Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TALK RADIO....Erin Aubrey Kaplan comments on Neal Boortz's recent remark that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's new hairdo makes her look like a "ghetto slut" and shows "contempt for the position that she holds and the body that she serves in":

None of this should matter, of course. Boortz is a relatively minor media figure who, thanks to the McKinney flap, got his 15 minutes. It's tempting to believe this is an isolated incident, and Boortz even wound up apologizing for his misstep, as McKinney did for hers.

But isolated is just what this isn't. That any journalist feels free to insult a member of Congress with a blatantly racist and sexist slur on the public airwaves means that we're all in big trouble. Nor is it likely that Boortz would have said what he said if he didn't feel there was a critical mass of people prepared to agree with him. The context facilitated the comment.

That's exactly right. That Boortz said what he said is bad enough, but he wouldn't have said it if he hadn't felt that a big part of his audience would cheer him on for it. This, my friends, is the sewer that is conservative talk radio.

Kevin Drum 12:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (264)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Good start, Kevin. Keep looking at the audience. Think it through. Follow it where it leads.

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on April 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Who is this Boortz?

or is this another blogosphere wank thing where everyone is supposed to know who everyone is...and care.

Posted by: Nathan on April 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me or is overt racism making a comeback, what with Boortz and Farah and the radio guy who talked about shooting immigrants. Maybe with the never-sturdy ship of Bush's compassionate conservatism sinking, all the ugly rats that had been hidden for the past few years are jumping off. Or some better metaphor.

Posted by: david mizner on April 12, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I always thought that DeLoony's hair showed "comtempt for the position that he holds and the body that he serves in."

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

And then there was wingnut radio host Brian James of KFYI in Arizona, who apparently said:

"What we'll do is randomly pick one night-every week - where we will kill whoever crosses the border. Step over there and you die. You get to decide whether it's your lucky night or not. I think that would be more fun[I'd be] happy to sit there with my high-powered rifle and my night scope."

Posted by: RT on April 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

You are corrent, this is an outrage. Calling McKinney a Ghetto Slut is a tremendous insult to Ghetto Sluts.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rockwell's The Problem We All Live With

We still live with it.
We always will.

How do I know?

One small example:

The republican party wants to send millions of Hispanics
to prison for desperately trying to improve their standard of living.

And you need to trust them:
This has absolutely nothing to do with skin color.

LOL.

Posted by: koreyel on April 12, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, do you really want me to start looking up Condoleezza Rice references?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 12, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

David Mizner, RT:

I'd suggest that its non-productive and unconvincing to give credence to marginalized no-names on either the left or the right.
Both sides can play at that game. Ward Churchill anyone? (and yeah, some on the right acted like he spoke for most liberals...and that was wrong.)

Posted by: Nathan on April 12, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

So which was the racist part? ghetto or slut?

Posted by: happy glimore on April 12, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

As a liberal, I don't enjoy having people equate my opposition to Bush with Michael Moore's exagerations and irresponsible "proof by juxtaposition". How is lumping all conservative talk radio in with Boortz's disgraceful behavior any better?

Posted by: A-ro on April 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Appears to me that in this specific instance, I perceive McKinney to be generally unlikable and provide a very negative public image as a representative for her Georgia district, so why should I care what she gets called on talk radio? Isn't the business model for talk radio to incite listeners and get them to listen longer and more often?

PS: Boortz is a libertarian morning talk show host broadcasting from Atlanta.

Posted by: pencarrow on April 12, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz-

Yes, yes I do indeed. Have at it, and be sure to focus your efforts on published authors and known media figures, not blog authors and others generally unknown in the publish sphere.

What you're gonna do, of course, si either ignore this appeal or publish a bunch of blog comments and other crap, but have at it, nevertheless.

Posted by: Arr-squared on April 12, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

How can you be a no-name AND a popular radio host? I'll accept that Boortz doesn't speak for you but it's dishonest to think he doesn't speak for SOME people in the Republican coalition. I mean, who's his audience?

As for Ward Churchill, if he had a radio show, not many people would listen. I saw him the other night on TV, and he's simply not very smart. Too bad because this country needs smart critics of American power.

Posted by: david mizner on April 12, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Boortz is - and has been for years - a Rush Limbaugh wannabee. He does this garbage just to get attention. Maybe we should just ignore him and hopefully his audience will dwindle over time.

Posted by: pgl on April 12, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Cynthia McKinney's new hairdo does make her look like a ghetto slut.

Just saying.

Sincerely,

theperegrine

Posted by: theperegrine on April 12, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz, are you suggesting that liberal talking heads slur C. Rice? Please find some

Another example of talk radio racism:
http://nejpage.blogspot.com/2006/03/more-proliferation-of-language-of-war.html

Posted by: Dan-O on April 12, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Ted Rall is thought highly of in the moonbat circles:

"His latest crude-toon includes a frame depicting Condoleezza Rice proclaiming herself Bush's "HOUSE NIGGA." A black man demands that Rice "HAND OVER HER HAIR STRAIGHTENER." His t-shirt reads "YOU'RE NOT WHITE, STUPID." The caption below the frame reads "SENT TO INNER-CITY RACIAL RE-EDUCATION CAMP."


Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I always thought that DeLoony's hair showed "comtempt for the position that he holds and the body that he serves in."

He's not just the president of the Hair Club for Men. He's its chief embezzler and bribe coordinator.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a more stark example of "the sewer that is conservative talk radio".

And to respond to "A-ro", it might not be fair to lump you in with Michael Moore, but unless you're also a movie maker or prominent liberal media figure, Kevin's statement isn't the same as lumping you with Michael Moore.

It would be unfair to lump all American conservatives in with Boortz. But calling all of American conservative talk radio a "sewer" is pretty much on the mark. In addition to the example I provided above, consider:

Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage

The challenge is to find a right-wing radio talk show which doesn't qualify as a "sewer", and that's what makes Kevin's characterization a fair one.

Posted by: David Bailey on April 12, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"This, my friends, is the sewer that is conservative talk radio."
Kevin Drum

Not even close Kevin. I listen to con radio every evening and I've never heard the like. I don't know this Boortz guy, never heard of him.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Having spent years listening to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, and local and sundry conservative talk show hosts, I can't see how anyone is surprised by this. They're almost uniformly racist, thuggish and boorish.
I'd like to think they don't represent the face of modern conservatism, but listening to their callers and my fellow city-dwellers, I think I'm wrong.

Posted by: Mike Bast on April 12, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

HBO's Bryant Gumbel

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who dont like them and wont watch them ... Because theyre so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the worlds greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that somethings not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in whats called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won ... So if only to hasten the arrival of the day theyre done, when we can move on to March Madness for Gods sake, let the games begin."

or how bout:

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community, she said. His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people.

racism 101.

oh yea, Howard Dean:

Dean also managed to bump up against charges of racism when he told members of the Democratic Black Caucus that the Republican National Committee could gather as many minorities in one place, "Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

The hits keep coming...

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Did Boortz get to keep his job? Apparently so.

Oddly, enough this may be because Boortz actually meant his racist slur.

???

Does anyone recall that a D.J. (in St. Louis I believe) was fired not long ago for making an unintentional racist comment about Condeleeza Rice? I believe tha mans name is Tim Dorsey.
Dorsey didn't mean what he said; Boortz did. Dorsey was fired; Boortz wasn't.

Is that clear?

Posted by: Jim Ramsey on April 12, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

"They're almost uniformly racist, thuggish and boorish."

How so? Back that up if you would be so kind.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Here we go, Kevin Drum cherry-picking bits of info to make broad generalizations.

Again.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 12, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

It is the sewer that is American conservatism, not just conservative talk radio.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42,

I live in Atlanta. I'm relieved to see his 'legend' doesn't precede him elsewhere.

theperegrine

Posted by: theperegrine on April 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth: Here we go, Kevin Drum cherry-picking bits of info to make broad generalizations.

Even if so, no worse than Bush or his boot-licking lemmings like Frequency Kenneth.

I prefer Kevin.

He hasn't gotten anybody killed that we know of.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 12, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

What point of reference is everyone using for ghetto slut hairdos?

The ghetto part is easy, but how do we know who's a slut?

Sounds like some people enjoy fantasies that are more interesting than this topic.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on April 12, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

"And unfortunately, the demonization of Condi Rice isn't restricted to Belafonte. A liberal radio show in Florida is promoting a CD of "humorous" songs by one of its featured performers. The album, which boasts a cover depicting Bush kissing Rice on the cheek, features a song called "Kiss A Nigger Good Morning." The star of the show, by the way, is white. But he's anti-Bush, plugs books by Paul Begala and Molly Ivins, so he can't be a racist."

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

"any journalist feels free to insult a member of Congress with a blatantly racist and sexist slur..."

First, it sounds like something 50 Cent would say. Maybe even Kanye West, in the event that McKinney was a Republican.

Second, the fact that she is a Member of Congress is irrelevant. She has no GREATER right to protected from insults than anyone else.

Lastly, one might also characterize Boortz' statement as a crude putdown of a crude and insulting member of Congress. An insult prompted not by the color of that Member's skin, but the content of her character.

Posted by: black is beautiful on April 12, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's pathetic to see conservatives try to come up with examples of racism from liberals. Bryant Gumbel's comment, for example, might not have been politic but it wasn't racist--it was accurate. And Rall's cartoon strikes me as a send-up racial correctness.

Anyone who doesn't see the racist turn that the immigration debate has taken hasn't been paying attention. I have to admit, though, that when it comes to immigration, Democrats do sometimes play to racism--anyone remember former LA Mayor Hahn campaign commercials?

Posted by: david mizner on April 12, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Ted Rall is thought highly of in the moonbat circles

those must be some pretty small circles. i don't think i've ever seen anything of his outside the context of some wingnut blogger moaning about it.

Posted by: cleek on April 12, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"It's pathetic to see conservatives try to come up with examples of racism from liberals. Bryant Gumbel's comment, for example, might not have been politic but it wasn't racist--it was accurate. And Rall's cartoon strikes me as a send-up racial correctness."

= it's not racism when liberals do it. LMAO

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

BlaBlaBla,

It is not racism to point out that there are essentially no black Republicans (your Gumbel and Dean quotes). And your quote from a random Baltimore Democrat is irrelevant; the point is about conservatives with the backing of a media outlet.

Stop a randomly selected person on the street, and that person might be male or female, conservative or liberal, racist or not. Who cares? Stating that some Democrat somewhere said something that might be racist makes no point whatsoever.

Irrelevant comments are irrelevant, no matter how much you strut after you post them.

Posted by: David Bailey on April 12, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

David Bailey gets to decide what racism is and isn't. How is being called a Ghetto Slut racist? Are there not sluts from the Ghetto of all colors?

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the underlying question would be "How powerful and unified is the block of voters that listen to conservative talk radio?"

One oft used technique is to incite the audience on a topic and identify opposition to the talk show host's views directly with liberals, which are subsequently identified with all Democrats. Near around election times, this technique may well result in large groups of listeners being "charged up" enough to go out and vote against candidates identified as the "other side".

Even a smaller group of highly motivated voters could vote in candidates when other, possibly larger, groups are not motivated enough to get out and vote.

Posted by: pencarrow on April 12, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

"the demonization of Condi Rice isn't restricted to Belafonte"
Posted by: BlaBlaBla

Naw, HELL NO. The chairman of the NAACP called her AND Colin Powell tokens. The very people he should be pointing at and saying "Do you see what you can accomplish in this country??" But alas no. They are tokens to the NAACP. *shaking head*

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Stating that some Democrat somewhere said something that might be racist makes no point whatsoever."
Posted by: David Bailey

Well then there is no point to this whole topic then.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Of course Boortz should be condemned. Cong.McKinney didn't look anything like a "ghetto slut." That's utterly ridiculous. She just looked like she was having a bad hair day. Really, it happens to everyone, at least once in a while.

It's so easy to take pot shots at McKinney, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, why bother with the nasty personal insults?

Posted by: DBL on April 12, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

This is the main problem with liberalism today. It has a warped viewpoint of where the spectrum lies.

Limbaugh is simply not the extreme right. Bush is not the extreme right.

OTOH - I wouldn't put Franken in the extreme left either. Although I thoroughly disagree with him, he is not a nutcase. Randi Rhodes however...

The Republicans banned Pat Buchanan and his isolationism from their party a long time ago.

When are the democrats going to say no to Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney etc.

Posted by: John Hansen on April 12, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, conservative talk radio is a sewer. It's just common sense after having to deal with it all these years. Let's not be naive now

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, but Hugh Hewitt said it was those on the right that are the responsible, compassionate ones on the airwaves...you know, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingrham, Savage, Beck, O'Lielly, Boortz...what a line up...to be proud of!!! YIKES...

Posted by: Dancer on April 12, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I almost forgot about this one:

John "Sly" Sylvester said on WTDY-AM in Madison about Condi Rice. "She wasn't a self-serving hack politician who got up in front of Congress and lied. Aunt Jemima didn't kowtow to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.

Cue liberals - that's not racism because its true... LMAO

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Arr-squared:

Yes, yes I do indeed. Have at it, and be sure to focus your efforts on published authors and known media figures, not blog authors and others generally unknown in the publish sphere.

Actually, I just have to find someone as well-known as Neil Boortz, don't I? It's possible some of these have been mentioned, since I've been offline looking them up.

Somebody already brought up Ted Rall.

--Radio host John Sylvester.

--Syndicated cartoonist Jeff Danziger. Sorry about the blog link, but the cartoon on his own site has been, ironically, "whited out." Cartoons on either side are still there.

--Doonesbury

That should do it for now. I did not include some other examples like Oliphant's "parrot" cartoon, because IMO, this was not basically racist. Unlike liberals, I don't think simple criticism of a black person equals "racism." However, I can guarantee you that if a conservative cartoonist had drawn a black person that way, his hide would be drying on a newspaper office wall somewhere.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 12, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Kevin Drum,

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian (as in, big L) radio talk show host. Facts are a good thing, even if it's not red meat for a bitter audience.

Try to read up.

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday Michelle Malkin blogged about a math instructor at a community college who assigned a math problem which included racist language about Condoleeza Rice.

You'll never see Kevin Drum blog about anti-Condi racism. Because Kevin Drum is a cherry-picker.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 12, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

To Bla,bla,bla (such a clever name)...you found a LIBERAL RADIO SHOW in Florida! Good work!

Posted by: Dancer on April 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

BlaBlaBla, the simple fact is that minorities are with the Democrats for a REASON. Ponder why, aside from a quote here and there, why minorities side with Democrats, and try not to do with a snide remark. Deal with it.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

This, my friends, is the sewer that is conservative talk radio.

Actually, it's the sewage which slushes through most of our lives these days. It's not confined; it's not channeled; it's everywhere; and it spreads disease rapidly.

Posted by: PW on April 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Well, and much worse, when *ever* would a Supreme Court justice have flipped off a reporter like Scalia did? As a Sicilian lady friend said, "I haven't heard those words since my father died! Rude!'

