Ph3ar my 5h1tty c0d1ng 5k1llz!
Try this again:
So saying something which can be construed (if one chooses to do so) as a racist comment (and in reality was more something which could be construed as a support for the half-century past ideals of someone else who has since renounced their racism) is enough to destroy a career.
Using an onerous slur which doesn’t need to be construed as anything because its meaning is plain on its face is all fine and well so long as the speaker apologizes and attempts to explain it away as a “slip of the tongue?!”
I’ve never heard of someone who is a public figure, an elected official, someone whose entire stock and trade is in the words that come out of his mouth who has a “slip of the tongue” of this sort which didn’t belie an underlying attitude. (See, as an example, the previously mentioned “Barney Fag” comment from Dick Armey.) I find it hard to believe that certain words – those which are not fit for public discourse, like slurs – just come tripping off the tongue glibly in such moments if they’re not a part of the speaker’s “private” vocabulary.
I simply cannot buy that seeing the word “Negro” on a page makes one slip up and say “nigger” in a public speech “accidentally.” It just doesn’t wash with me.
If Bustamonte weren’t from the party in the pocket of the NAACP, Alice Huffman would be calling for his head. I don’t think that anyone with any savvy in the fields of race and party politics has any significant doubt about that.
That said, if reporting this incident is part of some smear campaign, it’s the most toothless smear campaign I’ve ever seen. Compare and contrast: Arnold Schwarznegger’s long forgotten Oui interview from more than a quarter century ago has been analyzed and discussed on every network and news program and will probably get picked up in the next edition of the news weeklies. This thread was the first I heard about Busatamante’s “slip” which is certainly an indication of a much more disturbing and current frame of mind by the reputed front-runner in the polls for one of the most important gubernatorial offices in the country.
If Gary Coleman and Arianna Huffington must continue to pop up on national news programming and every itch and scratch Schwarznegger experiences must be broadcast from coast to coast, how much more important is it to hear stories like this?
TeaElle, he was saying, “Negro Labor Party” over and over. Once, he said, “Nigger Labor Party.” For all we know, he was thinking at the time, “God, I hope someone doesn’t think I’m being racist for saying negro. At least I’m not saying nigger,” and the word slipped out as he thought it.
The two words are phonetically similar; it is not at all implausible that it was a slip of the tongue. And nobody has offered a plausible alternative explanation.
You say that Bustamante is in the pocket of the NAACP. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that Bustamante generally respects those interests represented by the NAACP? Doesn’t that seem a little significant?
Lott’s comment has no plausible alternative explanation. His own party rejected his bullshit explanations. This is the same Lott that gave speeches before the Citizens’ Council, a well-known racist group.
Context, context, context.
The fact that it’s a stupid smear campaign doesn’t change what it is. It just suggests that the political operatives opposing Bustamante haven’t been able to kluge together anything else.
Daniel
Incidentally, if people are bringing up the Oui interview as part of a smear campaign, they’re even stupider than the anti-Bustamante ops are.
We’re talking California, people. Do you really think voters will reject the candidate who smokes pot and has orgies?
If he was running for the governor of Utah, then sure, bring up the interview. But California? Give me a break!
Daniel
- Anything good written by the media about liberals is due to the Liberal Media Conspiracy (LMC)™.
- Anything bad written by the media about conservatives is due to the LMC™.
- Anything bad written by the media about liberals is a trick to distract you from realizing there’s an LMC™.
- Anything good written by the media about conservatives is a trick to distract you from realizing there’s an LMC™.
- All long-running political scandals are directed solely at conservatives because of the LMC™.
- Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation was an obscure little case that almost nobody heard about because of the LMC™.
I think that covers it. Dunno anything about Freemasons, though.
sigh, so much common sense, so few cites
Ironic processes of mental control.
Wegner DM.
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903.
Translation, don’t think of a pink elephant.
Shodan:
Oh, it’s that simple? Thanks for clearing that up.
I’ll grant that Lott probably just chose his words poorly and, hence, probably got a raw deal. I don’t think that his being a Republican, however, was the reason his slip got so much coverage.
First, Lott is a conservative white southerner. That doesn’t mean we should assume racist intent behind his slip, but he must have known that he has to be hyper-vigilant about such slips, given the track record and reputation of other conservative white southerners on matters of race.
More importantly, the Democrats (along with several large advocacy groups) made a big deal out of Lott’s slip; therefore, it was news. “The media” has a limited capacity for agenda-setting. Republicans are not making a big deal out of Bustamante’s slip (to their credit, really); therefore, it is not news.
