Jackmannii: Give us poll numbers or some other measure to prove your point, but enough with the anonymous quotes already.
Sorry Jack, I figured that since I was talking about nebulous issues of perception, some samples of those perceptions would be helpful in illustrating what I meant. I didn’t draw any quantitative conclusions from them. However, if poll numbers are what you want, here are some from the Washington Post:
Something’s wrong with this line of reasoning…
So, the punishment should be the same, regardless of the magnitude of the lie and its effect? Should parents punish their kids the same, regardless of whether it was a “little white lie,” or lying about wrecking the car?
Dang, glad I wasn’t your kid.
Or was I…? :eek:
Thanks, that’s more helpful.
Since the negative perception by black Americans of the G.O.P. is so pervasive to begin with, it’s questionable how much the Lott flap will affect their future votes. A key will be the extent to which the rest of the Republicans’ potential base is turned off. If Bush does enough fancy footwork on programs that are supposed to benefit minorities, the damage control will probably be largely successful; in close races, though, who knows what the effect will be?
And to address the argument that Republicans have come out of this “smelling like a rose” -
Smelling like a pair of used Odor-Eaters is more like it.
You know that actually happened in my youth. My brother wrecked the car and lied about it. I lied trying to help him out. He got in a whole lot more trouble!
Elvis:
Personally, I think Clinton’s comment was a shallow, bigoted and false cheapshot.
Let me however be open to a new idea.
Let’s just stick with the Senate, and the Republicans.
If the charge is that the Republican party is a haven for bigots, that’s a pretty serious charge.
A serious charge requires serious proof.
So let’s have it. How many of the current 51 Republican Senators could presently be categorized as unreformed racists.
Names and cites, please.
Yes. It is. People do not walk around with a list of their prejudices pinned to their chests. They do not walk around with a brand that says “racist,” or “bigot.” Par for the course is that everybody is tacitly accepted as being fair-minded until they have proven they are not. That proof has to be pretty damn near incontrovertible, obvious, longstanding, and readily apparent, before you can say “X is a racist.”
If it’s not that way, it’s a witch hunt mentality.
Personally, I think my party overreated to Lott’s comments, and they did it on purpose. The fact is that he’s a liability, but he’s been a powerful liability. His recent case of foot and mouth disease gave us the ability to clean house.
I assume you Democrats can hardly wait for Al Sharpton to really screw the pooch so that you can disavow that slimy oportunistic racist as fast as possible. In the meantime, you have to tacitly accept him.
Who’s Bulova?
If I were Bill Clinton, and I’d interned with the most contemptible racist in U.S. Senate history (J. William Fulbright, by name), and if I’d given a eulogy for that same repulsive bigot just 6 years ago in which I’d called him a “visionary humanitarian,” I’d think twice before condemning another politician for praising a Senator with a racist past.
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin121002b.asp
But that’s just me.
Lott’s comment was the capstone on the pyramid of proof. No, neither the Senate nor the Republican party is chock full of racists, but y’all should be more than happy to toss the bad apples when they are discovered. There was no overreaction here at all. It’s actually a breath of fresh air to not see an overwhelming ‘protect our own at all costs’ attitude in this case.
I do? No, I don’t. He’s a small time New York politician who’s rise to notoriety began with the Tawana Brawley thing. I’ve never had any use for him. He’s not comparable anyway, he is not the Senate majority leader nor is he the caliber of politician who could rise to Senate majority leader.
TYM:
So it’s ok to just tacitly accept him?
Scylla - Where did I say that? I actually believe he may be a worse racist than Lott.
From what I understand of that book, she not only invented the footnote, she invented a whole lot of footnotes.
As for Bill Clinton, he’s a politician. He lied. People are surprised?
You didn’t say it. I wasn’t sure if it wasn’t what you meant though, so I asked. No offense intended.
None taken.
Actually I have this book. I read it twice, once when I like Anne, and then once again when I had decided she was a hatemonger.
There are a couple of websites out there, claiming to debunk her footnotes. With one exception, they do no such thing.
To generalize, these websites are selective and incomplete and they generalize or argue with the meaning of her footnotes, or their interpretation. In other words, there is often a disagreement by opposing parties as to whether the footnotes mean exactly what Coulter implies or says they mean. Some of these are picky. Some of these are important.
