1501.

Very good point with 1500, Chip. For politics on video I watch MSNBC-TV almost exclusively as it comes through well on my computer, I don't have a teevee, I like Pat Buchanan, and Olbermann is extremely reliable. So far they've given the McCains' tax returns smart, direct coverage. I have no idea how other outlets are covering it.

"McCain just released his tax returns. His heiress wife, whose family money enabled his entry into politics, didn't. Worse yet, she hid behind her children, citing their privacy rather than her own as the reason not to."

Nobody cares. Nobody. Trust me.

Nobody cares. Nobody. Trust me.

Hmm. I dunno, Rich. This is the woman who lied, lied, about "family" recipes, then threw some poor intern under the bulldozer. Now she's hiding behind her kids. We already know she seduced McCain away from his disabled first wife. McCain has even called her a "trollop".
This is all looking pretty damned seedy.

My take? Cindy is John McCain's Jeremiah Wright.

Nobody cares. Nobody. Trust me.

Usually the media only cares about stuff like this when it involves a Democrat, so I'm assuming you'll turn out to be right.

No one gives a crap. No one who voted for John Kerry cared about tax return issues with his wife. No one who voted against him (for Bush) cared about Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's taxes. This is the same boring crap for empty minds. I know the idiots on cable news talk about this crap. But, no one -- not even someone as liberal conservative as ARKI cares about this. Even Kevin isn't dumb enough silly enough to bother with this crap.

Usually the media only cares about stuff like this when it involves a Democrat, so I'm assuming you'll turn out to be right.

Yeah, if a Republican was involved, you'd have never heard anything of it, only super-serious threats to liberty like saying something nice about an old man in a birthday toast at his birthday party.

What are we supposed to care about? This?

Yeah, if a Republican was involved, you'd have never heard anything of it, only super-serious threats to liberty like saying something nice about an old man in a birthday toast at his birthday party.

Don't forget about things almost up to the level of genocide, like not being able to spell potato, or the president being completely out-of-touch with society because of a fourth-hand rumor that he was amazed by a grocery scanner.

No one gives a crap. No one who voted for John Kerry cared about tax return issues with his wife. No one who voted against him (for Bush) cared about Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's taxes. This is the same boring crap for empty minds. I know the idiots on cable news talk about this crap. But, no one -- not even someone as liberal conservative as ARKI cares about this. Even Kevin isn't dumb enough silly enough to bother with this crap.

What's dumb and silly is ignoring how media narratives about candidates get constructed. Kerry and his wife get hammered for weeks that they're hiding something. Doesn't matter what it is, they're hiding it. And it's the "hiding something" meme that gets developed. Which can then get reinforced later when it comes to things like the swift boat stories. He's always hiding something.

The question is whether the same rules will be applied to McCain.

only super-serious threats to liberty like saying something nice about an old man in a birthday toast at his birthday party.

You can say lots and lots of nice things to an old man in a birthday toast without saying that the country would have been a better off if only his "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever" party had won the presidency.

But you're right, I should give the guy delivering the toast the most generous reading possible. I mean, it's not like the birthday wishes to the old racist weren't part of a long-established pattern on Lott's part. Like going out of his way on multiple occasions to speak before the CCC, so he could praise their great work. Presumably, such great work as trying to prevent the "mongrelization of the races."

Like going out of his way on multiple occasions to speak before the CCC, so he could praise their great work.

You just finished earlier telling us that associations with racists were irrelevant.

You just finished earlier telling us that associations with racists were irrelevant.

Uh, no. I didn't. Must be confusing me with other posters.

I just want to say that my daily dose of DDT has nothing to do with my recent illness.

I just want to say that my daily dose of DDT has nothing to do with my recent illness.

Just remember, there's nothing wrong with you that gutting the EPA won't cure.

not even someone as liberal conservative as ARKI...

Perhaps some of your confusion will dissipate if, instead of considering political beliefs to fall entirely on some sort of crude, two-dimensional spectrum, with that model's imposition of a false dichotomy, you adopt a frame exceeding two dimensions. I prefer a torus, which has the benefit of implying areas where politics cannot go, even as it does not prohibit what you think of a "conservative" and "liberal" from, variously, meeting.

As far as working within the constraints of a printed page or its simulation, you might want to take a look at Rosalind Krauss's "Sculpture in an Expanded Field", a useful, albeit rudimentary, example of this more encompassing paradigm.

It's not pleasant to have people who don't know you do the political psychoanalysis on you, is it?

I'm glad to see that you're finally starting to get it.

Follow Huckabee's lead and cut me some slack. I was educated in public schools.

If you check my posts, you'll see that I have said several times that I can see why people would be uptight about what Obama said, and the voters can let him know that, both in the upcoming primaries and in Nov. Obama himself said the remarks were "mangled." So, it's not a question of "getting it." It's a question of interpreting it, which, as I explained, is a multifaceted issue. When you "get" that, let me know.

So here's a question, Joey. In spite of all your tough talk and your previously expressed desire to focus on issues and real deabte, you chose not to answer me or nycfan on other specific questions earlier, so let's try an easier one. Was that post just an attempt to teach the liberals a little lesson and prove how smart you are, or is that an accurate description of what you believe about most liberals who support Obama? You have made several references to "identity politics", once calling it a "cesspool", which indicates the former; your post above indicates the latter.

I prefer a torus, which has the benefit of implying areas where politics cannot go, even as it does not prohibit what you think of a "conservative" and "liberal" from, variously, meeting.

As far as working within the constraints of a printed page or its simulation, you might want to take a look at Rosalind Krauss's "Sculpture in an Expanded Field", a useful, albeit rudimentary, example of this more encompassing paradigm.

Wow. You did have some great tutors.

This is the same boring crap for empty minds.

Hey, that is why I post here. You catch that Suns/Spurs game? Great game, good example of why Boston has such an edge: Western champ will be exhausted.

Serious question: what is your take on how we decide what is an "issue" and what is just mudslinging, BS, etc? I know there is no "playbook", and I am of two minds about it:

1. Since we don't/can't "know" presidential candidates, it is wise to concentrate mostly on policy.
2. Yet, since we will never agree with any candidate on all policies, we do need to have information about character, presence of mind, interpersonal skills, judgment
etc.

And what makes (2) so much harder is that so much is filtered through the media with its various agendas and biases.

In spite of all your tough talk and your previously expressed desire to focus on issues and real deabte, you chose not to answer me or nycfan on other specific questions earlier

Gentlemen, if I may remind you?

"I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic, but I am going to talk about it a lot anyway because I like pissing on Democrats and hanging out at BTF." — Joey B.

Joey's all talk. He just likes dicking you around, and he has no answers for you anyways. Stop thinking of him like a real person, because he doesn't think of you as one.

"I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic, but I am going to talk about it a lot anyway because I like pissing on Democrats and hanging out at BTF." — Joey B.

Actually, (assuming you are not kidding around in some way that is over my head) in fairness to Joey B, I posted that to needle Nieporent about an education post of his, Alou (another righty) made a joke about it, and then I made another joke about it using Joey B's name.

As to whether Joey thinks of me (or any liberal) as a "real person" that is kind of an interesting question, to me, at least, and I more or less asked him just that in #1516.

So what do you think of JCinDC for not leaving the Catholic faith when it became apparent that they were shielding child molesters in an effort to prevent a political backlash?

You'll dismiss it as hypothetical, but it gets to the core issue: What do you do when a spiritual leader takes political views for reasons that contrary to their spiritual beliefs? What Obama has done is rejected his political views but accepts the spiritual. Is that honest? Yes, because we can't expect anyone to be perfect and live out their spiritual beliefs without error. When I see people say "He should have walked out and never returned!" it does nothing more than make me think that we should reject people solely for having a trait or a view we dislike. It shouldn't surprise me that such people would reject Obama because that's the opposite of his message.