Posted by: Stewart Dean on April 12, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I don't listen to to conservative talk radio, so I can't comment on it's nature, but it's a little rich for someone who belongs to a party which invites Al Sharpton to speak at it's National Convention to complain about racist sewers. Lemme know when Neil Boortz goes on the air to implore people to drive out the black interlopers, who have the gall to run a business in a mostly white neighborhood, subsequent to a fire-bombing that kills six, and then gets to speak at the Republican National Convention.

The tribalists which largely comprise our political parties have no principled objection to racism, as long as the political calculus indicates that tolerating the racists is a net political advantage. The last politician to show any real courage on matters of race was LBJ, who, scoundrel that he was in many, many, ways, was better in regards to race than any President other than Lincoln.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

"You'll never see Kevin Drum blog about anti-Condi racism."

Ken, you have ot understand, it's only racism if the person making the comment is a republican or a conservative.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Al Sharpton is a nobody. Barak Obama, for example, is a great example. Harold T. Ford, Joe Lieberman, Villairagosa, etc.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

This is ridiculous. What have the Republicans offered to minorities as an alternative rather than deplore their means with the Democrats? You don't like what the Democrats do, but what is your alternative? And why don't more minorities join with you? THINK, all you have is history.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I listen to con radio

What an apt description!

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm always highly amused at some conservatives' inability to tell the difference between white people expressing personal racist beliefs and white people making fun of other white people's racism.

For the comprehension-free denizens of Binary Town, every utterance of an offensive word, phrase or image is equal--even if it's being used to mock a bigot's views.

I would say they're being disingenuous, but it's clear that some of them just aren't capable of getting it. It's typical of the conservative mindset that it's not meaning or morality or intention or belief, but only what you say that matters.

And they go on wondering why black people put up with Democrats instead of voting for the Republican party, which contains Condoleezza Rice, you know.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Why would the Democrats give people who are "nobodies" the podium at their national Convention? Is not being given the podium at a party's national convention proof that the party considers the constituency represented by the speaker is important to the party?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker42,

I listen to con radio every evening and I've never heard the like. I don't know this Boortz guy, never heard of him.

Yes, but you're a liar.

Posted by: Tripp on April 12, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta keep fogging those brains with daily injections of hate.

Posted by: zeph on April 12, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, but you're a liar."
Posted by: Tripp

OHHH! Shit, I forgot. Thanks Tripp. :)

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

This, my friends, is the sewer that is America.

Posted by: Hostile on April 12, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hate is novocaine that numbs voter buttocks so they can't feel K-Street pickpockets at work.

Posted by: zeph on April 12, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I will agree with you on this, Booring, Harold Ford is about the most promising (for me) young politician from one of the major parties I've encountered. A Democrat who is willing to openly speak of cutting middle class entitlements is somebody I could enthusiatically support, which means he is likely doomed, in terms of garnering support from the typical participant in this forum.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

so, this guy's a radio talk show host in Atlanta...that's nice.
how does this make him not a "no-name"?

Posted by: Nathan on April 12, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Al Sharpton is a nobody because he will never have office, nor will he be influential enough.

He is a celebrity Democrat.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

"A Democrat who is willing to openly speak of cutting middle class entitlements" = Sellout, Uncle Tom, Bush boot licker, NeoCon, racist, Nazi, in this fourm.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 12, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

"What an apt description!"
Posted by: craigie

I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that. :)

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Hate is novocaine that numbs voter buttocks so they can't feel K-Street pickpockets at work.

My god, that's beautiful. Wish I had a bumper sticker of this. I'd wear it while riding the bus and El.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

The only comment worth remembering about the incident came from Keith Olbermann. He said, "Remember, Boortz is just a "boor" with a "t" and a "z".

Posted by: Mazurka on April 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

To be a little more accurate, Ford has openly spoken of means testing Social Security, which is critical part of changing theis country's political culture, which has resulted in the primary purpose of national government being the transfer of wealth from young, poorer, people, to retired, richer, people. A Democrat who is willing to do this needs support, and I think he has too much political capital and skill to be Uncle Tommed by the racists which comprise part of the Democratic party.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Michelle Malkin's book "unhinged" includes a page or so on Kevin Drum's blog.

According to Malkin's book, some vile, racist statements about Malkin were posted on this blog by commenters.

Posted by: Afro Thunder on April 12, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Make that "capitol", of course.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Al Sharpton is a nobody."

Did anyone tell the other candidates at the many debates for the Democratic nomination? They sure accepted him as a plausible candidate and treated him with more deference than each other (gee, anyone wanna guess why?).
Did anyone tell that to Hillary, who did the "kiss the ring" thing when she was running for the senate & needed him to shore up the black vote?
Did anyone tell that to the Democratic National Committee, who gave Sharpton a prime time slot with which to address the delegates in the '04 convention?

Seems the Democratic party feels that he's influential enough to be a player. Anyone here got the guts to step up and state why or will the laughingly ludicrous notion that he's a nobody (see: speaking gig, aforementioned, convention) be continued? That's almost as comical as someone ignorantly labeling a Libertarian talk show host a "conservative".

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Make that "capitol", of course.

"Political capitol"? Well, Smirky would likely spell it that way. But is there no error his worshippers won't balk at committing?

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker, Go read Ann Coulter hateful man that it is.

Posted by: Rightminded on April 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Afro, Milkan got a taste of her own meds.She was spewing vile and then got some flack for it and of course she pulled the race card.Typ. conservative. Conservatism rymes with Terrorism.I,m just saying.

Posted by: Rightminded on April 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK


"Lurker, Go read Ann Coulter hateful man that it is."
Posted by: Rightminded

Um, Ok. Why? and Is that the title?

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK


"If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with Tom DeLay, we might have two patriotic parties in this country."

Just got this off of her web site. Very first thing I read. Sounds good so far.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Touche', Shortstop. I'm about half-stoned on painkillers today, having undergone outpatient surgery yesterday, resulting in correcting typos that don't exist. I'm also the sort of Bush worshipper who accurately predicted what many of his shortcomings would be in 2000, and thus voted against him.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Tbroz can you do anything without the strawman.

Posted by: Rightminded on April 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"I will agree with you on this, Booring, Harold Ford is about the most promising (for me) young politician from one of the major parties I've encountered. A Democrat who is willing to openly speak of cutting middle class entitlements is somebody I could enthusiatically support, which means he is likely doomed, in terms of garnering support from the typical participant in this forum."

So, are you predicting that Ford will get more Republican than Democratic votes in his Senate bid? Somehow, I rather doubt it.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

To be a little more accurate, Ford has openly spoken of means testing Social Security, which is critical part of changing theis country's political culture, which has resulted in the primary purpose of national government being the transfer of wealth from young, poorer, people, to retired, richer, people.

Why don't we means-test tax cuts instead of picking on old folks?

Posted by: . on April 12, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

John Hansen writes: The Republicans banned Pat Buchanan and his isolationism from their party a long time ago.

What are you talking about? Pat Buchanan gave an address at the 1992 Republican National Convention. He ran as an independent in 2000. The Republicans never "banned" him, they just didn't nominate him.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

If only conservatives would insist that George Bush go after bin Ladin, we would definitely have two patriotic parties in this country.

Posted by: dilbert on April 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

So which was the racist part? ghetto or slut?

So which part of "blow job" is the offensive part that keeps it off the air? blow or job?

Posted by: flangegonad on April 12, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

"If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with Tom DeLay, we might have two patriotic parties in this country."

How does this make any sense? Why can't I be angry at both?

Whoops, I'm sorry, I tried to apply logic to wingnut "thinking" - my bad.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis, are you under the impression that the sets, "typical participant in Kevin Drum's comments section" and "Democrats in Tennessee" are the same?

., I'm quite willing to eliminate payroll taxes on the first $15,000 in wages. Will you join me?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

so, this guy's a radio talk show host in Atlanta...that's nice.
how does this make him not a "no-name"?

Charlie Coughlin, just a humble parish priest in Detroit.

Actually, I would think that if Boortz broadcasts in the same region McKinney's from, he's probably not a no-name.

Still the fuckwit, eh, nate?

Posted by: sglover on April 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Nor is it likely that Boortz would have said what he said if he didn't feel there was a critical mass of people prepared to agree with him. The context facilitated the comment.

I'm pretty embarrased by McKinney and I vote a straight Democratic ticket every time I vote. You think about that for a second... If that's how *I* feel then how does your average independent or right-leaning moderate going to feel?

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose on April 12, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK
If that's how *I* feel then how does your average independent or right-leaning moderate going to feel?

Probably nothing at all; they don't have tribal identity with the Democratic Party, so have no reason to feel bad because some Democrat somewhere else acts in a way they don't like, and aside from the ones in McKinney's district, her behavior is largely rationally irrelevant to their voting decision, since she isn't a Democratic leader, so electing another Democrat is likely to have little effect on her at all, except to dilute her influence within the caucus.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

What are you talking about? Pat Buchanan gave an address at the 1992 Republican National Convention. He ran as an independent in 2000. The Republicans never "banned" him, they just didn't nominate him.

Hi Daryl,

A. One cannot "ban" someone from joining a particular party in America. We're free to join whichever we wish, so "ban" is not the correct word. Buchanan was disenchanted with the GOP's policies and was mad that they didn't adopt his isolationist platform and vice-versa, so he bolted.
B. Buchanan ran on the Reform party ticket (Perot's old party). He became an independent after the Reform party pretty much bit the dust and saw that there was no future in the GOP.

Unless he's said something that I missed, which is plausible, Pat Buchanan is no longer a Republican and both entities involved are peachy keen with that outcome.

So which was the racist part? ghetto or slut?

Nowadays, "a", "an" or "the" is sometimes considered racist if the person making the accusation isn't capable of constructing a cohesive argument. See: wolf, cry

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, I'm with you all the way. It's hilarious to watch the mouth-breathers offer "examples" of liberal racism, stripped of any sense of irony, context, or sarcasm.

Are liberals, to a person, free of prejudice? Of course not. Nor are all conservatives racist. But to paraphrase something I once heard a radio caller say once: not all "conservatives" are racist, but racists will almost always be "conservative."

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 12, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"MJ Memphis, are you under the impression that the sets, "typical participant in Kevin Drum's comments section" and "Democrats in Tennessee" are the same?"

Well, being a Democrat in Tennessee, I happen to be in a position to know quite a few of the people in that set. And as far as general political opinions go, most of them would fit quite comfortably within the "typical participant in Kevin Drum's comments section" set.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK


SHORTSTOP: I'm always highly amused at some conservatives' inability to tell the difference between white people expressing personal racist beliefs and white people making fun of other white people's racism.

It's not amusing, it's reprehensible. When people like tbrosz and others defend racists by condemning those who fight for equality, they do so not only by falsely claiming an equivalency. They assert that those on the right making racist remarks are innocent. Meanwhile, they say those on the left are guilty of being racist, when it's clear in all they do that they are fighting against racism.

Tbrosz wants us to believe it is worse for some liberal to compare, say, Powell with an "Uncle Tom" (someone who forsakes his black race to advance himself personally) than it is for a conservative to compare, say, Cynthia McKinney with a "ghetto slut" (someone who sells her body for sex to get drugs in return). In the first instance, the comparison is a matter of opinion regarding Powell's motives. In the second, it is a matter of fact that McKinney is not that which she is compared with. What's more, there is a relevance regarding Powell's motives and those policies he advocates, as we must all live with them. But when it comes to McKinney, even if one believed that her appearance resembled that of a "ghetto slut," it bears no relevance to the matter which has caused her to come under scrutiny. It is purely an ugly insult, uttered for no reason other than to appeal to those who harbor racism in their hearts. Uttered because one is racist. Defended for the same reason.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 12, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

So, tell me, Alek, if racists are "almost always" conservative (I'm not a conservative, btw), why do the Democrats see Al Shaprton's consitutency as being so important as to warrant giving him a prime time slot at their National Convention? Because of all the closet conservative Al Sharpton supporters?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis, if you think living in a particular state gives you enough knowledge to conclude that most of the people in a political party within that state, are similar in views to the sort of intensely motivated folks who participate in forums such as this, largely based upon your impressionistic feeling of the people you know, well, that's really an extremely large stretch.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

" In the second, it is a matter of fact that McKinney is not that which she is compared with."

Which is why the verb was "looks". Bono wearing sunglasses indoors is a fasion that "looks" similar to Stevie Wonder; but alas, Bono isn't a black soul genius who happens to be blind and thus someone wouldn't be comparing him in that manner.

See: man, straw
Also see: lame man, straw

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

"(someone who forsakes his black race to advance himself personally)"
Posted by: jayarbee

So let me get this right. If a black person works hard and achieves in this country then he/she forsakes his/her black race???
And you don't think that is a racist point of view??
HA!! OK.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with Tom DeLay, we might have two patriotic parties in this country.

Why is the concept that liberals are angry at both so complex and esoteric that so many conservatives are so completely incapable of understanding it? Why do so many of them spend so much time and energy bragging (in detail) about how simpleminded they are?

I mean, really. Is the notion that making fun of racists isn't itself racist too much for them to handle? Does the fact that pointing out racism and engaging in racism are actually opposing endeavors induce too much painful confusion into their tiny minds?

Not that I'm frustrated and bitter about spending so much of my life trying to get the conservative morons in my life to count higher than "2", mind you...

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Never thought I'd see the defense of calling someone an Uncle Tom, especially Colin Powell, on a thread at this site that is dedicated to calling people who aren't racists, racists (which is generally one in ten threads).

Learn something new every day.

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ricky West (Hi, Ricky) writes: One cannot "ban" someone from joining a particular party in America.

Yes, I know. That's why I was taking exception to John Hansen's statement: "The Republicans banned Pat Buchanan and his isolationism from their party a long time ago."

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

So, tell me, Alek, if racists are "almost always" conservative (I'm not a conservative, btw)...

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, Will, but this statement almost reads as, "Well, I'm a racist, and I'm not a conservative! See there?"

... why do the Democrats see Al Shaprton's consitutency as being so important as to warrant giving him a prime time slot at their National Convention? Because of all the closet conservative Al Sharpton supporters?

I think Al Sharpton is a joke - he is, in the words of one writer I read once, a racial ambulance chaser. If he was a headline speaker at some DNC (I wouldn't even know - I don't think I've watched a convention since the 1980s), I'd say I wouldn't care for it. But whatever - if you think this example is going to make me reconsider my previous post, you're mistaken. It wasn't the Democrats who created the Southern Strategy.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 12, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee, go ask Jim Brown, who, for all his faults, knows the realities of racism in ways you likly cannot comprehend, what it means to call a black man an "Uncle Tom". People who employ that term are nearly as reprehensible as those who use the term "nigger", in that it is a label originating in the era of slavery which is now used to destroy a black person's legitimacy, not through the application of critical reason, but rather by engendering a non-rational, emotionally charged response.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Why is the concept that liberals are angry at both so complex and esoteric that so many conservatives are so completely incapable of understanding it

The statement in question did not pertain to liberals not being angry at both, but rather the contention that the author's opinion is that liberals are MORE angry at Tom Delay than the terrorists who flew the planes into the building. The sentence points that out quite clearly.

Which should bring the rest of the comment under a different light for you.

