As one might expect, my Thursday post on the topic of race drew some robust discourse in the comments, a couple of which need to be dissected.
There seemed to be two dissents to the notion that I reject the need to continually view Barack Obama as a black man, rather than just a man:
1) All Republicans are racist
This fun little idea is not unheard of in some activist corners of the left. Commenter "nj" came closest to this purest form of reverse-bigotry in the second half of the thread, particularly at #82. She said,
Eric's post could've have come straight from David Duke's talking points. The faux naivete about race is just a little too forced.Bill suggested that Duke wasn't a Republican. I'm genuinely curious what the substantive difference is between Duke's views and contemporary Republican views. I don't remember any off hand.
"nj" seems unable to accept the notion that I'm willing to actually live in the color-blind society about which Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed. Apparently, when a Republican embraces this idea it's "just a little too forced."
Ok.
But the clincher in this display of intellectual laziness is the idea that a differentiation between Republicans and David Duke must be proved, rather than assumed. Such flawed logic is one of the most unserious arguments of our time; that until proven innocent, Republicans are assumed to agree with an overtly racist, Holocaust denying loon.
"nj" doesn't remember any "substantive differences...off hand." All I can say is that it's an isolated little world in which "nj" lives.
2) What are your "qualifications"?
Regular commenter "WVH" posed a series of questions to me at #11 and then while debating other commenters later in the thread referred multiple times to them as attempts to ask about my "qualifications" to speak on matters of race.
If one strain of the left presumes Republicans are racists pigs, another presumes whites are unable to speak to such issues until they've reached a proper quota of "experiences" deemed acceptable by the PC left. WVH describes herself as an independent, but is using an obnoxious liberal talking point here.
I'm sorry; I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to actually believe all men were created equal. I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to believe in the equality of all men in the eyes of the law in this country. I didn't realize that I needed qualifications to embrace the idea that in our country, equal opportunity is an idea that should be pursed and protected with vigor. I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to justify my rejection of racism.
WVH might be surprised to learn what do and do not constitute my "qualifications" over the course of my life, according to the questions she posed...assuming I was inclined to play that undignified game. The very posing of the questions, however, particularly in that context, is offensive.
Looking at it another way, I was watching part of PBS' "the War" with my 10-year old son last night. It is a splendid piece of Americana, instructive to both the adult and the child (in his case providing an essential human side to the history of war that every young boy interested in battles should be infused with). A moving portion of the episode we watched last night recounted the profound racial conflict in Mobile, Alabama, as thousands of blacks and whites alike flocked to the city to work in the booming defense industry, with predictable tensions in housing, on the job, etc. Bluntly, it was awful.
As a serious student of history, I believe I have a firm understanding of both the profound injustices that are part of this country's history as well as the tremendous strides in representative democracy, equality of man, and personal freedom our nation has achieved (and represents to the entire world). Within that paradigm, there are few things that make me sadder than a recounting of the racism that pervaded elements of our own society as we endeavored to topple regimes in Japan and Germany seeking to expand based on the premise of their own supposed racial superiority. Much like the rest of America's history, the is so incredibly much in the World War II era to be proud of, yet the reality of human nature reminds us there were still events for which we as a people should be ashamed.
That's my perspective, for what it's worth. As such, my patience for the intemperate line of thinking displayed by the commenters I noted above is highly limited.
In the blogosphere, I'll deal with it as politely as I can and move on. Face to face I suppose I would be happy to engage in the debate for a while, but at a certain point when a bigot insists on telling you that you're the actual bigot you are reminded of why there is such a query as:
"Would you like to take this outside?"
Posted by Eric Earling at January 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Email ThisBut your posts -- their words and especially their tone -- implied that you don't think race matters to Americans (and the rest of the world) in 2008. Race affects many Americans in their daily lives. Race is an important part of many Americans' culture. Race affects Barack Obama's worldview. Race will play a major part in the election if Obama is the Democratic candidate. And race will affect Obama's performance, both domestically and internationally, if he is elected.
I am not saying these are good things. But they are true. You generally display a lot of political realism, so I am surprised that you don't get this.
Posted by: Bruce on January 12, 2008 11:29 AMThere is a minority, however, that persists in pointing out the differences in people, most notably their color. These people seem to have an agenda of dividing rather than uniting Americans, and use this agenda as a means to gain political power. Once in power they throw toss a few handouts to the poor and break their own arms patting themselves on the back. By providing handouts, with no conditions attached, they succeed in creating and maintaining a permanent class of government dependents. These perpetrators are called Democrats, and do the poor no favors by subjecting them to a life of government-sponsored poverty.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 12, 2008 11:38 AMIt was a Republican congress that passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960's, the grand kleagle democrat filibustered that bill. George W Bush has put more black people in cabinet positions than Bill Clinton ever did.
Only the shallowest of liberal hacks still repeat the old pre-programmed talking points on race.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything close to "race doesn't matter to Americans in 2008." Only an absolute fool would think that, and for someone of my background in history and politics to say so would be appallingly ignorant of reality.
I simply believe too much emphasis is being put on race in many topics in the public discourse, particularly with Obama. I wish others would join me in rejecting the notion that race is an essential lens through which many topics MUST be viewed. Is it important? Yes, at times. Should it always be such an essential filter in evaluating issues? I think not. But maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 12, 2008 12:08 PM"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."
--Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."
--Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
"This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country."
--Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941
Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
--Robert C. Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948
U.S. Senator, 1949-61
Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61
President, 1963-69
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
--Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
--Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong.
82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.
I skipped much of the drama, facing my own drama with the flu.
In a nutshell, I was onto 'em when after several similar events over the years I'd get easily predictable reactions...centering on MLK. I have always loved the "dream" speach. When I have mentioned the fact around numerous libs, they tend to become incredulous and/or argumentative. The dogmatic leftist presumption is that the basic tenets of the speach are antithetical to conservatives. It invariably stirs up a hornets nest of inane arguments and hysterical drama when I point out that therin lies the very heart of conservatism.
I really believe that many/most on the left have no clue what it really means to be a conservative.
If I'm feeling particularly argumentative, I might even point out that as an individual, they may have more in common with conservatism than liberalism. The problem with THAT of course, is that once you've "insulted" 'em, you've lost 'em. Along with the fact that they normally have no clue about economics and their sense of history is read through red-colored glasses.
Another tender area about race is Christianity. If you point out the Christian anti-slavery leadership of the 1800's, they often go into a coniption fit. Our if you point out how so many mainstream blacks have solid roots in the Christian church...same thing. If so many devoted libs have such a conviction that Christianity is evil, then why do they automatically presume that blacks belong on the left? Are they then saying that when religion is present, Christianity automatically trumps race as a sticking point? Same thing with Orthodox Jews/Israel.
Cognitive dissonance. Defining characteristic.
Posted by: scott158 on January 12, 2008 01:00 PMFace it, Democrats are no longer the party of Social Conservatives and Strom Thurmond is dead. In fact the only person really left from that era is Robert Byrd.
Even Byrd has changed his ways, he received an 82% from the NAACP as opposed to John Warner (R) of Virgina who managed a mere 14%.
Both Dem's from Washington scored 93%, while both Arizona Republicans scored 7%. Assuming the NAACP is still advacing the interests of minorities it would seem the GOP is not the party one should belong to/vote for if you were a minority.
Like the german fascists in the 30's said - repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
Posted by: deadwood on January 12, 2008 01:40 PMAny challenge to the Left's racial narrative constitutes a danger to the Left's coalition and will be defended as such. It is axiomatic that a Republican can't be in favor of racial equality as long as racial equality is defined as a Democrat Party building exercise trading political support for benefits and favors.
With Obama's candidacy the Ds found a vehicle to relive the crusades of yore and to cover their cause (party building sold as liberation) in the old familiar sentiment. Of course the Ds are going to focus on race. Race is a big franchise for them.
Posted by: Sceptic on January 12, 2008 01:45 PMMost of the articles I've read about Obama don't deal with his race, and in all the discussions I've had with people about the 2008 race, I don't think Obama's race has come up. (What's there to say, really?) What is your evidence that people are making a big deal about his race? This sounds to me like complaints about the mythical "War on Christmas". Some people overemphasize race in America; you can find people who overemphasize anything.
But I do think WVH has a point. It's easy for white people like you and I to say race is overemphasized. If many African-Americans disagree, that doesn't automatically mean their policy ideas are right, but it does mean that, ipso facto, race is important.
You're more than welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.
Which part do you doubt, the NAACP is working in the best interest of Minorities?
The NAACP asked each Presidential candidate to come to a Presidential Forum they sponsored. All the Dem's showed up, but only one Republican showed up. Seems kind of one sided to me. One doesn't have to wonder much why the GOP gets labeled as the racist party (despite their past actions to the contrary).
You said:
"Assuming the NAACP is still advacing the interests of minorities it would seem the GOP is not the party one should belong to/vote for if you were a minority."
Now if only an NAACP rating translated into getting blacks into cabinet level positions in the white house, that might actually mean something. However, for all their NAACP ratings, the Clintons put less black people in cabinet level positions.
So yes, in terms of words, the Democrats talk a better game. In terms of deeds....um not so much.
First of all, the NAACP is a Democrat Party interest group. Republicans have visited black groups that weren't clearly an appendage of the liberal party.
And I can play this game too. None of the Democrat candidates showed up to a Fox debate. If they are afraid of Fox, how can we ever imagine they'd have the balls to stand up to North Korea? Heck, the Republicans showed up to the rigged liberal CNN debate in which the dirty trickster liberals planted liberals as "undecided Republicas" asking questions. Yet the cowardly Democrats turned tail and ran. In times of terrorism and 911, the LAST thing this naiton needs in charge are cowards.
The present-day NAACP is about as relevant as the UN. The NAACP, coupled to and empowered by its Democrat and mainstream media shills, is nothing more than a shakedown organization run by flim-flam men. Most self-respecting black people politely distance themselves from the NAACP and its devisive, hate-filled rhetoric. The black people I know and count as friends have worked hard to provide for their families and their childrens' futures. From what I have seen, they do not desire to be associated with organizations that treat them as political pawns and second class citizens. During discussions over issues, black friends do, however, display considerable sympathy for their brothers and sisters who have been unable to break free from poverty and socialist government dependency.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 12, 2008 02:30 PMI dunno, is the NRA a Republican interest group? Both groups are non-profit, which means they can't endorse a candidate. Without endorsements how can you claim they're for one party or the other? =)
"None of the Democrat candidates showed up to a Fox debate."
Lets see why did they drop out of the FOX debate? Seems the Fox News CEO was comparing one of the Democratic candidates to a well know terrorist who's name is similar in sound. I mean one would think a CEO would be above the "oooh his name sounds funny" jokes. I guess the Dem's found it offensive and decided to pull out. Seems kind of lame excuse to me. They could have taken the high road but I guess they decided not to.
I suppose the same could be said about sexism and Hillary?
Posted by: Ken Nielsen on January 12, 2008 02:45 PM"I dunno, is the NRA a Republican interest group? Both groups are non-profit, which means they can't endorse a candidate. Without endorsements how can you claim they're for one party or the other? =)"
NONE of the Democrat candidates ever returned calls from the NRA. According to YOUR logic this automatically means they all want to confiscate all of our guns.
"Lets see why did they drop out of the FOX debate? Seems the Fox News CEO was comparing one of the Democratic candidates to a well know terrorist who's name is similar in sound. I mean one would think a CEO would be above the "oooh his name sounds funny" jokes. I guess the Dem's found it offensive and decided to pull out. Seems kind of lame excuse to me. They could have taken the high road but I guess they decided not to."
First of all, he did NOT compare him to a terrorist. Let's see what he ACTUALLY said, shall we?
[Laughter]
It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. and I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.
[Laughter/ooohs]
It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.