Remind me: am I confused or are you Meatwad's brother? If you are, then I'll give you a pass out of respect to him. If you're not, you may be one of the stupidest posters at this site. This "question" reflects not only an enormous dollop of ignorance, but the logical acuity of a hedgehog. None of it follows; the situations are not alike enough even to set up an analogy.

You just finished earlier telling us that associations with racists were irrelevant.

Dan, that was me, and what I said was that current actions overrule past associations. I probably still would not vote for Byrd if I had a better option.

But wouldn't you agree that if one person was in the Klan sixty years ago and apologizes for it today and the other comes out today wishing that the pro-segregation candidate had won, those aren't the same thing?

McCain and Clinton's racist statements fall in between, as they said them in the last decade, but has apologized for them.

This "question" reflects not only an enormous dollop of ignorance, but the logical acuity of a hedgehog. None of it follows; the situations are not alike enough even to set up an analogy.

Nice try, but they are very similar in that they both reflect spiritual leaders doing or saying something that is clearly out of line with their spiritual teachings.

Not that I expect you to give up your faith as a result of that, but it does serve as a point of comparison for those who think Obama should have walked out and never returned.

There's a big difference between leaders in the faith not of your own congreation doing things against their spiritual teachings and having YOUR pastor at YOUR church spout that stuff FROM THE PULPIT.

But wouldn't you agree that if one person was in the Klan sixty years ago and apologizes for it today and the other comes out today wishing that the pro-segregation candidate had won, those aren't the same thing?

Again, it was a friggin' birthday party toast. Makes me wonder if any of you guys have actually ever been to a birthday party. Hell, I was just at a birthday party for my friend REDACTED 1 and wished him luck in all his future endeavors, one of which is him actually trying to sleep with the girlfriend of REDACTED 2. Am I secretly advocating him destroying a happy relationship of another couple or am I simply being as kind to someone as possible at an event celebrating their life?

Again, it was a friggin' birthday party toast. Makes me wonder if any of you guys have actually ever been to a birthday party. Hell, I was just at a birthday party for my friend REDACTED 1 and wished him luck in all his future endeavors, one of which is him actually trying to sleep with the girlfriend of REDACTED 2. Am I secretly advocating him destroying a happy relationship of another couple or am I simply being as kind to someone as possible at an event celebrating them?

Yes. Yes you are.

The whole affair over that toast was ########. Why would anyone say "You're 100 years old, but you are a disgusting person. Happy Birthday!"? To me, it was a lot of anger over an attempt to be nice to an old man.

In the end, Lott only lost the Senate Majority/Minority Leader position. He still has his seat, and I don't think he had any presidential ambitions ruined by it, so he's a long way down on the "Overblown comment ruins career" list.

The whole affair over that toast was ########. Why would anyone say "You're 100 years old, but you are a disgusting person. Happy Birthday!"? To me, it was a lot of anger over an attempt to be nice to an old man.

Nobody would have said anything about Lott if his toast to Thurmond had said, "To a great friend and a great man...", or something along those lines. Many eyes might have rolled at the thought of Strom Thurmond being referred to as a "great" anything other than a "great racist," but since the words would have been generic, and it was Thurmond's birthday, I doubt if any great fuss would have been raised. It's not as if Thurmond hadn't been given zillions of accolades before. And I'm sure that he was personally a very nice man.

But when a prominent Mississipi Senator, himself elected as a result of his party's "southern strategy," makes a statement that the country "would have been better off" if the candidate of the Dixiecrat Party (Thurmond) had been elected in 1948, it's pretty hard to dismiss that as merely a nice personal tribute. The only thing that separates the Strom Thurmond of 1948 and the Trent Lott of today is the passage of time, and the passage of many civil rights laws that Thurmond and his fellow Dixiecrats fought against tooth and nail. If Strom Thurmond's philosophy had prevailed, Barack Obama's parents would have been thrown in jail for violating the "miscegenation" laws, and Obama would never have been born.

Jesus, if anyone needs reminding, the entire purpose of that Dixiecrat Party was to preserve segregation. Here's the Wiki summary:

During the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Southern delegates were upset by President Harry S. Truman's executive order to racially integrate the armed forces. The Mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota Hubert Humphrey gave a speech urging the party to adopt an anti-segregationist plank, causing thirty five delegates from Mississippi and Alabama to walk out. When President Truman endorsed the civil rights plank, governor of South Carolina Strom Thurmond helped organize the walkout delegates into a separate party, whose platform was ostensibly concerned with states' rights.

This is the Party whose success in 1948 would have made the United States "better off," according to Trent Lott. This wasn't exactly a case of just singing "Happy Birthday."

I wouldn't have called for the Republicans to dismiss Lott from his Senate Majority Leader post, because as a Democrat that's an internal GOP affair. But this wasn't about Lott's "association" with Thurmond the human being (which is what the fuss about Wright has been about)---this was about Lott's specific statement that the election of the openly racist Dixiecrat Party would have made the country "better off" than the election of either Harry Truman or Thomas Dewey. Anyone who can't see the difference between those two situations is denser than a f*ck*ng Missouri mule.

There's a big difference between leaders in the faith not of your own congreation doing things against their spiritual teachings and having YOUR pastor at YOUR church spout that stuff FROM THE PULPIT.

Is it really that big a difference? I even look at in just the opposite way. If my pastor says something nutty once in a while, that to me is understandable, especially if I know him otherwise as a good man, and a good friend. If, in contrast, the leader of my church is an anti-Semite or abuses indulgences (I'm looking at you, Leo X!)... I mean, this is why we have Protestants, because the "leaders in the faith" (the fourth Laterian Council notwithstanding) are doing things "against their spiritual teachings".

I was under the impression that Lott's voting record was different than what you'd expect of someone who would support a Dixiecrat. Further investigation shows that it really isn't.

If my pastor says something nutty once in a while, that to me is understandable, especially if I know him otherwise as a good man, and a good friend. If, in contrast, the leader of my church is an anti-Semite or abuses indulgences (I'm looking at you, Leo X!)... I mean, this is why we have Protestants, because the "leaders in the faith" (the fourth Laterian Council notwithstanding) are doing things "against their spiritual teachings".

That's how I look at it. Saying something stupid when you get carried away is something we all do. Doing something that's very against your stated beliefs when you've had plenty of time to think it over is much, much worse.

Well-said, Andy.

I was under the impression that Lott's voting record was different than what you'd expect of someone who would support a Dixiecrat. Further investigation shows that it really isn't.

American Politics 101: The southern Repubican Party of the past 44 years is the lineal descendant of the Dixiecrats.

The only difference between the two is the name of the Party, plus the societal changes forced upon them---every one of which they've resisted.

To the extent that Trent Lott is a kinder and gentler version of the 1948 Strom Thurmond, he has Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson to thank for that, and certainly not Strom Thurmond. And honest southerners will admit that, even if perhaps only to themselves.

Andy, I agree with you about the southern Republican party's social politics, but isn't it a little more pro-business than the mid-20th century democrats? I could be wrong, but that's my understanding, that Reagan's political masterstroke was forging an alliance between the evangelical christians and big business.

Also, I don't know where to post this, but is it odd that I get chills every time Rick Vaughn walks out at the end of major league 2? It's on TBS right now, and I have seen the movie at least 10 times, but every time he puts his glasses back on, I have the emotional response I had the first time I saw Hoosiers.

First of all, "once in a while" to describe Wright's statements is a pretty generous interpretation.

And yes, I agree if their were atrocities committed higher up in my religion after careful thought, that'd be pretty good reason to consider leaving THE RELIGION.

