Hmmmm 2002 and 2001. Meh. That part is old news, being represented as part of the ongoing librul 'spiracy. And in that incredibly impartial, fair and balanced Washington Post no less.
A spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse," The Washington Post reported. Democrats have denied any connection to the News Blog.
[/QUOTE]
So much for the Dems being fully behind any of this. It looks like a few wingnuts are taking it on themselves as individuals to show their ass, not the whole party.
Hmmmm 2002 and 2001. Meh. That part is old news, being represented as part of the ongoing librul 'spiracy. And in that incredibly impartial, fair and balanced Washington Post no less.
So much for the Dems being fully behind any of this. It looks like a few wingnuts are taking it on themselves as individuals to show their ass, not the whole party.
Clearly you do not understand. The failure of the national media to spread this story far and wide is convincing evidence of the monolithic nature of the liberal media in this country that goes out of its way to cover up transgressions as long as they are Democratic transgressions, while hammering every Republican mistep as a constitutional crisis. (Man, I can’t even type this with a straight face!)
I think you are being a little obtuse. First of all, though the man generally gets a pass here on this board and there haven’t been many threads about him, we aren’t talking about Bush right now. Second, I see your point, but do you see my point that this person isn’t expecting the party to pull any punches, including racial jabs? How is this not condoning racial jabs? Oh, that’s right, ‘party trumps race’.
Sure it makes a difference to me. He should apologize. What he said was disgusting. But that doesn’t make it right that he said it in the first place. He shouldn’t have said it at all.
Good for you.
No, I was referring to the people who were posting to this thread.
I guess this is just a pet peeve of mine, and I fully agree with Renob’s analysis of the situation. Calling somebody a race traitor because they belong to a different political party is just ignorant behavior.
You snidely cricket chirped over your perception of silence on the issue of racial taunting.
You then clarified that that comment didn’t refer to this thread, since it was only an hour old (and fairly obtusely titled btw) but to the lack of general attention to this issue. But then you next state that your upset is the lack of repudiation by people in this thread when it was pointed out to you that Democratic officials have gone on record condemning this behavor.
So, which is it? The silence from Democratic offficials (which doesn’t exist) or the silence from liberals on this board (which doesn’t exist) that disturbs you?
And for the record, I would say that kowtowing to an all white country club is fair game for criticism, but using epithets to make that point is out of bounds.
I am a liberal Democrat. I am deeply disturbed by the racial attacks on Steele. That said, I think that Ehrlich’s fundraiser at a restricted country club is orders of magnitude more disgusting, and Steele deserves to be shamed and mocked for his defense of it. And if blacks are decrying him as a race traitor for it, well, I can’t say that they don’t have the evidence on their side.
One thing the Times does not note in the article (not that I’m blaming them – it’s a collateral matter) is that Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, currently locked in a dead-heat race for governor against Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, pulled his ads from the site that depicted Steele as Sambo and has received a lot of shit for it amongst blacks in the Commonwealth – given how close the race is, it’s not entirely impossible that this move may in fact cause him the governorship. Psycho, What The, if you live in Virginia, I certainly hope you’ll be voting for Kaine, because he clearly shares your values.
Oh, one more thing:
Strawman. The catalyzing event for all of these things, as far as I’m aware (and certainly in the case of the Sambo incident) was the Steele’s defense on Ehrlich’s appearance at a Restricted club; both Ehrlich’s event and Steele’s defense are unconscionable, and that is what occasions these things.
Allow me to clarify. I am genuinely disappointed at the lack of attention this has received in the media in general, and on this board in particular, while Bill Bennett’s comments (which were inappropriate) were touted as blatant racism, and was covered extensively both on this board and in the media.
And I painted with too broad a brush in my reply after I was called on invoking the crickets too early. That response should honestly be aimed at rjung, who attempted to spin the issue instead of actually addressing it.
You didn’t read the article closely enough. The Uncle Tom and the oreo incident occurred in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Ehrlich’s fundraiser occurred in July. The labeling of Steele as some sort of traitor to blacks is based solely on the fact that he’s a Republican.
I’m disgusted by them as well; I believe there was some condemnation at the time, but the reason I believe that is because I heard someone (?) say it on the radio while discussing the Ehrlich thing.
As Bricker mentioned, the country club in question has been used by other politicians, including democrats. It was debated in [thread=324991]this thread[/thread]. Singling out Steele for simply defending what democrats have also done doesn’t seem consistent.
Because there’s no part of that statement that puts any sort of moral weight on the “racial jabs.” She may very well think the jabs are warranted. She might just as equally be disgusted by them, but have a low opinion of the current poltical climate (or even of the Democratic party in particular) and think that this sort of dirty politics is inevitable. It’s a morally neutral statement: any shadings of acceptance or rejection is entirely in the mind of the person reading the quote.