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this right. If a black person works hard and achieves in this country then he/she forsakes his/her black race???

Um, no. If a black person works hard and achieves success supporting politicians and policies that hurt other black folks, then yes. That can reasonably be interpreted as a betrayal.

For chrissakes, can't you people make any arguments without resorting to distortions to make your points?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

sglover:

I had never heard of Boortz. Yes, that makes him a no-name. (Somehow I get the feeling that you had never heard of him before either.)
Coughlin, on the other hand, had a significant national following.

Posted by: Nathan on April 12, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Alek, Sharpton is a blatant racist, with a blatantly racist constitutecy, and was given a prime time speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Why would this be, if nearly all racists are conservative?

I only mentioned that I was not a conservative because some of the people in this forum believe that any dissent from the echo chamber here is indicative that one supports the party line of the Republicans. I don't.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

This is the first time I think I've ever agreed with him, but jayarbee completely clobbered this one. To pretend that this was not a racist comment (not what Tbrosz is doing) beggars belief. To think that there is some kind of equivalence between parties on these issues (what Tbrosz is implying) beggars belief. Next.

Posted by: Matt on April 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

The statement in question did not pertain to liberals not being angry at both, but rather the contention that the author's opinion is that liberals are MORE angry at Tom Delay than the terrorists who flew the planes into the building.

So, you can't read for content, in other words. Let me ask you something: why even compare liberals' attitudes about both things? What does Tom Delay have to do with Al Queda? Why link the two issues?

As for your pointing out the use of the word "more", this is quite obviously a rhetorical usage, considering the conclusion, that conservatives are a "patriotic party", while liberals are unpatriotic. In other words, "more" is certainly enough to disqualify liberals from being patriotic, and that was the entire point of the qoute.

Try, I don't know, actually trying to understand the author's point? You know, by actually using your brain?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK


RW: this site that is dedicated to calling people who aren't racists, racists

Well, let's break with that trend and just call you a racist, shall we? Done.

And for good measure, just in case it sometimes happens that people are called idiots when they are not truly idiots, let's call an actual idiot an idiot, okay?

This new policy is dedicated to you . . . you fucking idiot!


Posted by: jayarbee on April 12, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

To imply equivalence between the terms "Uncle Tom" and "Nigger" beggars belief. Didn't think I'd have to add that one, but apparently I do for Will Allen's sake.

Posted by: Matt on April 12, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen- gotcha. In the future, rather than making educated inferences about groups to which I belong, and to which many of my friends and acquaintances belong, I will follow your lead and just generalize about people I disagree with.

I'm still betting Ford gets more Democratic votes than Republican ones, regardless of his views on SS. Although, to be honest, I'll probably be voting for Kurita in the primary.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 12, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Alek: shortstop, I'm with you all the way. It's hilarious to watch the mouth-breathers offer "examples" of liberal racism, stripped of any sense of irony, context, or sarcasm.

DH Walker: I mean, really. Is the notion that making fun of racists isn't itself racist too much for them to handle? Does the fact that pointing out racism and engaging in racism are actually opposing endeavors induce too much painful confusion into their tiny minds?

Thanks, guys--of course you get it, as do most people here. No, they can't understand it, because all they've learned after all these years are the alarm-triggering words, not the ideas behind them or the context around them. Call it "teaching to the test" for the world of public conversation.

After I wrote my post of 2:17, I started thinking about how closely this resembles the whole "class warfare" chestnut. The actual phenomenon of class warfare is fine and dandy with our GOP friends; it's talking about it that's the no-no. Unfortunately, this false equivalency resonates with their base, most of which frankly doesn't have it going on up there.

Some of them do understand what they're doing, and are being purposely manipulative and misdirecting. But the rest of them--in this thread, Lurker and BlaBlaBla are among the most obvious examples--truly do not get it. It's not at all a complex idea, but it's simply beyond them.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

The statement in question did not pertain to liberals not being angry at both, but rather the contention that the author's opinion is that liberals are MORE angry at Tom Delay than the terrorists who flew the planes into the building. The sentence points that out quite clearly.

The author is clearly an ideologue who can be roundly dismissed. The point is still absurd. The comparison, first of all, is grotesque: it's not apples and oranges, it's apples and tablecloths. What is the author's evidence that liberals are "more angry" at DeLay? Is it that liberals appear to be more focused on DeLay right now? Well, yes: the 9/11 attacks happened more than four years ago; DeLay is right now. The 9/11 attackers were foreign, and are all dead; DeLay is a living American who can be held to account. Their crimes are not comparable in any meaningful way.

The author apparently intends to imply that because "liberals" tend to be critical of the ways in which the Administration is prosecuting the war, they must not feel that much "anger" over the 9/11 attacks. This is a specious and offensive suggestion. The 9/11 attackers were a bunch of murderous bastards, and I'm all for pursuing their backers to the fullest extent of the law. But to be critical of the Iraq invasion, for instance, which has no demonstrable connection to the attacks, is neither an example of "insufficient anger" nor a lack of patriotism.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 12, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ricky West writes: The statement in question did not pertain to liberals not being angry at both, but rather the contention that the author's opinion is that liberals are MORE angry at Tom Delay than the terrorists who flew the planes into the building.

Yes, and that is an idiotic opinion to have. As has been pointed out before, the overwhelming majority of Democrats supported invading Afghanistan to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there was no comparable support for invading Texas to get Tom Delay.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

"So, you can't read for content, in other words."

Actually, the fault lies in your reading comprehension since you needed that aspect pointed out to you as your tirade was based on the faulty logic that Coulter insisted that liberals weren't angry at those who drove the planes into the buildings. No need for a pissing contest; the text is clear.

"Let me ask you something: why even compare liberals' attitudes about both things? What does Tom Delay have to do with Al Queda? Why link the two issues?

IMO it would be because Coulter is a bombthrower who uses hyperbole as a staple of her writings.

Try, I don't know, actually trying to understand the author's point?

FYI, the words are generally a dead giveaway, not someone's attempt at mind-melding the "real deal".

In other words, "more" is certainly enough to disqualify liberals from being patriotic, and that was the entire point of the qoute.

Interesting that earlier you contended that "conservatives" asserted that liberals can't be angry at both while now it's to disqualify liberals from being patriotic (which I agree with, btw, as part of being within Coulter's writing). Look, I don't need to go further, your fallacy has been pointed out and now you're word parsing. No biggie, it wasn't that big a deal but it sure stood out while you went on your "conservatives are so stupid" rant.
Tell you what, next beer's on me.

"You know, by actually using your brain?"

Anonymous personal attack put forth by someone sitting at their computer #1. Nice.

Well, let's break with that trend and just call you a racist, shall we? Done.

Anonymous personal attack put forth by someone sitting at their computer #2. Doubly nice. Seems as though it were only minutes ago that I typed "Nowadays, "a", "an" or "the" is sometimes considered racist if the person making the accusation isn't capable of constructing a cohesive argument. See: wolf, cry".

If you guys wanted to disqualify your comments from further consideration....mission accomplished. Have a nice life. Mine's too short.

See you another time, Daryl. Time for me to step out of the sewer.

Posted by: RW on April 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Alek, Sharpton is a blatant racist, with a blatantly racist constitutecy, and was given a prime time speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Why would this be, if nearly all racists are conservative?

Al Sharpton isn't so much racist per se as he is completely unethical where it concerns issues of race - just ask Capano and the other police officers who's lives and careers were ruined by that whole bullshit Tawana Brawley mess - something Sharpton, to this day, refuses to apologize for.

And no, I odon't think that most racists are conservative. But I think you have to have your head in the sand not to see the vast majority of white racists are conservatives.

And what gets me is why we're even talking about "other" instances of racism. When presented by bad acts by their fellow conservatives, the trolls' first response is always, always, "well, he did it too!", as though that excuses it. Yeah, some democrats say stupid, and sometimes racist things. What in the world does any of that have to do with what Neil Boortz says? And more to the point, why do so many conservatives think that "well, he did it too!" is anything other than a juvenile dodge? Yet it's always the first club out of the bag. How about mustering up the shred of integrity it takes to say "yeah, that was a pretty shitty thing to say", instead? But no, nothing's ever wrong so long as there's one democrat or liberal that's also ever done it. And they call us the moral relativists.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

I saw her for the first time on Bill Maher (don't watch much TV news, sorry) and she appears to have a thyroid condition (bulging eyes, goiter)--like that runaway bride from awhile back.

Posted by: Shamhat on April 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

If you guys wanted to disqualify your comments from further consideration....mission accomplished. Have a nice life. Mine's too short.

Well, better than growing a pair and admitting you're wrong, I guess. But what I think is funny is your assertion that I can make no inferences about your ability to reason based on the content of your posts. Isn't whatever point you're trying to make the result of your reasoning abilities? Or do you not understand how that all works?

The point is that focusing on a single turn of phrase, rather than the entire point of Coulter's article taken as a total, is flat out ridiculous. Coulter is clearly suggesting that liberals are focused on Delay instead of terrorism, which makes us "unpatriotic". That you're trying to pretend otherwise is really pretty shameless on your part - assuming you actually are intelligent enough to grasp all this.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis, how many friends and acquaintances do you have, and how many Democrats are there in Tennessee? Would a professional pollster consider your friends and acquaintansces to be a good sample to use for making generalizations about the views of Democrats in Tennessee? Why would he think your friends and acquaintances are a similar sample to the sort of people who participate in this forum? How is one better able to ascertain the typical political views of a group; by reading the explicity stated political views that are volunteered in a forum like this, or by feelings that evolve via the many other types of interactions that most people have with friends and acquaintances which do not involve political views?

Perhaps you are the sort of person for whom politics dominates all your personal interactions, but most people's friendships and acquaintances are not dominated by political views, and thus they really don't give an accurate way of extrapolating the views of party memebers in an entire state, even if we were to assume that such sample was good one, which we shouldn't. On the other hand, reading the explicitly views which are volunteered here on a daily basis gives the information needed to allow a pretty accurate guess as to what views predominate in this forum.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

I go to lunch, and the thread grows. I say again:

Al Sharpton is a nobody. He is like Pat Buchanan during a Republican debate: not ever going to win, just there to fire up some emotions.

America, and the world, is mixing. People better put their finger to wind and plan for the future.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, to be unable to discern that the words "nearly as" explicitly means that equivalence is not achieved beggars belief.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, Booring, you still avoid the question; do the Democrats normally give nobodies prime-time speaking slots at their national conventions, or are they not idiots, and thus reserve those spots for people who represent important constituencies, in this instance, the important constituency of racist Democrats?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

After I wrote my post of 2:17, I started thinking about how closely this resembles the whole "class warfare" chestnut. The actual phenomenon of class warfare is fine and dandy with our GOP friends; it's talking about it that's the no-no.

Damn right, and this always boggles my mind. Opposing an increase in the minimum wage, or redirecting tax revenue towards the wealthy isn't class warfare, but calling those things "class warfare" is class warfare.

I mean, really, how dumb do you have to be? It's almost like if a conservative thought that a single word in a Coulter column was more important than her entire main thesis, and then accuses others of "word parsing". Just using a hypothetical example, of course.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Who would pay attention to Ann Coulter if she didn't have a shock of blond hair??????????

Posted by: Delphine Herbert on April 12, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Alek, Sharpton is a blatant racist, with a blatantly racist constitutecy, and was given a prime time speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

and what exactly makes him such a blatant racist? Excuse me if I require a little more evidence than the word of a self-righteous idiot.

Posted by: haha on April 12, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Who would pay attention to Ann Coulter if she didn't have a shock of blond hair?

Why do you think she says the pathologically stupid things she does? It's so people will pay attention to her. People aren't that interested in just any uninformed kook - but an over the top INSANE uninformed kook, well, that's different.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Dh Walker, how about cleaning your own litter box, before expending a lot of energy decrying the "racist sewer" of those you disagree with? What do Democrats have more control over; the racists who they give loud megaphones to, or the racist rhetoric of their political opponents? Might not a reasonable person conclude that your party's willingness to give loud megaphones to blantant racists renders your the sincerity of your criticism of others' racist rhetoric rather suspect? Might not a reasonable person thus conclude that your party has no principled opposition to racism, but merely uses the charge to gain political advantage when possible? Might not that same reasonable person thus conclude that there is nothing your party offers other than a path to power?

No, hypocrisy is not the worst of all sins, but it is telling that even you, who appears not to be a complete tribalist, is unwilling to say, "Sharpton is a racist, and we Democrats should not be giving him a platform."

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

So, according to BlaBlaBla, anyone who makes fun of GOP racism is a racist?

Wow. Racists like BlaBlaBla really just do not get it. Their brains are simply not wired correctly.


Posted by: Disputo on April 12, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Coulter is clearly suggesting that liberals are focused on Delay instead of terrorism, which makes us "unpatriotic". That you're trying to pretend otherwise is really pretty shameless on your part - assuming you actually are intelligent enough to grasp all this.

since he's already stepped out of the sewer and back into his own cesspool, I feel obligated to tell you he's not.

Posted by: haha on April 12, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

And why should Kevin Drum allow a blatant racist such as Will Allen to post here?

Posted by: haha on April 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

haha, you idiot, if you actually doubt Sharpton's racism, go read about his role in the Brawley mess, the rhetoric he employed leading up to the firebombing of Freddy's, and his rhetoric at the funeral of the black boy after the Crown Heights riots, although if somebody wants to say he is a jew-baiter, and not a racist, fine.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

and what exactly makes him such a blatant racist? Excuse me if I require a little more evidence than the word of a self-righteous idiot.

Sharpton is an unethical ambulance-chaser, no question. But constantly playing the race card doesn't make you a racist, just irresponsible and counter-productive. If he were making categorical, negative statements about white folks - like Farrakhan, for instance - then yeah, that would be racism. But I don't think that even constantly twisting every situation so it is "best" viewed from a race-relations point of view is not in itself racist.

As for Will's question about why Sharpton has been given the DNC podium recently: I think that he does have one or two useful things to say about race relations - albeit in a "stopped clock is right twice per day" sort of way - and I think the Democrats realize that those things are worth talking about.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Do the Democrats normally give nobodies prime-time speaking slots at their national conventions, or are they not idiots, and thus reserve those spots for people who represent important constituencies, in this instance, the important constituency of racist Democrats?"

They are trying to appeal to the black vote. I don't see how Sharpton is a racist. I think he is a populist. I've heard the guy speak, I've heard him on shows. He doesn't strike me as a racist, but a populist.

This thread started on the premise of conservative talk radio as a sewer, which it is by using common sense. Others complained that Democrats are also racists. Conservatives are by and large a part of the Republican Party. Minorities are by and large a member of the Democratic Party. Why? Why? If the Republican Party is so against Democratic social intent, why are their alternatives nothing? If the Democrats are racists, why are minorities with them? Minorities wouldn't know if their getting screwed? C'mon

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Will, you're the idiot who said Sharpton is a racist and demanded that everyone denounce him without providing a shred of evidence as to his alleged racism. Now you're backtracking.

Thanks for demonstrating why no one should ever take you and your lunatic rants seriously.