But, that’s the whole point of footnotes in the first place, to identify the source material so that other people can indpendently identify, take issue with, or disagree with your asessment of what they mean.
Some of those disagreements have been strong, some weak. But, it is entirely to Anne’s credit that she has made the effort to support her arguments independently.
To say that she has made up or fabricated her footnotes, or that they are fraudulent is simply a lie as far as I’m concerned. I looked at the book with some of the footnote checking websites, and was not impressed.
Her footnotes in Slander seem of pretty good quality to me.
Indeed, before publication Coulter and her publisher went to the trouble to hire fact checkers to look at all her footnotes and make sure there were no substantive errors.
To my understanding, there is one egregious error. Coulter says that the NYT did not cover Dale Earnhardt’s death on the front page the day he died, but that he was relegated to the back pages. She mentions this in support of her contention that the NYT is not a very egalitarian paper.
Her statement concerning Earnhardt was incorrect. It was on the front page. Both Coulter and her publisher have acknowledged this error and said that it will be corrected in subsequent printings of Slander. They maintain that that is the only actual substantive error in the footnotes discovered so far.
She’s a firebrand and a Muslim hater, but as a whole, her footnotes are pretty good.
As I implied, I’d like to see this, too. However, since I don’t think Clinton, even at his most fanciful can produce anything like this that’s acceptable to the public, I’d like to see slander charges brought against him.
Statements like:
imply a grand and sweeping strategy - one that, were it true, would be heinous and despicable. Statements of this nature, when made absent of corroboration, are actionable. This is the course the Republicans in the Senate should be pursuing.
Unclebeer:
I agree. It’s an outright lie.
I think the fact is that the Democrats are employing a “Southern Strategy” of their own.
Their strategy is to call Republicans racist in order to protect their large minority voting blocks.
The Democrats have recently shown some crumbling in this area. For 30 years the most severe racial inequalities, socially, educationally, economically have occured in our inner cities. After 30 years of Democratic voting, these inequalities are worse than ever.
Real Republican heroes like Giulianni, and Bush’s denouncement of Lott’s comments severely threaten the Democrats power base which relies on the disenfranchisement of minorites.
To protect that powerbase Rebublicans need to be labelled bigots, and guess who has to remain disenfranchised?
UB: However, since I don’t think Clinton, even at his most fanciful can produce anything like this that’s acceptable to the public, I’d like to see slander charges brought against him.
Are you this upset about similarly negative and unsupported remarks made about Democrats or liberals by folks like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? Demands for slander indictments could become rather widespread in the current world of nasty partisan backbiting.
Strom Thurmond … Jesse Helms…David Duke…Sonny Perdue…Tom DeLay…George Bush in South Carolina …Trent Lott …
Okay, take Lott off the list. Does it make a real difference? Is what Clinton said really false? Look at the people whom the Republicans have recently elected as leaders. They’re there on that list, most of them. Al Sharpton has never been and will never be elected to squat, as fun as it might be for you to pretend that he matters to the Democrats the way the Republicans elected leaders matter to them, or even at all. Get it yet?
You have said that tacit acceptance of the worst in people, for no clear reason other than political advantage, is not as bad as overt endorsement of it. To hell with that crap. An adult knows better.
The nature of the people one chooses to represent them as their leaders is proof. The old “But some of my best friends …” statement and its ilk fool nobody but the speaker.
But they, the bulk of them, don’t consider what he said and meant wrong, only the fact that he said it. He got in trouble with his own party not for racism itself but only for becoming an impediment to advancing their agenda. You aren’t saying anything different.
When has the Democratic party mainstream “tacitly accepted” him, or refused an opportunity to disavow him? Cite or withdrawal, please.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
Statements like:
imply a grand and sweeping strategy - one that, were it true, would be heinous and despicable. Statements of this nature, when made absent of corroboration, are actionable. This is the course the Republicans in the Senate should be pursuing.
[QUOTE]
So you want Clinton to be impeached again? Too late, fool.
I could care less what Clinton had going on in the oval orif…uh…office, as long as he was effectively running the country.
