Will slur cost GOP hopeful the White House? by FellowTraveler

Allen is a little weird as a guy, and not my favorite politician, but this kind of spin is shameful when either side does it. The whole thing against Lott internal to the GOP was absurd. If you want to oppose someone, do it on their policies, or don't do it at all. Unless you have an actual criminal allegation, such as embezzelement or murdering your law partner. Stealing from the indians, that sort of thing. But in general, stick to the policies. It's hard to credit the democrats, who once had woodrow wilson on their ticket (who thought all blacks were monkeys and should be exported to africa,) and who still has Robert Byrd (who refused to apologize for his membership in the KKK) as a senator - are sooo offended by what might be a slip of the lip.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:58 AM

USBROWNCOAT

Nope. No-one cares. Bush has been caught on tape saying a lot worse.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:01 PM

America loves a winner!

Yeah, I heard about this Thurs. What on Earth was Senator Allen thinking? If he was intentionally butchering this guys name, I'd buy his explanation. But this isn't even close. I GUESS he'd figure he'd be funny and try to call this guy something cute.....and then got caught looking for a funny sounding word that wasn't offensive. This wasn't it. Not even close. One explanation I heard is that macaca is another word for 'clown'. But if that's the case, why not come out and simply say so ? (Unless you're more worried about losing the clown vote ? )

The stuff about the rebel flag is simply Liberal journalism, more than anything. Just an attempt to pile onto the story where there isn't anything more. Both Allen and his opponent have made comments which support the rebel flag. The rebel flag isn't that big a deal , but for the flaming P.C. nazis who try to make it one.

And it's funny that this obscrue gaff by Allen makes major news, but the very next day, Andrew Young ( who is black ) makes the comment about " Jew, Korean and now Muslim " store owners , barely makes a ripple. Sure, Allen is more of a current story, running for President as he is, but Andrew Young is a former US Ambassador to the UN. Also, campaign workers for Cynthia McKinney were caught on tape making all manner of comments. Calling fellow Democrat and run-off winner Hank Johnson an 'uncle tom '. Hank Johnson is black. The McKinney camp also made references ( once again ) that the white reporters there were 'crackers'and made such comments as " this ain't Israel! ". One staffer for McKinney said he was fired from her campaign because he is Jewish and had to take a day off for a religious holiday.

I guess if the one making the comments is GOP, that makes it a story. Otherwise.....turn the page.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:05 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Nope. No-one cares. Bush has been caught on tape saying a lot worse.

Such as ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:15 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And it's funny that this obscrue gaff by Allen makes major news, but the very next day, Andrew Young ( who is black ) makes the comment about " Jew, Korean and now Muslim " store owners , barely makes a ripple. Sure, Allen is more of a current story, running for President as he is, but Andrew Young is a former US Ambassador to the UN.

Well, I heard about it over in the UK so it was something of a story though it was more tied to him being the new equality spokesman for WalMart.

That company really can't catch a break.

And whatever the etymology of the word used by the Senator, it's clearly a mark of disrespect, though I don't think many black Americans would have been voting for him anyway so I doubt he'll see any major political harm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
And whatever the etymology of the word used by the Senator, it's clearly a mark of disrespect, though I don't think many black Americans would have been voting for him anyway so I doubt he'll see any major political harm.

My other point was that Sen. Allen knew this guy was recording these events, therefore he KNEW what ever he said to this guy would be recorded as well. That's what makes it all the more surreal that Allen would go out of his way to i.d. this man and then call attention to him calling him 'mecaca'.

Any way ya look at it, it's a bone headed move.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:22 PM

USBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Nope. No-one cares. Bush has been caught on tape saying a lot worse.

Such as ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

"This guy over there, he's a real asshole"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:10 PM

I think Bush's asshole remark was a shot at the New York Times, not really a gaffe in conservative circles.

As to opposing Allen for his positions, he's pretty much a rubber stamp for the White House. If you like Bush's policies, you should like Allen.

I was pointing out the Confederate flag stuff as subtext, not taking a cheap shot. Senator Allen's affinity for the symbol is well known here in VA, but I didn't know if that knowledge extended to the rest of the world.