Posted by: haha on April 12, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Might not a reasonable person thus conclude that your party has no principled opposition to racism, but merely uses the charge to gain political advantage when possible?

Well, assuming a reasonable person would look more deeply into the issue than you're doing, no, not really. There's an entire dimension to the whole race issue that you're pretending doesn't exist, and that's one of power differential. While anti-black racism and anti-white racism are morally equivalent (and we agree on this), they are not practically equivalent. The socio-economic effects of white-on-black racism are nowhere near comparable to black-on-white racism. I could go on about racial disparities in educational and market opportunities which are the ultimate effect of institutionalized racism, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

Now, it's an open question as to how important practicality is compared to the moral dimension - and I'm not advocating any particular position on it, nor will I defend Sharpton. I think he's a sleazeball who, almost accidentally, does have one or two useful things to say. My personal view is that those one or two useful things are far outweighed by his sleaziness (and he's hardly the only source for those things anyway). I think that the DNC is best off distancing themselves from his bullshit.

And I have to say - I do think that hypocricy is one of the worst sins, if for no other reason than its being the canary in a coalmine. Honesty is limited by hypocricy - and any hypocrite has no business pretending he's not full of shit. That's my point of view, at least. I know I'm in the minority, here, because if more people thought that way, 90% of the AM radio broadcasts in this country would simply vanish.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats are racists, why are minorities with them? Minorities wouldn't know if their getting screwed?

This is one of my favorite conservative positions (and I hear it repeated all the time): that Republicans aren't racist, and that the Democrats are the real racists - but the black folks have cast their lot with the Democrats because they're all too stupid to know better.

But... the Democrats are the racists. Ok, whatever you guys say.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

This is one of my favorite conservative positions (and I hear it repeated all the time):

I share your fondness for this one. "We show black people the back of our hand on every issue they self-identify as important, and we collect racist candidates like campaign buttons, but damn it, we have a black secretary of state! And we don't really get what he was saying, but we're pretty sure Howard Dean was impolite to hotel staff! WHY WON'T YOU VOTE FOR US, YOU STUPID SAVAGES?!"

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen,

I'm probably going to get in trouble for attempting this explanation off the top of my head. I hope nobody gets too angry if I get this wrong...

I think that conservatives (and libertarians) mean something different than liberals (and leftists) by "racism".

For (most) conservatives and libertarians, racism is all about bigotry and language. A racist is someone who hates, or has contempt for, or has a low opinion of people of another race (or ethnic group, cultural group, etc.) Any disparaging comment that depends for its impact on the race of the target of the comment is a racist comment. So an end to racism means becoming a colorblind society where one's race is never taken into account and never mentioned (except in respectful ways).

Liberals (and leftists) have a very different view of racism. Bigotry by itself is not the issue---people dislike each other for all sorts of irrational reasons. Racial epithets are not the issue, either. Sticks and stones, and all that. Racism is about power relationships. There is an extremely lopsided division of power and wealth and prosperity in this country, and it correlates very strongly with race. Actions are considered racist or not depending on how they serve to perpetuate this disparity. White demagoguery that encourages whites to fight back against black advancement is considered racist. Black demagoguery that encourages black people to band together for self-advancement is not considered racist (or at the least, is not considered as worthy of concern as white racism).

So for conservatives, whether an action is racist or not depends only on the immediate details: what did the speaker say, did he/she use racial epithets. For leftists, context is important. Actions by Al Sharpton (for instance) that are not considered racist, given our current society, would be considered racist if black people controlled 90% of the wealth of this country and if 90% of US Senators and Congressmen were black.

From the conservative point of view, calling a black person an "Uncle Tom" is racist, since it is a racially-based epithet. From the leftist point of view, that's nonsensical.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: *lol* Yeah, and I've been called "racist" for pointing out that Condi Rice lied on Meet The Press about a non-existant IAEA report warning about Iraq's non-existant nuclear capability back in (I think) 2002.

It's really astonishing how poorly some people understand what racism actually is. But conservatives are so hypersensitive about it (talk about cleaning up your own litter box) that they jump on anything that they think will give them moral parity on the issue. And all that does is confirm just how clueless they are. What does lying for your boss on TV have to do with what race you are? Why even bring that up? It boggles the mind.

But it's not just race, either. Defenders of Coulter often say that criticizing any of the psychotically stupid things she says just proves that you're a sexist. Do they really think that saying psychotic things is related to being female? Why else bring that up into the conversation? And I'm the sexist? Oy veh.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the link for filing an electronic complaint with the FCC over Obscene, Profane or Indecent Broadcasts.

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475B.cfm

The broadcast was March 31. See e.g. http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310005, which has a clip.

You need the name of your local station that airs Boortz.

Posted by: PO'd on April 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Daryl...right on. You encompassed in words my sentiments by and large.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

You know, leftists might want to quit while they're ahead.

Regardless of what the liberals claim, everyone can see which party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, and which one hauls them out every two years for elections. Rhetoric and actions are two different things.

Obama is pretty much the only serious black politician the Democrats have currently fielded. Republicans had Powell and Rice as serious presidential possibilities. Who have the Democrats put forward? Jesse Jackson? Look up which party had the first Republican black senator in the modern era.

That someone actually has the gall to demand proof of Al Sharpton's racism and anti-Semitism is amazing. Do your own research. It isn't hard to find. I notice the "Al Sharpton" defense is all over the map here, ranging from "he's nobody important" to "he's important, but doesn't have a racist bone in his body."

And now Steele has Democrats sweating blood. Ask yourself why.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 12, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz:

This is quite possibly the silliest post I've seen from you in a long time. Geez, where to start?

You say that people should do their own research, then pretend that only three national-level African American politicians are relevant to the discussion.

You actually criticize liberals for having their own individual views on Sharpton rather than all sheep-ing onto the same talking point like you guys do.

You denigrate every African American politician outside of Barack Obama as "not serious", and we're the racists.

Good lord.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, so your problem with Democrats and race revolves singularly around the charicature of Al Sharpton?

If Al Sharpton were to disolve from the scene, Democrats would still retain the black vote (and now the latino vote, thanks to social-Republican measures and COMMENTARY exhibiting inherent racist tendencies). Al Sharpton does not matter. I consider that other's keep bringing him up as whining for the sake of whining. The Democratic Party should renounce Sharpton out of principle? The Republican Party has a lot of gall, a whole lot of it.

What matters are the results. Minorities are with the Democrats because it helps them raise their families and improve their well-being, whether you agree with the means or not.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Well, DH has done the heavy lifting, but I'll add: Tom, could you tell me how many members of the black House Republican caucus there are? Sorry, how many? And how about in the Senate?

Since you enjoy research, let's go back and look at Congressional racial demographics through the years. How's that looking for the GOP, Tom?

That you could confuse a presidential political appointment of a black person to a high-level position with the long-term measurable willingness of a party to elect black representatives is pretty weak. But very, very...Tom!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

And good post by Boorring, too.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of what the liberals claim, everyone can see which party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, and which one hauls them out every two years for elections. Rhetoric and actions are two different things.

Number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are Democrats: 43

Number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are Republicans: 0

Hey, he's right, actions really do trump rhetoric! It's obvious, therefore, that the Democratic Party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, while the Republican Party merely hauls them out every two years for elections.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

If you are a conservative who wants to maintain the ideals of conservatism, than you must change and adapt to a "browing" world. Just as with Democrats and national security, Republicans must be inclusive to minorities or else suffer eventual defeats. Divisiveness can only work for so long, until change comes violently. Better you let it happen peacefully and renew yourself in a new world.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Since you enjoy research, let's go back and look at Congressional racial demographics through the years. How's that looking for the GOP, Tom?

I'll add to Shortstop's list: does Tbrosz' "research" include, oh I don't know, typing "Southern Strategy" into google?

Or is google all part of the hostile liberal media? What gem will Tbrosz come out with next?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

First, Daryl, good to converse with you again. Next, I fail to see how your dilineation applies to Sharpton. In 1995, Sharpton says, in response to a non-black store owner setting up business in Harlem....

"there is a systemic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear . . . that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."

Sharpton's colleague, Morris Powell, standing next to Sharpton, said of the Jewish owner, "We're going to see that this cracker suffers. Reverend Sharpton is on it". Sharpton says nothing to disassociate himself from the desire to make the "cracker suffer". Three months later, one of the people listening to Sharpton when he made those comments, goes on a rampage and kills 8 people at the business. Is Sharpton responsible for the racially-based killings? No, but to say his racial remarks had no effect is disingenuous in the extreme, and if a white person had made similar remarks prior to black-owned business being fire-bombed, the outrage against the speaker would be justifiably huge. Somehow, the killings at Freddy's are less tied to Sharpton's remarks than would be the case than if the races were reversed, and people in this forum are still unwilling to call Sharpton a racist. Are the murdered any less dead because of their race?

Sharpton also used the following rhetoric at the funeral of the black boy who was hit by a car driven by a Hasidic Jew, which resulted in a riot in which a wholly innocent Jew was murdered...

"The world will tell us that [Gavin Cato] was killed by accident. . . . What type of city do we have that would allow politics to rise above the blood of innocent babies? . . . Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. . . . All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise. Pay for your deeds. . . . It's no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on the planet. We are the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. . . . We will win because we are right. God is on our side."

....oh, no, Sharpton isn't a racist or a jew-baiter...not at all....

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

As shortstop says above, African-Americans who rise to a high position in the Republican Party usually have to get there by being appointed by a more powerful white patron, as for example Condoleeza Rice and George Bush, in order to fulfill the role of a token.

In the Democratic Party, meanwhile, African-Americans are simply and routinely elected to their positions by Democratic voters, who don't seem to have as much of a problem voting for a black candidate as Republicans do.

Which indicates a healthier relationship between the races?

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Will, you waste your time with the quotes. I am sorry, you mean well with your intentions, and I will look at Al Sharpton differently and with more skepticism. But. He. Does. Not. Matter.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz writes: Regardless of what the liberals claim, everyone can see which party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, and which one hauls them out every two years for elections. Rhetoric and actions are two different things.

You have got to be kidding.

Once again, which party gets 90% of the black vote? Are you trying to say that 90% of black voters are confused about which party represents their interests?

Which party actually has elected Senators who are black? Which party actually has elected Congressmen who are black?

Yes, it is nice that Condi Rice and Colin Powell are highly visible black people in positions of power, but it is also pretty much an irrelevancy. The problems facing the black community is not due to the lack of examples of successful black people. There certainly are many such examples in all fields. The problems facing the black community in America include:

* Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.

* Black infants are twice as likely to die before their first birthday as white infants.

* Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby.

* One out of every 35 black Americans are living behind bars, around 3 times the rate of white Americans.

* The poverty rate among black Americans under 18 years of age is over 40%, more than two times the rate for white Americans under 18.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Condi or Colin getting promoted to positions of power doesn't do much to help these statistics. Yes, I know it is difficult to know what would help, but most people have the impression that alleviating poverty is not an overwhelming concern of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Which indicates a healthier relationship between the races?

Or a related question: why is Tbrosz feeling so charitable to toss out such total softballs to us? It's almost like handing us a cricket bat, pulling down his pants, and bending over. Giddy because it's springtime, Tom?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is pretty much the only serious black politician the Democrats have currently fielded. Republicans had Powell and Rice as serious presidential possibilities.

Number of Democratic primary races Barack Obama has entered and won: one

Number of Republican primary races Colin Powell has won (or even entered): zero

Number of Republican primary races Condi Rice has won (or even entered): zero

Eh, which party is that again that actually fields African-American candidates?

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are Democrats: 43

Number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are Republicans: 0

Hey, he's right, actions really do trump rhetoric! It's obvious, therefore, that the Democratic Party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, while the Republican Party merely hauls them out every two years for elections.

LOL--was that even the real tbrosz attempting to argue otherwise? I mean, I knew that he was a stupid and dishonest hack, but...

Posted by: haha on April 12, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Are you trying to say that 90% of black voters are confused about which party represents their interests?

He is.

"Don't look at the Democrats. Don't look at them! VOTE FOR US, YOU GULLIBLE ANIMALS!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

LOL--was that even the real tbrosz attempting to argue otherwise? I mean, I knew that he was a stupid and dishonest hack, but...

I'm not sure that it really matters. If it were only Tbrosz (or only fake Tbrosz) that says these things, that would be one thing. But conservatives have a remarkable degree of message discipline - and there isn't anything he (or fake he) has ever said that I haven't heard from a real, live conservative moron in real life. What their positions lack in sense and facts, they make up for in persistence and ubiquity.

VOTE FOR US, YOU GULLIBLE ANIMALS!

There's a great old Onion op ed called "Why can't I sell any of these fucking bibles?", which this conservative position always reminds me of. As in, um, don't you guys even realize what you sound like? :)

Posted by: DH Walker on April 12, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Calling conservative talk radio a sewer was off the mark. Sewers serve a useful function and every civilized place has had them for thousands of years. Can you say that of conservative talk radio?

But if conservative talk radio is a sewer then Boortz is a turd floating down, stinking up the place.

In 1977 I heard him say that he thought the right to vote should come with owning property.

He claims to be a Libertarian (to their embarrassment) but is really just a shrill for Neocon Republicans.

Posted by: slanted tom on April 12, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Booring, would you please answer the question; why would the Democratic leadership give a prime time speaking slot at their national convention to someone who does not matter? Are you better informed about what constituencies matter to the Democratic Party than the leadership of the Democratic Party? I ask this sincerely; such things do happen.

I appreciate your open mind in examining Sharpton's record.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

"How so? Back that up if you would be so kind. "

Limbaugh used to play the Jeffersons' theme music every time he mentioned Carol Mosley Braun, and he once made an obviously racist comment (and for the life of me, I can't remember it, it's been more than 10 years) and then lied when asked about it. He often makes fun of people weaker than he.
Savage is the biggest xenophobe I've ever heard, listen to his show for just one night. As to Hannity, he lies constantly, and treats people who disagree with him like shit.
As to recent examples, I can't give any. It's been a year or more since I listened to any of them. Too much crap.

Posted by: Mike Bast on April 12, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

why would the Democratic leadership give a prime time speaking slot at their national convention to someone who does not matter?
Populist politics are great television, and to have a minority on the national platform would be an attempt to appeal to blacks. Are there better spokespeople, I'm sure. Is it subtely racist that only one black individual was allowed on a stage of a majority-racist panel, I'm sure there is something there. But minorities are better off with the Democratic Party, by far. Let them change its fallacies within, rather than be the outside members of a Republican Party. So why have him? Populist politics are great television. If you want to have an informed and logical political debate, you need a refresher course on the real world.

Are you better informed about what constituencies matter to the Democratic Party than the leadership of the Democratic Party?
Yes, judging by their performance so far, yes I am.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Are there better spokespeople, I'm sure. Is it subtely racist that only one black individual was allowed on a stage of a majority-racist panel, I'm sure there is something there."

Freudian slip? I mean "white", but before you get ahead of yourselves, my intent was that only one black individual in order to be a token minority on a panel that didn't take him seriously was racist. I don't mind whitey :).