Psycho, clearly you recognize that the difference between the media attention that a national figure like Bennett garners and the attention garnered by a fairly unknown figure involved a local primary election without national implications may not be entirely related to party affiliation alone? Bluntly put, why should I be playing close attention to the actions of a few in a local race outside of my district? I got enough dirty politics to have to endure just within my own locale! Nah, if it is not involving someone of national stature then a few under-the-belt blows won’t make it on my radar screen and national media knows that few outside of the locale would care. Where’s the story of national interest? A few dimwits threw some unfair hits, one at least already apologized, Party officials condemned it, all in an election that few would give a rats ass about. Nothing to see here folks.
That said, of course a Democrat will be less eager to attack a Democrat than a Republican just like Republicans are less eager to attack Republicans than they are eager to atack Democrats. If your point is to illustrate that obvious fact, well it is a bit obvious, and this is hardly the most cogent example.
Because there’s no part of that statement that puts any sort of moral weight on the “racial jabs.” She may very well think the jabs are warranted. She might just as equally be disgusted by them, but have a low opinion of the current poltical climate (or even of the Democratic party in particular) and think that this sort of dirty politics is inevitable. It’s a morally neutral statement: any shadings of acceptance or rejection is entirely in the mind of the person reading the quote.
The conclusion I draw is that some people who have gone through things I’ll never have to deal with are responding to it in ways that I in my ivory tower find distasteful, but what the hell do I know?
Can we drop the “restricted club” strawman? I know the club in question, I grew up about a mile away. It’s a small, expensive club located in a rich, white, old money area of Baltimore that in fact has no bar whatsoever to black membership, it just doesn’t have any black members. To my knowledge no black folks have been turned away, it’s just that none have applied. Calling it a restricted club is nothing more than political bullshit.
And what exactly do you base your conclusions on? Simply the fact that you don’t like the Times? That’s weak indeed. The Times is about as fair and balanced as the Washington Post or the New York Times, just in the other direction. In any event, for people that were so “misrepresented”, those politicians quoted sure were eager to get on the radio yesterday and stand behind their remarks. (The exception here is Kweisi Mfume who denounced the racial insults vigorously. Good for him. I like Mr. Mfume) WBAL had them all on yesterday, and they all reaffirmed that you can’t be black and a Republican. It’s usually so much bullshit rhetoric, but I have to wonder if in this case the conservative talking heads aren’t right: the Democratic machine that runs most of this state sure sounds scared of Mr. Steele. If the black voters of this state stopped voting Democratic as a monolithic block, it would be a sever blow to their power base, and Mr. Steele is an appealing candidate. Here in Maryland, jobs are up, unemployment is down, the economy is ticking right along and the state has a large surplus which is likely to lead to property tax cuts this year. About the only thing the Democrats have available to attack Mr. Steele with is that he’s black and conservative. :eek: Ohboy, what a crime. :rolleyes: I like Mr. Steele. I’m not sure yet who I’d vote for if he runs against O’Malley, but he’s worlds better than Doug “ID for everyone” Duncan. Earlich and Steele have certainly made great strides in cleaning up the mess that Glenspending left the state in, I think he’d do well in DC.
Oh and rjung? I find it real amusing to note how often you decry the “they do it too” defense when it’s offered by Republicans, but it’s the first tired old chestnut that you trot out when Democrats act like assholes.
Actually rjung’s comment is somewhat defensible. Jeesh, if you are going to call someone on hypocrisy, then your hypocrisy is fair game. (S)He’s only pointing out that saying “I’m being critical of this racial slur and you’re not; you only call it on people outside your political POV! Hypocrit!” while you yourself have never come out critical of the many examples of the same in your own POV, is a bit hypocritical criticism of hypocrisy … sort of a meta-hypocritical if you will.
What I was trying to get at was that the article juxtaposed events that happened in years previous (perpetrated by assholes, definitely!) with recent statements by black Democrats saying that it’s fair to say his conservative Republican views are inconsistent with the political opinions of a significant majority of blacks in Maryland, or in shorthand, that he’s out of step with his race in his state. Yes, it does bring up race, but these folks are not saying that people should throw Oreos at him or call him an Uncle Tom. I think the two things are separate, and that combining the two to try to create an overall “Democrat race-baiting” effect is misleading.
(For the record, I definitely think the Mike Miller comment was certainly out of line, IMHO, as were the other acts of idiocy, if I didn’t make it clear enough.)
What makes you think I was defending anything? I’m just pointing out that Republicans wailing “boo hoo hoo, look at the ugly racists” is as plausible as OJ Simpson’s pledge to find the real killers.
This whole thing just reminds me of the scene in Rush Hour, where Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan go into a bar in South Central L.A. Chris greets the (black) guys in there with “What’s up, mah nigger?”, and they let him by without a glance. When Chan uses the same line in an attempt to fit in, a fight breaks out.
