October 26, 2006
Conservatives Are "Haters"

Did you know you're a cretin pig, a racist, a bigot, and an intolerant ass if you support the Republican party. Really, you are. So says Josh Feit, as reported by Stefan below in the discussion of the hilarious ad being run against Harold Ford in Tennessee's US Senate race. Beyond the discussion of that ad itself, there is an important sub-plot in the events surrounding the cry of "racism" laughably, yet predictably, unleashed after the ad's airing: liberals can't identify with the average voter.

The average voter doesn't view life through the lens of race. The average voter with a basic knowledge of the campaign in Tennessee sees the ad and probably chuckles, especially if they're a Republican and agree with the policy ironies in play. The only people viewing the ad through the lens of race are outraged liberals and sympathetic members of the national press corps. Rather revealing, no?

It's fair to say Feit's ideology aligns nicely with the netroots, and the rest of the liberal base in a lather as Election Day approaches. Does anyone else wonder how such people can find a message to appeal to voters not already set on a straight party ticket if they assume all Republicans and like-minded souls are automatically "haters"?

Ironically, Harold Ford himself isn't such a Democrat. Prior to recent stumbles he was running perhaps the best Democratic challenge for a Republican-held Senate seat this year, as acknowledged by prominent conservative pundit Rich Lowry. Why had he been doing well? Because as Lowry recounts, he's sane.

Evidently, Ford had the good sense to tell Sean Hannity today that he didn't think the RNC ad raising a ruckus is racist, just silly. Heck, if Ford had not earlier equivocated on whether or not he attended the Playboy party in question, and instead immediately gave this more recent answer, the whole affair might not be such an issue: "I like football and I like girls. I don't have any apologies for that." A 36 year-old bachelor who admits he likes girls and football (especially in the South where college football is a religion) is not likely to be roundly condemned in Tennessee.

The trick with all this is that sane Democrats like Ford, rare breed though they seem at times, generally understand your average non-urban voter. Liberals like Feit do not. Accordingly, his continued implosion over the Seattle Times endorsement of Mike McGavick is a sight to see. He simply can't grasp the fact an editorial board would make an endorsement without using a strict issue-by-issue scorecard (or more nefarious means). "Ah, candidate A agrees with us on seven issues we asked about, but candidate B only agrees with us on 5. Candidate A it is, no questions asked my friend." I don't think so.

Allow me an admittedly parochial yet handy example of how an editorial board can make and endorsement without a straight issues checklist, based on an overall assessment of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. In 2003, my dad ran for Snohomish County Executive, and was endorsed by both the Seattle Times and the Everett Herald. Neither paper endorsed him because of some great gap between the candidates on the issues the papers cared about; they both endorsed him because his experience and personal qualities exceeded that of his opponent in their view. Sounds like the McGavick endorsement to me.

You see, such rational thinking has long fled the liberal mind, somewhere around the Carter Presidency one would guess. But please, do not trouble liberal enthusiasts with such problems. Pressing business is at hand.

Behold, elections are approaching, and the Bush Empire's vile army of Congressional Republican minions must be swept aside for the good of the Republic. Why? Because they're "haters," including you.

Didn't you know?

Posted by Eric Earling at October 26, 2006 09:11 PM | Email This
1. Well, I've noticed that the Democrats have basically been selling pure hate this year. I mean, can anyone think of an issue that they're running on that they believe in? Neither can I. It's all about "WE HATE BUSH. YOU SHOULD TOO." Dripping with venom.
I think it all goes to the fact that Howard Dean is running the ship at the DNC. When you listen to his anti-republican rantings that he's willing to make, even when they make absolutely no sense ("republicans have never worked a hard day in their life..." huh???), you see where it all comes from.

Posted by: Michele on October 26, 2006 10:00 PM
2. Better to be a "hater", than a Bigot.....

At least a "hater" can eventually learn to forgive, but a Bigot is forever.

Posted by: Chris on October 26, 2006 10:03 PM
3. Best thing to do is let the Feits of the world sit in the corner and freak out, while we ignore them and work like heck to get the republican vote out. Now THAT'S productive. (see my post on the public blog about John Thune's visit here for some encouraging enlightenment on this idea).

Posted by: Michele on October 26, 2006 10:25 PM
4. Today's Wall Street Journal has a long, front-page story on this very race, with the revealing note that African-American candidates tradidtionally do better in pre-election polls than they do on election days. The reason the Journal gives is the "15% lie", where white voters falsely claim to support a candidate regardless of race -- when asked by pollsters-- but really use skin color as a determinant in the privacy of their voting booths.