[Laughter]
And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'
[Laughter]
I feel compelled, however -- on a serious note -- to say a few words. We're headed into covering a tough political season and all of us will be called upon to do our best and be fair. Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage.
So I guess then that Senator Kennedy also thinks Obama is a terrorist:
"Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama ..."
Once again, your faux outrage is absurd in the extreme as it only further exposes your double standard.
There's no point in doing so, any more so than it would be for a Republican candidate to show up at "candidate" forums stocked with the NEA, PETA, the unions, the trial lawyers, or MSM hacks.
For you to imply that there is even the least bit of credibility in your contention of characterizing those skeptical about the efficacy of the NAACP as being the party of racism...chutzpah.
You deliberately frame impossible arguments to stir up trouble. And you know it.
Normally a story portrayed by the media isn't just the facts ma'am and nothing but the facts ma'am. It's usually mixed in with at least some speculation, falsehood and distortion, not unlike campaign commercials.
Posted by: David Wolbeck on January 12, 2008 04:18 PMDid I say I was outraged at any point? No. In fact I think it's a poor excuse on the Dem's part.
Why is a double standard? Is Ted Kennedy CEO of a media company sponsoring an objective debate? If so then it would be a double standard.
Different roles and different circumstances make all the difference.
Different roles and different circumstances make all the difference."
No it is not different at all. Kennedy is IN FACT a United States Senator. When Trent Lott said something complimentary about Strom Thurmond, he was drummed out of the senate. Yet the liberals have a Grand Kleagle and Ted Kennedy and there is no outcry for their resignation.
A double standard indeed. And the fact you cannot see it shows how blindly idealogical you are.
Posted by: pbj on January 12, 2008 04:28 PMYou said:
"The past is the past...the Dem's are certainly not the party they were in the 60's. Much like the GOP is no longer the party they were pre-Regan.
Face it, Democrats are no longer the party of Social Conservatives and Strom Thurmond is dead. In fact the only person really left from that era is Robert Byrd. "
I do agree somewhat that the Democrat party is not what is was "back then". Back then they were strong on defense, today they are weak on defense, not missing an opportunity to call for our surrender in the middle of a war. Back then Democrats used to be for America, today they are against America, blaming it for all the problems in the world.
Posted by: pbj on January 12, 2008 04:35 PMNow as usual, liberal premises are not well thought out and frequently have a catch22 that bites them in the behind. But let's just presume this premise is true, for argument's sake.
Before we crush this premise and send it to the ash heap of history, a few questions for our liberal posters:
1) Are blacks the mathematical majority of voters in the Unitd States of America (Yes or no)?
2) Can the presidency of the United States of America be won with ONLY the black vote(Yes or no)?
Now if you answered YES to either question above, you do not understand mathematics and how the electoral process works.
Read no further for there is no reason to waste your time. You live in an alternate reality and wasting your time with sentient beings is pointless.
If you answered no to both questions, and you agree with the premise then please tell us all how a black man like Obama is in anyway qualified to speak to anything related to WHITE people?
Folks now be prepared to be entertained as the liberal posters here do more back peddaling than a canoeist heading for a waterfall.
Posted by: pbj on January 12, 2008 04:49 PMNeed I say any more.
"Regular commenter "WVH" also made this admission in a very recent thread in regards to my comments, "Must totally piss you off to be arguing with a woman."
I know it's the internet and I certainly accept the possibility of an imposter. But I don't think so.
It's not just about race for the left, it's also about gender. Witness Hillary's recent sniffle fest which arguably can be analyzed as having been staged in the cold, calculating fashion of the Clintons.
The left doesn't ever want to discuss substantive ideas on their own merits. That's why they play childish games instead.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 12, 2008 05:55 PMI don't take any particular glee in that. I'd much rather have a real give and take about issues that matter to all of us. That leftists are unable to do so without lying, name calling, and all around general nastiness is very sad. Do I hope some of these liberals honestly begin to examine their beliefs as a result of our discussions? Darned right I do!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 12, 2008 06:21 PMEric said:
"I'm sorry; I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to actually believe all men were created equal. I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to believe in the equality of all men in the eyes of the law in this country. I didn't realize that I needed qualifications to embrace the idea that in our country, equal opportunity is an idea that should be pursed and protected with vigor. I didn't realize I needed "qualifications" to justify my rejection of racism."
1. That was not what my comment was directed at.
I think democracy is great and that is an aspirational statement like you believe in the equality of all people. So, what does that really mean? You (the rhetorical you) believe in the equality of all people but if you have a chance to make a concrete step in the direction of improving a person's life chances, do you take that step. It is interesting that one of the questions you didn't want to address deals with class. Low-income people of all colors have challenges that many don't understand. When one reads the full text of Dr. King's dream speech he was addressing the challenges of both race and class.
2. Eric said this:
"WVH might be surprised to learn what do and do not constitute my "qualifications" over the course of my life, according to the questions she posed...assuming I was inclined to play that undignified game. The very posing of the questions, however, particularly in that context, is offensive."
Why is the asking of what you know about a subject you are offering an opinion on, offensive?
3. Eric said:
"If one strain of the left presumes Republicans are racists pigs, another presumes whites are unable to speak to such issues until they've reached a proper quota of "experiences" deemed acceptable by the PC left. WVH describes herself as an independent, but is using an obnoxious liberal talking point here.
Now, where did you get the idea that I said you are unable to speak on issues until you get the proper quota of experiences. If you review the original post, It simply asked the question of what weight should be given your opinion? I would suggest probably the same weight that an outsider opining about inside ball politics in Sno County. You can give an opinion, but it probably wouldn't have the same weight as an ins insider, would it?
4. Eric said this:
"In the blogosphere, I'll deal with it as politely as I can and move on. Face to face I suppose I would be happy to engage in the debate for a while, but at a certain point when a bigot insists on telling you that you're the actual bigot you are reminded of why there is such a query as:...."
Now, what comments have I made that are bigoted other than the fact that you don't like that I asked what your opinions about race are based on?
It appears that nj and I have really hit a nerve because those are the questions that are quite often asked opinion makers. By not answering, you have in effect answered that despite your aspirational statements you are uncomfortable with a true discussion of race. You are entitled to your opinion, but frankly Hallmark platitudes about what you want the world to be aren't true discussion.
So, every time some one questions you on qualifications they are what a liberal, a bigot, an imposter?
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 07:10 PMYou said:
"And have you noticed Eric that comments from leftists such as "WVH" disappear as if by magic once they are challenged to debate actual issues?"
I'm baaack. Dude, you are so far out that even an article from Stanford sends you in a tizzy. I suppose everyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a leftist to you. Now on the question of gender and race two of your homies are aware of me. Bruce G and Pudge use to be joined at the hip, check with them or pleeeze are either of them not far right enough for you to accept their opinion.
No Dude, I'm not going any where this is too much fun arguing with brain dead ideologues like you. I will check the original thread for comments.
Now, you said:
"The left doesn't ever want to discuss substantive ideas on their own merits. That's why they play childish games instead."
The group on this issue seems to be your side. The game you want to play is to call everyone who doesn't agree with your particular view a leftist whether they are or not. I suppose the label you cherish most is right wing wacko and that label will help you win what, some races in rural areas?
Your party is almost an endangered species in many areas and all you can do is call any one with a rational thought a leftist. Good move, that will get you plenty of additional voters.
That works two ways. You cannot say to white people, you are outsiders shut up and oh by the way, can I count on your vote for president?
1. I still say Eric you don't know what you are talking about on the issue of race. So, if you wish to start another thread giving me top billing, wow.
2.PBJ has been active posting, but his post at #33 is particularly interesting because Obama is not running a campaign based on race. None of the candidates as far as I can determine are. The issues are the economy, the war, immigration, and who can do a better job of governance. In fact, the criticism of Obama is that he seems to have minimized his race. Now, you have made my point which is that all serious candidates want to build coalitions based upon interest. Your candidates will have to build coalitions based upon interests.
3. Obi-Wan at post #8 posts comments from dems, I suppose if you looked you could post remarks from republicans, socialists, communists, and green party leaders who have made similar statements. That proves what, that this country had a racist past and that indidivuals grew up in that culture and reflected the culture of the time? What is more relevant is the fact that when the subject of race is brought up, you staunch republicans have a reflex action of being defensive and are so tightly wound that you immediately attack rather than examine. Now, are you going to simply circle the wagons?
This should be enough for you to chew on, I have to check the other thread.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 07:40 PM"That works two ways. You cannot say to white people, you are outsiders shut up and oh by the way, can I count on your vote for president?"
1. I am not running for president.
2. Now, let's get to the meat of this discussion.
I did not say to white people you are outsiders and you should shut up. Eric made this statement:
"Maybe it's because I'm of a generation where the 60's are history, not a formative experience. Maybe it's because I'm part of the white, male, upper-income oppressor class."
Now, I simply asked him what HIS qualifications were to speak on the issue of race. There are a number of current and former military who post at this site. In the capacity of serving in the military they have had the opportunity to encounter both genders, all races, all classes, all religions and creeds and that gives them a better basis to opine on issues of race. That is one type of experience. I know that there are some churches on the Eastside that have formed alliances with churches of color, that is another type of experience. Many people in Seattle live in neighborhoods with a mixture of people, that is another type of experience. So, you can opine all you want, the question is what do you really know?
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 07:50 PMGoing back to the original post, I was specifically talking about the post-NH rush to judgment in some circles that proclaimed hidden racism as the cause for Clinton's come from behind win. I was also talking about Lynne Varner's column, which I linked to in that post. I never for a minute said or implied that a preponderance of news coverage is race-focused, just that some people keep bringing the dialogue back to that topic. Obviously, I don't think that move is necessary.
WVH -
Don't get too full of yourself because in case you missed it, the reason you got "top billing" was that I and others think your thinking on this issue is offensive and totally off-base.
You still don't seem to get the fact that your presumption of the need for "qualifications" to have an opinion worth listening to on this topic is offensive. If your idea of a "true discussion" involves you asking those sort of questions as a prerequisite to giving my opinion fair consideration then no, I don't care to have that conversation and at this point can almost guarantee you don't understand why.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 12, 2008 07:58 PMNo, you are just appointing yourself gatekeeper who decides whose opinion matters....on the internet no less!!
"None of the candidates as far as I can determine are. The issues are the economy, the war, immigration, and who can do a better job of governance. In fact, the criticism of Obama is that he seems to have minimized his race. Now, you have made my point which is that all serious candidates want to build coalitions based upon interest. Your candidates will have to build coalitions based upon interests."
Apparently you haven't been following closely. Obama speaks in generalities and race is very much a part of his campaign. Whether that is his intention or not, his supporters even at this very moment are tring to crucify Bill Clinton over his "fairy tale" speech by falsely portraying it as racial bigotry. Another one is Andrew Cuomo and his chuck and jive comment. All the race baiters are jumping on that one. To be honest, I don't regret liberals being impaled by their own PC rhetoric code mind you, but these examples are instructive.
"There are a number of current and former military who post at this site. In the capacity of serving in the military they have had the opportunity to encounter both genders, all races, all classes, all religions and creeds and that gives them a better basis to opine on issues of race."
So having been in the military gives me more basis to opine than Eric? Since neither you nor I has absolutely zero knowledge of Eric's life experience, I would "opine", as a former military member, that you opining has no basis.
"So, you can opine all you want, the question is what do you really know?"
That is what we keep asking about you WVH. Apparently you are kreskin because you PRESUME to know the life experiences of everyone that posts here. Perhaps SP could add a registration page where potential posters get a WVH rating that determines what level of posting privilege they get. I bet you'd love that huh?
Posted by: pbj on January 12, 2008 08:10 PM1. I suppose I should have said (sarcasim) about the top billing.