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

"...on a panel that didn't take him seriously was racist."

rather, was subtley racist. bah

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, boorring, he does matter, which is why the Democrats gave him the podium. Democratic leadership believes one of the best ways to motivate their black supporters is to have somebody with Sharpton's record in regards to the rhetoric which preceded the mass murder at Freddy's, and the rhetoric employed in the wake of the Crown Heights riots, speak in a prime time slot at the national convention.

This is precisely why Kevin's, or any other Democrat's, complaints about the rhetoric employed by Neil Boortz toward Cynthia McKinney appear so disingenuous. They have no principled objection to those who employ racist rhetoric, they merely dislike those who employ it while belonging to different political tribe.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Democratic leadership believes one of the best ways to motivate their black supporters is to have somebody with Sharpton's record in regards to the rhetoric which preceded the mass murder at Freddy's, and the rhetoric employed in the wake of the Crown Heights riots, speak in a prime time slot at the national convention."

I believe that is quite a stretch, Will. He is a celebrity black democrat, whose populist speeches (which were nice, I might add, when he was talking about the "Christian Right", rather than the "Right Christian") rouse the crowd as they did to a majority WHITE crowd during the convention. Did Saturday Night Live want him to come and host their program because of his record in regards those events? NO.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

And, for GOD's sake, Al Sharpton is not relevant. Ask Pat Buchanan, he knows and is of a similar variety (and makes statements that I find quite nice too).

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

O.k., Booring, at what point does a politician's racist rhetoric preceding a mass muder, and in the wake of a murderous riot, trump his celebrity-hood and speaking ability? What would the participants in this thread say if Republicans gave a similar slot to a politician who had used similar rhetoric prior to a mass murder at a black-owned business, or who had jew-baited like Sharpton in the wake of a riot in which a jew was murdered? What would the response be if Republicans said, "He doesn't matter, he's just a celebrity who can deliver a good speech"?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

This is a stale joke, probably most so for the crowd here, but if you haven't done so already, may I suggest going to Google, typing "failure" and clicking the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on April 12, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

It would be different for Republicans, because they are the majority in power due to their ethnic/racial/religious background. If a Republican said that, they would be skewered, if they were Democrat, than in this day and age they would be shunned or kept on the fringe. Read the post above by Daryl McCullough, there are double standards on Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites. But there is a REASON Republicans have it, due to their history (southern strategy). Democrats too with national security concerns. Is it fair? Is life? Is politics?

Once again, I point you to Pat Buchanan and urge you to stop with the Al Sharpton fetish. We were talking about conservative radio, which has led to a dumbing down of political discourse I might add.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Look up which party had the first Republican black senator in the modern era.

Gee which party could that have been?

Posted by: blueperiod on April 12, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Dismayed Liberal, I tried it and while that is certainly their right, that is really really really dumb business sense (though they are right).

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Boorring:

What matters are the results. Minorities are with the Democrats because it helps them raise their families and improve their well-being, whether you agree with the means or not.

Daryl:

The problems facing the black community in America include:

* Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.

* Black infants are twice as likely to die before their first birthday as white infants.

* Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby.

* One out of every 35 black Americans are living behind bars, around 3 times the rate of white Americans.

* The poverty rate among black Americans under 18 years of age is over 40%, more than two times the rate for white Americans under 18.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

The picture seems to be that the results of decades of Democratic social engineering speak for themselves. Using Washington D.C. as an example just puts the icing on it.

Democrats talk about helping minorities. What have they actually delivered? Well, in the past couple of weeks they've been pushing bringing in low-cost labor from Mexico, which I'm sure will help black employment in America a whole lot.

As far as I can tell, nobody has addressed my comment on Steele.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 12, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Boorring I will stop with Sharpton when Democrats stop inviting people who use rhetoric like Sharpton's prior to mass murders. Until then, any complaint by Democrats, who do not denounce the megaphone granted to Sharpton, regarding others' employment of racist rhetoric, is not to be taken seriously, becase it is quite evident that they don't really mean it. All rationalizations aside, the people murdered at Freddy's aren't any less dead because they were white, and their attacker was black. I think Buchanon has engaged in his own jew-baiting, but I am unaware in his part of the incitement of any mass murder.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz:
Affirmative Action. The civil-rights movement. The soon to be gay marriage actions. government welfare. public school funding, etc. In other words, help. Whether you believe it should be right in a federalism context is irrelevant, people take what they need to survive, and then whine about the details when they thrive (cough, cough Republicans cough cough).

The low-cost labor won't help black americans on a mainstream level, I agree, as that will lead to racial tensions that can parallel whites and blacks now, or white and latinos. They will get the latino vote though, because they helped them out. It's called politics. Time will tell.

You mentioned Steele. Okay. If he wins, let's see how he does. If this represents a political paradigm shift, then it does. I congratulate the Republicans are slowly striving to relinquish their southern "strategery" mode of thinking. Don't you think a spanish speaking presidential candidate was an effort to increase the appeal among a prized constituency? How's he doing now?

Minorities have a better advantage with Democrats than with Republicans. Maybe, hopefully, Steele can represent a member of the tide against the trend. Maybe, hopefully, conservatives on radio by and large can mature on this issue, too.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, Will, you still want to cling to your points. I can see this will all be an exercise leading to no where. I gave some practical points, and now the slow work day is over. I'm out.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz writes: The picture seems to be that the results of decades of Democratic social engineering speak for themselves. Using Washington D.C. as an example just puts the icing on it.

Okay, so your theory is that poverty is caused by anti-poverty programs, and racial inequality is caused by attempts to alleviate racial inequality. Maybe perverse consequences work for conservatives, as well? Maybe terrorism is caused by the war on terrorism, and abortion is caused by the anti-abortion movement?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about causality here, I was explaining why the problems faced by black Americans are not addressed by appointing Condi or Powell. Do you agree, or not?

As far as I can tell, nobody has addressed my comment on Steele.

Yes, I'm sure that some people will assume, just based on the fact that Steele is black, that he will be better than the average Republican on issues having to do with race and poverty. So he could very well get votes that would otherwise go to the Democratic candidate.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Will Allen writes: Until then, any complaint by Democrats, who do not denounce the megaphone granted to Sharpton, regarding others' employment of racist rhetoric, is not to be taken seriously...

Look, the majority of Democrats are white. They are not overly concerned about anti-white racism in the Democratic party. When the day comes when the Republican Party is majority black, then anti-black racism among Republicans will no longer be much of an issue, either.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Tell it to the folks who were in Freddie's that day, Daryl. Ooops, can't do that; they're mouldering in their graves.

Yes, Boorring, your practical point was that inviting a person, who used Sharpton's rhetoric prior to a mass murder, to speak at a national convention, is a meaningless act, and it is a point you clung to strenuously.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Will, I said They [white Democrats] are not overly concerned about anti-white racism in the Democratic party. Are you saying that white people should be concerned about anti-white racism from within the Democratic party?

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 12, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin.

Here is racist...

Several blacks carpool together, put their money together and go back and forth a total of 100 miles a day to work and help rebuild hurricane ravaged Alabama.

Then one day they're told to split as the "Mexicans have arrived, so we won't need you any longer." Grown men crying over their undignified release and loss of pride over trying to do the right thing and not loot and sell drugs and wait for the next handout from the liberal bleeding hearts.

Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Down Duke University way shaking down the evil whitey who has yet to be proven to be the rapists that some Tawana Brawley wanna be claims. (Note: She pulled the same stunt before; stripper at a party, dude goes to the head, she steals his car, car chase with cops, cops win, she cries racisim) so she gets no benefit of the doubt here.

That's racisim.

That fat, bloated drunken murderer Teddy the Alky, pandering to a bunch of ILLEGAL immigrants for their vote?

That's racist, Kevin my boy.

But you just keep telling yourself and anyone who will listen about how the big bad republican cesspool of racists that dominate the radio airwaves are big hatefull meanies. (Air America is going broke by the way, and all experts predict that they will be gone this time next year. In other words, you have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear.)

Posted by: madmyk on April 12, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

I say people should be concerned whenever someone who uses rhetoric like Sharpton's prior to a mass murder, and be more concerned when such a person achieves higher prominence, because using rhetoric like Sharpton's prior to a mass murder is profoundly immoral. Similarly, no one really needs to be too concerned that Kennedy or Janklow are going to kill anybody with their cars again, but they should find it profoundly disturbing that one of them still holds elective office.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 12, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, Boorring, your practical point was that inviting a person, who used Sharpton's rhetoric prior to a mass murder, to speak at a national convention, is a meaningless act, and it is a point you clung to strenuously."

Awww, crap. You are so naive. It pisses me off that a bitch like Ann Coulter can advocate poisoning a Supreme Court justice and claim it is a joke, that Hannity or O'Reilly can so non-chalantly advocate mass murder and call it collateral damage when it can be helped or when the circumstances are not certain. Fine. But Al Sharpton, speaking at a convention? No, draw the line, torpedo the party. He is not important, he is irrelevant, and you need to get over it. You are still bothered by those murders you speak of? Start a charity or write a book about it. We were all talking about conservative talk radio and it's state of affairs, and you whine about Al Sharpton. A lot of unfair things happen in the world, people die who should never had died and for the worst reasons. Yet your bone to pick is one speaker who spoke 2 years ago at a convention? In the year 2006, that is your problem? Get some perspective.

If you are so principled that you cannot stand a whole party because they invited Al Sharpton to speak at a national platform, leave. Leave the party, you'll feel better. When you find a party of principle that is effective at the national level, congratulations. Pity you if you try the Republicans. How about the Greens? Natural Law? Constitution?

My point, that you cannot see because it would deem your posts irrelevant, is that Al Sharpton is irrelevant. He is a Democratic Pat Buchanan, so move on and get the FUCK over it.

Posted by: Boorring on April 12, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, so your theory is that poverty is caused by anti-poverty programs, and racial inequality is caused by attempts to alleviate racial inequality.

Don't put words in my mouth. I get enough of that as it is, including entire synthetic posts.

The first part of that statement is close to true, and it isn't poverty that's caused by anti-poverty programs, but social dysfunction. The way anti-poverty programs were implemented went a long way toward the destruction of the intact black family, which is a large part of what created those conditions.

Almost every negative social statistic mentioned in the list in the earlier post has increased with time. I blame badly-done social engineering, and I'm not the only one. Note that this is not just true for poor minorities.

You're right that appointing Rice or Powell doesn't fix the problems blacks have in America. But based on the evidence of the statistics, obviously neither does voting for Democrats.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 12, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Don't mind me, I'm just posting to say thanks to Slanted Tom for pointing out that Boortz is not a real libertarian.

You can tell whether a self-proclaimed libertarian is what they say they are by one question: "regardless of the feasibility of it, do you think Bush has done things that warrant impeachment & removal?" If they say No, you're talking to a typical neo-imperialist.

Posted by: b-psycho on April 13, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

No boorring, kevin and others were whining about conservative talk radio, in complaining about a yakker who stated that Cynthia Mckinney styles her hair to look like a ghetto whore (which I find reprehensible rhetoric, by the way), and I was talking about the fact that Democrats give valued speaking slots at their convention to people who incite mass murders with their use of racist rhetoric. Yes, you should get some perspective, get the fuck over conservative talk radio, and lemme know when that dingbat Coulter has actually incited a murder, and is subsequently invited to speak at the Republican National Convention. Now that we have established that neither Democrats and Republicans have any principles, would all you kool-aid gulpers just shut up about how awful you think your political opponents are?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

"I was talking about the fact that Democrats give valued speaking slots at their convention to people who incite mass murders with their use of racist rhetoric."

OH, you don't say...wow. Just. Wow. I guess, I just won't say anything ever that conservatives on the radio say regarding race that I don't like. Ever.

Because Al Sharpton spoke at a DNC convention in 2004.

Good night.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

O.K., sounds good to me. Good night.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

After all, if we can't talk about something off the subject then there's really nothing for me to talk about. My obsession with Sharpton, in spite of the fact that the story is far more complex than I have repeatedly made (I've been making the same accusation for years), is not because I too am racist, but because people died in an area near where he spoke and I'm a fan of guilt by location. I don't have any actual racist quotes from Sharpton, and I never point out that he was charged with and acquitted of incitement, but that's only because honesty would kill my distraction from the sewer that is Republican Radio.

In fact, I can't point to a single thing Sharpton said that would qualify as "incitement." But I get a lot of milage out of this one talking point - because that's what I'm good at. Repeating one nonsense thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until people just give up talking to me. Like Boorring.

slate

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Repeating one nonsense thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until people just give up talking to me. Like Boorring."

Thank you, for proving my claims of irrelevancy.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz writes: Don't put words in my mouth.

It's a paraphrase. And you seem to agree with the sentiments of the paraphrase, so what are you complaining about?

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 13, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz: Don't put words in my mouth. I get enough of that as it is, including entire synthetic posts.

Don't flatter yourself, Tom. You regularly say some pretty ridiculous things, with no help from anyone else.

And yeah, we all know that conservatives are supposed to believe that Democratic policies on race amount to counter-productive social engineering, so congratulations for staying on-message about that. But you're trying to say that those policies are completely useless because they haven't been 100% successful at solving everything, which is simpleminded and silly. The question isn't about which party has the magic Solution To Everything (tm), but who has the comparitively better approach. Yeah, there's still a lot of racial inequity in spite of our efforts to combat it - but that in no way means we wouldn't be worse off without those efforts.

I know I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Even if you don't think that every single thing you've posted has been blown out of the water, you simply don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong. Your post of 5:44 yesterday is a perfect example - you say a bunch of incredibly stupid things, which is pointed out to you, and your response is to complain that no one initially addressed the one thing (Steele) in your post that wasn't complete nonsense. This is why no one here takes seriously what you say. Yeah, we understand that you don't like that, but it's a self-inflicted wound. Whining about it won't get you much sympathy here.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

You're right that appointing Rice or Powell doesn't fix the problems blacks have in America. But based on the evidence of the statistics, obviously neither does voting for Democrats.

As a further example of what I posted this morning, let me address Tbrosz's point that pandering Republican tokenism better serves the interests of African Americans than does Democratic support for civil rights legislation, affirmitive action, etc.

Tom, if Republican policies so much better serve the interests of African Americans, then why do they overwhelmingly support Democrats? Do you really believe that the vast majority of black folks are just too dumb to know better?

If you have a different, non-racist explanation for this, I'd love to hear it. And just so you know, "Democrats have successfully fooled them all these years" is the same thing as "they're too dumb to know better".

As for everyone else, I'm giving 5:1 odds that Tbrosz will never answer this question honestly.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

I see a coward used my name, so I'll reply. If speaking of "driving the white interlopers" out, and then staying silent while an associate standing next to you proclaims that the "cracker" will be made to "suffer", "Reverend Sharpton is on it", doesn't qualify as incitement to you, then your're too intellectually dishonest to converse with. Go tell it to the relatives of the murdered, coward.