But Obama didn't have to leave his religion to get away from these hateful comments. He could have chosen to go to a different church. The idea that he was inexorably linked to Wright with no way out is also a pretty charitable interpretation of Obama's choices.

Andy, I agree with you about the southern Republican party's social politics, but isn't it a little more pro-business than the mid-20th century democrats? I could be wrong, but that's my understanding, that Reagan's political masterstroke was forging an alliance between the evangelical christians and big business.

The mid-20th Century "Democratic Party" was really two warring factions: the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats, AKA the Dixiecrats. And when for the first time in their history the Republicans nominated a candidate (Goldwater) who was openly sympathetic to their views on "states' rights", it was only a matter of time and logic that many millions of former Dixiecrats made the big switch. The enemy of their enemy was their new-found friend.

But to the heart of your question: On the state level, by the 1960's there weren't many "anti-business" southern states. In fact for the better part of the 20th Century the southern states had been using low wages, "right-to-work" laws and tax writeoffs in an attempt to lure businesses away from the North. You could say it was the prelude to the more recent trend of sending those jobs out of the country, and for the same reasons.

There were many southern politicians who were full of populist rhetoric, and even a few who were actually somewhat pro-labor, but if you followed the money trail you wouldn't have been fooled by too much of that. It's always a good thing to separate rhetoric from voting records.

But Obama didn't have to leave his religion to get away from these hateful comments. He could have chosen to go to a different church. The idea that he was inexorably linked to Wright with no way out is also a pretty charitable interpretation of Obama's choices.

What church?

First of all, "once in a while" to describe Wright's statements is a pretty generous interpretation.

Name what statements you are talking about. It certainly describes the ones focused on in the media which range from, "crazy" to "offensive" to "meh" to "not honorable enough toward our white masters" and all are being treated equally.

Reagan's political masterstroke was forging an alliance between the evangelical christians and big business.

Amazing, wasn't it? As if anything could be more in opposition to the teachings of the Christ of the New Testament than the American brand of F*ck You Corporatism.

The idea that he was inexorably linked to Wright with no way out is also a pretty charitable interpretation of Obama's choices.

And which charity would make it a perfectly Christian act, yes?

And yes, I agree if their were atrocities committed higher up in my religion after careful thought, that'd be pretty good reason to consider leaving THE RELIGION.

That's the exact opposite of my point. We should understand that no one will ever live up to standards of perfection, and we should be able to separate the message from the flaws of the messenger. Wright always preached love, understanding and acceptance, and that should not be invalidated simply because he can't live up to his ideals.

A birthday toast that an old man who once ran for President would have done good if elected - well, it's not the most ridiculous claim of racism I've seen on this site. These are the same people who claim that Reagan was somehow racist or what-have-you for launching his Presidential campaign where he did. If you are determined to see racism everywhere, you'll find it. Quite sad, really.

Aw, hell. The election's over.

Yes, it's just like when I was at Stalin's grave and said, "He had such noble dreams, if only fate would have allowed him to continue them further..."

If you are determined to see racism everywhere that someone is whimsically wishes for the dehumanized of black people, that is sad.

I only wish I could be like you and not be able to find racism in being against equal rights.

In fact for the better part of the 20th Century the southern states had been using low wages, "right-to-work" laws and tax writeoffs in an attempt to lure businesses away from the North.

I'm aware of this development, but I know that it started happening in the 1980s. And now other countries have caught on and most of the factories built in the south on these exact tax breaks are sitting vacant while the jobs have gone to other countries. It just doesn't seem like the fractioning of the democratic party happened contemporaneously with the south developing more corporate friendly fiscal policy. Again, it seemed like that was the result of these same politician sticking around long enough to follow Reagan's lead.

...well, it's not the most ridiculous claim of racism I've seen on this site.

Well, this isn't the most ridiculous defense of racism on this site...

What I don't get is, what do people get out of defending this stuff? You might point out what you liked about Reagan, while not bothering trying to portray his policies as colorblind. You might talk about what you admired about Strom Thurmond, or Trent Lott, without pretending they didn't use race to further their careers. It just doesn't make any sense to pretend that these guys weren't, to some degree, racist, and perfectly willing to appeal to that in others.

In fact for the better part of the 20th Century the southern states had been using low wages, "right-to-work" laws and tax writeoffs in an attempt to lure businesses away from the North.

I'm aware of this development, but I know that it started happening in the 1980s.

Unfortunately, you're only about a full century off. Entire bookcases have been written on this subject, but here's the condensed Wiki version:

[In] the 1880s and 1890s, American industry moved en masse to the south, so as to capitalize on low wages, social conservatism, and anti-union sentiments.[3]

As this indicates, that trend began shortly after the Civil War. Whereas the Democratic Party, whose two wings had coexisted more or less peacefully up through World War II, began to split apart only in the aftermath of the 1948 convention, led by Strom Thurmond. From that year up through 1960 there were always secession rumblings on the part of southern Democrats, and in 1964 the "states' rights" rhetoric of the Goldwater campaign caused the dam to break.

The Reagan era did accelerate this party switching trend, but that had more to do with Reagan's personality and the increased participation of blacks within the various southern state Democratic parties than it did with any new business policies. The post-Civil War South has nearly always, no matter which party was in charge of its state governments, been controlled by corporate interests, occasional populist rhetoric aside.

"A birthday toast that an old man who once ran for President would have done good if elected - well, it's not the most ridiculous claim of racism I've seen on this site. These are the same people who claim that Reagan was somehow racist or what-have-you for launching his Presidential campaign where he did. If you are determined to see racism everywhere, you'll find it. Quite sad, really."

This inspires a question floating around in my dome lately: I hear a lot of lefties, particularly blacks, but whites also, say "America is a racist country." They say this in spite of the fact that (with the exception of Affirmative Action) it is illegal to discriminate in public or private employment, college admissions, banking, hotel and restaurant accomodations and housing on the basis of race; in spite of the fact that whenever someone is exposed to hold racist views, he is publicly riduculed and held in contempt; in spite of the fact that our most popular and well paid entertainers are racial minorities; in spite of the fact that we are on the verge of electing a person of African heritage president; and in spite of the fact that we have almost no conflict on the basis of race in the United States (outside of black-Hispanic gang wars).

No one doubts or denies that there are some racists in the United States. I have never been to a country where there were not "some racists." Clearly having "no racists at all" should not be the standard to call a country not racist. So this is the question for those who think America is a racist country: What would make the United States no longer a racist country?

Yes, it's just like when I was at Stalin's grave and said, "He had such noble dreams, if only fate would have allowed him to continue them further..."

Let's see. Stranger's grave. Friend's birthday party. Yeah, they're totally similar contexts. I hope your friends don't make you the guy in charge of arranging the surprise parties.

You catch that Suns/Spurs game? Great game, good example of why Boston has such an edge: Western champ will be exhausted.

Yes, great game. I was rooting for Phoenix (the dog), so the outcome in the end disappointed me. And to an extent, I do agree with you that if Boston rolls through the Eastern Conference playoffs, they will have an edge. I think in the Jordan years, Chicago often benefitted from the fact that the Western Conference was better in those days, and whoever played the Bulls was more beat up once they reached the finals.

If it were up to me, the NBA would scrap the current playoff tournament format in favor of allowing in the 6 division winners and the next 10 best teams, regardless of conference. The 16 teams would then be seated based on record: 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, etc. This is how the playoff match-ups would have been in my system:

1. BOS-66 v 16. POR-41
9. ORL-52 v 8. UTA-54

5. SAS-56 v 12. GSW-48
13. CLE-45 v NOH-56

3. LAL-57 v 14. WSH-43
11. DEN-50 v 6. PHX-55

7. HOU-55 v 10. DAL-51
15. TOR-41 v DET-59

Golden State (48 wins) and Portland (41) would replace Philadelphia (40) and Atlanta (37). Note that the #1 and #2 seeds would be Eastern Conference teams.... San Antonio, rather than having to play Phoenix in the first round, would get the Warriors. And the Suns would face an easier foe in the Nuggets.