2. You said:
"You still don't seem to get the fact that your presumption of the need for "qualifications" to have an opinion worth listening to on this topic is offensive. If your idea of a "true discussion" involves you asking those sort of questions as a prerequisite to giving my opinion fair consideration then no, I don't care to have that conversation and at this point can almost guarantee you don't understand why."
You are right, I don't get why asking you what your experience with racial issues is happens to be offensive. People can opine all they want, probably opinions based upon some experience with the issue discussed are more valuable than others.
Is your experience with racial issues theoretical or do you actually have some practical experiences? You are correct that you don't want to have the conversation which is the reason for this second thread.
1. I never appointed myself gatekeeper to any topic. I simply asked a series of questions:
11. A couple of questions to you Eric:
1. Do you live in an area that has a variety of races, but also income levels?
2. You are an executive level employee at the Department of Education, I believe. At the executive level, how many different types of races are in that department, how many different races are represented at the executive level at departments like agriculture, environment, justice and state?
3. The church you go to, how different many races are in the church. It is said the most segregated hour in America is when Americans go to church.
4. Of your personal friendships, how many are with people of other races?
5. Now, for Soundpolitics, this site, how many contributors and editors are people of other races other than Mrs. Shark?
6. Do you belong to a country club or like association. How many different races are there in that association....
Race in America is a complex issue of race, color, and class. I would never accuse you of be an oppressor, that is a term used quite often by those who like to
2. Your service in the military may give you a different type of experience or it may not. I assume that in your service you had the opportunity to at least meet a variety of people?
That at least gives you a perspective which is different from someone who has never met a variety of people.
3. You said:
"That is what we keep asking about you WVH. Apparently you are kreskin because you PRESUME to know the life experiences of everyone that posts here. Perhaps SP could add a registration page where potential posters get a WVH rating that determines what level of posting privilege they get. I bet you'd love that huh?
Refer to the questions above. I did not presume to know the answers which is why I asked the questions. A short and sweet response would have been none of your damn business which is an answer. Another response is to take offense and say that I won't dignify your lame questions with a response, which seems to be the approach taken. Another reponse might be what you did which is to tell me you served in the military or are involved with a kids t-ball league and have mentored all kinds of kids. In any event, no matter what you took from your experiences in the military, you at least had the experience, right?
You said:
"1. I never appointed myself gatekeeper to any topic. I simply asked a series of questions:"
You simply asked rhetorical questions designed to imply that unless one was of a particular race, one wasn't qualified. Let me try to show you an example:
So WVH, are you an auto mechanic? If not, then why would your opinion on car safety matter?
This is the internet. People from high school dropouts to PhD's are allowed to post their opinion. Do you have a problem with that?
I think you do. Eric was spot on when he wrote that you still don't seem to get the fact that your presumption of the need for "qualifications" to have an opinion worth listening to on this topic is offensive.
At one time there was a "qualification" to ride the bus or eat at the lunch counter as arbitrary as the amount of melanin in one's dermal layer.
Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one and they usually stink.
Posted by: pbj on January 12, 2008 09:02 PMYou said:
"So WVH, are you an auto mechanic? If not, then why would your opinion on car safety matter?
That is precisely the point. Anyone can spout off on the Internet, the question is what weight is to be assigned the opinion. Many people give a reference from Wiki less credibility than that from the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. You and I are posters, not editors or contributors.
The issue is the value of the opinion.
Now, you said:
"At one time there was a "qualification" to ride the bus or eat at the lunch counter as arbitrary as the amount of melanin in one's dermal layer."
What you are speaking of is discrimination vased upon a racial characteristic which had nothing to do with intelligence, talent, or worth. Read stories about the old Negro Baseball League and the difficulties they had with accomodation. This is not the same thing as venturing an opinion as to whether those players were better than Babe Ruth, especially if you know nothing about baseball, is it? If you know something about baseball your opinion might be worth something.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 09:13 PMFaulting "some people" or "some circles" is always easy, and pointless. I certainly won't defend every pundit or journalist or blogger. On the other hand, some people have suggested racism as an explanation for why last-minute polls in NH (maybe even exit polls?) were significantly more pro-Obama than the actual vote. I think this is a common discrepancy when whites are polled about elections involving blacks, so race is a reasonable explanation.
Posted by: Bruce on January 12, 2008 09:56 PMGoodnight all.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 10:27 PMArguments such as those of WVH, Cato, Bruce, etc. all have their root in the 19th Century German collectivists philosophers. The central thesis of Marx is that of class struggle. One can't have a class struggle without classes. Hence the absolute necessity for the left to put us all into classes, and then create the sparks necessary for struggle. If you look at the modus operandi of so many on the left, you see these behaviors clearly. Race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are great examples, but WVH's insistence on "qualifications" is its own little example.
It's hard for the left to realize that the right now understands that the only correct and beneficial path forward is to evaluate each on his or her own merit and character. Otherwise, the discussion invariably turns to than of WVH's petty qualifications on some level or another. This is not to downplay historical ignorance, but simply to move forward with what is obviously a better manner of human interaction.
I know many people of various differing traits that would fit into the left's classes defined as requiring more qualification or special treatment. But the common thread of the people that I know is that they have chosen to operate in the world that I, and many of the other commenters here do where those traits are something they consider irrelevant. These people have moved on from a world where qualifications were demanded.
I don't think WVH is capable of moving on at this point. She obviously stiff defines herself by certain traits and believes that those traits and her qualifications entitle her to a different class than others.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 12, 2008 11:12 PMOr it could just be that many would be NH Obama voters recognize the Clinton name as a powerful political force, and then decided not to count Mrs. Clinton out just yet.
When one has accepted a racist/ classist political philosophy, one tends to be more apt to find racist/ classist bogeymen.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 12, 2008 11:19 PM1. If some one were giving an opinion don't you want to know whether it was a credible opinion?
(The Nyquil hasn't totally kicked in yet.)
2. You said:
"I know many people of various differing traits that would fit into the left's classes defined as requiring more qualification or special treatment. But the common thread of the people that I know is that they have chosen to operate in the world that I, and many of the other commenters here do where those traits are something they consider irrelevant. These people have moved on from a world where qualifications were demanded.
I don't think WVH is capable of moving on at this point. She obviously stiff defines herself by certain traits and believes that those traits and her qualifications entitle her to a different class than others.
3. Now a couple of questions to you.
a. How do you define left?
b. Of that defintion of left, how does the fact that I asked an editor and contributor of this site square with your deinifition of leftist?
Is the fact that I even asked the questions enough for you to label.
c. What does entitled to a different class than others mean? Is anyone who asks a broker questions about his/her experience in the industry hinting at class differences or competence?
4. Same questions I asked Eric, to you. What do you know of the world beyond your nose?
5. Now please describe to me how I define the world? Your definition is based on what, the fact that I asked some in your leadership how they formulated their opinions on issues of race?
Apparently, question #11 touched a nerve. I believe that you are from Pierce County? How successful has your party been in that county when as the opposition party it can't get beyond slogans into real party building. If you are in fact from Pierce County, how effective has one-party rule been in Tacoma? Your party apparently wants to be smug little sloganers who consistently lose elections. If your party can't present conservative ideas to a broad segment of the population you will simply be smug little psudophilosophers who misquote philosphy by taking it out of context just as you miscontrue the "Dream" speech by taking out of context one line. I do not call ALL republicans racist, but in my opinion, your party has a difficult time addressing race without labeling as leftist, communist or whatever anyone who asks about the subject. As this state becomes more diverse, you lose candidates like Jarrett and the ring burbs. If you can't make coherrent arguments to a wide range of people about your conservative ideas and how you would govern a very diverse state, my comments and questions are the least of your worries.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 11:38 PMThe problem is there isn't any real evidence supporting that presumption, as much as some people are going to rush to it. The evidence I discussed from the exits polls in the original post (see point #5) that prompted this whole discussion simply supports that Clinton got her voters to the polls and Obama wasn't as effective in getting new and younger voters into the process as his campaign did in Iowa.
Plus, there is this pollster.com discussion that notes the multiplicity of issues that may have cause the discrepancy (above and beyond Clinton's campaign beating Obama's at GOTV efforts). A number of them are more compelling than the race issue, especially the "last minute shift" theory given that most pollsters finished their final polls for that contest over the weekend, but exit polls showed a substantial number of voters didn't make up their minds until the final 48 hours (which included the now famous Clinton crying scene that attracted so much attention).
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 12, 2008 11:46 PMUnfortunately racists come in all flavors. There are issues between groups and religions. I do believe that people who knew Liberman personally, had a much more favorable viewpoint of him.
There are going to be issues between groups because frankly, there are different agendas and the political process sorts that out.
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2008 11:47 PMYou said:
"What you are speaking of is discrimination vased upon a racial characteristic which had nothing to do with intelligence, talent, or worth. "
Yes, I am. And that is precisely why Eric originally pointed out that it shouldn't matter before he was essentially rhetorically questioned to get him to shut up about it because he wasn't black or minority.
Thanks for making my point!
Posted by: pbj on January 13, 2008 03:42 AMWhat is more relevant is the fact that when the subject of race is brought up, you staunch republicans have a reflex action of being defensive and are so tightly wound that you immediately attack rather than examine.
Since my nom de plume began the paragraph perhaps it's safe to assume that most of it was directed at me, so:
1. I am not a staunch Republican. I'm a libertarian. I vote mostly Republican because members of that party erode our rights a little less rapidly than the Dems. (Please, no posts insisting I support Ron Paul; his foreign policy ideas are just plain nutty.)
2. Since when is quoting someone considered attacking them? That's the view of a staunch liberal, not a self-professed indie.
It seems to me that racism is something akin to sports fanaticism. We all feel an affinity with the home team. Some are more ridiculous in their willingness to suspend their their brains in support of favorites, but all of us feel more comfortable with people and ideas that are closer to us and ours.
Humans are tribalistic beings. The secret to overcoming racism lies in not denying this reality, but in understanding it.
The dems clearly use the reality of racism to their advantage. But they are fooling themselves in that they seem to think it doesn't apply to them. They do however win the argument in that they have framed the debate and the republicans are forced to defend the absurd notion that racism doesn't exist.
Posted by: deadwood on January 13, 2008 08:10 AMThe required clarification to your questions posed about the NAACP representing the interests of minorities, from a conservative stand point should be to point out that the NAACP is not representing the 'legitimate' interests of minorities. The NAACP, like most of their other identity politics bretheren, have focused on spoils, spoils, spoils and the Ds have accomodated. Conservatives need to more stongly make the point that race spoils, be it affirmative action or other racially directed benefits, are socially regressive and ultimately damaging to society. Conservatives need to accept that we aren't going to make much headway with the historic recipients of government largesse when our victories mean a dimunition of this largesse. However, we should also make sure the larger population understand the quid pro quo occurring between Ds and spoils recipients. In the end, the tax givers will resent the tax eaters and provide us our winning base for political victories. And conservatives need to stop worrying about our popularity with tax eater groups.
Posted by: Sceptic on January 13, 2008 08:35 AM1. I asked Eric the questions because this discussion has and is about what weight to assign the opinion of a person on race, not racism.
If a person has never had contact with anyone of a differnt race, knows no one on a personal level that is from a differnt race and has no close associations from different races then what do they really know about race in this country? They can have an opinion but is that opinion as valuable as someone who knows something about the subject?
2. As for getting Eric to shut-up or silence him that was not my intent. He is an editor and contributor at this site. In fact, he has the power to silence me by kicking me off the site.
3. You and the rest of the posters may not like what I am saying, but you republicans and libertarians have to sell your ideas in the public square. It is projected that over a million new folks will come to this state and settle all over. Many of them will not be WASPS. You are correct that no one speaks for any one group, not should they. However, because cultural experiences often produce issues that are shared by many if you cannot sell conservative ideas by addressing both the similarities and differences you will produce a one-party state. One-party rule ultimately leads to corruption and corruption means everyone other than the corrupt is harmed.