Boorring, I was bit too flip in my last reply last night, for which I apologize. Yes, go ahead and criticize comments like those made by Boortz all you want. Before making sweeping generalizations that encompass dozens of broadcasters, and millions of listeners, however, perhaps people like Drum and yourself should endeavor to achieve some measure of self awareness and begin to grasp that there are people within your tribe who are every bit as a execrable as those you denounce, thus giving you pause before painting with such a broad brush. Of course, given that people, like the coward above, employ logic which would entail concluding that O.J. did not kill people, since he was acquitted of murder, asking for some measure of self-awareness here is likely a futile request.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

DH Walker, I've heard many, many, Democrats insinuate that working class white Americans are just too stupid to recognize that it is in their interest to vote for Democrats. The sentiment was particularly rampant in the wake of the 2002 mid-terms in forums such as this, and is readily seen in archives. There is not a single vice that your opponents have, and is denounced by you, that your own tribe does not also practice with enthusiasm, and vice versa.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Flanders: As far as I can tell, nobody has addressed my comment on Steele.

As far as I can tell, Flanders never addressed the fact that his bizarre nonsense lies that "Regardless of what the liberals claim, everyone can see which party has black people in real positions of power and responsibility, and which one hauls them out every two years for elections. Rhetoric and actions are two different things" and "Obama is pretty much the only serious black politician the Democrats have currently fielded. Republicans had Powell and Rice as serious presidential possibilities" were blown out of the water and that he was thoroughly humiliated. A person of integrity would have admitted they were wrong and/or deceitful and apologized.

Well, that's what happens when you have no sense of shame....

Posted by: Stefan on April 13, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

DH Walker, I've heard many, many, Democrats insinuate that working class white Americans are just too stupid to recognize that it is in their interest to vote for Democrats.

The difference here is that it's not a categorical statement about white people; and besides, this is always backed up (often at length, which if you read any analysis pieces after the 2004 elections, you'd know) by a non-racist explanation contrasting economic interests and social values interests. So, yeah, as usual, you're presenting a superficial version of what's going on.

There is not a single vice that your opponents have, and is denounced by you, that your own tribe does not also practice with enthusiasm, and vice versa.

Assuming I'm right at guessing what you're even talking about here... The difference here is that when liberals do stupid things, you're as likely as not to see criticisms from fellow liberals. Really, look above - I've referred to Sharpton as a sleazeball and an ambulance chaser that the Dems are better distancing themselves from. On the other side, whenever a conservative does something comparable (or far, far worse), I have to listen to a deafening chorus of conservative apologists. The fact that we're even talking about Sharpton on a thread about Boortz proves this.

So, it's not about comparative sins, it's about the discrepancy of reaction, and of position discipline. The mere fact that the bug up your ass is unanimous liberal denunciation of Sharpton points this out pretty clearly. Liberals generally don't think of themselves as a "tribe", no matter how natural it is for you to think of things in those terms.

... begin to grasp that there are people within your tribe who are every bit as a execrable as those you denounce ...

Just to be clear - are you saying that you've completely ignored the earlier posts (from myself and others) about the context-based nature of racism in American society? Because completely ignoring us spelling this out for you is the only way you could still be harping on this.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

dh walker Because completely ignoring us spelling this out for you is the only way you could still be harping on this.

well, there IS his OC disorder. he has trouble focusing on the big picture and letting go of whatever narrow counter theme he's latched onto like a pit bull that day.

Posted by: will's therapist on April 13, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

he has trouble focusing on the big picture and letting go of whatever narrow counter theme he's latched onto like a pit bull that day.

Yeah, well, the bulk of Will's posts suggest the truism that if you afford yourself a wide enough interpretive lattitude (by not cluttering things up with a lot of depth and nuance), then making any point you want just becomes a high-school-level rhetorical exercise.

If he put half that effort into actually understanding the things he talks about, well, then he would have a lot less to talk about, I guess.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, yes, DH, I know you like to pat yourself on the back and think that the people you associate with are morally superior to those you oppose. Unfortunately, there just isn't any empirical reason to think it is true. Tell me, what is worse that using racist rhetoric which helps incite a mass murder, if you can divorce yourself fromm the delusion that Sharpton's actions weren't racist, and didn't play a role in a mass murder?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

To be clear, I'm not saying that the condescending attitude that some Democrats often have about working class white people being unable to recognize their best interests is as racist as some Republicans' attitudes regarding blacks being unable to recognize their best interests. I'm saying that they are both obnoxiously condescending attitudes, however, that are directed towards a large mass of people that Democrats and Republicans are too dull-witted to see as individuals.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, yes, DH, I know you like to pat yourself on the back and think that the people you associate with are morally superior to those you oppose. Unfortunately, there just isn't any empirical reason to think it is true.

Other than all the specific stuff that you're quite noticeably not responding to, you mean? This bit of hand-waving on your part doesn't let you off the hook, you know.

I'm saying that they are both obnoxiously condescending attitudes, however, that are directed towards a large mass of people that Democrats and Republicans are too dull-witted to see as individuals.

Condescending, definitely. And yet again, you're comparing two things that are only similar on a superficial level. As I just said, I've read all kinds of analysis pieces that at least try to understand why certain people vote against their economic interests in favor of perceived moral issues. How many position papers have you read from conservatives that attempt to understand just why black folks are so stupid? Or do they just take that as a given? And which attitude is more condescending? Which position is more morally reprehensible?

Tell me, what is worse that using racist rhetoric which helps incite a mass murder, if you can divorce yourself fromm the delusion that Sharpton's actions weren't racist, and didn't play a role in a mass murder?

Well, I'll take a shot and name one thing that's worse: using fear-mongering rhetoric and outright lies to justify a war which costs untold civilian lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, national security and international credibility. That's worse. But that's probably not the answer you wanted, is it?

For the zillionth time, I am not defending Sharpton. I can't stand Sharpton, straight up. I'm perfectly willing to say that his past race-baiting, and his subsequent utter lack of remorse for it, really ought to disqualify him from being taken seriously.

But why is Sharpton even relevant to whether or not conservative talk radio is racist or not? The only possible relevance that Sharpton can possibly have to the current discussion is the standard, overused "well he does it too" conservative excuse, which is the oldest irrelevant rationalization in the book.

Jesus, how many times does this need to be spelled out for you? And no, I'm not so much patting myself on the back for understanding this very basic point, as much as I am frustrated that you refuse to listen to it.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

As you can see all I really have guilt by association - Sharpton stood silent while someone else said something and that's incitement. That certainly compares unfavorably with demagoguery that kills tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of our citizens - after all, I've repeatedly said that Bush was preferable to Sharpton as President.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

We probably ought stop calling such slime "conservative" and tag it "righty" instead.

Posted by: Scorpio on April 13, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Who's hand waving, exactly? A discussion takes place about the damage that racist rhetoric causes. Instead of simply saying that the comments Boortz made are reprehensible, Kevin Drum makes a comment that covers dozens and dozens of broadcasters, and implicates millions of listeners. It is noted that such a generalization is a little rich coming from someone who belongs to a party which honors a speaker, with a valuable time slot at their convention, who has spoken of "driving white interlopers" from a neighborhood, and stood silent while an associate next to him promised that a "cracker" would be made to "suffer", and that the original speaker was on the case, subsequent to the "white interloper's" business being visited with mass murder.

In response, we have Democrats in this forum who still maintain that there was nothing racist in the Sharpton's actions, or that the people murdered in Freddy's aren't the victims of racism, racism that Sharpton encouraged, because, well, because they were white, and anyways, look at what George Bush is doing in Iraq!!!! Hand waving indeed.

Jesus, how many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you best get your own tribe (as much as you deny your tribalist behavior) in order, prior to making broad generalizations about the moral failings of the tribe you oppose?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I, on the other hand rise above tribalism by ignoring the mass murder done by my candidate George W. Bush. A mass murder that doesn't require guilt by association, words that didn't just incite a few morons to do horrible things, but bamboozled my tribe into the slaughter of people who aren't my tribe.

See, I support mass murder when my tribe does it on a grand scale and so I have the right to lecture your tribe about "mass murders" that while serious don't really rise to the level of thousands of human beings (well, not really humans they aren't my tribe so who cares).

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

I see the coward is in full hand waving mode. If you think the Iraq war is an instance of mass murder, by all means say so. Given I'm not making any broad generalizations about any particular large group's propensity for mass murder, it doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Finally, given you are to stupid to grasp it, coward, I will explain it; when you choose to associate with people who promise to make others suffer, after you have promised to drive those same people out, you are complicit in what follows.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Who's hand waving, exactly?

Um, considering that you still haven't addressed a single specific point that's been raised to you, that would be "you".

Jesus, how many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you best get your own tribe (as much as you deny your tribalist behavior) in order, prior to making broad generalizations about the moral failings of the tribe you oppose?

Yes, yes, how dare we not conform ourselves to your stereotypes. How dare we confusingly act like individuals, rather than the collective you Hannity- and Limbaugh-eating sheep define yourselves to be.

I see the coward is in full hand waving mode

That "hand-waving" comment really got under your skin, huh?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

DH, you haven't raised any points, other than to say than when black people say that white people are to be driven out and made to suffer, and then those white people are subsequently murdered, it it doesn't amount to racism because the murder victims are white, and that it is acceptable to honor the people who engaged in the rhetoric because, well, just because, and, look over there!.....IRAQ!!!!!!!GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, on a thread about the racists that infest Republican Talk Radio I have turned it into a dialog about a guy I cannot conclusively demonstrate actually got anyone killed, and then I accuse others of hand waving when they point out that I'm on weak ground because I've said I would rather give my support to a guy whose words demonstratively caused thousands of deaths. Am I funny or what?

What's particularly amusing to me is that I harp on an example of someone whose rhetoric has changed (note, for example, I don't have any examples of racist or inflammatory remarks from the convention I am obsessed with) in a giant hand waving attempt to distract from the ongoing covert and overt racism that is Republican Talk Radio.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

other than to say than when black people say that white people are to be driven out and made to suffer, and then those white people are subsequently murdered, it it doesn't amount to racism because the murder victims are white,

Where, where did I ever say this? Please, Will, cite a specific post time. You'll forgive me if I manage to believe that you're full of shit until you do.

Seriously. You'll continue to make an ass of yourself until you get it through your thick head that liberals don't take the same group-think approach to politics that conservatives do. I know you're so inured to that style that it's a box you can't think outside of, but you owe it to yourself to try. Maybe, maybe then you'll understand why bringing up Sharpton is irrelevant in a discussion about conservative talk radio. But then again, if you give up "but he does it too", how will you be able to explain away anything that any conservative ever does? You may be forced to take a principled moral stand, and we can't be having that sort of thing, can we?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

And before I forget:

and, look over there!.....IRAQ!!!!!!!GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!

Um, Will, you specifically asked me what was worse than things Sharpton said. This bullshit war is plainly worse. Period.

Did you not want an answer to that question? Or are you really so stupid that you thought no one would be able to come up with anything worse than Al Sharpton?

You were the one insinuating that this was the worst thing in the world. And then you whine when this is disproven. Way to go.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

To be fair, I believe that was the fake Will Allen.

I am still formulating my response to end this ridiculous obsession over Al Sharpton and the inference, however.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

B: Well, the 3:04 clearly was fake Will. The real Will is nowhere near that honest. :)

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

O.K., DH, let's try this on for size...

"There's an entire dimension to the whole race issue that you're pretending doesn't exist, and that's one of power differential. While anti-black racism and anti-white racism are morally equivalent (and we agree on this), they are not practically equivalent."

Seriously, half-wit; it doesn't get much more practically equivalent than being murdered, so, no, in the context of what occurred subsequent to Sharpton's racist behavior, there were no practical differences, no matter that anti-white racism was involved.

That your titanic intellect is still unable to grasp this is unsurprising, in that it also cannot grasp what is objectionable about listening to people, people who willingly belong to a party which honors the likes of Sharpton, make generalizations about the racism of millions of people, listeners of conservative talk radio, that they don't know. Oh, no, your tribe doesn't take a group-think approach to politics, not at all. Your complete lack of self-awareness would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.

Say, Einstein, do ya' 'spose if a member of the Shriner's Club were to make a comment about the unfortunate headwear worn by many of those who attend tractor-pulls, maybe, just maybe, somebody might note the incongruity of it? Not in what passes for thought in your skull, apparently.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, DH, I overestimated your intellect, which is a constant worry, and assumed your would understand by the context of our conversation that I was asking what was worse, in terms of racist rhetoric, than that which contributes to a mass murder. Stalin killing forty million was pretty bad, and I apologize for not excluding that from our conversation as well.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, coward, vowing to drive white interlopers out, and standing silent when a person next to you vows to make the white interlopers suffer, and says you are on it, doesn't morally implicate you in the subsequent murder of the white interlopers at all, and really, those white interlopers have been dead for a while now, so why the obsession with it? Really.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

After all, there's a huge difference between being dead because you are the victim of (purported) incitement and being dead because you happen to be living somewhere the leader of my tribe wants to invade your country. The fact is, it isn't really mass murder when the leader of my tribe does it.

Look, I have the right to cast aspersions on your pointing out the racist tone of Republican Radio because I'm pure enough to choose the right kind of mass murderer to support - even though no one here has expressed support for the guy I have defamed saying he incited mass murderer.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, coward, I don't care about your views of Iraq, or George Bush, or your opinions of my views of them. Say whatever you wish. I am curious, though; would you explain, since I am not making any generalizations about any large groups of people having a larger propensity for mass murder, what your comments have to do with this thread?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Oh wait, I forgot, my tribe's leader is still getting people killed right now. But that's okay because someone stood by someone else who said something inflammatory and that makes them a paraiah for all time.

That's what it is that gives me moral authority to hand wave away the racists on Republican Talk Radio.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Hey coward, can't you see that I'm busy distracting the rubes from racists by talking about someone I claim incited a mass murder and you are making it hard by talking about someone who actually incited a mass murder?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Coward, this is pretty juvenile, even for you. I never said Sharpton should be a paraiah for all time, mereley that it was incongruent (idiotic as well, actually) to honor him while attributing racism to millions of people you don't know.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

So goes the echo chamber here. Unfortunately typical. Keep waving those hands, coward.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

That's right coward, I need to talk about Sharpton because I can't defend the racists that infest Republican Talk Radio. But I'm thrilled that someone cares enough about me to take the time to mock my idiotic hand waving.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Whoever is impersonating Will Allen, please stop.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'll simply note that I never once defended the comments made Boortz, and in fact described them as reprehensible. Booorring, I appreciate your and Daryl's civil tone.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

For example, there's nothing racist in

SAVAGE: If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office.
source

Anyone who says otherwise is obviously supporting Al Sharpton for President. Wait, I mean anyone who says that statement is racists IS Al Sharpton for President. Damn, I'm not getting my talking points right. Anyway, you know what I'm imagining in my head that I'm saying. It's really witty if I could just get it out.

