

rfrobison
06-10-2010, 01:50 AM
TS:

I understand where you're coming from, and if there weren't more than a grain of truth to what you've been arguging, I probably wouldn't have reacted so strongly. [Now Ill catch it again from the keepers of the conservative flame on this site, I suppose. Oh, well.]

I could add that I was having a very bad day yesterday and am congenitally sensitive on the very points you raised, but that would be excuse-making, wouldn't it?

Anyway, I apologize for my own rhetorical excesses and look forward to continuing our exchanges. Who knows, maybe we can sit down over coffee or a beer somewhere, someday and have a good laugh about all this.

Respectfully (and struggling mightily to be non-pompously) Yours,

Rob

rfrobison
06-10-2010, 05:32 AM
This is apropos of nothing, but thanks for correcting my spelling of "krypto." Must have been under the influence of kryptonite.

Yours,
Clark

p.s. Listner had it right. I was being over the top for effect. Sorry if it came off badly.

listener
06-10-2010, 05:47 AM
This is apropos of nothing, but thanks for correcting my spelling of "krypto." Must have been under the influence of kryptonite.

Yours,
Clark

p.s. Listner had it right. I was being over the top for effect. Sorry if it came off badly.

Clark,

I've never been able to say this to you before, but I am kryptically in love with you.

Lois

bjkeefe
06-10-2010, 05:48 AM
Clark,

I've never been able to say this to you before, but I am kryptically in love with you.

Lois

Is that a Pocket Full of Kryptonite, or are you just happy to see me?

rfrobison
06-10-2010, 05:53 AM
Aw, stop being so damn cryptic, both of you!

Bwaahahahahahhahahaahah!

bjkeefe
06-10-2010, 06:21 AM
We should have a new thread: Tales from the Cryptic.

bjkeefe
06-15-2010, 01:46 PM
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), previously noticed (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/07/another-day-another-lying-theocratic.html) for denying that slavery had any historical significance in these United States, is still (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006150002) not racist (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006140007)!

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/416004/obama-physiologist-steve-king-finds-default-mechanism))

bjkeefe
06-15-2010, 04:06 PM
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), previously noticed (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/07/another-day-another-lying-theocratic.html) for denying that slavery had any historical significance in these United States, is still (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006150002) not racist (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006140007)!

(h/t: Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/416004/obama-physiologist-steve-king-finds-default-mechanism))

And Glenn Beck (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/glenn-beck-obama-meet-bp-ceo-white/)? Still not racist, also, too! (Even though he once again speculates that the President of the United States hates white people.) (via (http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/06/15/glenn-beck-ups-the-crazy-ante-again/))

bjkeefe
06-15-2010, 06:17 PM
And Glenn Beck (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/glenn-beck-obama-meet-bp-ceo-white/)? Still not racist, also, too! (Even though he once again speculates that the President of the United States hates white people.) (via (http://trueslant.com/charlesjohnson/2010/06/15/glenn-beck-ups-the-crazy-ante-again/))

And you know who else isn't racist, still? South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts (R-Lexington) (yeah, him (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=163957#post163957)), who will not be leaving office "under any circumstances," because he's totally not racist, even though his own county's branch of his own party censured him and "asked for his resignation (http://thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday/2010/06/knotts-im-not-going-to-resign-under-any-circumstances-.html)."

In his defense, "Knotts said he was proud" to be called a "redneck" and added:

"If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void."

True dat.