4. The questions I asked were questions that are asked of any candidate in areas where there is a diverse population. If your party and its leaders are offended by the questions, well, it speaks volumes about how your team is handling differences.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 10:57 AM1. I admit that what I know about libertarianism is from what is posted here. The Paul people seem to at minimum overlook issues of race and some of is supporters of the David Duke ilk are dangerous racists. I understand there is an article in one of the libertarian magazines which takes issue with Paul's claim to be libertarian which I haven't read.
2. You said:
". Since when is quoting someone considered attacking them? That's the view of a staunch liberal, not a self-professed indie."
If I quoted Ron Paul:
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.
This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."
A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
Gays
In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Is this an attack? What it more likely demonstrates is that if you look at the backgrounds of many of a certain age that grew-up in an time of the civil rights area and pre-Civil rights era you would likely find many have made racist remarks including Jackson's Hymie Town, Imus's Nappy Headed Hos and more recently the younger Julie what's her name of ESPN who said players should lynch Tiger Woods to stop him from winning.
4. Republicans and libertarians who post here seem so insular that anyone who questions what they believe as orthodoxy is attacked and labeled.
Could be why Jarrett left and other good candidates are not emerging.
1. Bush has presided over one of the largest budget increases.
2. There are small and large businesses. Their interests are not necessarily the same. Small businesses are some of the largest job generators.
3. I assume that Sceptic assumes that all tax wasters are of the NAACP variety. Chew on this:
CTJ Citizens for Tax Justice
August 8, 2007
Senate Should Enact the Doggett Proposal to Close Loophole That
Allows Foreign Corporations to Dodge Taxes on U.S. Profits
"We can just say they're raising taxes because people have such a low opinion of the
Democratic Congress that they are certainly willing to believe that they are raising their taxes."
--Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) quoted in the Washington Post, Thursday, August 2, 2007
The farm bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 27 includes a provision
proposed by Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas to close a tax loophole that currently allows
foreign companies doing business in the U.S. to dodge taxes on their U.S. profits -- which
gives these foreign companies an advantage that American firms don't have. Unfortunately, the
chairmen of the relevant committees in the Senate have indicated to the press that they are
unlikely to include this provision in their version of the farm bill. They should reconsider.
Existing Loophole Allows Foreign Companies to Avoid Taxes on U.S. Profits
When foreigners receive dividends, interest, royalties and other kinds of passive income in the
U.S., they are nominally subject to a 30 percent withholding tax. We have reciprocal tax
treaties with countries that are our major trading partners, however, that reduce or eliminate
this withholding tax, and let the country of residence have the primary (or sole) taxing power.
These treaties are part of an overall system designed to ensure that income earned by
foreigners here and by Americans overseas, is taxed once, but not multiple times.
The problem is that some multinational corporations based in countries that do not have a tax
treaty with the United States have found ways to exploit this system to slash their taxes on
their U.S. profits. For example, imagine Shifty, Inc. is a corporation based (on paper) in
Bermuda, a tax-haven country that has no tax treaty with the United States. Shifty, Inc. has two
subsidiaries, one based in Switzerland and another based in the United States. The subsidiary
in the U.S. makes an interest payment to the one in Switzerland. The payment is deductible,
reducing Shifty-US's taxes on its U.S. earnings. Under our treaty with Switzerland, no U.S. tax
will be withheld. In contrast, 30 percent would be withheld if the payment was made directly
to Shifty, Inc. in Bermuda.
Then the subsidiary in Switzerland then makes a deductible royalty payment to Shifty, Inc. in
Bermuda for the use of the "Shifty" trade name. Under Swiss tax law, no tax is withheld from
this payment, and Bermuda imposes no tax of its own either. The result is that Shifty has
shifted part of its U.S. profits to Bermuda, and that income is not taxed by any country.
This two-step payment arrangement has no purpose other than to avoid the U.S. withholding
tax. Indeed, the "foreign" company ostensibly based in Bermuda may really be an American
company that reincorporated itself up in Bermuda specifically to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
-2-
Proposal Targets Tax Avoidance by Companies Based in Tax Havens, Not Our Trading Partners
The Doggett proposal would close this loophole with a simple rule: the U.S. subsidiary would
be required to withhold whichever withholding tax is larger, either the one applying to a
payment made to the subsidiary in the tax treaty country, e.g., Switzerland, or the one that
would apply if the payment was made directly to the parent company in the non-treaty
country, e.g., Bermuda.
Some members of Congress, no doubt prodded by lobbyists from corporations that have
supported their political campaigns, have railed against this proposed reform. One argument
we've heard is that the Bush administration is already taking steps to close the loophole by
renegotiating our tax treaties. But the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has
found that over the next 10 years, $7.5 billion dollars in taxes will be collected if the Doggett
proposal is enacted. Of course, that wouldn't be possible if the loophole was already closed.
Faced with this fact, opponents of this proposal then make the argument that this legislation
targets companies in countries that have tax treaties with the U.S. and who are major trading
partners. This argument is simply wrong. The JCT found that 90 percent of the revenue raised
will be paid by companies that are not based in countries the U.S. has a tax treaty with.
A related argument is that this proposal violates our tax treaties. To the contrary, this proposal
actually enforces the rules set out in our treaties. Opponents have put forth the following
example to make their argument. Imagine a company named Buyout, Inc. is based in Japan. It
has a subsidiary in the U.S. and another in a European country. If the U.S. subsidiary makes a
payment directly to the parent corporation, Buyout, Inc., it will be subject to a 10 percent
withholding tax, as spelled out in the tax treaty between the U.S. and Japan.
But suppose that the tax treaty between the U.S. and our European trade partner completely
eliminates the withholding tax. Then under current law, if the U.S. subsidiary makes a payment
to the European subsidiary, the payment will not be subject to any withholding tax.
The Doggett proposal, opponents say, will raise taxes on this foreign company even though it
is partially located in a treaty country. But that's exactly what our tax treaty with Japan
envisions: that money flowing from a subsidiary in the U.S. to its parent corporation in Japan
will be subject to a 10 percent withholding rate, no more and no less. The Doggett proposal
would merely close the loophole that allows some companies to undermine this rule.
Opponents Intentionally Misrepresent Doggett Proposal for Partisan Gain
Perhaps the most disturbing argument made during this debate is the openly crass claim that
anti-tax members of Congress can make political gains by misrepresenting this measure as a
tax hike on Americans. Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma, was quoted by the Washington
Post as saying "We can just say they're raising taxes because people have such a low opinion of
the Democratic Congress that they are certainly willing to believe that they are raising their
taxes."
If some members of Congress believe that they can win votes for their political party by
defending a loophole for foreign-based tax dodgers, then that represents a new low in our
national discourse over tax policy.
4. Now on the issue of race, it is complex and has to do with class, race, and maoney. Tiger Woods and Oprah from time to time may have issues, but because of their race and class their lives mirror more the typical upper class elite of any country in the world because of the money. At lot of the race problem is tied to poverty and the fact that many racial groups have many low-income members. As groups move into the middle class problems lessen, but are not totally eliminated.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 11:32 AMI think you are being simplistic in your arguments and sterotyping. Racists come in all flavors and the fact that your party goes ballistic when one of your leaders is asked a few questions about their experience with race points to a certain unwillingness to even discuss the subject.
Yes, we all want to get to Dr. King's aspirational statement that people are judged by the content of their character, but we are not there yet. We have made great progress and that shuld be recognized. Much of what Dr. King's "Dream" speech dealt with was economic issues and that really is a great deal of the race problem. Because of achievement, Dr. Rice, Colin Powell, Oprah, and Tiger Woods have fewer problems with race than a low-income person of all races.
You said the following:
"The reasoning seems to be "I"m a good person, you disagree with me, I'm not a racist, you must therefor be one". Hence to Democrats, all Republicans are racists. You cannot persuade the otherwise."
Isn't what this thread was about? I was brought to task because posters felt I was personally attacking Eric by asking what he knows about race. He is fortunate to have so many friends that feel he is a good person. Whether he is a good person was never the issue. The issue is does he have a sufficient basis to comment on race and have his opinion on race be given some credence. The weight given his opinion on race has nothing to do with the weight given him as a person.
I assume that you are a republican, although you might be a libertarian like Obi-Wan. I am trying to carefully state this, I do not assume ALL republicans are racist, but it is clear many republicans have a difficult time dealing with the issue of race.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 12:59 PMFull disclosure. I hired and supported African Americans during my days as a supervisor and manager. None of them would accuse me of racism despite the fact that I am a conservative Republican.
I've been married to an Asian woman for nearly 30-years.
I don't think I need to post any "qualifications" in order to have a discussion about race. I don't think Eric or anyone else needs to either.
Do I have to mention which side of the poltical spectrum is more likely to play the race card,(or gender card), when it suits their purposes?
Exploiting race for political advantage is racism of the worst sort. Those representing the party that destroyed the African American family can hardly lecture Republicans about "racism".
It seems to me that liberal commentators this weekend have been doing just that.
Excuse me, but I won't be lectured to regarding racial issues by members of a party that have an atrocious record on race dating all the way back to the 1870's, despite their attempts to rewrite history and sell Americans a bunch of nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 01:17 PMWho would that be. Isn't it interesting that I never asked you about your background and you responded? I never accused you of being a racist.
Now, which side of the spectrum is likely to place the race card. All sides play the race card when it suits their purpose.
You simply do not take in any information that does not accord with your preconceived notions. Anyone that disagrees with you, you label them as something you hate. I never said that you were a racist, but you are narrowminded and sterotype.
Fact is republicans, libertarians, democrats, Caucasians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians and whatever flavor you want to chose all play the race card as you call it. People have useful idiots and race cards when it suits their purpose.
It is interesting that you gave your vitals, isn't it? All that proves is you at least have some experience when talking about race doesn't it? I make not like your views and I may disgree with your views, but you have some experience.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 01:47 PM165. WVH at #162, "So, in your world, if a conservative is questioned about anything, the questioner is a leftist?
The problem is whether one calls any republican a racist or not, your party has a real problem just simply discussing the issue of race. I applaud your insurance agent and former financial advisor. From your posts and what your personalty must be like, to paraphrase a Donna Summer song, I know they worked hard for the money."
Your problem is avoiding blather. You can't even discuss a simple political point straight up. You have to barf out junk like "Your party has a problem simply discussing the issue of race".
You aren't willing to discuss issues at all. You believe the stereotypes you've been fed all your life. You don't want any discussion with conservatives at all as your prejudiced statement "your party has a problem simply discussing the issue of race" so glaringly illustrates.
Now who is biased?
Posted by Bill Cruchon at January 12, 2008 09:24 PM
166. OK Bill,
I am nursing a cold, but I will stay up a bit longer. Let's discuss the issues;
Give me three issues that you wish to discuss and we will discuss them. I won't call you right wing wacko and you won't call me leftist until we have had our discussion.
So, give me the three or four issues you wish to discuss and we will go at it.
Posted by WVH at January 12, 2008 09:32 PM
So, name your issues.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 01:52 PM
I have no sufficient basis to be given credence (I like them all) in race, but I am an expert in cartoons. I had to be, as I spent hours watching TV in my younger days. I have more hours there from age 4 to 12 than most of you have spent in college. So I would like to pass on a cartoon that was instrumental in my education: Danger of ISM
You just got done at your last post denying that you've called me a racist, WVH.
You have not listed any facts to back up this assertion you make about "my" party which you assert without a single fact "has a real problem just simply discussing race". This assertion of yours is central to this very wearying discussion, is it not.