(it's not impersonation, it's mocking - the guy's a half-wit whose insistence on talking about Sharpton is exactly the hand waving he accuses others of doing. He pretends to be above "tribes" but has expressed the view that Bush, who has killed people, is a better presidential candidate than Sharpton, who has not. He discourages intellectual discourse by presenting opinion - as evidenced by his fundamental complaint about Sharpton - as established fact and by bullying with selective readings of posts then complains loudly when others refute his plain meanings)

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'll note that the coward had dishonestly implied or said that I denied there were no racists in conservative talk radio. As is typical, the coward is lying.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Let's take a look at a prime example:

Seriously, half-wit; it doesn't get much more practically equivalent than being murdered, so, no, in the context of what occurred subsequent to Sharpton's racist behavior, there were no practical differences, no matter that anti-white racism was involved.

Here the focus is obviously on the deaths. In the context of Sharpton this is a vital point. See, when it is convenient for Will, he focuses on the dead. But when confronted with the fact that he has supported a mass murderer on a grand scale he switches back to racism. Note the name calling, note the focus off the topic, and then notice in other posts (real not mocking) his complaint when the topic is extended in a natural direction .This is not someone interested in intellectual discussion, only pseudo-intellectual bullying.

Posted by: coward on April 13, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Will, you've spent the last day here doing nothing but try to distract from the cesspool of racism that is Republican talk radio by talking about incitement to "mass murder." All I was really trying to do with that last Will Allen post was point out that all of your bluster does nothing to demonstrate that Republican Talk Radio is, without question, infested with racism. Sure, you can talk about someone who said something more than a decade ago, but that changes nothing.

Racist Republicans have nothing to do with anything you've been spouting. The fact that Sharpton said some racist things a decade ago doesn't change Savage's recent comments, nor does it change Boortz racist comments. Sharpton's convention message was not racist, nor can you point to any recent racist message from Sharpton. And the moment you start talking about dead people you lose all credibility because you support people whose rhetoric, though not couched in explicitly racist terms, literally does kill.

Stop waving your hands about, it looks spastic.

Posted by: coward on April 13, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Claims that Democrats should remain silent about racism from conservatism because of racism from liberals are ridiculous, because liberals have actually done something about the issue, whereas conservatives have offered no viable alternative/incentive, and instead offer criticism and criticism. If there were valid incentives, you would see the support. But you don't, for a reason. Future events can shift the voting demographic, but as they are now, minority groups (not generally racial) are with Democrats for a reason.

"Jesus, how many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you best get your own tribe (as much as you deny your tribalist behavior) in order, prior to making broad generalizations about the moral failings of the tribe you oppose?"

"Oh, no, your tribe doesn't take a group-think approach to politics, not at all."

First off, I like these condascending remarks over "tribalism", as if that is not a natural by-product of being a part of something, as opposed to being a part of nothing. To sit on the side-lines idley by and offer criticisms while the dirty work is being done is quite a high-minded enterprise. I did that too, until I realized reality and got involved. Also, I doubt there are noticeable individuals out there who don't belong to a "tribe", whether your tribe is a family, club, etc. In terms of politics, that would be a political party, a political movement, a political state, etc. Stone-throwing in a glass house, and such.

Will, you are so determined on hammering home a point about Al Sharpton, and using that revelation to chastise any Democrat from stating the obvious about conservatives and their checkered relationship on matters of race, when any member of the Democratic Party has a suspect past. In this case, it would be Al Sharpton, who was allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Al Sharpton, who had made suspect remarks in 1987 during the Tawana Brawley incident, as well as arguably inciting a riot at Freddie's Fashion Mart in 1995. Because of these past involvements, you want the Democrats to stop harping on the Republicans on racism, because they have no "moral authority". The ensuing result would be to have the Democratic Party immobilized while conservative talk radio hosts and television contributors continue insinuations such as:

"With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race."
Michael Savage, but you'd think it was from a nazi

"This year a man named Hal Turner sat before his computer at his suburban home in North Bergen, New Jersey, posting bomb-making tips on his website, hailing the firebombing of an apartment containing "Savage Negroes" and calling for the murder of immigrants. "When enough illegal aliens get killed they will stop coming to the country!" Turner wrote.

Turner was once a prominent activist in New Jersey's Republican Party. To area conservatives, he was best known by his moniker for call-ins to the Sean Hannity Show, "Hal from North Bergen." For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner's occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News's Hannity and Colmes. Today, Turner lurks on the fringes of the far right, spouting hate-laced tirades on his webcast radio show. Hannity, meanwhile, remains mum about his former alliance with the neo-Nazi, homing in instead on the supposed racism of black and Latino Democrats."
Sean Hannity and his questionable company a Neo-Nazi

"I kind of like that analogy that he is the Donavan McNabb of the U.S. Senate-"
Rush Limbaugh on Barak Obama

Press passes cant be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president.
Ann Coulter

"I saw Cynthia McKinney's hairdo yesterday -- saw it on TV. I don't blame that cop for stopping her. It looked like a welfare drag queen was trying to sneak into the Longworth House Office Building. That hairdo is ghetto trash. I don't blame them for stopping her. Now, let's see if Media Matters will pick up on that one. "Boortz calls McKinney welfare drag queen." [laughs]

So, well, that's why I do things like that, just to give them something to write about."
Boortz, before the apology

"In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an expression of intolerance as well."
David Horowitz, painting a brush against his fellow community, how dare he. Yet nothing changed.

The standard response will be to post examples of liberal racism. Go ahead. Then the topic will branch to representation by minorities according to party, and then you'll get a wrinkle in the brain.

Again, I say Will Allen, you really lack perspective, and should wise up. Yes, some people should be chastised for their actions. Yes, in light of Sharpton's past record there is an argument to be made as to his continued involvement. But what was done was done, and your proposal is so ineffective that you can't really be serious, merely arguing for argument's sake, which is/was irrelevant.

You want that the DNC should stop refuting any remarks by an opposition party ineffective in their support for minorities (or else minority groups would show their support for them), and continue to let them muddy up the race issue when it so obvious on whose side you have a better chance at the table, so that opposition party can, in effect, actively disparage those who gave a damn. Gave a damn in a politically calculated move, possibly, but actually gave a damn for an ultimately moral cause, and garnered credibility with the minority experience they for now enjoy.

Yet you continue to harp over the presence of Al Sharpton. This is a lazy point. Also on the convention floor were Barak Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Carol Mosely-Braun, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Nancy Pelosi, Madeliene Albright, among others. Sureley they have controversy about them, about which you can construe murder (Clinton and his alleged "Wag the Dog" bombings, Clark and his alleged activities, etc).

You can and find points of disagreement with many, if not all of them (in fact, you highlighted Ted Kennedy in a previous post). Yet, your solution is to offer party-paralysis while trying to enforce uniform standards of thought. All the while the opposition party continues their tactics, while we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Al Sharpton spoke, but nobody really cared. He was a speaker, with a suspect past. But he was a populist who gave good quotes, similar to Pat Buchanan.

But in all this nonsensical back and forth, we lose site of the broader picture: that minorities are with the Democrats for a reason. What do minorities care about ideological impure-happenstance? They want better opportunities for their families and loved ones. To them, they won't boil over because of an inconsistent fiscal or federalist ideology, but rather because their stomach is grumbing, they are in financial trouble, or they are being discriminated against. Things like that are a bigger concern than logical rigidity over all of the political parties members. Democrats. For better or worse, Democrats.

If a concerted effort were made to denounce Al Sharpton, it would have been all in vain and an utter waste. That your respect of the party would go up a little would give no practical net benefit, because I believe you and others like you would find yet another example of a Democrat for which to remain skeptical. Is there any pure party? No. And so on and on and on this farce goes, until it was obvious this was just a ploy at faux outrage. Forget it. There are bigger issues.

During the same 2004 convention of which you speak of so vociferously as allowing Al Sharpton a speaking arrangement, there was another speaker as well:

"We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots
who opposed the war, and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
Barak Obama

What an inclusive message. Quite a nice change from the use of division over race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. Barak Obama's opponent, Alan Keyes, was flown in by the Republican Party as a challenger because of his race. He lost, and never conceded defeat through the phone.

Get some perspective, because your point, while valid, has a ridiculous inference, because it is inconsequential to the net effect the Democrats have made for minorities. While Republicans can whine about it, and do their outreach, the fact is that minorities are generally not with them for a reason, and the current political trends don't foster well for an increasingly Republican minority-demographic. Wrong or right, that's how I see it being for now.

Unless someone takes me way out of context, I am in very little mood to continue involvment in this thread due to obligations. Like a life. That said, I will still read and respond to Will's out of fairness.

That being said, I would have loved to read tbrosz's response, but he hasn't yet, and that is another example of this utterly wasteful exercise.

After this thread is over, after other topics are thrown in, the facts will remain the same: Democrats have minorities for a reason. But I'll let Al Sharpton end my remarks:

"Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African-American voters. And you aksed [asked] the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.

You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.

That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.

We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us.

Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats."
Al Sharpton

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Well, yes, coward, you imbecile, when someone gives commentary about whether various forms racism are "practically equivalent" then it is necessary to examine the practical effects of racist behavior. Apparently you are too stupid to grasp this. Boortz said some reprehensible things about a member of Congress, the practical effects of which are at this time not clear. Other people on conservative talk radio have made racist remarks, so Drum labels the entire medium, encompassing millions of people, a sewer of racism. Meanwhile, the party that Drum chooses to belong to honors a man whose racist behavior had the practical effect of contributing to a mass murder.

Your position seems to be that because the murdered have been dead a while, and because George Bush ordered an invasion (illegitimate, in your view) of Iraq which also killed people, Sharpton being honored by Drum's party, two years ago, is wholly irrelevant to Drum condemning millions of people he doesn't know as part of a racist sewer. In other words, the behavior of the groups that Drum associates with are not to be discussed when Drum condemns other groups, no matter how Drum's associates have behaved. Golly gee, by this reasoning, O.J. Simpson's new girlfriend would be a good person to denounce domestic violence practiced by others! Brilliant! We stand in awe of your titanic intellect!

Also, if you had an ounce of honesty, or the ability to read, you would note that I called no person a name unitl after they indicated they desired to have an invective-filled exchange, by their own behavior. Not for the first time, it must be said that many participants in this forum think that it is notable that others mirror their uncivil tone, once again demonstrating a nearly infantile lack of self-awareness. Does it ever, ever, become evident to a cretin such as yourself that if one desires a civil exchange, one should be civil? How goddamned stupid are you?

Finally, all you were trying to do in your last Will Allen post was lie, and can't even achieve the honesty to admit that, so instead you simply lied again. Congratulations.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

In the opening remarks of my previous post, replace liberals with Democrats, and conservatives with Republicans.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Boorring, I appreciate the effort you put into that post; I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately, since I explicitly stated that there was nothing wrong with criticizing the specific remarks made by Boortz, Savage, or anybody else, much of it was irrelevant to anything I said.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Jesus, how many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you best get your own tribe (as much as you deny your tribalist behavior) in order, prior to making broad generalizations about the moral failings of the tribe you oppose?"
Will Allen

My thesis stands intact.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, no, Boorring, it doesn't, because this statement...

"Claims that Democrats should remain silent about racism from conservatism because of racism from liberals are ridiculous"

.....ignores the fact that I explicitly stated Democrats need not remain silent. You seem to have, for a reason I cannot determine, decided that "should remain silent about racism from conservatism" is an equivalent statement to "making broad generalizations about millions of people you don't know". They are not.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Make that, "refrain from making broad generalizations of millions of people you don't know".

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Before making sweeping generalizations that encompass dozens of broadcasters, and millions of listeners, however, perhaps people like Drum and yourself should endeavor to achieve some measure of self awareness and begin to grasp that there are people within your tribe who are every bit as a execrable as those you denounce, thus giving you pause before painting with such a broad brush."

For god's sake, did you even read my response?! Yes, you gave me pause, and then I responded with practicality to a naive point. Read my response again, with an eye on the bigger picture.

There is no pure party, they are judged by their actions. Democrats have more moral authority than Republicans on the issue of race, despite one speaker on a stage in 2004.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yes I did, Booring, and when you said, in your first paragraph....

"Claims that Democrats should remain silent about racism from conservatism because of racism from liberals are ridiculous"

..you immediately went off-track, for I explicitly stated that Democrats need not remain silent. Beginning a thesis with a false premise is a good way to waste a fine effort. If you want me to adress another false premise, it would be when you write...

"Will, you are so determined on hammering home a point about Al Sharpton, and using that revelation to chastise any Democrat from stating the obvious about conservatives and their checkered relationship on matters of race, when any member of the Democratic Party has a suspect past."

... this is untrue, in that what I object to is giving someone with Sharpton's past a place of honor, as speaking to the National Convention is. I know it is your premise that such a gesture is without meaning, a premise I find extraordinarily dubious, in that people lobby extremely hard for such an honor. I never stated that Democrats couldn't criticize Republican on matters of race, as long as there were racist Democrats. I stated that one should give pause before consigning millions of people you don't know to a racist sewer, and that it was objectionable to honor people with Sharpton's racist past. By the way I've said the same thing with regard to people like Strom Thurmond, and believe me, if the Republicans were to ever honor Michael Savage or the like, I'd be saying the same thing.

To draw a parallel, my major break from the Democrats came when I saw the refugee camps created by Pol Pots murderous work of the mid to late 70s, heard first hand accounts of what the Khmer Rouge did, and then read what the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate, George McGovern, said in the well of the Senate, in 1975, as it was debated whether aid to the Lon Nol government should be cut, with the full knowledge that Pol Pot would soon come to power. I concluded that a man so naive or treacherous could be nominated by a major party was indicative of that party being fatally naive, or treacherous to a dastardly degree. Having said that, I loathe Republicans who question the patriotism of Democrats they do not know, because those Democrats have differing views of defense policy, and I find it despicable when prominent Republicans engage in that sort of demagoguery. This is the mindless tribalism which I despise.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

What I am trying to say is that the Democrats should be responsible for the words of Al Sharpton and that no one should be responsible for the dead people who are not of my tribe. I want to make a distinction based on how those people died because it makes me seem human. If I admitted that dead people killed by my tribe leader are just as dead as dead people killed by someone who heard words from someone I despise.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Will, you've spent the last day here doing nothing but try to distract from the cesspool of racism that is Republican talk radio by talking about incitement to "mass murder."

For real. Will has expended thousands of words babbling on and on in this thread, all to prove that he simply doesn't know what the word "irrelevant" means. It boggles the mind.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

No, coward, you illiterate numbskull, Democrats are responsible for honoring Al Sharpton. How do you manage to feed yourself?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

No, coward, you illiterate numbskull, Democrats are responsible for honoring Al Sharpton. How do you manage to feed yourself?

No, Will, you illiterate numbskull, the Democratic party leadership is responsible for honoring Al Sharpton, not individual democrats.

Hungry?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, D.H., aren't the hats people wear to tractor pulls ridiculous? When's the next Shriner's meeting?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, DH, I guess I didn't know the leadership was appointed by the Pope. Do they wear red hats as well?

You're right of course, in that it isn't easy for the rank and file to influence the leadership, but given that there was more than one Democrat here who denied that Sharpton had engaged in racist behavior, it isn't altogether surprising that the leadership behaves in the manner it does.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, D.H., aren't the hats people wear to tractor pulls ridiculous? When's the next Shriner's meeting?

See what I mean? And it's not like there are online dictionaries into which you can type the string "irrelevant", or anything.