If you are determined to see racism everywhere that someone is whimsically wishes for the dehumanized of black people, that is sad.

This is so garbled that I've no idea what it means.

What I don't get is, what do people get out of defending this stuff?... It just doesn't make any sense to pretend that these guys weren't, to some degree, racist, and perfectly willing to appeal to that in others.

As for whether Reagan or Trent Lott are/were racist, I have no window into either of their souls. Maybe some of the mind-readers in this thread can let us all know.

As for why I defend this "stuff"... several reasons. Firstly, because I don't see anything wrong with Reagan launching his campaign in Philadelphia or Trent Lott giving a birthday toast to an elderly Senator, and I'm prone to speak my mind. Secondly, because this is all a part of leftist positioning and branding - "we on the left are caring, sharing, colourblind, don't vote for those greedy, racist right-wingers." Which I regard as really false and objectionable, and I don't see why people on the right should have to take it. Thirdly, because this is part of a general attempt, again on the part of the left, to control what's acceptable within public discourse, and get certain people/views judged as beyond the pale by labelling them "racist." And so, by eliminating opposing viewpoints, achieve a stranglehold on acceptable discourse. Which is also despicable.

And for what it's worth, I don't see the Democrats as being vaguely serious about racism - acting to favour the special interests of some parts of some ethnic minorities is not at all the same thing. When it comes to bashing Arabs or Muslims their politicians line up to be just as "tough" as the most rabid neo-con.

First of all, "once in a while" to describe Wright's statements is a pretty generous interpretation.

Name what statements you are talking about. It certainly describes the ones focused on in the media which range from, "crazy" to "offensive" to "meh" to "not honorable enough toward our white masters" and all are being treated equally.

All are being treated equally by Obama. He hasn't specifically addressed each one, and has vaguely grouped them all together as "the 'YouTube' statements that are the sudbject of this controversy."

I hear a lot of lefties, particularly blacks, but whites also, say "America is a racist country."

I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you, and have for decades, and I've never heard "a lot" of people say this. Have I heard some say it, angry caffeinated liberals? Hell yes. But in my experience the commonality of it being tossed around by a lot of the left is a myth propagated by the right.

What would make the United States no longer a racist country?

Well, since South Africa officially became Nonracist around the same time that Nelson Mandela became president, I'm guessing that "Electing Barack Obama" is the only option.

Now ask me what it would take to make the United States no longer a sexist country!

Now ask me what it would take to make the United States no longer a sexist country!

Hillary in Penthouse?

Hey, I'm just trying to get us to 2000 posts.

"I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you, and have for decades, and I've never heard "a lot" of people say this."

Lassus, you don't know what the word "reason" means. You don't know me at all. You've never met me. We've never had a phone conversation. You don't even know where I hid the afikomen. So you have no "reason" to assume this.

"I've never heard "a lot" of people say this."

According to a 2006 CNN-Opinion Dynamics poll, 84% of black respondents said that racial bias in the United States is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. 51% of blacks said they have been victims of racial discrimination. 40% of blacks said that most or all whites dislike blacks. In answer to the question, "Do you consider yourself to be in any way racially biased or not?," 13% of whites said yes and 12% of blacks said yes.

As for why I defend this "stuff"... several reasons. Firstly, because I don't see anything wrong with Reagan launching his campaign in Philadelphia or Trent Lott giving a birthday toast to an elderly Senator, and I'm prone to speak my mind. Secondly, because this is all a part of leftist positioning and branding - "we on the left are caring, sharing, colourblind, don't vote for those greedy, racist right-wingers." Which I regard as really false and objectionable, and I don't see why people on the right should have to take it. Thirdly, because this is part of a general attempt, again on the part of the left, to control what's acceptable within public discourse, and get certain people/views judged as beyond the pale by labelling them "racist." And so, by eliminating opposing viewpoints, achieve a stranglehold on acceptable discourse. Which is also despicable.

Among the lefties trying to "control what's acceptable withing public discourse" by decrying Lott's remarks at Thurmond's birthday when that story broke six years ago were Armstrong Williams, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Ken Connor of the Family Research Council, and Andrew Sullivan.

And when you say you defend this "stuff," the stuff you're referring to includes continued solicitation of votes and financial support from the membership of groups like the CCC - appearing at fundraisers for them, speaking at their luncheons, praising their work. Deep South and particularly Mississippi politicians have been doing this right into the '00s, while continuing to claim they're unaware of the group's extreme racist and anti-Semitic stances, despite widespread media coverage of them.

These are among the more charming things the CCC has published in recent years in its newsletter and on its web site:

"Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself... ."

"The genocide being carried out against white people hasn't come with marching armies; instead, it has come with propaganda that is calculated to brainwash whites into happily and willingly jumping into the Neo-Melting Pot, and to their destruction. ...

"Genocide via the bedroom chamber is just as long-lasting as genocide via the gas chamber."

When Bush went to speak in Topeka on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Ed:

"Just a lousy fifty years. After hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years of evolution, it took just fifty years [for America] to devolve into something on par with Senegal."

On their home page, in '03:

"What do you call ... four blacks, three hispanics, three Russian Jews, and one white guy? The FBI's Most Wanted List!"

After Daniel Pearl's murder in '02, ran a side-by-side photo of Pearl with his "mixed-race wife" Marianne, and labelled it "Death by Multiculturalism."

According to a 2006 CNN-Opinion Dynamics poll, 84% of black respondents said that racial bias in the United States is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. 51% of blacks said they have been victims of racial discrimination. 40% of blacks said that most or all whites dislike blacks. In answer to the question, "Do you consider yourself to be in any way racially biased or not?," 13% of whites said yes and 12% of blacks said yes.

So any acknowledgement of racial bias, or perception of discrimination by blacks, means they agree with the statement "America is a racist country."

Now I know why you think you're hearing the latter from "lots of lefties."

This is an interesting 2007 story I found about so-called racism in Canada. Apparently, racism is a much bigger problem in the Great White North than it is here in the mottled midlands:

Fifty-nine per cent of Quebecers admit to being racist to some degree, according to a Léger Marketing survey published Monday in Le Journal de Montréal.

In comparison, only 47 per cent of those outside Quebec say they are racist to some degree.

Among Quebecers, most (43 per cent) said they were only mildly racist, while 15 per cent said they were moderately racist and only one per cent responded that they were very racist.

The findings stunned Jean Dorion of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

"I do not perceive the Quebec society as being racist," he told Le Journal de Montréal.

The findings come from three surveys in late December and early January. The first two surveys were conducted over the internet, with 2,228 Quebecers taking part, while the third survey interviewed 3,092 people across Canada.

The survey looked at Quebecers' views of a variety of cultural groups.

It found 36 per cent of Quebecers have a bad opinion of Jewish people, while 27 per cent have a poor opinion of blacks. Fifty per cent have a bad opinion of Muslims.

Not that it proves anything, but of the countries I've lived in, none was more blatantly racist than Mexico. And of those I've visited, none appeared on the surface to have greater racial hostility than Australia. (If "the West Bank" counts as a country, then that would, of course, top Australia.)

"I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you, and have for decades, and I've never heard "a lot" of people say this."

Lassus, you don't know what the word "reason" means. You don't know me at all. You've never met me. We've never had a phone conversation. You don't even know where I hid the afikomen. So you have no "reason" to assume this.

Let's count 'em up. My money's on Lassus and his leftist cadre.