I have challenged you repeatedly to name Republican legislation that could rightly be called racist. I've given you broad scope...you can go all the way back to 1960 if you so desire. You came up with some lame stuff about the establishment of the MLK holiday and accused me of not caring for Jack Kemp, one of the sponsors. It just doesn't get any more pathetic than that, WVH, and you couldn't be more incorrect. You accuse me of opposing the creation of the MLK holiday and disliking a Republican sponsor because of it. The kind of thing someone with a fair amount of prejudice about conservatives might do. But you haven't accused me of being a racist. Oh hell no, you hypocrite. Give me a break.
At least you don't appear to be continuing to pretend that you aren't a liberal. I guess that counts for some sort of progress. For crying out loud.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 02:38 PM1. I gave you the definition of racist, do you think that you fit the definition:
148. OK Bill,
1. You seem to be one of the few people who doesn't respect Stanford. Isn't the Hoover Insitute associated with Stanford?
2. Now, see the Noun defintion of racist above:
Noun 1. racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
racialist
bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
Everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal, elitist or whatever. Well, at least you got me off crack. Now I am an eltist snob, does that mean I get to go to your doctor and get the same prescription drugs as you?
Is there anything in the paper from the profs that you can specifically refute.
3. Now, I watch FOX news, but I also watch BBC, Canadian News and PBS. I read a variety of things, I try to get a variety of sources. I even read people I know I am going to disagree with including Chris Hitchens on religion. I am openminded, unlike you. I don't rule out candidates because they are one party or the other.
Did I specifically call you a racist or point you to a definition?
2. I believe that your original question was to challenge anyone including me to name a piece of legislation considered racist which was sponsored by republicans. This is your current question:
"I have challenged you repeatedly to name Republican legislation that could rightly be called racist. I've given you broad scope...you can go all the way back to 1960 if you so desire. You came up with some lame stuff about the establishment of the MLK holiday and accused me of not caring for Jack Kemp, one of the sponsors. It just doesn't get any more pathetic than that, WVH, and you couldn't be more incorrect. You accuse me of opposing the creation of the MLK holiday and disliking a Republican sponsor because of it. The kind of thing someone with a fair amount of prejudice about conservatives might do. But you haven't accused me of being a racist. Oh hell no, you hypocrite. Give me a break.
My original response was to ask you to define:
a. sponsor
b. who is a republican
c. are there individuls with Rs by their names that you would consider to be liberal?
d. Further as you know passing legislation is not the only game, preventing legislation by not voting for cloture, bottling bills up in committee and amendments are also part of the game. So, there are other moves other than sponsoring legislation.
3. You said this:
"At least you don't appear to be continuing to pretend that you aren't a liberal. I guess that counts for some sort of progress. For crying out loud."
Really, where did you get that from. Please define:
a. liberal
b. conservative.
I specifically asked you three or four issues you wished to discuss, so what are they?
Seems you are the one not capable of any rational discussion.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 02:55 PMIf you want to rely on some vague revisionist history from liberal academics at Stanford regarding the creation of the Civil Rights Act, fine. Liberals dominate the academic community and rewrite history to serve themselves and brainwash generations of students.
Again, the voting numbers from 1964 speak for themselves. More Republicans voted for the Act that did Democrats. Instead of having the courage to actually cite racist Republican legislation you instead beat a dead horse about which the numbers demonstrate that you are entirely wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 03:22 PMIt is written by Micahel Fauntroy athttp://www.michaelfauntroy.com/2006/11/new_book_availa.html
Republicans and the Black Vote examines the complicated relationship between a political party and a constituency from which it receives little support. The book relies on interviews and a review of the historical record to explain the GOPs early lock on Black voters, how they lost Black support, how policy positions and political symbolism combine to repel Black voters, and how the party can overcome its current position in the Black community.
The relationship between African Americans and the Republican Party garners attention every national election cycle and raises a number of concerns. Many analysts wonder why the Grand Old Party (GOP) has been unable to gain a significant foothold in the Black community. Still others want to know how the GOP found itself in its current predicament with a formerly support constituency. Some even implicitly criticize Black voters for not being more open to supporting the GOP. Still others, given current political trends, suggest that the GOP should simply throw up its collective hands and spend no additional time or resources seeking Black votes and focus more attention, instead, on Hispanic voters. And then there are the cynics who wonder, GOP pronouncements notwithstanding, if Republicans really want Black votes or just want to appear to want Black votes to show racial moderation center and center-left voters.
However, the nation's changing demography and more closely contested national elections are among the factors that are forcing the GOP to reach out and gain support in previously untapped voter reservoirs. Failing this outreach, the party risks losing its current position in American politics and the GOP's most untapped voter reservoir is the African American community. This is particularly notable when one considers that President Bush did better with gay voters in 2004 than African American voters, 25 percent to 11 percent, respectively.
The Republican Party once enjoyed nearly unanimous support among African American voters; today, it can hardly maintain a foothold in the black community. Exploring how and why this shift occurred, as well as recent efforts to reverse it, Michael Fauntroy meticulously navigates the policy choices and political strategies that have driven a wedge between the GOP and its formerly stalwart constituents.
1. He is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason university. I believe Dr. Walter Williams a contributor at Townhall also teaches there.
2. For folks too lazy to read, of course there is Youtube:
YouTube - Micahel Fauntroy: Republicans and the Black ...
Michael Fauntroy explores the history of the relationship ...
Watch video - 9 min - www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dP_xUVChSE
You said this:
1. "If you want to rely on some vague revisionist history from liberal academics at Stanford regarding the creation of the Civil Rights Act, fine. Liberals dominate the academic community and rewrite history to serve themselves and brainwash generations of students."
a. What is your proof that these are liberal academics? You call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal. How do you define the term.
b. Is there anything in their paper that you can prove is incorrect
2. You also said this:
"Instead of having the courage to actually cite racist Republican legislation you instead beat a dead horse about which the numbers demonstrate that you are entirely wrong."
You are trying to play a game with a moving goal line. I asked you the following questions which you never answered:
My original response was to ask you to define:
a. sponsor
b. who is a republican
c. are there individuls with Rs by their names that you would consider to be liberal?
d. Further as you know passing legislation is not the only game, preventing legislation by not voting for cloture, bottling bills up in committee and amendments are also part of the game. So, there are other moves other than sponsoring legislation.
So, asking about racist legislation given the legislative process and anyway, how are you defining "racist" is a difficult task especially since there has to be agreement on all terms.
You really don't want a rational conversation, you simply want to rant.
So. what is incorrect about the Stanford paper?
What a bunch of babble. I don't suppose WVH that you might be part of the educational establishment? I have to wonder after reading the above statement. That's just liberal gobbledygook. What a pathetic dodge instead of directly answering a question.
You simply can't confront the issue here. Instead you cut and paste articles from liberal academia, (and don't insult the intelligence of readers here and imply that the authors of the Stanford article you quote are anything but liberals), and excerpts from Fauntroy's book,(which on the surface of it does not appear to demonstrate racism on the part of Republicans).
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 03:57 PMNot a whole lot. In fact, WVH, here's a damning passage about Democrats, "For nearly a century, southern Democrats relied on the Senate filibuster and other congressional procedures to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation."
The Stanford analysis is more of a whine about how the passage of the Civil Rights Act destroyed the old Democratic "solid south" than anything else. And just what was that "solid south" based on? I think I'll let you ponder it for a while.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 04:16 PMYou said:
1. "You simply can't confront the issue here. Instead you cut and paste articles from liberal academia, (and don't insult the intelligence of readers here and imply that the authors of the Stanford article you quote are anything but liberals"
How do you know they are liberal? What proof do you have?
I have asked you several times, is anything in their paper incorrect and what proof do you have?
2. There is a methodology for academic inquiry which is to propose a thesis, define terms and state primary issues and research the thesis. I believe that methodology has been around since the beginning of universities. Do you desparage all learning? Do you quarrel with the methodology of academic inquiry?
Now you asked a question, still aren't willing to define any terms and really don't have a method of inquiry other than you want to state your opinion.
3. a. What proof do you have that the facts of the Stanford paper might be incorrect other than YOU have labeled the authors as liberals. Are you saying that the fact that a liberal accomplishes something is suspect. Some winners of the Nobel prize and other scientific prizes have been liberals. Do their accomplishments mean nothing because they might be liberal?
So, your proof that they are wrong.
b. Regarding your question, define your terms including "racist" and keep in mind the nature of the Congressional process.
I think you are simply a right wing wacko who loves to rant.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 04:23 PMYou said:
"Not a whole lot. In fact, WVH, here's a damning passage about Democrats, "For nearly a century, southern Democrats relied on the Senate filibuster and other congressional procedures to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation."
I think the problem is your hatred of those you consider to be either liberal or democrat which from what I can determine is anyone who disagrees with you.
I said the following at post #74:
Fact is republicans, libertarians, democrats, Caucasians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians and whatever flavor you want to chose all play the race card as you call it. People have useful idiots and race cards when it suits their purpose.
Guess what, practically every group at one time or another has been racist. The fact that one group has engaged in bad behavior doesn't give any other group a pass. You seem so focused on the fact that the dems have a racist history, which is true, that anyone who says well let's look at issues YOUR party may have gets labeled a liberal or dem. You simply are incapable of the proposition that ALL groups may have some history they may not be proud of.
It is unfortunate that so many in your party seem to be like you. I am nursing a cold and have the opportunity to chat with you. Other people would simply write off the republican party as they don't have sufficient patience or cold medication for the back and forth. That is unfortunate because one-party rule leads to corruption and corruption benefits no one. If you are typical of the average republican leader, all you will do is drive independents into the willing arms of the dems, following Fred Jarrett. I guess you didn't want him anyway, RINO or liberal, right?
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 04:45 PMWhy are you surprised? It's another variant of the "chickenhawk" meme: Unless you've been a victim of this or that, you can't possibly comment on issue x. It's as dishonest a tactic there is, and the libs are very good at exploiting it.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on January 13, 2008 04:46 PMThe name calling. It's inevitable eventually when you try to discuss politics with lefties,(particularly one who claimed she was an "independent" and in the same paragraph a "thinking conservative"). And then she played the gender card for no apparent reason,(to my great fascination, why would someone I assume would call herself a "feminist" expect to be treated differently because of her gender?). It's what so many leftists do. They are the ones who exploit race and gender. That is racism and gender politics that Republicans would not have any part of. Has Hillary not expoited her gender to great advantage just within the past week?
Sad isn't it that those on the left must resort to disguise, accusations such as WVH has made about Republicans and race, and deflecting rather than have a simple discussion of the issues?
I've said it over and over again. Conservatives understand leftists far better than leftists understand conservatives. I can expose a phony like WVH in my sleep.
Even my pal, Bill answered the question which I didn't ask him.
You said this:
"It's another variant of the "chickenhawk" meme: Unless you've been a victim of this or that, you can't possibly comment on issue x. It's as dishonest a tactic there is, and the libs are very good at exploiting it."
Would you define chickhawk meme? I am not familar with the term?
1. You said this:
"The name calling. It's inevitable eventually when you try to discuss politics with lefties,(particularly one who claimed she was an "independent" and in the same paragraph a "thinking conservative"). And then she played the gender card for no apparent reason,(to my great fascination, why would someone I assume would call herself a "feminist" expect to be treated differently because of her gender?). It's what so many leftists do. They are the ones who exploit race and gender. That is racism and gender politics that Republicans would not have any part of. Has Hillary not expoited her gender to great advantage just within the past week?"
You are the one who began the labeling as soon as I asked the questions. So, if you can call me liberal, you mean I can't call you right wing wacko.
2. You said:
"I've said it over and over again. Conservatives understand leftists far better than leftists understand conservatives. I can expose a phony like WVH in my sleep."
I doubt if you understand much of anything other than the sound of your own voice.
3. You never addressed the points I made in post #84. You did admit that there was nothing wrong with the Stanford article other than "The Stanford analysis is more of a whine about how the passage of the Civil Rights Act destroyed the old Democratic "solid south" than anything else."