But back to the original point, here (does anyone still remember that), and that's conservative racism and its instances found on conservative radio talk shows. This is a social phenominon that isn't proven by a single statement by Boortz. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met hundreds of racist conservatives in my life. It's amazing how much of the "inside track" you're treated to if you're white before people realize that you're one of them race traitors. These are largely the same people that have to get their daily dose of Rush so they all know what to think, and it's always the same boilerplate crap. Always.

So, Will's mileage may differ, of course, but most of the conservatives I know expend a lot of time and energy turning themselves into clones of their favorite conservative idols (often times down to the Rich-Little-like impersonations, I shit you not, that they do). So, while I'm impressed by Will's purely semantic efforts to manufacture equivalency here, his statements have very little to do with actual reality. At least the reality that has to do with the actual real world, which I actually live in, and presumably, he does as well.

So, I'm curious. Can Will say anything at all that's actually on-topic? The topic being, you know, racism in conservative radio? Or will it be just more irrelevant horseshit?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 13, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Allow me to finish the debate, once and for all:

Conservative Radio, the original topic
Kevin Drum called conservative talk radio a sewer, because of it's incessant need to subtly or overtly insinuate bigoted opinion. He claimed that he (Boortz) wouldn't even dare to do it unless he knew it would create a positive response from a big part of his audience. His generalization was that a majority of Boortz's audience was of like-mind with Boortz, or sympathized with his intent. I agreed, because I too noted (and documented a fraction) of the intent among many in the conservative talk radio industry to consistently and insidiously push the topic of racism, homophobia, religious division, etc.

That the overwhelming majority of talkers on the radio are conservative, I would tend to agree that the consumer's of that program like what they hear. Otherwise, this would fly in the face of the whole theory of ratings in the first place, and the commercial world would turn upside down. Valid inference. Do some listen for entertainment? I guess. But alas, a Pew Research Center Poll confirms the reasoning:

"Stable Radio News Audiences

The percentage of Americans who listen to radio news has remained relatively stable in recent years. Four-in-ten say they listened to news on the radio yesterday. This is virtually unchanged from 2002 (41%) and down only marginally from 2000 (43%).

Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call in to discuss current events, public issues and politics. The talk radio audience remains a distinct group; it is mostly male, middle-aged, well-educated and conservative. Among those who regularly listen to talk radio, 41% are Republican and 28% are Democrats. Furthermore, 45% describe themselves as conservatives, compared with 18% who say they are liberal. (emphasis mine)

National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR. In contrast to the talk radio audience, the NPR audience is fairly young, well-educated and Democratic. Fully 41% of regular NPR listeners are Democrats, 24% are Republicans."

Al Sharpton

But what caused us to focus our discussion on Al Sharpton, from conservative talk radio? Your statements"

"So, tell me, Alek, if racists are "almost always" conservative (I'm not a conservative, btw), why do the Democrats see Al Shaprton's consitutency as being so important as to warrant giving him a prime time slot at their National Convention?"

and:

"Alek, Sharpton is a blatant racist, with a blatantly racist constitutecy, and was given a prime time speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Why would this be, if nearly all racists are conservative?"

and:

"do the Democrats normally give nobodies prime-time speaking slots at their national conventions, or are they not idiots, and thus reserve those spots for people who represent important constituencies, in this instance, the important constituency of racist Democrats?"

You responded early in the thread by stating that because Al Sharpton, his actions explained before, was a featured speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, this was an implicit endorsement or an implicit honor for the man's past. For his part, a total of three years before the convention, Sharpton apologized for his alleged role in the Freddy's riot in 1995:

"I would not use 'white' again," he told the Daily News in 1996, "because his sin was not based on his whiteness, but his practices."
Al Sharpton's Jewish Problem

Take from that what you will, and be sure to read the whole article for the perspectives of other Jews who also do not think he is an anti-Semite, along with those who do. This highlights his ambiguity, and ambiguity which I really believe played a part in his being allowed to speak at the convention in 2004. For example, the lack of three dozen Jews to come to a consensus as to your point that Al Sharpton is a racist in spite of his history undercuts your foundation and highlights, again, the ambiguity that I believe plays a part in his social status.

To address the other part, I said Al Sharpton does not matter, repeatedly. My context was in the broad movement for minorities. My intent was that because Al Sharpton could never be elected to high office, he is not someone who you should consider a threat to your sensibilities. I likened him to a fringe populist candidate the like of Pat Buchanan. One good for populist quotes and good speeches, of which he is. I was partially wrong, because Al Sharpton does matter in New York politics, apparently, according to one of his critics Fred Seigel.

But, on a national level, I still see Al Sharpton as a populist figure, irrespective of his local influence. In the broad terms for minorities of all stripes (black, latino, gay, sikh, etc) and their struggle to help their own, Al Franken does not matter. What matters are the net effects and actions by the party that minorities use in order to help themselves out. But I musn't get ahead of myself, without furthering more on Al Sharpton.

You say that he shouldn't have been honored because of his racist past, and now I highlight his ambiguity in the here and now. I do not believe for a second Democrats allowed him to speak in spite of his racist past. I believe that it was a combination of his current ambuity regarding the issue, his power in New York politics, his influence among some in the black community and outside that community, that gave him the opportunity to speak. It was an eclectic group of speakers, from Wesley Clark to Madeliene Albright, from Tommy Lee Jones in the previous convention to Al Sharpton today. Did the Democrats honor Tommy Lee Jones past, or was it because he was a recognizable figure chosen in order to get more votes? Politics, Will Allen, that beast you must fail to rest with, and which highlights my point of Al Sharpton's eventual irrelevancy in the bigger picture.

Political Reality
In this thread, you stated earlier

"The tribalists which largely comprise our political parties have no principled objection to racism, as long as the political calculus indicates that tolerating the racists is a net political advantage."

And there you go, somewhat. My point that Al Sharpton doesn't matter, and my link between what started as a conversation about conservative radio and the eventual discussion about one black speaker on stage in the 2004 national convention is that politics makes strange bed-fellows. In the broad terms of the movement, the struggle for minorities to help their own, which you see today with Latinos, blacks, gays, etc, it is all about survival and getting what you need to attain that survival. When you are fat and content, then you can whine about logical inadequacies and the like. In the meantime, you play the political game in order to help yourself and your people.

You state:

"I stated that one should give pause before consigning millions of people you don't know to a racist sewer, and that it was objectionable to honor people with Sharpton's racist past. By the way I've said the same thing with regard to people like Strom Thurmond, and believe me, if the Republicans were to ever honor Michael Savage or the like, I'd be saying the same thing."(emphasis mine)

Both points, I have refuted.

You state:

"You seem to have, for a reason I cannot determine, decided that "should remain silent about racism from conservatism" is an equivalent statement to "making broad generalizations about millions of people you don't know". They are not."

My inference that you wanted Democrats to remain silent on the issue of race is the natural consequence of questioning the moral authority of one political tribe over another. When you question whether or not Democrats can answer the Republican claims of being racist, the natural inference is that they cannot. And, from this inference, they would have to remain silent, for the continue to talk would be futile, because they have their own problems with race. However, although politics plays the role in, well, politics, it stands to state that, as I asserted in my earlier thesis (the inaccurate beginning chopped off):

"..because liberals have actually done something about the issue, whereas conservatives have offered no viable alternative/incentive, and instead offer criticism and criticism. If there were valid incentives, you would see the support. But you don't, for a reason. Future events can shift the voting demographic, but as they are now, minority groups (not generally racial) are with Democrats for a reason."

This is why Al Sharpton is irrelevant, why politics makes strange bedfellows, and why your line of thinking would cause a ridiculous plan of action if followed, because you ignore the realities of poltics. I state again, and in finality.

There is no pure party, they are judged by their actions. Democrats have more moral authority than Republicans on the issue of race, despite one speaker on a stage in 2004.

Al. Sharpton. Is. Irrelevant.

What is relevant, and brings us back to the discussion, is that Democrats do have more of a moral authority by basis of their past actions, and their actions as a whole more than make up for the speeches of a few.

Now, I will go home and continue with other work. My fingers hurt.

Posted by: Boorring on April 13, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry Boorring that you had to type that. Not because you are wrong but because our Democrat hating friend Will cannot possibly make distinctions. The same guilt-by-association that makes him certain that Sharpton incited mass murder allows him to tar the entire Democratic Party, down to the non-entities that inhabit this board as complicit in Sharpton's supposed incitement. We are not talking about someone for whom reason and logic are merely bludgeons to be used against the tribe he hates. That's why it so bothers him to have such things used against him.

He waves his hands and shouts "Sharpton, Sharpton, Sharpton" but is infuriated when someone points out that it is inconsistent to hold Sharpton's words from a decade ago as beyond the pale (even though such rhetoric is no longer a staple of Mr. Sharpton's speeches) but to promote, not merely as a speaker, but as a leader, a man whose speech results in the slaughter of thousands.

Why is the death toll important? Because Will consistently mentions how unforgivable Sharpton's speech was because it resulted (in Will's mind) in the deaths of several people. This makes Sharpton complicit it mass murder. However, Will's tribe leader started a war against people who were not threatening us. This unprovoked war, which is based on the racist notion that we must kill people who don't look like us and live near the kind of people who attacked us, looks remarkably like his complaint about Sharpton. By the logic Will uses to complain that Democrats can't talk about the racists of Republican Talk Radio, Will has no moral authority to question Sharpton's involvement in a mass murder when he actively supports a mass murderer.

Posted by: on April 13, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Quite a novel, Boorring, and I am out of time, but if all it takes is some Jews who do not denounce Sharpton, in order to give him an aura of ambiguity, and thus worthy of honors from the leadership of the Democratic Party, I am sure some blacks can be found who will refrain from denouncing Boortz, and it will be just as meaningless. Also, instead of making false inferences, your analyis may be better if you simply read the plain meaning of words, like when I explicitly stated that criticizing the likes of Boortz was perfectly fine.

Finally, no, people who honor folks whose previous racist behavior has contributed to a mass murder have no moral authority to speak on matters of racism, even if you can find some jews to lend ambiguity. If the dead could be brought back to life, and they decided to lend ambiguity, you might have a point. They can't. And to head off the coward, yes, if one accepts the premise that the Iraq war is illegitimate, then there is nothing Gorge Bush can do to redeem himself, for that power is resting with those now gone.

Yes, DH, I know it is your fervent belief that when someone criticize's one group's racist behavior, it is irrelevent to mention the racist behavior that is tolerated by those being critical. As if it would be irrelevant to mention a police officr's tolerance of lawbreaking by someone he likes, when he arrests someone he doesn't for the same offense. This is a good example of how you are somewhat stupid.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, on, but as I noted above, I am perfectly willing to grant that if the Iraq war is illegitimate, then George Bush is iredeemable. However, this thread was not about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Logic isn't your strong suit, either, is it?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Coward, you long ago gave up credibility here. You support an actual mass murderer. You have no moral authority to complain about someone who might have contributed to a mass murder, no matter how much you believe he did.

The reasons why your tribe leader had a bunch of people killed don't matter because they can't be brought back from the dead to say whether they think it is okay that he had them killed.

You have given no evidence of actual racist behavior by the tribe you so hate. You have only given a single example of allowing someone with a questionable background a chance to speak long after such example had ceased to make such questionable comments. If the issue is his comments, then the deaths aren't a factor and your example is not relevant to the discussion. If the deaths are a factor then you must accept that, by your own logic, you and your tribe have no standing to comment on them.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the coward, who now is also using my name for him (really, must you persist in being so juvenile?), has actually accidentally said something correct, or at least half so. If the Iraq war is illegitimate, then Bush and his followers are iredeemable, and thay have no standing to speak on these matters again. No, whether the war is legitimate isn't up to those killed, just as it isn't up to those killed at Freddy's whether Sharpton is a racist, which is an objective fact. If those killed wanted to lend ambiguity by forgiving Sharpton or by forgiving Bush, fine, but they aren't around to do that. Really, though, what's eight dead people compared to ten years, right? Go, Reverend Al!!

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Coward, how many innocent Iraqis have died because your tribe leader wanted to go to war?

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I guess he must persist in being so juvenile. Oh, well.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 13, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Still, despite all of this, people cannot see the big picture. Despite all their actions, the allowance of one man to speak during a national convention has negated the efforts of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the women's liberation, etc.

Give me a break.

"Also, instead of making false inferences, your analyis may be better if you simply read the plain meaning of words, like when I explicitly stated that criticizing the likes of Boortz was perfectly fine."

leading to:

"Finally, no, people who honor folks whose previous racist behavior has contributed to a mass murder have no moral authority to speak on matters of racism, even if you can find some jews to lend ambiguity." (emphasis mine)

And that, my friends, is the end game. Thanks for giving me my "victory", Will. Because I guess when you say that the Democrats have no moral authority to speak on the issue of race, the correct inference is that they should still criticize...but pause and reconsider before they continue their disputes?

...

(Smile) Yeah, I think you sense it, so I won't say it, but you proved it for me, so thanks.

Your done with this discussion, and so am I. Only problem is, I'm right. Despite protestations to the contrary, I am due to historical and future events that will show all of this to be a meaningless exercise.

Just look the practical reality, and you'll come to that cold conclusion and realize this enormous waste of time. I have the unfair, hypocritical, cut-throat, juvenile political reality on my side.

As I said, whether you like it or not, minorities are with the Democrats for a reason, and Al Sharpton's presence will not shake them otherwise nor negate their strides throughout history. Political Reality. Out and over.

Posted by: Boorring on April 14, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

I guess our resident coward can't answer the question. How many innocent Iraqis have died as as a result of actions by your tribe leader? Let's see, assume 0.1% of Iraqis who die are "innocent." Iraqi body count gives the minimum number of dead civilians at over 30,000. That means your tribe leader has killed at least 30 innocent individuals. My choice of handles seems rather a minor issue now doesn't it? And look, your tribe leader has killed four times as many people as the man you pretend was the direct cause of eight deaths. Boy do you look foolish suggesting that Bush was a better Presidential candidate than Sharpton over the issue of dead people.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 14, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, coward, I never said that. I guess you are illiterate, as well as being off your meds, if your last incoherent post is any indicator.

Boorrring, I'll be quite happy to give you a break when the party you choose to belong to stops honoring people whose racist behavior contributes to mass murders. Fair enough?

I'll grant you this, however; I should have phrased it as, "No, people who choose to honor those whose racist behavior has contributed to mass murders have no greater moral authority than any other group, when it comes to speaking about racism." Because they don't, no matter how many ways you attempt to rationalize it in purely self-serving manner. Finally, the claim to moral superiority on the basis of electoral results is merely pathetic.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 14, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

"Your done with this discussion, and so am I."

Posted by: Boorring on April 14, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

I like the fact that my tribal leader has killed people not of my tribe. It makes me feel safe.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 14, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

I voted for Bush in 2000 because I though Gore was the most psychologically and emotionally insecure candidate since Nixon, and people like that are extremely dangerous when given great power.

I was right, just about the wrong man.

Posted by: Will Allen on April 14, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly