That’s your opinion.
Eh. So was the outrage at Trent Lott. It’s just payback.
Well, I was talking about what the folks on the right were expressing outrage at, in response to your erroneous statement. And there’s plenty of room between giving the guy a pass and making him step down.
Stop seeing every fucking issue in stark black and white (pardon the pun).
There isn’t? We heard for weeks about how McCain calling Obama “That one” was racist, but saying that he could win 'cause he’s “light skinned” and “doesn’t speak in a negro dialect” is totally innocent.:dubious:
I can see people not thinking that Reid’s comment was harmful towards Obama, but that’s not where the racism comes in - it’s a racist slight against the black folks Obama is being compared to.
The important thing is that President Obama has accepted Reid’s apology and Reid has extended it to Reverend Al Sharpton just in case it didn’t take.
If the use of “Negro” isn’t offensive, at least to some people, why is there offense over it’s use on the census form. I’m surprised you guys haven’t seen this in the news lately. Link
Cite? I remember saying and hearing that it was stupid, not that it was racist.
No it wasn’t. It was a cynical opinion about white voters.
I didn’t say it wasn’t offensive to some people. I just don’t care if they’re offended. Not every bit offense needs to be respected (including the use of the word on the census form, which is used as a slash descriptor alongside “Black,” and “African-American,” specifically because some older black people showed a preference for “negro” in surveys). As I said upthread, that used to be the polite word. It’s really intent that matters. The word can be used in a naive, non-malicious, behind-the-times sort of way, or it can be used in an intentionally hostile, taunting or belittling way. Reid used the word in a Grandpa Simpson kind of way.
This is actually a case where nobody is offended, though. The reason it never works for righties to try to play this whole “double-standard” game is that they don’t really understand what makes certain language hurtful. It’s not just the voodoo of the words all by themselves. When you boil down the sentiments expressed by Reid (who I don’t even like) and Trent Lott (who I defended at the time) respectively. Reid exoressed a sentiment that Obama is more palatable to a lot of white voters because he doesn’t speak with a black American vernacular. Lott said the US “wouldn’t have all these problems,” if a segregationist candiadte had been elected President in the 60’s.
I think Lott’s declaration was more of a thoughtless, innocent attempt to pat an old man on the back than to intentionally express support for the racist policies of Strom Thurmond, but the literal meaning of his words taken at face value actually do imply an offensive sentiment, while Reid’s just suggest a cynical (but probably accurate) view of some white voters.
You’ve never either given or heard an apology made simply for the purpose of bud-nipping? Really?
This is payback, sure, but are you also unaware that there is quite a bit more history behind Lott’s racism than one moment of forgetting he was on tape? Look up “Council of Conservative Citizens” for more info.
Not all opinions are of equal value, and not all outrage is phony.
Gotta agree. It’s hard to step down when you’re groveling on the floor.
What a load of crap. You can hand wave all you want, but Reid is a product of his time, living in a white bread Mormon world where Blacks were marginalized well passed the days of Jim Crow. It’s astonishing to what lengths you’ll go to rationalize the irrational.
This issue is a variation of “Only Nixon could go to China”. It’s not hypocritical on anyone’s part, it just has to do with the historical real and perceived positions of the parties on various issues.
This.
Imagine someone who says, “It’s OK for this comment to be made by a Democrat, because the Dem’s current position on racial issues makes the context harmless; it’s NOT OK for this same comment to be made by a Republican, because the Pub’s current position on racial issues makes such comments suspect.”
This person has laid out a principled distinction for the seemingly disparate treatment. Holding the “double standard” is not hypocritical in this instance.
But if the objector insists that the words alone drive his judgment, but reaches substantially different results for Lott and Reid, then I’d say he’s hypocritical.
There’s really no argument against the point Reid was making, but the way he said it was just plain stupid. That said, Republicans should be careful about trying to push him out of office. If they succeed - though they probably won’t - they would probably be doing the Democrats a favor. But if Obama stands behind Reid and other prominent black leaders will accept an apology, Reid probably won’t have to go away.
Why is Reid being judged solely as a Democrat? He’s many things besides just a Democrat. He’s an older, white male and a member of a religion that has been historically hostile to Blacks.
I just don’t get this idea that being a member of the Democratic party lets you say things that a Republican can’t say.
“Senior political figure discusses electorate’s biases in informal private conversation during election campaign. Choice of words possibly anachronistic.”
The horror! The horror!
The comment would be ok by either a Democrat or a Republican. Lott did not make this comment. He made (albeit probably unwittingly) a far more inflammatory one. Reid said that Obama doesn’t talk black. Lott said de-segregation wa the cause of “all these problems.” The sentiments are not the same. The comments are not comparable.
It doesn’t. A Republican could say this too.
It would be foolish for anyone to drive a judgment based on words alone. Context and background are critical, too. What is hypocritical is to pretend they don’t exist.
Lott:
Lott has a racist background, Reid does not. Yes, that should influence one’s judgment. But calling these two very different things “this comment”, as you do, is either a calculated, result-oriented, lawyerly choice of words or just simply inane.
In a bad DC summer you can smell any large group of people entering any building.
Maybe so, but does it have to be said by a United States Senator, who is supposed to be at the service of the citizens?
Heavens forbid that the un-washed masses come to visit the Capitol.
Yeah, he’s an elitist.