The problem is you don't want a discussion about any issue that disagrees with your preconceived notion of how the world is. I don't know how old you are, but I know that for to move forward a generation of folks needs to pass into eternity. Right now, both parties are so polarized and your viewpoint of ranting at anyone that disagrees with you is certainly not going to craft policies that will move this country forward.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 05:27 PM
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 05:38 PM
I was not familiar with the term.
So, Steve, how does Bill's definition which has to do with a discussion of the Iraq war fit with this discussion, I'm not sure what we are discussing at this point, but it started with race.
Also, Bill who does not seem to be a victim of anything volunteered his info. So, was Bill wrong to do that?
Also, if you were a stockbroker and I asked you about your investment history and how well you know the current market. Is that victim mentality?
Now, if you venture an opinion on art or music is it wrong to ask what your your opinion is based upon- actual study or you just know what you like?
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 05:47 PMSurely, this comment above deserves to be enshrined in the Sound Politics Looneybin Hall of Fame.
I'm not even going to attempt a response.
And for the record dear, I'm 54.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 05:50 PMThe looney bin hall of fame, I think not. That would be the discussion of circumcison. Were you in on that one?
I hope that you look younger than your posts make you appear. I could have sworn your opinions made you appear to be a really old fart.
It is has been good chatting with you, I feel well enough to eat something, so I'm leaving. Still don't agree with you on much of anything.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 05:56 PMCan it possibly get better than this? Now WVH reveals herself to be an ageist. I'm teasing of course but this stuff is just priceless.
I'm not going anywhere near that circumcision comment, either.
I'd stay away from the Merlot if I was you WVH. You don't appear to be able to handle it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 06:07 PMWHV's later comments bemoan conservatives giving up on the African-American community. Conservatives in this country (largely meaning the R party) will attract those African-Americans who resent the confiscation of their own income for the purpose of providing largesse to others of their race represented by groups like the NAACP. We cannot, and should not, seek to replicate the Democrat's identity politics spoils efforts; it is a losing game for the party and the nation as a whole. There are persons whose race would make them recipients of identity group largesse who will nevertheless support us in this effort as they come to resent the unjustified hit on their income and rights. The belief in merit over spoils goes beyond race.
There is nothing to be gained by Rs entering the spoils sweepstakes which is the primary business of the NAACP. Our base is composed of tax givers who resent the tax eaters. And that is where we must maintain our focus. But, as I said before, we need to let everyone know that when Rs are accused of racist leanings they are often really being accused of obstructing the identity spoils trade.
Posted by: Skeptic on January 13, 2008 06:38 PMIf I may say so, Skeptic, your point above is elegantly put. I entirely agree.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 13, 2008 06:57 PMAbsolutely, and I'll do it by example. Here's an exchange I'm witnessing right now on another message board:
Poster 1: "The cost [of the war] is high. War does suck. If history (and I believe it will) shows this to have been a turning point toward real peace in the Middle East then the cost will have been worth it.
Poster 2: "How much of that cost have you paid?...it's easier to say that you are fine with the cost when you aren't the one that actually pays it. Were you in Iraq? How about your father, brother, son, daughter, sister? Best friend? Does your heart leap into your throat every single time the news reports the death of another soldier? Do you breathe a sigh of relief when you realize that it isn't your loved one that was killed? And then feel guilty because you know that someone, somewhere isn't going to feel that relief?
When it comes to paying for this war, how much of that price are you paying?"
Notice the play to emotions in the absence of actual fact or supporting arguments, as well as the subtle word-putting-in-mouth (poster 1 never said the cost was okay).
That's the chickehawk meme. Generalizing slightly, if you've either never or only had cursory experience with something, a lib will come along and play the how-dare-you-have-an-opinion-when-you've-never- [insert whatever here].
So we get to you. According to the OP, you quesioned his "qualifications" on the subject of race. Clearly, you're implying that a person can't possibly discuss race relations until and unless said person has had the same life experiences that another person has had.
Frankly, it's a theme that's designed to dishonestly disqualify another party from a debate. Sadly, the democrats have played that card over and over again, first with the 9/11 widows and later with John Kerry's entire Presidential campaign. I suspect we'll see a hilarious clash of identity politics victimology with Hillary! and Obama shortly, but that's off topic.
The bottom line: Everytime I see the 'chickenhawk' meme, I'll call BS.
As for me: I grew up the only white kid in an all-black neighborhood near St. Louis, Mo. I'm plenty qualified to discuss race relations.
1. This is what Skeptic said at post #67:
"The NAACP, like most of their other identity politics bretheren, have focused on spoils, spoils, spoils and the Ds have accomodated. Conservatives need to more stongly make the point that race spoils, be it affirmative action or other racially directed benefits, are socially
regressive and ultimately damaging to society."
So, to refer to them in my response is reasonable.
Since you mentioned the NAACP in your post
2. You are going to have to point me to this:
"WHV's later comments bemoan conservatives giving up on the African-American community."
Did I say that, where?
Actually, there are plenty of conservatives that work with the Black community, such as Jack Kemp for one and the Evangelicals in Mega Churches. I think I more likely said something like, in my opinion, most libertarians are probably racist. How the overlap of conservative and libertarian mixes, I am not sure. I think there is a certain strain of opinion found here and I am not sure how to categorize them as conservative or libertarian that is uncomfortable with many groups that are not Caucasian. But, no I did not sterotype all conservatives as you have done. There are many conservatives that work along side Blacks on issues such as education and revitalizing low-income communities.
3. You said this:
"But, as I said before, we need to let everyone know that when Rs are accused of racist leanings they are often really being accused of obstructing the identity spoils trade."
Really, when Strom Thurmond was alive and operating and David Duke was running for governor of Louisiana, you mean they didn't have any racist leanings? Is that what you are saying?
It is interesting that most of the sterotyping is done by you. You assume that all Blacks are into the identity spoils movement, whatever that is. Please define what you mean by the identity spoils movement. I concede to you Sharpton/Jackson, but they do not represent all Blacks. So, who else are you referring to? So, every single Black person is out to take something from you, right?
My simple little questions seem to have unleashed quite a storm. Just curious, Skeptic do you live in a urban area, burb or rural area?
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 08:50 PMWhat impressions did you take from that experience about Black people?
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 08:54 PMSure. The vast majority are good people.
But within the larger community, there are bigots. Discrimination and bigotry are no means confined any one identity group.
Just like within ANY community or group. You'll always find jerks.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on January 13, 2008 08:58 PMNo matter what you say about your experience of being in the minority in your neighborhood in St. Louis, the point is you had whatever experience it was, you at least had some sort of contact. Yes, that does give you a perspective that is different from someone who has never had that experience or any experience with someone who is different. So you can speak about being a minority and your impressions of Blacks.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 09:02 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10kohut.html
The author is not certain and I'm not either, but I don't see how you can dismiss the question.
Posted by: Bruce on January 13, 2008 09:02 PMRe: post #100
I have traveled all over and found that what you have stated is true of all the places I have been. That is why I don't rule out voting for a candidate because of their party. I vote for quality candidates no matter the party.
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 09:06 PM1) Your response to my observation regarding tax eaters was dispensed with in my later comments above and does not need repeating. The point was clear and you've added nothing with your additional comments.
2) You, once again (a habit apparently with you) make assumptions on other people's behalf when you start theorizing as what I do or do not think of as the identity spoils movement (and then build on this to assert that I've chategorized whole groups of people -- a superficial device). I've referenced the NAACP and that is sufficient.
3) The reference to bemoaning republican efforts with Af-American voters is included in your post #80 above (a summary of several paragraphs of text). If you don't like the characterization, feel free to clarify and distinguish.
4) Don't imagine yourself the referee of stereotyping. You aren't. I've stereotyped nobody, but your use of defamatory insinuation is a common tactic, and noted. Racial spoils is, by its very nature, a deliverable to the recipients of those spoils. If you wish to argue that the NAACP is not a key proponents of set asides and other spoils to Af-American constituencies, then please do so. It is sometimes amusing to watch ideologues attempt false arguments to sustain corrupt theories.
5) And of course, Strom Thurmond has nothing to do with the common place insinuations of racism that accompany, as I said before, any effort to obstruct the delivery of a spoils to the constituency of an identity group (and such constituencies are not limited to Af-Americans). One need only revisit the egregious attacks on Washington's Initiative 200 (a very progressive -- in the true sense of the word -- piece of legislation). A proposal attacked by identity groups exactly because it undermined the distribution of race based spoils such as minority set asides.
I'm not going to indulge your conceit that you have a test for race relations competence. Such a test would require many more and different variables than you've placed in your questions above.
Posted by: Skeptic on January 13, 2008 09:33 PMI'm not dismissing the question. I'm saying some people are being too quick to presume that is THE factor rather than examining available information to see that there are a number of possible answers that are not only highly plausible, but easier to verify than the "Democratic voters are racists" theory.
The pollster.com link I provided specifically includes the race question as a possible factor, among many others. The article you provide doesn't address a number of the factors pollster.com includes, nor does it include the variance in get-out-the-vote efforts that would shape the electorate as well (and thus invalidate the methodology of a number of polls). Indeed, the Obama's inability to flood the NH primary with younger, newer voters such as occurred in Iowa is one the most significant comparative dynamics between the two states...that and the improved ability of the Clinton campaign to get its voters to the polls.
I would also note the author of that article is one of the few pollsters talking publicly about the matter who is actually arguing there weren't some potential mistakes by pollsters themselves. Scott Rasmussen's discussion of the matter is an example of a pollster being more candid about their own profession's potential faults.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 13, 2008 09:44 PM1. I read your origin post at #67 and this is your comment at the later post:
"It would take far too much time to explain the distinctions between companies (no matter what the racial makeup) keeping more of what they earn and persons requesting and receiving benefits and spoils based on race, and using groups like the NAACP to advance this agenda (and suggest that those disfavoring such largesse are racists). "
This is not a definition of who tax wasters, so that I don't assume anything, could you give me some specific groups you think are tax wasters, please include racial categories of tax eaters?
The NAACP is a 401 (c) like any number of groups including groups like Focus on the Family, so your description is not sufficient.
2. My post #80 referenced a book. So, how did you make the assumption from the book cite that "WHV's later comments bemoan conservatives giving up on the African-American community."
I did not bemaon anything, I gave you a book cite, ever thought of reading the book?
3. You said:
"And of course, Strom Thurmond has nothing to do with the common place insinuations of racism that accompany, as I said before, any effort to obstruct the delivery of a spoils to the constituency of an identity group (and such constituencies are not limited to Af-Americans)."
Really, Strom Thurmond was not a racist and didn't have the longest fiflibuster on record in 1957? Your paragraph is written so poorly I doubt if you know what it means. Anyhow, I can't assume anything from what you wrote as it is too unclear.
4. You said:
"I'm not going to indulge your conceit that you have a test for race relations competence. Such a test would require many more and different variables than you've placed in your questions above."
What test would that be other than asking what experience a person has. That is an easy question, either you have experience with other races or you don't. It is really or yes or no question. Bill and Steve had no problem with it.
I don't want to assume anything. You never answered whether you live in an urban area, burb or rural area. Do you happen to be a libertarian?
Posted by: WVH on January 13, 2008 10:26 PMYou give yourself too much credit when you imagine yourself qualified to criticize sentence composition.
As I said before, Thurmond has nothing to do with the common place slander of racism that is leveled, sometimes explicity and often through insinuation, in circumstances like Initiative 200, where principled people stood the way of a spoils distribution system and were condemned for their noble conduct by the identity spoils groups and their associates. You can dance and obfiscate all you want by references to Thurmond, it isn't going to make your attempt to distract any less obvious. I-200 is the contemporary manner in which bogus charges of racism, as an intimidation device, is entered into political discourse.