Closer to home, the prostitution of the Times' editorial board to their fanatic paymaster shows just how elitist a key Republican point, repeal of the estate tax, really is. The fable spun here: "[Josh Feit] simply can't grasp the fact an editorial board would make an endorsement without using a strict issue-by-issue scorecard (or more nefarious means). 'Ah, candidate A agrees with us on seven issues we asked about, but candidate B only agrees with us on 5. Candidate A it is, no questions asked my friend.' I don't think so." Reality: The Times' own editorials contradict Mike! on every issue, except one: repealing the estate tax. (Mike! even wants Bible study taught in science classes, truly a loser position in this state.) Feit's systematic dismembering of the Times' editorial board's lies makes for fascinating reading. (It also makes me glad that I dropped my subscription years ago.)

Perhaps honesty could prevail with a change of just one letter: for his support of repealing a tax which falls only upon the wealthiest of inheritors, he could call himself "Mine!"

Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 26, 2006 10:45 PM
5. There are numerous reasons for wanting to repeal the estate tax - such as the fact that it is immoral in both its execution and justification.

Just because something doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean you can't see the evil that it is.

Posted by: H Moul on October 27, 2006 07:24 AM
6. "Mike! even wants Bible study taught in science classes, truly a loser position in this state"

I have looked everywhere to confirm this claim and all I come across are liberal blogs and the Stranger. Please show me somewhere where Mike actually says this. You can't.

It's a shame you have to play up lies and fears because your candidate can't compete on issues. Note that Cantwell is the only one who has personally run negative ads in this campaign. Too bad.

Posted by: eric on October 27, 2006 07:47 AM
7. That's because patti-whack is a serial liar. That's the closest thing to a personality that it has...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 27, 2006 09:13 AM
8. All I can find is an assertion by Feit regarding a response to an unnamed questioner at an unnamed campaign stop.

Not a compelling factual case, Paddy. Need to get a little more proof than that.

Posted by: iconoclast on October 27, 2006 10:07 AM
9. Yeah, Paddy, let's have some backup here. With the democratic inserted camerman following Mike and taping every single word he says, anywhere, I would think you could cite the exact instance, or direct us to a link. No? We're waiting.

Posted by: katomar on October 27, 2006 10:38 AM
10. Hate has a URL. www.horsesass.org You want to see the depths of hate? Go there and read through the profanity laced tirades. Look at the pleas for affirmative action and other racism. It's all there. The left wants to believe in this mythical entity that is the racist, hateful, bigoted, conservative religious zealot. Do you know any real conservatives that fit that profile? I don't.

I think that myth is leftover projection from the bygone days of Southern Dixiecrats coupled with the new angry left elite that festers in Hollywood, the Ivory Tower and Mainstream Journalism. They think that the majority of America is going to respond by being told they are evil every day. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 27, 2006 11:46 AM
11. jeez--i feel bad--maybe i'll be fair as a right-winger--i'll hate everyone equally.

sorry, no discrimination from me. you'll all get the same amount of hate regardless of race, religion, creed or color. very 'tolerant.' very 'inclusive.' but fair.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 27, 2006 01:33 PM
12. Chris posted:

Better to be a "hater", than a Bigot.....

At least a "hater" can eventually learn to forgive, but a Bigot is forever.

Yeah... Just ask that never-reformed Bigot Robert Byrd, the ex Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops himself...

Oh, what's that? Democrats can change from being a bigot, but Republicans can't? Isn't that a bigoted statement on its own?

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 27, 2006 03:44 PM
13. "Please show me somewhere where Mike actually says this."

On 10 August 2006, The Stranger sent a reporter to Marymoor Park in Rdmond, where the candidate answered the public's questions. One questioner asked about the issue, and received the following reply.

"Finally, however, McGavick stated that, yes, intelligent design should be taught in public schools. And it's okay if it's taught in science class, he added."

A federal judge, a Christian appointed by a President named Bush, has ruled unequivocally that "intelligent design" is creationism. As we all know, creationism was a failed attempt to teach Judeo-Christian tales about the formation of the earth in our public school's science classes. (The federal Supreme Court ruled this way, a long time ago.)

Hence, creationism was Bible stories; intelligent design is creationism, and Mr. McGavick wants it taught in the public schools, in science class. Q.E.D.

(I aplogize for my delay. I attempted to get a statement on this topic from the candidate's own web site, but the page on education policy didn't load.)

Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 28, 2006 03:40 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?