I tend to hang out with self-described lefties despite their distinctly odd political beliefs. On the whole they're just a lot more fun and compassionate than the rather bitter, snide, mildly delusional, self-described righties I've known. Most of those leftists acknowledge that America is a racist country (so, Senator Obama, are you enjoying the company of your African-American colleagues in the Senate?, and how 'bout that average income and net worth parity between white and blacks?), even as they're perfectly well aware that we're better off than South Africa during apartheid, and not doing as well as Norway or Holland.

We're a somewhat racist country. We could be a lot worse, and we definitely could be doing better.

Damning stuff in 1555. Good job.

Apparently, racism is a much bigger problem in the Great White North than it is here in the mottled midlands:

Apparently, it seems that honesty is a much bigger problem in the Great White North. The idea that in answer to, "Do you consider yourself to be in any way racially biased or not?," in the States, that ...13% of whites said yes and 12% of blacks said yes, jibes with no ones actual experience. That 87% of whites, and 88% of blacks, would in fact be in no way racially biased, is impossible to credit.

And when you say you defend this "stuff," the stuff you're referring to includes...

No it doesn't. When did I refer to any of that? Why on earth do you bring it up? Because you don't actually care whether or not Lott did anything wrong, your interest is in smearing your enemies.

Typical misdirection. I defend Trent Lott making a toast, you rant about the CCC. I'm not interested in defending anything ever done by anyone vaguely (or intimately) connected with the Republican party. Here's a hint - I'm not much in love with the Republicans myself nowadays.

So this is the question for those who think America is a racist country: What would make the United States no longer a racist country?

Equal access to basic human rights like a quality education would certainly help. Multi-perspective media (which we have made some progress on as of late) would be nice.

But you are the one who is focusing on "racism" and as you know, I'm completely uninterested in contrasting intentional damage caused by malice based on race with unintentional, but preventable damage.

Let's see. Stranger's grave. Friend's birthday party. Yeah, they're totally similar contexts. I hope your friends don't make you the guy in charge of arranging the surprise parties.

Actually Stalin was a close personal friend. He's where I got my politics from.

For the record, I would simply say, "Happy Birthday to a wonderful friend".

Are you really telling me that endorsing atrocity is necessary to give a good toast at a friend's birthday party?

None of my friends have run for president. But if they ran on a "punch babies" platform, I doubt I would say that I wished they had won.

Well, not cute babies anyway.

If my pastor says something nutty once in a while, that to me is understandable, especially if I know him otherwise as a good man, and a good friend. If, in contrast, the leader of my church is an anti-Semite or abuses indulgences (I'm looking at you, Leo X!)... I mean, this is why we have Protestants, because the "leaders in the faith" (the fourth Laterian Council notwithstanding) are doing things "against their spiritual teachings".


That's how I look at it. Saying something stupid when you get carried away is something we all do. Doing something that's very against your stated beliefs when you've had plenty of time to think it over is much, much worse.

I don't care how you look at it, if how you look at it poses a false analogy. You wonder why I didn't or don't leave the RC Church b/c of the abuses of priests and how that's different (if at all) from Obama's situation. Put it this way: your question to me would be more similar to asking why Obama didn't leave Christianity b/c of his pastor's behavior, not his church. Like all RCs, I don't go to church b/c of my pastor, but b/c I believe in the Church. The Church teaches, among many other things, that pastors are sinners like the rest of us and do shitty things, and that despite that, Christ ensures the efficacy of the sacraments and the holiness of the Church. I may leave this or that parish if I think the priest is a schmuck, as many people do. Obama's Wright situation is rather of a different sort. If you can't see that, you don't understand analogical thinking.

No it doesn't. When did I refer to any of that? Why on earth do you bring it up? Because you don't actually care whether or not Lott did anything wrong, your interest is in smearing your enemies.

Typical misdirection. I defend Trent Lott making a toast, you rant about the CCC.

The misdirection is all in your own mind. Your reference to "stuff" was quite obviously general, since you then cited both Reagan in Philadelphia, MS and Lott's birthday toast to Thurmond as examples. So don't now pretend your comment was solely about the toast.

A birthday toast that an old man who once ran for President would have done good if elected - well, it's not the most ridiculous claim of racism I've seen on this site. These are the same people who claim that Reagan was somehow racist or what-have-you for launching his Presidential campaign where he did. If you are determined to see racism everywhere, you'll find it. Quite sad, really.

And speaking of that loony theory, I pointed out at the time that the "logic" -- Reagan spoke somewhere near where something bad happened -- would mean that politicians couldn't campaign anywhere South of the Mason-Dixon line without being racist.

A few weeks ago, prominent lefty blogger Matt Stoller actually proved my point, extending the Reagan claim even further:

Oh, this is some dogwhistling. John McCain is kicking off his 'Service to America Tour' in Meridian, Mississippi on Monday, the tour designed to introduce America to his biography.

Meridian, MS, is 40 miles from Philadelphia, MS, the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 and the city where Ronald Reagan kicked off his Presidential campaign in 1980 with a speech on states' rights largely seen as the political springboard for the emerging civil rights backlash. Meridian itself is significant because one of the civil rights workers was actually from the town. McCain also has some military history in the town, but there's a reason this is the first stop on the tour, and I don't think it's just because he was stationed there.

See? It's just a short slippery slope [note -- not a racial slur] from "Reagan was a racist" to "everyone's a racist." Reagan spoke near Philadelphia; McCain spoke less near Philadelphia, but "near" is relative, right? And nothing happened where McCain spoke, but something bad happened to someone "from" that town, so close enough, right? Reagan kicked off his general election campaign; McCain spoke there in the middle of his primary campaign, but it "kicked off" one particular message, so close enough, right?

Stoller later backed off after he was mocked throughout the blogosphere, but it doesn't change the point: lefties can find racism in a test pattern.

And when you say you defend this "stuff," the stuff you're referring to includes continued solicitation of votes and financial support from the membership of groups like the CCC - appearing at fundraisers for them, speaking at their luncheons, praising their work. Deep South and particularly Mississippi politicians have been doing this right into the '00s, while continuing to claim they're unaware of the group's extreme racist and anti-Semitic stances, despite widespread media coverage of them.

If only this sort of argument were used by liberal anti-war types to purge their movement of ANSWER and that crowd. Unfortunately, supporters of the biggest murderers in history are more acceptable to liberals than racists are.

If only this sort of argument were used by liberal anti-war types to purge their movement of ANSWER and that crowd. Unfortunately, supporters of the biggest murderers in history are more acceptable to liberals than racists are.

Yes, because all "liberals" keep a picture of said mass murderers on their bedside table.

You sound like the Simpson episode where Homer keeps parroting "LIBERALS!"

If you had been strategic and merely said that the left could also do a better job picking and choosing its friends and role models, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Why did you have to go the Rush Limbaugh route?

Also, I was wondering where you stood on the Lott comment. You are a pretty reasonable person, so clearly you can see the difference between, "I hope this great man has a great birthday!" and "We would have a better country today if your segregationist platform had carried the day!"

The misdirection is all in your own mind. Your reference to "stuff" was quite obviously general, since you then cited both Reagan in Philadelphia, MS and Lott's birthday toast to Thurmond as examples. So don't now pretend your comment was solely about the toast.

Nope. I mentioned the Lott toast and the Reagan campaign in #1540 - and only those two incidents. Arkitekton then asks me why people defend "this stuff" - which I took to mean the things I was talking about. I explain why in #1549. The person to broaden this is you. It was Akitekton's reference not mine. I *don't* defend the CCC - honestly I know very little about them. To the extent that what you say about them is true, I don't have any time for such people - but then, I don't have much time for GW Bush either.

If only this sort of argument were used by liberal anti-war types to purge their movement of ANSWER and that crowd.