Depends on whether or not the candidate sent them an invitation.
I don’t know what you mean by “dropped almost immediately”. They covered the story to the point that there wasn’t anything to cover anymore. If there were more to the story, they would have covered it.
One more time: Bustamante’s was a Freudian Slip; there was nothing to interpret, because it so obviously had nothing to do with what he intended to say, that the only reasonable way to look at it is that it was a slip. Are you seriously contending that he meant to say “Nigger”?
Lott’s was NOT
Since the situations are analogous, and Lott was forced to resign from his positions of leadership, shouldn’t Bustamante drop out of the CA governor’s race?
Sauce for the gander, if the Democrats mean what they say about race.
Regards,
Shodan **
[/QUOTE]
Sorry hit the wrong key and accidently posted incomplete:
I don’t know what you mean by “dropped almost immediately”. They covered the story to the point that there wasn’t anything to cover anymore. If there were more to the story, they would have covered it.
One more time: Bustamante’s was a Freudian Slip; there was nothing to interpret, because it so obviously had nothing to do with what he intended to say, that the only reasonable way to look at it is that it was a slip. Are you seriously contending that he meant to say “Nigger”? There was no need to explain what he “meant”, because he never intended to even say that word AT ALL.
Lott’s was NOT a Freudian Slip. The interpretation of his remarks was what was at issue, NOT whether those were the words he intended to say. It is not an analagous situation. PERIOD.
Not analagous.
Not analagous.
But if it were a Republican, they would have continued to cover it.
After Lott apologized and explained his remarks, there “wasn’t anything to cover anymore” either. Why did the press not drop that? Could it be because they wanted to hurt Lott as much as they could, but don’t feel that way about Bustamante?
I’m pretty sure you don’t mean a “Freudian slip”, which is an inadvertant statement that reveals unconscious intentions.
Are you saying that Bustamante is a secret racist? Why should the press not make that clear?
So he should not have apologized?
After Lott made it clear what he meant by his statements, there was also no need to interpret. And yet such interpretations - always negative - continued unabated.
My experience is that when people begin shouting “PERIOD” and trying to shut off discussion, they are worried that the debate is not going as they like. Unfortunately, in this case, the mainstream media cannot control the discussion.
Try this, then - Lott was assumed to be a racist because (in part) he addressed Citizens’ Councils. Is Bustamante also a racist because of his ties to racist Hispanic organizations? Is it now appropriate to interpret his remarks as racist?
Regards,
Shodan
Your opinion, no facts back it up.
there was a great deal to cover. First, Lotts ties to racist organizations, the interview he gave to Southern Partisan, his voting record, the complaints of black republicans against him, and ** Bush’s **desire to have him canned.
Bustamante has no such record to drag out. The local black leaders have called it a slip of the tongue and praised his immediate and emphatic apologies (reminder, Lott took quite a while to decide he’d done anything wrong.)
read my previous post, this sort of thing happens a lot. I’m a fucken psyc major, one slip of the tongue means nothing.
of course he should have apologized, he offended a great many people. That it was a mistake in vocalization rather than attitude meant that he apologizedfor slipping up, as opposed to Lott who effectively apologized for being a racist (at least thats my interpretation of switching issue positions.)
Okay, we have another thread going on Bustamante’s supposed racist ties, IMHO we’ll find that the group has some fringe members and that the parts that matter are reasonable. Fox ran the story to soon, taking the words of the group’s oposition at face value. Even Fox will drop this one fast, there is nothing in the record to back them up.
also, so me someone who nows california politics and honestly believes that Bustamante is a racist.
**
Perhaps because the press covered his remarks as they happened (or immediately thereafter)?
The Bustamante “slip-up” (or whatever . . .) happened, what, two years ago? The story had already played out. (That’s why I introduced “traction.”) Newsmax wanted to bring it up again, but I doubt Newsmax’s standards of newsworthiness count much even with many conservatives.
**
Maybe. Could also be because the Cali papers covered this sufficiently when it happened, and the nationals don’t see much of a story there. It is untrue, though, to say it hasn’t been covered at all during the recall process.
And can we dispell the canard that Lott was tragically punished for his words? He’s the chairman of the friggin’ Senate Rules Committee now—not exactly a terrible drop.
You know, I actually believe that it’s possible that Bustamante just made a “slip of the tongue.” I don’t know for sure, but I think the chances are pretty good that yeah, it was just one of those dumb things.
