Well, what would be worse: racism, sincerely held and sincerely expressed, or the kind of manipulative cynicism that the “Southern strategy” represents?
Yeah, you got me, Scylla, I made it all up, and then ran around planting all sorts of news analysis of pundits talking about the Southern strategy. Just yesterday I made up a guy named Krugman and his commentary in the New York Times I’m a crafty devil but I didn’t fool you, huh. You’re just too smart for me.
What would be worse would be attributing the flaws of individuals to the larger group as a whole. Like you’re doing.
It’s bigotry under the cover of anti-bigotry.
The fact that you can point to a large group of shitheads who make shit up to demonize the political opposition, hardly helps your point.
You recently conceded the Harkens fiasco, which was nothing more than a slanderous fabrication by Krugman.
I don’t care who’s saying it. It’s a fucking lie.
Piffle. If a Republican is willing to accept the benefits of the Southern strategy in pursuit of power, he is complicit, whether or not he sincerely holds racist views, which I very much doubt is that prevalent. The flaw I deride is cynicism, not racism.
Some do. Fuck 'em. Some Democrats derive the benefits of busing blacks to the polls and giving cigarettes to the homeless in exchange for votes.
Some Democrats make bigoted statements.
Only a bigot himself attributes the behavior of an individual or individuals to the larger group.
Some blacks are criminals.
Only a bigot assumes from that fact that blacks as a whole are criminals.
Yes, there are Republicans who capitalize on racial issues. They are both Democrats and Republicans.
If you make blanket statements because of it, you’re a bigot yourself.
I don’t know what Lott was thinking but his statement was ambiguous.
The whole fucking crew of people using that as an excuse to take potshots at Republicans in general are showing no such ambiguity, and it fills me with the exact same disgust and contempt I feel for any bigot.
Well, now, some of these guys taking these “pot shots” are themselves Republicans, as you know. Do you hold these in equal contempt, or is your scorn and derision exclusive to Dems?
I have made no case that most Republicans are sincerely racist, nor do I believe such a thing. At any rate, in our day and age sincerely held and openly expressed racist views would be political suicide. I do, nonetheless, believe that the “Southern strategy” existed and exists, and the Repulbicans capitalized on it and exploited it. Granted, the effect is relatively small and getting smaller, as there are fewer and fewer racists to exploit. But in a political landscape as evenly divided as our own, every scrap of political advantage is seen as crucial.
I suggest, as does Mr. Krugman, that the “Southern strategy” is seen as losing its effectiveness, for the aforementioned reasons, and Republican strategists are looking to abandon it. I have little doubt that over the years, principled Republicans were disgusted with such ploys and coy racism, and I applaud those of them who publicly expressed that contempt. Which pretty much boils down to John McCain, doesn’t it?
Democrat attacks on that strategy as being cyncial and deplorable are entirely valid. It may be that thier ardor derives from entirely selfish motives. So what? The case is valid, regardless of your suspicions of thier motives.
An unfortunate choice of wording in your post could be misconstrued as suggesting that Yours Truly is a bigot. I politely request that you clarify that, so as to avoid any misunderstanding.
I assume you refer to this statement of mine:
It’s an “if…then” statement. The use of “you” is hypothetical, generic second person.
A bit short of explicit, but it will have to do.
But I’m still a bit uncertain here. Is it your contention that the “Southern strategy” refered to here is a chimera, that no such Republican strategy existed? Or that Democrats, in opposing that strategy and its beneficiaries, are equally culpable and complicit because thier motives are base?
I have no problem with a specific displeasure with Lotts’ comments. I’m unaware of any Republicans using Lotts’ comments to deride the Republican party in general
I appreciate the clarification.
You say “southern strategy” as if it were some kind of overt planned tool. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that both individual Republicans and Democrats have in the past and continue to take advantage of racial issues for political gain.
I don’t think these instances on either side can be applied to the party’s as a whole.
And, I would suggest that Mr. Krugman is as full of shit as God is mercy. You can call it a “southern strategy” in quotations and make it look like it is some centrally planned Republican dogma, and, I beleive that if you are to do so, you are engaging in slander and bigotry.
I would say that Krugman is lying and making shit up to badmout Repbulicans in general, just as he lied and misrepresented the Harkens issue. He lies and misrepresents and there is no reason to give his words on the subject credence any more than there is reason to give Ann Coulter credence on the subject of Muslims.
You can’t have it both ways. In the first paragraph of your post, you claim that many Republicans are expressing displeasure. Now it’s just John McCain. Which is it?
No. It’s total hypocrisy. It’s also a lie when they apply it to Republicans as a whole, as they all too often do. Democratic candidates have done the exact same thing.
Individual politicians on both sides of the fence have used racial issues to their political advantage.
There is no policy level “southern strategy,” in the Republican party.
Oh, Scylla, whatever.
Don’t let me stop you from running your hoary and cynical “bigotry against Republicans” play, but Libertarian referred to Republican leaders; see, that’s a subset of Republicans,not “Republicans in general” which would make it – hmm, let me think – entirely different from your inaccurate, bigoted statement.
It’s entirely par for the course for you – which makes it a mystery to me why anyone wastes time responding to your patently false, rhetorical and intemperate garbage.
I don’t doubt that you are consistently baffled.
What’s hoary and cynical about conflating different meanings of the term “republican” in order to justify charges of mass-bigotry among democrats ? Surely you don’t think that Scylla would take such an uncharitable position towards democrats out of anything but ignorance of how to read a dictionary ? 
I’m still trying to figure out the usage of “hoary.”
Since cynicism lacks physical substance it really can’t be gray or covered with pubescent hairs (although it’s quite the image)
I guess he means I’m venerable.
"Senator Lott, are you now or have you ever been a racist?" Beware, racists are in our ranks!! As some in this thread have pointed out - Lott “nods” and “winks” at those in the crowds he speaks to. Those nods and winks probably have a hidden meaning. Haven’t you noticed? Listen to what he said at the old guys birthday party. That proves it! It’s time to flush the racists out of government and expose them throughout all society.
For those who wonder – yes this is satire.
The sad thing is you need that disclaimer.
The Conservative Citizens Council. For whom Mr. Lott writes the occasional column. You should check these guys out. If you really want to know the kind of people Mr. Lott hangs with, that is.
I hate to defend the oleagenous senator, but according to Brink Lindsay, Lott spoke at exactly one CCC meeting, and he never wrote for their newsletter - they printed a syndicated column that he wrote in their newsletter, but it wasn’t written specifically for them. Lindsay continues:
It must really be open season on Lott: Al Gore is impersonating him on SNL during a sketch of Hardball. Damn funny, too.