Do you have a cite supporting your claim that there are enough whire racists supporting the GOP to tip an election?
Check the results of the last 2 presidential elections, Baba. Pretty tight, huh? Wouldn’t take much to tip 'em, huh?
Use your common sense. No, you won’t find polls showing numbers of whites self-describing as racist, of course. You do accept, I trust, that there are far more whites than blacks in the US and that therefore there are likely far more white racists than black racists? But you only have to look at some of the people who get elected on Republican tickets - Lott, Coburn, Thurmond, Helms, Barr, ad nauseam … who are the comparable Democratic *black * racists, in Congress or just serious vote-getters for that matter, that John Corrado and presumably you too have tried to declare their moral equivalent?
That might be changing:
In addition to my concerns about runaway, unregulated corporatism where consolidation continues at a rapid pace towards creating certain quasi-monopolistic market forces, another thing that stinks of fascism is the hate speech, much of it that is so readily allowed on mainstream media. I’m not talking about simple smarmy insults; I’m taking about some stuff that is outright vicious, particularly against the Democrats and liberals in general.
Here is an entry from the Daily Kos, a liberal blog where a diarist did a satirical ‘rant’ against Republicans where they hyper linked things said by the right against the left, using their own words against them. You’ll find everything from suggestions of violence to accusations of their lack of patriotism simply for their viewpoint. Following some of these links you’ll find they may be from the same page, or linked to a subscription site. However following even a few of them makes the point.
What disturbs me is that we don’t hear concern about this from the so-called-liberal-mainstream-media. Do we see CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX or others calling their competitors out on this? Or the press? Radio is a hotbed of such comments. Not that the left is squeaky clean; there are a few comments that follow this article which express satisfaction from the notion of seeing the tables turned. And I’m sure examples from the left can be found (cough - Mike Malloy - cough). Yet do we see the same level of offensiveness from the left so widely distributed (at his time at least) over major media outlets? And when outright veiled threats, like some of these are being made, do not stir outrage from the general public, it’s not a good sign any way you look at it.
Let a liberal commentator make such retorts and they’re decried as extremist, tending to be shouted down. Much of this discourse in the Daily Kos article was made during the least election cycle. You wouldn’t find anything like this in mainstream public discourse during the Reagan era – I think he would have been personally offended by much of it. What’s changed? We haven’t seen this level of discourse and these accusations so freely thrown around since the time of McCarthy. When did it start becoming so prevalent? Even then, pundits didn’t talk publicly about using baseball bats to get their message across.
I assure you, if this viciousness continues to ramp up, it’s a sure sign of mass propaganda being accepted by the masses.
And before people start chiming in about free speech what about the new censorship with currently upgraded penalties for FCC fines for up to $500,000 per station for ‘indecent content’? Howard Stern has about had it with the whole broadcast thing because now, it’s not only about the F word or an exposed nipple, his advisors are not quite sure where the line is being drawn by the new regulations. These heavy fines, payable by the on-air personality are meant for create an environment of self-censorship where one slip could economically devastate some poor drive-time personality that doesn’t hit the 7 second delay button in time. And do you think there aren’t “concerned citizens” sitting out there ready to petition the FCC over the first untoward thing they dislike?
Fast-forward a continuation of this climate building over the next 10 years and what might America look like? If it’s OK to be fined into bankruptcy if someone is offended by your ‘unpatriotic’ political views? At this moment, I concede it seems a bit of a stretch, yet nor it is not a huge leap. An economic downturn, a terrorist attack or two, an Iraqi quagmire, greater favoritism towards corporations trumping the means for individuals to defend their rights, and it’s not much of a leap at all.
Desperate people do desperate things. While we are supposed to avoid 20th century comparisons here, that one fits all the models, and not only that of fascism.
Lastly, regarding most of the discussion on the previous page of this thread, I hope this points out that not all bigotry needs to be based on race.
You know, I would very much like to see one of our thoughtful Republicans explain or defend the (a)morality of this memo, or, alternatively, denounce it as not what they conceive their party to stand for.