I do have problem believing that if a Republican said the same thing, it would be believed or dropped quite so quickly. I think it would have more “traction.” Maybe not a lot more. But maybe a lot more. I don’t know for sure. But I am pretty sure that it would have more “traction.”
I agree with Telcontar; your statement is wholly unsubstantiated. The only reasoning you have provided to support your view is your incorrect assertion that it is analagous to the Lott incident, which it is not.
My goodness, no. There was still very heated debate going on among politicians. In fact, many in his own party distanced themselves from Lott’s statement. The ongoing controversy was being covered. In Bustamante’s case, there WAS no ongoing controversy.
It should be quite obvious that that is NOT what I meant. The fact that you would seize on such a picayune point as my minor misuse of the term “Freudian Slip” shows that your arguments lacks merit. Instead of providing any substance, you obviously feel it necessary to attack me on an extremely trivial point such as that.
Huh? Who said that?
Of course there was a need to interpret, because many people (even in his own party) felt that his “explanation” of what he meant was just revisionist bullshit. That was not the case with Bustamante.
You’re right that this discussion isn’t going as I would like, but not for the reason you believe. I am dismayed by your disingenous arguments, your continuing assertion that 2 things are analagous that quite obviously are not, your paranoid belief that there is some sort of liberal media conspiracy, and your failure to back up your assertions.
The nice thing about Shodan’s position is that there’s no way to prove him false – the whole “If a Republican had made the same slip Bustamonte did, he would/would not have gotten the same amount of press criticism over it.” That’s critical for a good conspiracy theory, after all.
I think Lott got a raw deal. However, who did he get that raw deal from? That’s not quite as clear.
The mainstream media largely ignored Lott’s comments for the first few days. It was conservative pundits that talked it up and built it into a national story. FoxNews pundits spent more time on it than any cable network for the first few days.
It was also clear that Lott was widely considered a thorn in the side of the Bush administration, using his leadership position to hold up, hijack, and stand in the way of some of the Bush Publican side’s key agenda. Maybe the liberal media crucified him… but maybe it was also a convienient way to demote a gadfly to where he wouldn’t be such a pain in the ass.
I think, however, like it or not, a white protestant from the south plays better as a story on racism than a hispanic, and that most certainly biases the amount of coverage the remarks got.
Shodan, you continue to make this claim, and you still have not backed it up.
You are obviously alleging a conspiracy (an extraordinary claim), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Back up your nutty theories, or take them to some other board where such silliness is tolerated.
For instance, on this board, we don’t generally give credence to claims that the moon landing was a hoax, and I don’t see why you expect your equally ridiculous conspiracy theories to be treated any differently.
Or, the condensed form:
Cite.
Nonsense. I backed it up with the Lott case.
Very similar circumstances, where a prominent politican made a remark that was very easy to construe as racist. In the Bustamante case, it was almost unavoidable. Both politicians apologize, and attempt to explain that they did not mean the racism implicit in their remarks.
One apology suffices for the Democrat. No number of apologies suffice for the Republican.
Why do you accept what Bustamante claims at face value, and reject what Lott said out of hand?
Is it because Lott made speeches to the Citizen’s Councils? Bustamante has links to an at least equally unpleasant organization. Why is that not interpreted as proof positive that he is a closet racist?
Unfortunately, the whole Lott episode is evidence that I am correct. A Republican did make the same sort of slip, and got one hell of a lot more criticism.
What more do you need - Jim Watt quotations?
Why do the SDMB Offenderati give Democrats a pass so automatically?
Regards,
Shodan
First off, the Bustamante links to an equally unpleasant racist organization are tenuous: either the organization he’s linked to shows few unambiguous signs of racism (MEChA), or else people are falsely linking him to a racist organization (Nation of Aztlan).
Second, if Shodan’s argument were to hold water, Bustamante would have needed to make a racist comment disparaging one of the groups that the linked racist organization disparages. Bustamante didn’t refer to Evil Gringos in his famous comment; nor did he refer to a Jewish Conspiracy Controlling Hollywood. And neither MEChA nor Nation of Aztlan has anti-black comments on their Web sites.
Third, Lott has a history of behavior that mainstream black organizations (e.g., NAACP) consider hostile. Bustamante doesn’t. If you regard each incident in context, you can see the differences between the lives of the two men, not just between the specific comments that set off the shitstorm.
Why are the SDMB reactionaries so automatic to link nonanalogous events? NO LINKAGE!
Daniel