Please cite some examples of Democratic Party officeholders or party leaders accepting invitations to speak at ANSWER events, where they then praise the good work of ANSWER, that are analogous to what Lott, and Barbour, and Fordyce, and others have done in soliciting the support of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have to say, it's kind of weird to see the lefties playing the "tar someone with the appalling remarks made by someone he's closely associated with" card, and the righties doing the opposite. Weren't those positions pretty much precisely reversed a couple of hundred posts ago when we were talking about Obama and Wright?

It just seems like a losing proposition for the Democrats to go that way. I mean, not even any of the Republicans I know like Trent Lott.

Where are we talking about that? I was commenting on how Lott's remarks reflected on Lott. Surely he knew what his friend and party were running on in that election.

1554. Rich Rifkin Posted: April 20, 2008 at 03:09 PM (#2751981)

"I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you, and have for decades, and I've never heard "a lot" of people say this."

Lassus, you don't know what the word "reason" means. You don't know me at all. You've never met me. We've never had a phone conversation. You don't even know where I hid the afikomen. So you have no "reason" to assume this.

"I've never heard "a lot" of people say this."

According to a 2006 CNN-Opinion Dynamics poll, 84% of black respondents said that racial bias in the United States is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. 51% of blacks said they have been victims of racial discrimination. 40% of blacks said that most or all whites dislike blacks. In answer to the question, "Do you consider yourself to be in any way racially biased or not?," 13% of whites said yes and 12% of blacks said yes.

Rich, this entire response to my response to you I find confusing, and more emotionally charged than I can really figure out. Especially the part where you accuse me of not knowing the definition of "reason".

I mean, not even any of the Republicans I know like Trent Lott.

And we don't like Wright. Doing us a lot of good now, isn't it?

Who has had more affect on the nation's policies over the last 40 years, exactly, eh?

Also, I was wondering where you stood on the Lott comment. You are a pretty reasonable person, so clearly you can see the difference between, "I hope this great man has a great birthday!" and "We would have a better country today if your segregationist platform had carried the day!"

I both criticized the comment at the time, and called for the Republicans to replace Lott. E.g., here and here and here(*). That having been said, I don't think Lott was really saying the second statement. (I do see a clear difference between them.) I think Lott's statement was completely unthinking; he didn't think through the implications of what he was saying. He thought he was issuing some bland platitude to a retiring colleague who had once run for president. I don't think he was really thinking to himself, "If only Strom Thurmond had been elected 40 years ago, X, Y, and Z problems would not exist." (Let's not forget, the bipartisan audience at the event didn't even register Lott's comments as remarkable.)

That having been said, I think he was "unthinking" because he just didn't care. Andy can pretend that Republicans are simply the heirs to the Dixiecrat movement; it's neither true factually nor morally. But the Dixiecrats were racist, unabashedly so, and no reasonable person could really forget that. And not caring is only infinitesimally better than approving of that.


(*) Full disclosure: I hate the Dixiecrat/southern racism of the 20th century for two reasons. First and most important is the moral issue; as Rand said, ""Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." Second is the effect that southern racism had in the U.S. on legitimizing Leviathan in the eyes of too many people.

I both criticized the comment at the time, and called for the Republicans to replace Lott. E.g., here and here and here(*). That having been said, I don't think Lott was really saying the second statement. (I do see a clear difference between them.) I think Lott's statement was completely unthinking; he didn't think through the implications of what he was saying. He thought he was issuing some bland platitude to a retiring colleague who had once run for president. I don't think he was really thinking to himself, "If only Strom Thurmond had been elected 40 years ago, X, Y, and Z problems would not exist." (Let's not forget, the bipartisan audience at the event didn't even register Lott's comments as remarkable.)

This might work as an excuse if it wasn't for the fact that it wasn't the first time Lott had said the country would have been better off if Thurmond had won running on his pro-segregation platform. As long ago as a 1980 Reagan rally in Mississippi, with Thurmond standing at his side, Lott said, "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." Which only highlights how ridiculous the attempts have been here to soften what he said in '02 (as some have done here through paraphrasing), or dismiss the more recent comments as simply birthday wishes for an old man.

That's a very thoughtful, nuanced position. I'm not sure what he was thinking to himself, but your theory seems plausible.

Can you explain what you mean by Leviathan in the last sentence? Thanks!

Andy can pretend that Republicans are simply the heirs to the Dixiecrat movement; it's neither true factually nor morally. But the Dixiecrats were racist, unabashedly so, and no reasonable person could really forget that. And not caring is only infinitesimally better than approving of that.

David, you can pretend that the modern southern Republican Party was the product of a Virgin Birth if you like, with no connection to its Dixiecrat predecessors. But funny thing:

Where did Strom Thurmond come from? What year did he desert the Democratic Party for good, and what caused him to switch his party affiliation?

What party did Jesse Helms belong to before his 1970 switch to the GOP? And what caused him to change parties?

What issue is universally acknowledged by everyone besides David Nieporent to have been responsible for the change in the South's voting habits in presidential elections beginning in 1964? What five previously "solid South" Democratic states all voted for Goldwater? What position of Barry Goldwater's that year could possibly have caused that?

There's no question that the Dixiecrats of Thurmond's era were "more" racist than the southern Republican Party of today. There's no question that many Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party, in a state of permanent war with their northern counterparts until the day they died---though the congressional seniority system had much to do with that.

Of course the southern Republican Party today is based on many questions beyond racial issues. And of course no southern Republicans today are calling for a restoration of a legal caste system. But that's little more than a product of the gradual racial enlightenment of the whole country over the past 50 years, a process that was kick-started by a series of federal laws that both the Dixiecrats and their southern Republican allies resisted to the bitter end. The fact that many of them now realize that these laws were necessary to bring the South into the 20th century is perhaps admirable, but it doesn't repeal the fact of their resistance to those laws. And it doesn't change the fact that without its Dixiecrat converts and their children, the Republican Party would be but a shadow of its present formidable self.

(*) Full disclosure: I hate the Dixiecrat/southern racism of the 20th century for two reasons. First and most important is the moral issue; as Rand said, ""Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." Second is the effect that southern racism had in the U.S. on legitimizing Leviathan in the eyes of too many people.

I think we know that you're a libertarian and not a racist, David. You're merely a charter member of the Let's Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast Club, when it comes to the question of the history of southern politics and the Southern Strategy.

"Rich, this entire response to my response to you I find confusing, and more emotionally charged than I can really figure out. Especially the part where you accuse me of not knowing the definition of "reason".

Lassus, without any knowledge of me, you wrote: "I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you."

That is not a reasonable conclusion, in that you don't have any idea whom I hang out with. You should have written something like this: ""I'm unbasedly sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you."

Lassus, without any knowledge of me, you wrote: "I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you."

That is not a reasonable conclusion, in that you don't have any idea whom I hang out with. You should have written something like this: ""I'm unbasedly sure I hang out with WAY more liberals than you."

I'm an architect. I know nothing about Rich, or whom he hangs out with. I'm reasonably sure I hang out with WAY more architects than Rich does.

Not to mention the fact that "unbasedly" isn't even a word, so I'm definitely not writing THAT.

First of all, "once in a while" to describe Wright's statements is a pretty generous interpretation

.

Unless you know details of Wright's sermons over a long period of time--and no doubt the Repubs are digging into that--this, like much of what people say about Wright/Obama--is purely subjective. Even if you do know, your standards are going to be different than others' anyway.

As to the issue of Obama's making a bad choice in staying at TUCC, he addressed that in the speech. You don't buy it--fine. Vote for McCain. Had Obama left any time after the Convention speech, he would be getting hammered as an opportunist. The fact that he didn't leave before is a YMMV thing.

Alou,

Please Make sure you scold the readers of Obama'a minds as well as the readers of Lott's and Reagan's.

"Not to mention the fact that "unbasedly" isn't even a word, so I'm definitely not writing THAT."

Actually, unbasedly is a word. Look it up in an unabridged dictionary, bro.

"I'm an architect. I know nothing ..."

That's true. You don't know anything.

Yeah, I'm also reasonably sure I hang with more crazy progressive school teachers than Rich does. It's a shame too as it would almost certainly improve him.

What is progressive about them?

"It's a shame too as it would almost certainly improve him."

It's a shame you feel the need to cast personal attacks on me. Maybe if you actually knew me, you would be decent.

Obama'a minds

Obama's mind.

Nice typing skills. My gf was telling me dinner was ready so I blew it.

What would make the United States no longer a racist country?

As we discussed before wrt "liberal" and "conservative" one problem is that we have a binary vocabulary to describe a continuum of behaviors. In terms of absolute "group a is inferior to group b" racism, there is less and less. In terms of race-baiting, racial tension, racial attitudes , etc still quite a bit. I think many people believe that really negative attitudes are still there, but are covert, so when a Geoff Davis or Trent Lott type-remark goes public, people think "see?"

My own opinion is that we have to look at it in terms of an historical arc, and we are still early in the process of getting past it at all levels, given the duration and intensity of racism in America. It will take time for the society to move to healthier dialogue etc about race, both institutionally and individually, but we are making progress.

Firstly, because I don't see anything wrong with Reagan launching his campaign in Philadelphia or Trent Lott giving a birthday toast to an elderly Senator, and I'm prone to speak my mind. Secondly, because this is all a part of leftist positioning and branding - "we on the left are caring, sharing, colourblind, don't vote for those greedy, racist right-wingers." Which I regard as really false and objectionable, and I don't see why people on the right should have to take it. Thirdly, because this is part of a general attempt, again on the part of the left, to control what's acceptable within public discourse, and get certain people/views judged as beyond the pale by labelling them "racist." And so, by eliminating opposing viewpoints, achieve a stranglehold on acceptable discourse. Which is also despicable

As to the last three sentences of this remarkably whiny and one-sided rant--far below your usual standard, which is high--I guess that means Huckabee was right: cut the Rev some slack. After all, we don't want to let the right wing media, the McCain campaign and the Clinton campaign "get certain people/views judged as beyond the pale by labelling them as "racist" and achieve a stranglehold on acceptable public discourse."

It's a shame you feel the need to cast personal attacks on me. Maybe if you actually knew me, you would be decent.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was simply stating a personal opinion--everyone ought to spend some time with people who spend almost every waking hour working with and on behalf of inner-city school children. Any one of these people could be at the top of pretty much any field, but they have chosen to share my profession because they believe it to be the area of most vital need.

It's really something to behold.

Well, fortunately there are other fields along with education which can bring people personal satisfaction and a sense of importance, accomplishment, and helping of others.

Of course there are. In fact, nearly any field can fit that description.

I certainly didn't intend to imply anything to the contrary.

"I'm an architect. I know nothing ..."

That's true. You don't know anything.


I was about to ask if this was the best you could do when your logic and statements were challenged, personal attacks to deflect the point, which you completely avoid confronting by parsing the language. But then I read this 2 posts later:


It's a shame you feel the need to cast personal attacks on me.


Are you serious?

Where did Strom Thurmond come from? What year did he desert the Democratic Party for good, and what caused him to switch his party affiliation?

Strom Thurmond is a great example in support of your claim; the problem you have is that Thurmond was just about the only significant Dixiecrat who did. Not Hollings, not Eastland, not Stennis, not Ervin, not Whitten, not Russell, not Byrd...

What party did Jesse Helms belong to before his 1970 switch to the GOP? And what caused him to change parties?

Helms, from the first time he ran for national office, was a Republican. And nobody was switching from the Democratic Party to the GOP in 1970 in opposition to civil rights.

What issue is universally acknowledged by everyone besides David Nieporent to have been responsible for the change in the South's voting habits in presidential elections beginning in 1964? What five previously "solid South" Democratic states all voted for Goldwater? What position of Barry Goldwater's that year could possibly have caused that?

Yes, and yet again, you base your argument on a single data point. 1964 is the only presidential election that showed this pattern. In 1968, the Deep South didn't vote Republican; after that, it voted no differently than the rest of the country.

The problem you have is that, regardless of what people "acknowledge," the facts don't fit the theory. The more racist people were -- the deeper south you went -- the less likely people were to switch to the Republican party. (1964 being the lone exception.)

Where did Strom Thurmond come from? What year did he desert the Democratic Party for good, and what caused him to switch his party affiliation?

Andy, you like many other Democrats today are obsessed with symbolism. You play this game, that if you pin the tail on the donkey, you are not it (guilty). The fact is, the Democrat party was behind racist policies and defending the tradition of slavery in the south for close to 100 years. Why do you see to somehow pass off the despicable history of racism from the Democrat party onto modern Republicans? What a silly game. First of all, I doubt most of us were old enough to be around back then to help restrict civil rights to blacks. So don't pretend to make is seem that if you are a Republican then you are somehow responsible. If the media was not 90% liberal, I can only imagine what kind of heat Robert Byrd would have endured being a leader and all of the Senate Democrats, the longest serving member of all time, previously a Klansman. My god.

Andy, how about you grow a pair, acknowledge the despicable history on race from the Democrat party and let’s move on. Playing this game of tag is a pathetic maneuver by modern liberals. It is the same game they play when they call each new Republican president stupid, or when they claim racism for any comment on the matter on race from a Republican. It is an attempt to destroy the character of men, nothing more.

The Republican Party was built upon the idea that individual liberty was not something that was given to man by the government, but by god. The modern conservatives (not Republicans mind you) have always favored less government, not more. Liberals starting in the late 50's and 60's felt that a way to attract blacks after the Democrats finally shattered over civil rights was to work directly with them and offer new government programs to ensure their support.

The Democrat party won over black voters for their funding of massive social welfare programs in the 50s and 60s, this switch was driven as much by new found political (than "southern strategy") power which resulted in handouts from the Democrat party. Thus one of the consequences of this switch was the dramatic increase in teenage birth rates among blacks. Before social welfare programs of the 50s and 60s, teen birth rates in this country were roughly comparable between whites and blacks. Since the advent of government social programs, the teen birth rate among blacks has skyrocketed. No doubt due to the culture of dependency Democrats sold to newly liberated blacks in the south. Quite a "southern strategy".

Now liberals are killing babies in Africa by filling up their cars with corn ethanol, driving up the price of food worldwide, literally. Nice work!

Where did Strom Thurmond come from? What year did he desert the Democratic Party for good, and what caused him to switch his party affiliation?

Strom Thurmond is a great example in support of your claim; the problem you have is that Thurmond was just about the only significant Dixiecrat who did. Not Hollings, not Eastland, not Stennis, not Ervin, not Whitten, not Russell, not Byrd...

On the national level, this was due to one thing, and one thing alone: the seniority system. The Democrats had overwhelming advantages in both houses of congress, and for the Eastlands and the Russells to have made the switch would have meant that they would have had to give up their committee chairmanships. At that point, Thurmond was a relatively junior (10 years) Senator and it didn't have that much effect on him.

The rest of them simply sat on their hands during presidential elections, tacitly endorsing the Republicans, while not being explicit about it in order to retain their seniority.

At that juncture---and if you can put down your ideology for a second you might actually learn something, because this is not an ideological point---there was hypocrisy on three levels, whereas it was in the best interests of both parties and the congressmen to maintain the farcial status quo.