You may want to fight a straw man by raising segregation and Thurmond, but I'm not interested in indulging your efforts to get off topic. At no point in time was I discussing segregation. The discussion is spoils. Exactly the kind of spoils that I-200 was enacted to dismantle. Do you defend such spoils or not?
BTW- Have you ever worked to replace race based goals in hiring, school assignment or any other setting with merit based goals? If not, why should we assume you are qualified to speak about matters of racial equality if you haven't pursued racial equality yourself?
Posted by: Skeptic on January 13, 2008 11:21 PM1. As a matter of fact, yes. I support competition in education and supported charter schools. Marva Collins in Chicago has done great work in the field of basic education. Competitive education models are just that. The best way to get to a society that is much like the military is to give every child a good basic education. So, I expect that you will be supporting efforts to get competition in education.
2. So I guess your issue is affirmative action?
a.Do you believe there was past discrimination?
b.Is there a remedy for past discrimination, in your opinion?
c. There is a difference between goals and quotas.
Do you oppose hiring goals?
d. This is the history of the practice instituted by Nixon:
On March 23, 1973, the Nixon administration's Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Civil Service Commission issued a joint memorandum titled "State and Local Employment Practices Guide." The guide points out that the Nixon Administration... since September of 1969, recognized that goals and timetables... are a proper means for helping to implement the nation's commitment to equal employment opportunity." The memorandum stressed that strict quotas are unacceptable but that goals and timetables' are entirely different and reasonable tools. (Attorney General John Mitchell led the legal defense of the distinction between goals and quotas.)In July of 1986, Justice O'Connor referred to this document, and the merits of fair and effective affirmative action goals, in the concurring portion of her opinion in Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC. In doing so, she joined the Court majority's support for numerical guidelines in affirmative action programs.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/affirmative_action_history.shtml
Even Nixon recognized that the legacy of Strom Thurmond and segregation bolstered by the efforts of Thurmond and Bilbo of Mississippi was no straw man, as you put it.
I don't have a copy of I 200, I suspect you do. If the issue is quotas, that is one thing, if the issue is goals as Nixon first envisioned to remedy past discrimination, that is another issue.
Did I 200 prohibit goals to address past discrimination? I am sure you can quote chapter and verse.
3. You never answered the questions of do you live in an urban area, burb, or rural area. Are you a libertarian?
Secondly, I do think however, racism/stereotyping is still very much present today. People aren't treated equally. On the Republican side, the stereotypes have a lot to do with the personal responsibility value of the Republican side. Therefore, welfare recipients, homeless, felons who have served their time, etc. are treated (in general) as ones who are lesser in society. The general view of Republicans is they don't care about these people, along with gays, fat people, etc. Add to this now a new dimension in the so-called fiscal conservatives that are now also looking down at the social conservatives as a bunch of country bumpkins.
On the Democratic side, you also have racism present. There the racism is against big business, religious people, etc. I think MLK would be ashamed at the Left's attack on people, just as he fought against the racism of his day.
Finally, the bottom line question is this: Do you judge people based on stereotypes or do you judge people on what they do? If we want to defeat racism, we need to address stereotyping people. Each individual needs to be given a fair shot on their own. They are not just another person. Republicans and Democrats both need to learn to put the stereotypes behind them and treat all people with respect and dignity, no matter their upbringing, social economic status, race, or beliefs. It doesn't matter if they agree with you or not. We can still treat each other respectfully, even if we disagree. I think this is what the country is yearning for, and why bipartisanship is a big factor in the current front-runner's ascent.
Posted by: tc on January 14, 2008 07:41 AM"Thurmond supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single Senator, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957" In 1957 Thurmond was a Democrat"
"In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to the lack of support among the Democrats." Source,
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/dl/Civil_Rights_Civil_Rights_Act/CivilRightsActfiles.html
Today happens to be the anniversary of George Wallace's 1963 inauguration as Governor of Alabama. During his address he stated: "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." George Wallace was a Democrat.
Rather an inconvenient truth, eh WVH?
Coloring Republicans as the party of racism while ignoring 100 years of racism by Democrats is part of modern leftist educational mythology. It can be amusing for those of us who know better. It's also tragic. Leftists have managed an amazing feat of brainwashing. Republicans initiated civil rights legislation and were it greatest supporters.
I bet if you took a survey of high school kids most of them would tell you Lincoln was a Democrat. My head hurts.
WVH, I've asked you before, are you one of those who are teaching our children this garbage? I strongly suspect so.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 09:37 AMThe only thing that will save YOUR party is thoughtful republicans like tc and Russell who don't go ballistic when people ask simple questions about race.
You obviously are incapable of taking in any information that doesn't meet with your preconceived rant. I don't know if you even have been reading this thread.
I said the following at post #74:
Fact is republicans, libertarians, democrats, Caucasians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians and whatever flavor you want to chose all play the race card as you call it. People have useful idiots and race cards when it suits their purpose.
Now, Thurmond started out as a dem and found a home in the republican party, that is a fact. David Duke started out and is a KKK member and he ran as republican and is a republican legislator in Louisiana who is supporting Ron Paul who is running currently as a republican for president.
The fact is both parties have legacies they probably don't want to discuss including YOUR party.
If you read my comments, which you probably never do because YOU have sterotyped me as a leftist you will find that I take both parties to task.
Your problem is that you are so narrowminded that you will not take in any information that does not accord with your preconceived notions.
Now, on the question of education. It is a question of imposing rigourous standards and explaining to both parents and children that the system will adhere to those standards.
One-party systems benefit no one and idiots like you will assure that this state is in the dem column because you not only drive out electable republicans but independents that might consider voting for one of your candidates. The only hope your party has in this state is that there are more like Russell and tc than you.
Posted by: WVH on January 14, 2008 10:29 AMYes I have. And I think there is ample evidence in your posts to demonstrate that I am correct.
It's always interesting to debate leftists. They seem to be ashamed to admit their political leanings and love to play games about their philosophy. Are you an "independent", or a "thinking conservative". You've claimed to be both without explanation.
I think phony game players is a more appropriate way to describe you and many other leftists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 11:13 AMA poster here did have it right when they said that Dems win the rhetorical debate about race because they constantly force Reps to explain why they aren't racist.
I think the vast majority of Reps are like me when they get a little uptight when called a racist by Dems. We honestly believe our policies and ideas are good for all Americans, and we refuse to play the race game. And all this does is get us called racist?!?!
We refuse to play racist games and we get called racist for that.
Liberals this is Orwellian speak.
Orwellian speak this is Liberals.
I think you have it exactly right, Thom. And it isn't just Dem politicians that force the rhetorical debate.
What Republicans have to face is a stacked deck. Dems have dominated education and the media for years. They have rewritten history to fit their ideology. Anyone 40 or younger has been spoon fed the liberal line since they were in daycare.
I'm only partly joking when I say most teens, and probably college students as well would say that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 12:20 PMA good video spotlighting the rightful heir to Senator Fulbright's legacy on race
Posted by: JDH on January 14, 2008 12:46 PMWVH, How's this for experience and "qualifications"? Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
Posted by: Michelle on January 14, 2008 01:08 PMPosted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 01:30 PM
Amen
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 01:39 PM
Take a look at this if you want to see racism. This blog is one of the homes of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, just read it and let it sink in. Progressive Democrats are nothing if not racists and bigots.
And leftists fantasy themselves as the party of compassion?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 02:41 PMPerhaps you haven't followed the subject of this post that closely. WVH's continued harping about "racism" at this site is about 90% about Ron Paul. Since "qualifications" are an issue, I provided her a look at what a NAACP from TEXAS, no less, had to say about the charges against Paul re: racism.
Posted by: Michelle on January 14, 2008 03:04 PMI'm not usually at a loss for words but I honestly don't even know how to respond to it. It probably deserves a thread of its own here.
I would love to see liberals attempt to defend it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 03:17 PMI'm not sure that even I have the stomach for a thread discussing this truly horrible article. Here's the url again,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/whos-tired-of-pink_b_81087.html
If you want to see what real hatred and bigotry looks like, this article is for you. I don't think I could write a parody of liberalism that was this disgusting.
Read it, Thom, if you haven't. You might understand what I mean.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 05:05 PMShe is a racist and a sexist. Hate fills many people regardless of political affiliation, but on the left, is justified as somehow righteous.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 05:29 PMI see racial and gender politics, and a desire to impose socialism on a country that is more productive and has a higher standard of living precisely because it has avoided socialism. "Progressives" don't want to discuss this obvious fact. This nutty notion of imposing socialism,(and ultimately communism), dates back to the 1960's, where most "progressives" cut their political teeth. I was there. I know.
Hillary Clinton is the classic example of what I'm referring to here. I grew up with Hillary types. I couldn't stand any of them. They were miserable, unhappy people who couldn't wait to make the rest of us miserable by telling us how to live our lives. Telling other people how to live their lives is what gets the Hillarys and the "progressives" of the world high. I can't stand these people.
"Progressives" use "climate change" to brainwash young people. I can't think of a better example of how leftists want to tell us how to live our lives. "Climate change" is a big leftist lie.
These people are without shame, and honesty.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 07:06 PMROTL. Unhappy people. I can't think of a Progressive I know that is a happy person. Most of the ones I know have had severe relationship problems as well. You can't be happy if your philosophy focuses you on others instead of yourself. That's the essence of the collectivist philosophies, living for the sake of others and not yourself.
But I prefer to call them Destroyers. Controllers is not a strong enough word for what the philosophies of collectivism have done to humanity.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2008 07:42 PMIt doesn't seem to matter to Hillary that she's made tons of money due to capitalism. I think an appropriate synonym for "leftist" ought to be "hypocrite".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 08:06 PMThese phony creeps that manufacture this garbage make me sick. That they use innocent kids they have brainwashed to promote their political propaganda is beyond disgusting.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 14, 2008 08:50 PMIs this the article you were referring to:
Ron Paul to be honored as America's Civil Rights leader Larry Fester
Published 01/09/2008 - 7:30 p.m. EST
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is to be honored by grassroots activists as the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st Century.
FreeAtLast2008.com - Ron Paul For President is a new website designed to generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul's campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Many of Ron Paul's supporters consider him the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st Century for his tireless defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Paul voted against the Patriot Act and has made the defense of liberty a central theme in his campaign.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=223010
It seems to be more of a fundraising ploy and more than a bit self-serving. Because, in his opinion, he is a tireless defender of the Constitution "his" supporters are honoring him. Has any group like the Heritage Foundation decided to so honor him? Now, I am glad that after the TNR article and others he has decided to be for civil rights, I assume that the civil rights he supports are for all people? Has the Urban League or any other group like Japanese American Citizens League decided to bestow an honor on Paul for civil rights? Just asking.
1. I offered to debate you on any three or four issues you chose. You never have taken me up on that.
2. Now you said:
"Yes I have. And I think there is ample evidence in your posts to demonstrate that I am correct.
It's always interesting to debate leftists. They seem to be ashamed to admit their political leanings and love to play games about their philosophy. Are you an "independent", or a "thinking conservative". You've claimed to be both without explanation."
Now, if you have read my posts on education, family issues, and the political system which are archived, I challenge you to point to the posts which support your characterization other than this issue where I asked what experiences give a site contributor's opinion on race any weight. I may disagree with you, Steve or pbj, but at least you have some experience on the subject.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read any of my posts prior to this topic.
So, if you want to debate issues, name the issues.
Posted by: WVH on January 14, 2008 09:24 PM1. I found the correct article.
2. There is no group that is of one opinion.
3. The Youtube clip cam from an interview that was conducted on August, 2007. Has anyone done a follow-up?
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder Defends Ron Paul
Someone made this youtube out of this interview I conducted of my friend Nelson Linder in August of 2007. It is unfortunate that at the time of this interview he mistakenly believed that Paul had written the offensive newsletters, but explained that he's known Paul for 20 years and knows for a fact that he's not a bigot, so the parts in question must be taken out of context. Same difference.
http://thestressblog.com/2008/01/14/austin-naacp-president-nelson-linder-defends-ron-paul/
A couple of points, he thought Paul had written the newsletters and he is entitled to his opinion.
4. Here is a bit more about Nelson Linder and Texas politics:
Willie or Won't He?
Two Opponents Take on Place 6 Incumbent
BY AMY SMITH
By Doug PotterIn places outside of Austin, folks like to ridicule us for the way we elect certain representatives to the City Council. Newcomers to the local process may be unaware that Austin brings into play an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" during council election years, which guarantees at least one Hispanic and one African-American a seat among seven on the dais. Some would argue that Austin is not going to shed itself of this brand of tokenism until the city overhauls its electoral system altogether, be it by single-member districts or a wide-open contest that turns the top vote-getters into automatic winners. But for now, at least, the gentleman's agreement is alive and, uh, squirming in Austin, Texas. Squirming because of the sensitive racial issues that poke up like crocuses every other spring during the contest for Place 6, known in gentleman's parlance as the African-American seat. "Nobody likes to talk about race," says Nelson Linder, one of three candidates running for the seat. "It makes people uncomfortable."
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A76831
Note the last quote by Linder, Nobody likes to talk about race....
I suppose politics makes strange bedfellows. Still, he has a right to his opinion.
Barack Obama's Church Honors Louis Farrakhan
Last month Barack Hussein Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, bestowed upon Louis Farrakhan its highest social achievement award.
For nearly 30 years, Louis Farrakhan has marked himself a notable figure on the extremist scene by making hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals.
Farrakhan's bigoted and anti-Semitic rhetoric has included statements calling whites "blue eyed devils" and Jews "bloodsuckers" that controlled the slave trade, the government, the media and various Black individuals and organizations. In 2006, he blamed Jews and Israel for the war in Iraq, for controlling Hollywood and for promoting what he considers immorality during his February Saviours' Day address in Chicago.
In a 2007 interview with Arabic-language television news network Al Jazeera, Farrakhan accused Jews of anti-Semitism, charging that "The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they converted to Judaism."
Read all about it here at the Anti-defamation Leagues extensively documented website devoted to tracking this bigot's rhetoric -
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp
Posted by: JDH on January 15, 2008 08:03 AMI know that the original post on the first thread has been lost, but what I said was not that Eric had no right to speak about race just as I have no right to speak about the Reagan wing of the the republican party or republicans who live in Sno County. The question is how much do I know about either group and what weight is my opinion to be given?
I am an independent and vote for the best candidate and if I don't like any candidate, I vote for Micky Mouse. I know that your politics are conservative, whether you are republican or libertarian, I don't know. The point is whatever your party is, a party does not win elections by alienating any voter whether they are green, purple or spotted. You put out your platform and seek to attract like minded folks whether they are green, purple or spotted. Maybe there is such a difference in urban, burbs, and rural areas that someone like Eric who is based in Sno County finds that being asked what do you know about people who are different than you is offensive. Those questions are fairly routine in urban areas where there is a large and diverse population. Now, no matter your party, you will have to concede that a one-party system no matter the party ulitmately leads to a corrupt system which benefits no one. From what I can tell, the republican party in this state has no clue as to how to appeal to a wide range of voters, many of whom who are not put off by a conservative message and I am not calling them racist, just inept. Which is defined as:
in·ept
-adjective 1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.
Pick a defintion for meaning.
From what I can tell republicans and libertarians who post here are the dem party's best friends, they couldn't wish for better allies.
Posted by: WVH on January 15, 2008 10:24 AM1. This is what I said in my post #74 and again in response to Bill:
I said the following at post #74:
Fact is republicans, libertarians, democrats, Caucasians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asians and whatever flavor you want to chose all play the race card as you call it. People have useful idiots and race cards when it suits their purpose.
Guess what, bigots and racists come in all flavors and each candidate no matter what his or her party will probably have some fairly unsavory characters unearthed. I suggest you ask yourself the following when that event happens - how do they handle that knowledge? If they can't do what Bush 41 and Howard Dean did when that happened to them which is to completely dissavow such support, return any money, and completely disavow the message of such groups, then their lame a$$ should be kicked to the curb, no matter the color of the candidate, their religion, or their race.
Now, hypotheically, if Romney who is Morman and Obama who is Black receive support from bigots and Romney disavows such support and Obama does not, I have no problem saying that Romney is the better man in that instance. You are either against bigots or you aren't. That is and has been my problem with Paul.
Posted by: WVH on January 15, 2008 10:35 AMBill Cruchon, Willie (Boodle It) Right, isn't a pink man, but I would like to see him face off against Mizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Jong. The little red circle with the white triangle is a link to an MP3 of his 1941 song Two by Four Blues.
Posted by: JDH on January 15, 2008 01:35 PMIt's always been a mystery to me why my great grandfather moved his family from Austin to Seattle at the end of the 19th century. Now, at last, the mystery has been solved.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 15, 2008 04:26 PMWe are all free to discuss anything we want, but on the issue of race, I am free to give more weight to the opinion of a person who has at least had some contact with those of different races. I may disagree with my pal Bill on many issues, but he at least has walked the walk and had various experiences with others of different races and I know they have had experiences with him. People may be nice and good people, but me, personally, I don't give much weight to a discussion of race with someone that may not have had any experience with others of different races. As you say, that is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
Posted by: WVH on January 15, 2008 09:17 PMThis was just posted at Lucianne. For the record, I would expect that all major candidates with the exception of Paul would do the same:
OBAMA REPUDIATES FARRAKHAN, DRAWS JEWISH LEADERS' PRAISE
Senator Obama's decision yesterday to distance himself from his hometown minister and repudiate the Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, has drawn praise from leaders in the Jewish community. The issue arose after a Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, penned an article that pressured Mr. Obama to take a stand on a decision by his Chicago church to honor Mr. Farrakhan, who has made repeated anti-Semitic statements over the years. "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in any form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements by Minister Farrakhan," Mr. Obama said in a statement issued after the column was published yesterday, adding that he disagreed with the decision to honor him. The head of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said he welcomed Mr. Obama's statement, and he later joined eight other Jewish leaders in an open letter condemning "hateful e-mails" that have circulated mischaracterizing the religious beliefs of the Illinois senator, who is a Christian. "We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates," the letter states.
http://www.nysun.com/article/69579
The point is bigots of any color should not be tolerated. Those that aspire to leadership, no matter their race, color or creed should have this basic understanding. As I said previously, I would be surprised if any of the major candidates other than Paul wouldn't do the same. This is for Bill, Bush 41 set the standard in that regard.
Wilberforce spoke about a moral issue such as the treatment of fellow human beings. To speak about a moral issue, one does not have to have specific experience with the issue. If one is a person of faith and accepts the Ten Commandments as truth, one does not have to be a murderer or experience killing another human being to know that murder is wrong.
What I question is how one can speak about the nuances of understanding the race issue without actually having some experience with different races and different cultures. I may not agree with Bill, pbj or Steve, but their experience with those of different races and cultures gives them an understanding and I am only theorizing here that an individual who only socializes with one race, lives in a community with predominately one race, and has no contacts on a personal level does not have. Lest you think I am only talking only about Caucasians, I am not. Since you have lived in Europe you will understand this next comment. Immigrants that come to a community and become insulated from the wider society do not understand that wider society, this is true in the ring burbs of Paris and the Asian communities in England, and the Turks in Berlin who for all intents and purposes have transplanted their country to another locale and really are not that influenced by modern culture or the culture and language of their new country.
People can speak about a moral issue, what they MAY have a problem with is understanding the nuances of day to day interaction if they have had no experience with other races and cultures.
I note that Eric has some great friends who have leaped to his defense. He may be a great guy and able to speak on moral issues, I still wonder if he understands the issue of race in this culture, in fact and not in theory.
What? I provided the url, and it looks like you found everything but. I was referring to a 1/14/08 article, which also happens to contain a youtube dated 1/13/08.
Yes, the man is entitled to his opinion. But you have been railing on about how racist Ron Paul is, and now you question what Eric knows about the matter of racism because he happens to be white. I'm pointing out someone who is deeply concerned about racism, has a personal stake in the matter, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years and he emphatically says that Ron Paul is not a racist and all you can say is, "he's entitled to his opinion"?!?!
Does a person's "experience" with the issue matter or not?
Posted by: Michelle on January 17, 2008 01:15 AM1. I don't expect that anyone accepts nuances in bigotry. That is not the issue. The issue is whether one understands what race means in this country and how it impacts day to day relations.
2. Bigotry is a moral issue that is often played out in the legal and political arena. Day to day relationships among people usually require some form of contact in order for there to be understanding. Without that, you can have whatever opinion you want to have, I just don't give your opinion much weight and that is the point.
Bet this is one of the few times you ever wanted to quote an NAACP official. A couple of points:
1. Note how Obama handled the issue of dealing with bigots and note how you and your candidate are handling this issue. Bush 41 set the standard which is to:
a. acknowledge the incident happened
b. immediately disavow such support
c. return any money
d. disavow on a broad scale the messenger and the message.
I don't know if you people consider Bush 41 a republican, but that is how most candidates except Paul handle the issue.
2. I will continue to as you put it "rail" against Paul. Now for remarks about Mr. Linder.
a. He is entitled to his opinion
b. The question to be asked about anyone giving an opinion is how credible that opinion is:
i. You are relying on the opinion of one person, are there others that support that opinion?
ii. Was there anything given or promised for this opinion?
iii. I suspect that people are giving this opinion weight because he is the head of the Austin NAACP, what do you know about that particular branch and its reputation and standing among those in the community for honesty, integrity, and fair-dealing?
iv. As a hypothetical, in spousal abuse cases where there has been a relationship of many years when the spousal abuse comes to public light and is about to be prosecuted, the abused spouse often looks at the monetary aspects or other psycological aspects and recants or praises the abuser.
Linder is entitled to his opinion, it is interesting that your side exerpted an August, 2007 interview from Stressblog cited above from Mr. Linder to put on Youtube because he happens to be an NAACP official. Wouldn't it have been easier for Paul to do what Bush 41 and Obama did which is to look David Duke in the eye and call him a bigot and disavow his support? Just asking.
Just to clarify, the Youtube posted on 1/08 was exerpted from this August, 2007 interview:
3. The Youtube clip cam from an interview that was conducted on August, 2007. Has anyone done a follow-up?
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder Defends Ron Paul
Someone made this youtube out of this interview I conducted of my friend Nelson Linder in August of 2007. It is unfortunate that at the time of this interview he mistakenly believed that Paul had written the offensive newsletters, but explained that he's known Paul for 20 years and knows for a fact that he's not a bigot, so the parts in question must be taken out of context. Same difference.
http://thestressblog.com/2008/01/14/austin-naacp-president-nelson-linder-defends-ron-paul/
The question is since the Youtube clip was exerpted from an August, 2007 interview with Stressblog, has some one done a follow-up recently with Linder?
You said:
"Why would anyone need to. He is even less guilty of racism than he thought, which was zero."
a. Who is "he" ?
b. Are you saying that there is a person on this earth that is absolutely, totally free of any tint of racism?
The difference between your candidate Paul and Bush 41 is the word "character." Bush 41 sets the standard for character, Paul is simply a character.
The interview with Linder was conducted in August, 2007 and his remarks were taken out of the August, 2007 interview and put on Youtube. Has there been an update?
You have the opinion of one "character" witness for Paul, wanna bet Bush 41 can come up with hundreds or more for his character and that is the difference between Bush 41 and Paul.
Just curious, do you personally disavow people like David Duke and groups like the KKK?
Posted by: WVH on January 17, 2008 09:05 PM