The ‘morality’ of the memo? Are you joking? Generously assuming that the ‘cite’ is correct, so what? It’s a list of words that could be used to describe yourself and your opponent. Nothing more.
Methinks it would be more helpful if you and yours outlined what is your opposition to these words; certainly the other side is no stranger to using loaded words and phrases, so what gives?
That list (yes, it is legit) was written with the help of pollster, Frank Luntz, who used to work for Gingrich. A more recent example would be the AP FOIA disclosure of his meetings with Homeland Security’s Tom Ridge during the presidential campaign:
You mean there is no moral code governing political speech? I’m sure that that will come as no surprise to those of us who have been convinced that the Republican Party is “playing to the Religious Right” in its policies, rather than acting out of conviction. But I am surprised to see you admit it openly!
Doubtlessly, Brutus believes “win at any cost” is a virtue…
“Every vice is the corruption of a virtue.” – St. Augustine 
So, is it more virtuous to lose and therefore have no say in the affairs of government, or more virtuous to take amoral steps to win and therefore govern in a way you see as moral?
That is a completely philosophical question, of course; I ascribe to neither Democrats nor Republicans morality in campaigning or governing.
Ends justify the means, anyone?
That way lies madness me thinks…
So, Brutus, let me get this straight - you think it’s OK, within the confines of say, a debate on the floor of the Senate, to call the plans of your political opponents treasonous? To call those who propose such plans traitors? After all, treasonous and traitor are just two words, right?
Yes, neither side is adverse to using strong, loaded words to describe their opponents. The difference is, I have never seen a memo such as this from the leadership of the Democratic Party to it’s footsoldiers, instructing them to call the Republican Party traitors and homewreckers. If you can produce such a memo, I will accept that the Dems are as bad as you lot. But until then, I maintain that the Republican Party is the party of dirty tricks, spin, buzzwords and mudslinging rather than substantive debate on facts regarding issues of grave national importance.
I don’t see how that follows. What’s immoral about using negative words to describe your political opponents and positive words to describe you?
The fact that some words are so powerfully loaded that they have no place in political discourse. Words such as traitor, treason, coward, etc… really don’t help debate.
It depends on what one’s view of the purpose of “political discourse” is. You’re assuming it is to reach a rational policy. Many seem to feel that it is simply about forcing their will on others.
Think Brutus (no, not the SDMB Brutus, the Julius Caesar Brutus) and Marc Antony. Political tools who relied on rhetoric to manipulate general sentiment. Whether their intentions or the end results were desirable is not the point; it’s the use of pathos over logos I’m getting at.
Bite me. It’s correct, and you know it’s correct, too.
One more example of “They must be at least as bad as we are, so the facts to support that view must exist too” from the partisan right, immediately following one more case of “Party Before Country”. Shouldn’t be surprising, though, following the earlier example above of “I can’t deny it’s true, so I’ll pretend it doesn’t exist”. You’ve hit the trifecta of Hard-Right Self-Comforting Bullshit, 2005 Version, pal.
For those others who may be reading and may be able to understand: The people who differ with you are just as, at least as, responsible and patriotic citizens as you are. They contribute as much and expect as much in return as you do. They are not the enemy, they are your fellow citizens. A government must balance and represent the needs of all citizens, and must command the respect of all citizens. A faction that gains control by demonizing and alienating its opponents cannot do so and cannot govern credibly. Absorb that and we can continue.
But the goal isn’t to carefully debate the issues. The goal is to win the election and get your policies through, which means painting your side white and your opponent black.
Since when is the goal winning at all costs? I thought the job was to represent the people and be a servant of the people, not keep getting re-elected.
Man, I even managed that with a straight face. You guys must have been so impressed!
Don’t be such a fool. For the sake of argument, I am willing to give the dubious nature of the cite a pass, but a quick googling that same comments turned up naught but loony lefty sites. Go figure.
I never said either was bad. It’s politics. It’s using words to convince people to vote for you and not the other side.
Sadly, that is not the case in modern American politics.