1. The national Republican Party was in shambles after the Goldwater debacle, and it would have sealed their fate if in the wake of that it had been the "lucky" recipient of a mass defection of the most notorious racists in the country. So they were more than willing to let the Democrats keep that moral albatross around their necks. The GOP after 1964 had enough problems of its own without this. Goldwater himself was seen by many (unfairly) as a "racist" due to his opposition to the civil rights bill, but in truth (as you know) he really was merely a "limited government" and "states' rights" advocate. But those Dixiecrats (as you also know) had no such consistent set of principles to provide cover for their racism. Nobody outside the South (including you) believed (or now believes) their feeble "states' rights" rhetoric was anything more than a code word for Jim Crow.

2. The national Democratic Party was equally hypocritcal about this, and for the same underlying reason. If those Dixiecrats had all defected, it would have instantly converted their huge congressional majorities into much smaller ones. They might have gained a rhetorical advantage in the North because of these defections, but it would have put them just one bad election away from losing control of congress entirely (which in this case would have been 1966, when they lost tons of members but had the southern buffer zone to maintain their majorities). It's exactly the same reason that the Democrats refused to unseat the "regular" Mississippi delegation at the 1964 convention, in spite of the universal knowledge that those delegates were nearly all there due to the suppression of the black vote. The Democrats were caught in a "dilemma" of doing the right thing OR keeping their guaranteed congressional majorities for another generation, and you can see what they did. No new Profiles in Courage chapters were being written then.

3. And as for the individual congressmen, see above. They would have lost their seniority if they'd switched.

Bottom line: It was in the interest of both parties and all the individuals involved to maintain the status quo. There were no heroes here, only hypocrisy of the worst sort on everyone's part.

But in the case of Helms, he was a Democrat of the purest Dixiecrat variety who switched his party registration to Republican in 1970, to enthusiastic and welcoming arms, beginning a romance with the GOP that's still going on. He didn't have any seniority to hold onto at that point, so he was free to go with his "conscience" and switch to the Republicans. If he'd been in the Senate since the 1940's like some of the others, it might have been another matter altogether.

And if you don't think that Jesse Helms's entire political career was based on race baiting, you're more lucky than ignorant. I say "lucky", because you're lucky you weren't there to witness it, as those of us who saw Helms rant every night on WRAL in Raleigh were. In terms of the actual societal damage that he wreaked during that period, you can quote me on this: Jesse Helms was a hundred times worse than Rev. Jeremiah Wright himself. You may view him as merely some sort of "limited government" advocate such as yourself. David, trust me, that's not what Jesse Helms was all about. He may have been your political ally of convenience, but I sure hope you don't see him as your political soulmate.

Now liberals are killing babies in Africa by filling up their cars with corn ethanol, driving up the price of food worldwide, literally. Nice work!

Yes, I've invested in corn ethanol and I'm MAKING BILLIONS FROM THE WORLDWIDE DEMAND AND POPULARITY. It's the new oil, only with far greater reach, influence, and baby-killing ability.

Our plan to stop global warming by killing more babies with the influence of corn ethanol should begin to become effective about the time corn ethanol becomes as popular as the pet rock.

Sometime in 2027.

No one doubts or denies that there are some racists in the United States. I have never been to a country where there were not "some racists." Clearly having "no racists at all" should not be the standard to call a country not racist. So this is the question for those who think America is a racist country: What would make the United States no longer a racist country?

Right now, race is a very good predictor of class. It's a good predictor for children's future class.

Something is happening to cause this. There are a few basic options:

1) The racist option.

2) The Republican / Libertarian option. The existence of government services creates dependency and false consciousness in lower class groups and minority groups, such that they falsely blame their troubles on society and expect handouts.

3) The Liberal option. Studies in sociology and psychology show that people, unconsciously, really do discriminate based on race in all number of situations. To speak universally about humanity, we are historically embedded creatures. The effects of slavery and apartheid in America, as much as we wish we could make them go away entirely with pretty good legislation, and as much as we ought to try, cannot be reduced to zero in a generation or two. That's what liberals generally mean by a "racist society" - the structures that make it so that black children are more likely to grow up to be poor are in many ways the aftereffects of the history of violence, slavery, and apartheid in America.

"Not to mention the fact that "unbasedly" isn't even a word, so I'm definitely not writing THAT."

Actually, unbasedly is a word. Look it up in an unabridged dictionary, bro.


I've searched all the free online unabridged dictionaries I can find and have come up empty. Provide some kind of location for this word and I will bow to your vocabularly. Unless it's the OED 1847, then I might quibble.

Matt, you might also add that the "Liberal option" is fully compatible with the belief that the United States is the least racist of all the world's major countries, and you can add most if not all of the smaller western countries to that list. Even Rev. Wright himself isn't holding up China or France as a model of relative racial enlightenment. And I think that a reluctance on the part of many of us liberals to acknowledge this, or the fact that we often ignore it, is part of what fuels the backlash on the part of conservatives.

re: Matt's #1594:

Your point 3 is two points, is it not?
A. Unconscious discrimination exists.
B. (economic) Effects of slavery and apartheid linger.

While both are true, I would say that your initial statement "race is a very good predictor of class" is true, but not fully explanatory. I mean, class and family structure is a very good predictor of future class, regardless of race - while we all love pull-up-bootstreap success stories, and they DO exist, rising up from a difficult situation is still hard (even tho it's likely that it's less hard in the USA than most other countries... no, I do not have the data handy to support my thesis), regardless of race, so it's a bit off to pin the issue of racism.

I would add to your list that cultural strcuture plays a major role as well. The typical Asian work/study ethic has gone a long way to allowing those immigrnats to succeed, and the lack of black male family heads has sadly hindered black progress. Yes, 'lack of black male family heads' is NOT fuly explainabale by culture, I know.

So, I would reword your list this way:


Right now, race is a very good predictor of class. It's a good predictor for children's future class.

Something is happening to cause this. There are a few basic options:

1) The racist option.

2) The Libertarian option. The existence of government services creates dependency and false consciousness in lower class groups and minority groups, such that they falsely blame their troubles on society and expect handouts.

3) The Social/Psychological option. Studies show that people, unconsciously, really do discriminate based on race in all number of situations. To speak universally about humanity, we are historically embedded creatures.

4) The Liberal option. The effects of slavery and apartheid in America, as much as we wish we could make them go away entirely with pretty good legislation, and as much as we ought to try, cannot be reduced to zero in a generation or two.

5) The Social Conservative option. Decay of family structure greatly harms black progress.


I believe all 5 have some merit. I have no idea which one is the true 'primary' factor.

All 5 do have merit. Usually when people refuse to acknowledge that, it has to do with their agenda.

I would caution you about using the model minority myth as one of your cornerstones. It's a dangerous place to start.

All 5 do have merit.

Yep. I think Matt and Tom D both make good points. IMO one's "race consciousness" so to speak comes from which of these factors one privileges, which is in part an idelogical issue. To me, (amazingly) this one:

The Liberal option. The effects of slavery and apartheid in America, as much as we wish we could make them go away entirely with pretty good legislation, and as much as we ought to try, cannot be reduced to zero in a generation or two

is the dominant one, sinde the laws were only changed 40 or 50 years ago, it went on so long before that, and since, in history and in nature, generally processes of nurturance and growth take longer than processes of destruction and oppression. So what happens is that different kinds of people are better--or worse--equipped to deal with it, due to the other factors. So, you have what you always have--actors making choices within larger contexts, and it is lame attempt to disengage the two (liberal guilt! conservative racism!) that retards dialogue.

The rest of them simply sat on their hands during presidential elections, tacitly endorsing the Republicans, while not being explicit about it in order to retain their seniority

.

What? You mean during Watergate when Eastland said to Nixon, "I don't care if you're guilty; I'll vote for you" he wasn't being a typical "Democrat?"

Bottom line: It was in the interest of both parties and all the individuals involved to maintain the status quo. There were no heroes here, only hypocrisy of the worst sort on everyone's part.

You sort of left out one constituency in the process: the voters.