And I'm not claiming Jim Webb (the Democrat running against Allen) is any better. He seems about as genuine as Allen's southern accent.

Webb's campaign also put out a cartoon during the Democratic primary portraying his Jewish opponent with a large hook nose and money spilling from his pockets.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/062006/06082006/197593

So, being a racist doesn't really hurt your chances at being elected, for either party, here in the Old Dominion...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:16 PM

USBROWNCOAT

I can see where thats true.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 3:40 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:

So, what do you think? Has this gaffe cost Allen his run at the White House? Do you buy the mohawk bit? Does it even matter if a Republican candidate pisses off minority voters?

It will probably cost him big. But with two years to make up for it, it is not an insurmountable obsticle.

If nothing else, he can always switch parties. After all Democrats are allowed to make racial slurs (looks sadly at Maryland, Connecticut, West Virginia...).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Many people secretly agree with Allen.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Many people secretly agree with Allen.

About the flag? True. We could probably fill a couple threads with the argument about the Confederate Flag. Seems we might have already...check the archives.

Every year a whole bunch of good people dress in period costumes and march beneath the Confederate flag reenacting the war. Are they racists? I doubt it. So if in one context the flag is a purely historical symbol...perhaps its not the flag that is objectionable, only the particular context.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 AM

Quote:
Signym:

Many people secretly agree with Allen.

I doubt this. I Don't think Allen agree with Allen. I think it's a trumped up charge which avoids the whole policy dispute altogether, which serves only one master: George W. Bush.

Or Hillary Clinton, the Janus face on the back of his head.

But seriously, in order for Hillary to become president, it is necessary for her, ie. Bush, to make sure that Bush dies (as a political entity, not as a person) without anyone actually opposing the policies. Anti-Allen on a mistake of language (you know how wide a variety of words are considered 'racial epithets' these days?) that it means democrats can defeat him without opposing his policies, thus free them up to be exactly the same. This whole thing is B^ll$#!+ and you guys are falling for it because they pushed the button.

It's just like if someone says, to either side, "you're being manipulated by the abortion issue," instead of saying "hey you have a point" they will sudden launch into an abortion debate, thus proving your point.

The truth is, all lefties think that the right is racist, a spin which has gotten them the black vote, but which has no basis in fact. The democrats have a Klan man on the senate, the Klan is a democratic party insistution, to say nothing of slavery, etc., and even now, Bush, for all his faults, has the most integrated cabinet, and condi is not the first black secretary of state to be a republican, but there has yet to be a democrat. The only black democratic cabinet member I recall was Jocelyn Elders who lasted what? Ten minutes?

I don't think that there's a case here, it's just playing on a popular myth. And I'm not defending Allen, who I find distateful, and I don't take the remark seriously as a racial epithet, I think it's spin, and I remember the whole thing about Trent Lott which was equally or maybe even more absurd, and got us Bill Frist who's a knucklehead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Idiotic.

Every human being has said something exceptionally stupid or distasteful at one time or another, it's human nature, especially MALE human nature, to open ones mouth and jam ones bootheel in, just ask our mighty captain of Serenity...

I'd like to slap any media pundit who wastes time on this petty crap when we have more important issues to worry about, but I guess we'll just have to settle for shaking our heads at their stupidity.

I don't much care what comes out of a politicians mouth anyway, cause it's 90% bullshit and 5% rhetoric and 5% catchy sound bites, and none of it worth a damn - I care what their voting record looks like, and what their policies are.

A racist remark doesn't bother me, a racist law or policy would.

In short, so he's an ass.. we knew this, he's a politician, duh! - that's NOT news, move along, move along, shows over folks, nothin left to see here....

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:48 AM

The Democrats are not gonna' beat Allen, at least not for his Senate seat. He currently holds a 16 point lead.

http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/75944

Webb worked for Reagan and that makes most Democrats I know around here pretty uneasy about him. I know Reagan has been canonized as off late, but Liberals still ain't to fond of 'em.

Webb's one redeeming quality to Democrats: said Bush had "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory" with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

That should please conservatives as well, if their at all concerned about Empire and it's inevitable decline (Rome, Britian, the Dutch, USA, etc..).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Webb

As for the Confederate flag, it's not big deal here. Most Conservatives don't think of the Civil War as being about slavery and VA is a conservative state. That might not fly in NC, where the minority population is great enough to do some damage at the polls, but VA is mostly crackers (outside of DC, Richmond, Norfolk); not a problem.

And I would have to disagree about all "lefties" thinking the right is racist. Although, I would say that most racists are on the right (covers head to prevent injury). There's a subtle, but significant difference in those two statements. I wouldn't ascribe this to the right being more racist, but their positions on some issues (affirmative action, homosexuaul rights, women's rights, etc...) are more conducive to that bigoted ideology.

And Dreamtrove, don't sweat Hillary getting elected. She is the most divisive figure in American politics. I think the Democrats actually want to win this one!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I doubt this. I Don't think Allen agree with Allen. I think it's a trumped up charge which avoids the whole policy dispute altogether, which serves only one master: George W. Bush. Or Hillary Clinton, the Janus face on the back of his head.

DT, you almost had me convinced, but there was some discussion in the Gullible thread that crystallized my opinion. Frem brought up a rather long list of Likud-loving neocons in the Administration: Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rumsfeld, Franklin, and Chertoff, to which I would add Abrams, Wurmser and Lieberman (who has on occasion referred to Israel as "we"). Now, all of these folks in one Administration is no accident. And they have DIRECT affiliations with (and prolly loyalties to) Israel and they seem to have a very narrow set of interests. But I fail to see how they blend in with the WTO/NAFTA/CAFTA crowd.

If you look at Bush's history of success- or lack thereof- with international trade negotiations, you'll see that while he talks about free trade, most of the international trade talks have failed to reach any substantive agreement in his tenure. (Thye manage to agree on symbolic issues like "aid to Africa" but always founder on agricultural subsidies.)

Bill Clinton, as far as I can tell, really believed in "free trade". HIS set of masters was really quite different from Bush's.

I suppose you can always argue that Hillary is not Bill, and that HER set of masters is more like dubya's. But I think more likely she is just bowing to the large New York Jewish Dem vote rather than reflecting any overarching conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, she sucks. Not because she's tied to dubya, but because she's a craven politician who reflects everyhting that's wrong with being a politician.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:20 AM

Clinton? Free Trade?

We haven't had free trade in this country for over 100 years. Just try to do some trading with Iran.

Or import ethanol from Brazil. 100% duty ain't free!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As far as Allen is concerned, with some exceptions he voted with the Republican Party.

Those exceptions are:

To appropriate $2 billion for a double layered fence along the Mexican border. (voted YES against both parties)

To incease appropriations for transit security by $300,000,000 (vote YES with the Dems)

and to increase appropriations for rails and other security (voted YES with the Dems)

To authorize multiyear appropriations for the F-22 (voted YES with the Dems)

to sunset the H-2C visa program (voted YES with the Dems)

To invoke cloture on immigration reform debate (voted NO against both parties)

Overall, I suppose you can say he's REALLY concerned about security and immigration, even more so than the average Republican.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000121/votes/

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We haven't had free trade in this country for over 100 years. Just try to do some trading with Iran.

Well yeah, I agree. I stuck with the moniker that most people are familiar with altho it does give automatic propaganda points to the international corporations that really want these laws.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 7:54 AM

For a more comprehensive look at his (or any Pol.)record, check out Project Vote Smart.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNIP9093

Some highlights:

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 95 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100 percent in 2005.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 75 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 0 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 7 percent in 2005.

Looks (at least to me) that this guy votes with the White House a whole Hell of a lot...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:

Looks (at least to me) that this guy votes with the White House a whole Hell of a lot...

I can't believe a US Senator would agree with the sitting president of his own party on alot of issues. I can't think of a single Democratic Senator that ever voted in favor of something Clinton supported. Never happened.

Perhaps the White House is really following Senator Allen's lead. If that is the case, then perhaps the Senator will be a good candidate in 2008.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:34 AM

Quote:
We haven't had free trade in this country for over 100 years. Just try to do some trading with Iran.

I don't know, it seems Halliburton had no problem doing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I can't believe a US Senator would agree with the sitting president of his own party on alot of issues. I can't think of a single Democratic Senator that ever voted in favor of something Clinton supported. Never happened.

Perhaps the White House is really following Senator Allen's lead. If that is the case, then perhaps the Senator will be a good candidate in 2008.

Oh yeah, very funny Hero.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 9:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Video at:

I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle. First, I'm hoping everyone who is commenting in this thread has seen the video. One of the things I really enjoy about the current day is the access to primary source documents. Here we have the uncut raw footage and can make up our own minds about what happened.

To jump to the end and answer the thread title question, I think that Allen has a good chance of being the Republican nominee for President in 2008 and that he has a good chance of being elected. This incident, far from hurting his chances, actually improves his branding with the party faithful. The people who see this video and decide not to vote for Allen probably weren't going to vote for him anyway and wouldn't vote for him for President. The Republican party runs personalities for President. Bush's personality resonated with a lot of voters (he's someone they would like to have a beer with, etc.). Allen has a lot in common with Bush, and this videotape highlights some of those commonalities.

What I see when I watch that tape is someone in a position of power bullying someone on the other end of the spectrum. There's code words (the use of macaca, which a hardcore subset of Allen supporters -ie white supremacists - will recognize but is ambiguous enough to be easily denied, reminiscent of the Dred Scott reference in the Presidential debates). And dehumanization (no point in even trying to figure out this guys name, better to call him by a label). And good natured ribbing (at least from the perspective of Allen, the classic defense of the verbal bully, "It's just a joke. C'mon, grow a thicker skin"). And reinforcement of just who should be considered an American (because someone who looks like the videographer couldn't possibly have been born in the US). In short, Allen is putting the videographer in his place with the support of the audience (the message: everyone here is with me except you because you're a monkey and not an American). He's playing to the crowd and to a larger crowd. Now I don't think Allen thought everything through to this level. But his behavior highlights some underlying assumptions.

That's what I get when I watch the video. From my perspective, he's the California version of Bush. And for all those out there who love to vote for a bully (because they mistake those attributes as strengths) he's the ideal candidate.

* edited to add (and edited once again): I also don't believe that Allen thinks he did anything wrong. His apology is of the classic non-apology type, "I'm sorry if you were offended." Allen has at least two videographers following Webb around so he is clearly familiar with how this footage might be used. In other words, I think Allen felt that his behavior would be perfectly acceptable to his supporters. And, from the reaction of the audience on the video, I think he was right. As far as whether his behavior is acceptable to a larger group of supporters in his potential Presidential run, judging by the responses just in this thread, I'd say Allen was right about that, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 11:30 AM

MISBEHAVEN

It should, but it won't. Historically, people of color tend to vote Democrat, and I'm sure that there's a part of Sen. Allen's constituency that his remark appeals to. The remainder of them will be either apathetic, or so partisan that they will be unwilling to vote for a Democrat at any cost. As for his bull

mohawk excuse, this proves that he's not only a racist, he's a liar as well.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:15 PM

George Allen seems to have either made an honest mistake or been the victim of a malicious set up. I think he has zero chance of being the republican '08 nominee. Allen is not a popular guy among his senate peers in the GOP, and he's a freshman senator, and offhand I cannot think of a freshman senator who won a party's nomination. Even if it did ever happen, there are always several who run, and end up at the bottom of the list. Allen is a loon, and I think he'll be wasting everyone's time if he runs. Clearly the MSM hates him, which was enough to kill the dean campaign and many others. I'm not even sure he can win re-election to the senate.
I think this theorizing is complete hogwash, he clearly thought it was the guy's name. George Allen is an idiot, not a total moron. He's not dumb enough to pull a stunt like that on video, and also no one ever does anything for the white supremacist vote, ever. Most fringe lunatic groups like this are not only small and insignificant, but are already dead set on who they are going to vote for, eg. the less jewish candidate. Which in this case may not be Allen. Jim Webb is northern irish and no part jewish. White supremacists also tend to be left-wing, counter to the left-wings constant reference to them as 'right-wingers' (remember, Hitler was the left wing candidate, the right-wing candidate was Hindenberg, who actually won the election.) Just putting the necessary counterpoint on this.

BTW, Allen is one of my least favorite republicans in the senate, and it wouldn't bother me at all if he got sacked, but this is the lowest form of politics. If you want to defeat the ideological ideas of Allen, should there be any, other than "Yes, Master," then I'd be happy to join in. But not in this kind of sleaze.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:22 PM

BTW, no one calls east indians apes, in french or otherwise, and this is hardly the least of Allen's sins. Real high up there is that he owns stock in Barr labs, which makes the morning after pill, in direct opposition to his own stance. But clearly, a democrat somewhere is digging all of this up. I think there's sleaze attacking sleaze here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:

Looks (at least to me) that this guy votes with the White House a whole Hell of a lot...

I can't believe a US Senator would agree with the sitting president of his own party on alot of issues.

H

Tell that to Senator Specter or Lieberman.

I only wanted to cite evidence of my claim that the guy is a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration.

He votes their way 96% of the time. That's high, even for a Republican.

http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10100

"He has consistently followed President Bush's agenda in the Senate, to the tune of 96 percent of the time in 2005."

And as to the veracity of the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator

"The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and published by the non-profit American Spectator Foundation."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
BTW, no one calls east indians apes, in french or otherwise, and this is hardly the least of Allen's sins. Real high up there is that he owns stock in Barr labs, which makes the morning after pill, in direct opposition to his own stance. But clearly, a democrat somewhere is digging all of this up. I think there's sleaze attacking sleaze here.

Nice. Nothing like being called a sleaze. I appreciate the support.

Also, clearly, somebody does call Indians apes: Senator George Allen (see video link).

And as to your claim that I'm some Democrat digging up dirt, I also included the link about the Democratic nominee's anti-semitic campaign flier and have not been supportive of Webb. So, that accusation isn't really accurate, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:26 PM

dreamtrove,

You're missing my point. (Well, I'm assuming that you're replying to my post since I don't get notification anymore). My point was not that Allen was trying to subtly drive up support among the supremacist community*. My point was that Allen was engaging in bullying. How he chose to bully the videographer was using a number of different tactics, one of which was to use a slur that would fly under the radar of those not in the know (in the same way that, when many people say, "liberal hollywood elite," what others hear is, "Hollywood Jew").

I watch the video and I see bullying. You watch the video and I guess you don't see that.

The larger point I was making was that the good-natured bully type of personality is one that Allen and Bush share (Bush's parceling out of nicknames, the shoulder rub to the German leader and the kissing of bald men's heads are all examples of domination at work - in other words, Bush uses words and actions to put people in their place). In this instance, Allen was putting someone in their place in such a way that it could all be laughed off if he was ever called on it.

This type of personality resonates with some voters and we've already seen one President elected and re-elected who exhibits these traits and had limited experience. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw it again.

* Allen doesn't need to convince supremacists to vote for him. They know all about his credentials (for example - his commission of what is typically considered a hate crime during his adolescence).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 8:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Webb's campaign also put out a cartoon during the Democratic primary portraying his Jewish opponent with a large hook nose and money spilling from his pockets.

Just wanted to update this thread. I hadn't seen the entire Webb ad until it was reproduced over at David Neiwert's blog (along with some good commentary on Webb's use of racist imagery in this particular instance and Allen's ties to white supremacist organizations). The entire entry, in my opinion, is a good read. Here are a couple of money quotes: "Democrats cannot hope to make gains with racist voters without irrevocably compromising their core principles, particularly their dedication to civil rights and racial justice"; "I hope Jim Webb can unseat George Allen. But I hope that his success doesn't cost the Democratic Party its soul." (from http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/09/wrong-kind-of-tradition.html ).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 12:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey ZERO

Originally posted by SignyM:
Many people secretly agree with Allen.
Originally posted by Hero:
About the flag?

NOPE. About the NOOSES the idiot keeps hanging in his office. Asswipe.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:32 PM

Fellow Traveller,

I was not refering to you as a potentially snooping sleeze democrat, I was refering to Webb, sorry you took offense.

This whole case reminds me somewhat of the congressional race in my sister's disctrict. The democrat had someone break into an office and steal sealed files from a case to use as campaign material against the republican, which is blatantly illegal. OTOH, the files showed that the republican had in fact pulled a gun on his wife during a domestic dispute. It's times like this where a prepared third party candidate could win.

Soupcatcher,

I've done enough digging now to come to the conclusion that Allen is esentially a chimpanzee in a suit, and I can't actually credit him with any planned motivation at all. Now I think he's just an ass and he's being an ass as much as he can. He was probably frustrated and unhappy with the presence of a non-white democrat and so he cranked up the pump on his one singular brain cell, and came up with this brilliant maneuver.

You're right about the bullying, and they're both chimpanzee, he and bush, and should be sent to a zoo somewhere.

I disagree about the 'jew' translation. I think another one of the cheap trick of 'everyone who disagree with me is a racist.'

the liberal hollywood elite is just that. It's almost one-sidedly liberal, it is hollywood, and it's undoubtedly the most elitest club we have. Only about 60% of them are jewish. Joss isn't jewish, but he's still part of the elite, his father was a Tv producer and his grandfather was a Tv producer. He didn't break into this field because of his talent, his talent was completely a coincidence. He has his job because he inherited the position. There's virtually no merit to the system whatsoever. And, if anyone in it is *gasp* a conservative, they get shreded. I think Joss is given a little bit of a cold shoulder not even in the least bit because he's not jewish, but because he's not liberal enough. He won't lace his shows with stock liberal propoganda messages that are in most shows and movies. He's not "one of us" and that's why he he gets cancelled. I no longer believe in the cold finanical ratings game, I think the whole system is being engineered by a small group of suits, many of whom are not jewish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 2:11 AM

Great read, SoupCatcher. Thanks for the link. I am ashamed that I did not know about Allen's association with those groups. I am, however, even more ashamed that my choice for Senate in VA is either of these scumbags.

DT, no problem. I was being a pissy little b*tch. Too much coffee, I suspect...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Great read, SoupCatcher. Thanks for the link. I am ashamed that I did not know about Allen's association with those groups. I am, however, even more ashamed that my choice for Senate in VA is either of these scumbags.

Glad you found it interesting, FellowTraveler. I agree that it is shameful when Democratic candidates for office engage in the strategy that the GOP has found so effective, Nixon's Southern Strategy. I have completely given up on the GOP mainly for that reason, that they have reached out to and made use of racism as part of their overall strategy. It's consistent with another of their strategies, the leverage homophobia strategy. One national discrimination party is enough. We don't need two. So when the only other viable candidate engages in similar tactics where does that leave citizens who don't believe in beating the "fear the other" horse? Fortunately for our nation, Democratic candidates appealing to racist stereotypes as a campagin strategy is more of an anomaly. However, it is important to make sure that this doesn't become a trend. When millions of racist Democratic voters jumped to the GOP during the fifties and sixties in response to the Civil Rights movement that was a good thing for the Democratic party. With Republicans starting to jump to the Democratic party (Webb in Virginia and other elected officials in Kansas, for example) it is important to send the message that the embrace racism strategies that work for the GOP should be left behind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Mit Romney for President!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree about the 'jew' translation. I think another one of the cheap trick of 'everyone who disagree with me is a racist.'

I'm not sure I've got my point across - at least with respect to that one sentence that you're responding to here - so I'll try again. To go back, here's what I wrote: "How he chose to bully the videographer was using a number of different tactics, one of which was to use a slur that would fly under the radar of those not in the know (in the same way that, when many people say, 'liberal hollywood elite,' what others hear is, 'Hollywood Jew')." I wasn't talking about reality, which we can argue back and forth about. I was talking about stereotypes. If you've never heard someone use the phrase Jew York City, or Jewlywood, or other similar references then it's a bit harder to explain. I've heard people make those references. And I've also heard people make references to Liberal Hollywood, or Liberal New York using the same disgust in their voice. In other words, the terms are synonyms but used with different audiences. If they were with like-minded people they would say Jew York City. If they're not sure about the views they would say Liberal New York. What bigots have learned is to disguise their bigotry, not change their ignorant point of view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:36 PM

I gut feeling is just that the world jewish population, like the world christian population, the republicans in congress, etc., should catch up to the current times and realize "you're not the oppressed, you're the people in charge, so drop the victim act."

Quote:
If you've never heard someone use the phrase Jew York City, or Jewlywood, or other similar references then it's a bit harder to explain.

the only person who ever said "jew york city" is steven colbert.

Quote:
And I've also heard people make references to Liberal Hollywood, or Liberal New York using the same disgust in their voice. In other words, the terms are synonyms but used with different audiences.

I think this is an absurd claim. liberals are 50% of the nations population, jews are 5%. That's like saying 45% of liberals don't matter because they're not jewish, which is something a fair number of jews I've known probably actually believe.

Quote:
If they were with like-minded people they would say Jew York City.

This is tantamount to saying that conservatives are nazis. Nazis, btw, were objectively left wing, hence, liberals, hence would not use the word 'liberal' in this regard.

Quote:
If they're not sure about the views they would say Liberal New York. What bigots have learned is to disguise their bigotry, not change their ignorant point of view.

Either that, - or - it's a very convenient thing for people who want to be offended like to believe, because it turns all their opponents into nazis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT ! You need a dictionary, STAT ! Nazis are NOT liberals. PLEASE don't run further down the maze of your own confused thinking. We'd hate to see you turn into a mumbling, babbbling crazy person!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:55 PM

dreamtrove,

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, it's kind of hard to explain if you've never heard someone use the phrase Jew York City in a derogatory manner. So I put this down as an inability on my part to communicate. If you don't accept that there are people out there who use this term as a slur do a quick google and see the nature of the websites that pop up.

I think you're jumping the shark with your response and painting with the broad brush. There is a subset of those who use the word liberal as a slur who are also using it as a racist slur. That is my claim. Not that everyone who uses the word liberal as a slur is also using it as a racist slur. A subset.

I'm wondering if we might be repeating what happened in our discussion about Social Security where we are starting from different places. So, to help clarify your position, what do you consider racism?

And, even though it isn't really relevant, the number of Americans who self-identify as liberals has hovered around twenty percent for quite a long time. Not fifty percent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 2:37 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And, even though it isn't really relevant, the number of Americans who self-identify as liberals has hovered around twenty percent for quite a long time. Not fifty percent.

I thought this would be a good time to post a link to

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I thought it was very interesting and informative. It uses a few basic questions to assign one a spot on a 'politcal compass' that incorporates not only the traditional (and increasingly meaningless) left/right economics-based spectrum, but also adds a libertarian/authoritarian social issues dimension. Instead of two 'wings,' there are four 'corners'- the right/totalitarian Bush/Hitler/Auraptor corner, the right/libertarian Dreamtrove corner, the left/libertarian Ghandi/Mandela/most people corner, and the left totalitarian Stalin/Castro corner. I don't personally know of anyone in this corner. It's still cartoonish and inaccurate, but its a bit better than red vs. blue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 4:11 PM

Rue,

They certainly aren't conservatives.

I'm not saying liberals are Nazis.
Nazis are a type of socialist, which generally speaking is a type of liberal. They were the left wing ticket in the election the lost to hindenburg who was on the right wing ticket, backed by the 'junkers' who were free market conservatives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 4:22 PM

soup,

I've never heard anyone say "jumping the shark" either. I live outside of new york city, and I've never heard it.

I think you're reaching when you say anti-liberal is really anti-jew, and I think that maybe you didn't intend it this way, or maybe you picked it up from somewhere else, but what it amounts to is silencing all political debate with namecalling.

The reality is that hollywood, which is run by an elite, is overbearingly liberal. So much so that I find it hard to watch much of their tripe. When it's not Joss Whedon, most of my cinema comes from overseas. It's not an anti-semitic thing at all. I'm a big fan of jerry bruckheimer, jon stewart, even spielberg to a point, and undoubtedly countless other jews who don't come to mind. It's not the jewishness about hollywood that irks me, it's the arrogant, self-indulgent, overbearingly smug liberalism.

Quote:
And, even though it isn't really relevant, the number of Americans who self-identify as liberals has hovered around twenty percent for quite a long time. Not fifty percent.

I don't buy it. When Lila Lipscum identfied herself as a "conservative democrat" I think she was part of a really niche group which has joe lieberman and about 20 other people in it. I think democrats are liberals, if they had to choose between the two, it would be liberal. All those people like greens, socialists and whatnot, they undoubtedly identify themselves as liberals too.

Finally, jews are particularly liberal. it's a pretty conservative faith overall. there's a jewish community near here, they're pretty conservative. My jewish neighbors are pretty conservative. I don't think your equation works either way. I think maybe you're just being paranoid.

I suppose in a similar situation, there are probably people who think 'conservative' means christian. I'm certainly not a christian. I think christians, active christians, are still a minority among conservatives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 4:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm pleased to be in the company of Ghandi, Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 4:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT,

The Nazis were reactionaries.

The Nazis used the word 'socialist' in their name, as did the Russian Communists. Please don't mistake them as being the same!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 5:08 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

I cannot believe this is happening... I started reading this thread thinking "he's toast, of course - everyone will say so", but I now realize I was probably wrong - I really hadn't thought the whole scenario through. It is very sad to me that bullying of this type endears any politician to any group of people. To my mind, it is definitely bullying.

I think the Daily Show did some very bruising coverage of this event.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 6:04 PM

I would never be please to be in the political company of mandela, though personally I here he's quite a likeable guy. he was a leader of a pretty radical terrorist group that is now terrorizing africa. I don't think he's anywhere near the dalai lama, politically speaking. He mellowed somewhat with age. I think ghandi meant well, and the results were not as terrible as they could have been. Still, india has been not without problems for some time.

As for the nazis, not a chance. They were not reactionaries. Reactionaries need two things in order to be reactionaries:

1. They need to be snapping back to a socio-political state of the past.
2. They need to be reacting *to* something.

Osama bin laden is a reactionary. He's longing to return islam to a mohammaden social era, and he's reacting to rapid westernization of the ME in the 80s, and the associated territory encroachment.

The Nazis were creating something new (and dreadful, but definitely new) a dreamt up utopia (to them, dystopia to the rest of us) which had never existed before. They were creating a new socialist state with an industrial mechanical society which ran everything like a well oiled machine (the oil was jews) They were reacting to nothing (aside from the depression) but it was not that the social order had gone too far in its radical change and they felt the need to snap back. They were most certainly the radical change which was being enacted.

Nazis were radicals, and socialists (it's in their name) I'm always stunned that the idea didn't simply die with them, never to be seen again.

Yet socialism, and indeed, national socialism, are alive and well today. Anyone catch Evo Morales' speech where he said "I'm a nationalist and a socialist"? It's not an accident that the bolivarian socialists are getting strong campaign backing from german immigrants (these ones are not jews)

Quote:
The Nazis used the word 'socialist' in their name, as did the Russian Communists. Please don't mistake them as being the same!

They were much more the same then they were different. The nazis far more than just "used the name." They were socialists in every respect. Sure, the part where "some of the populous gets radically exterminated" may not have been in marx' book, (but it sure shows up in a lot of socialist regimes). But both were top-down societies which believed in absolute govt. control, silencing all dissent as disruptive, and potentially harmful to the stability of the state. Both engage in massive ethnic purges of the population (the russians exterminated more ethnic polish slavs in the ukraine than the germans killed jews) Both relied on a heavy national pride and worship of 'the good of the state' as the ultimate goal of every citizen, and both were agressively expansionist military superpowers. Neither believed in a free market economy, or in guaranteed individual liberties, both strove to run completely mono-ethnic societies. Both invaded poland, and embarked on extermination of the local population once there.

Nazi Germany's crash and burn style has left a different legacy than it would have, if it had survived. If you think about it, a society founded on massive genocide can outlive that stigma. Afterall, look at the United States. You and I most likely live on land which once was home to indians who our ancestors mercilessly slaughtered in one of the world's bloodiest race wars. And think, at the time we entered world war two, that indian war was not even as old a memory as the holocaust is today. People would probably be dealing with Nazi germany today without the jews even crossing their minds. It wouldn't be pleasant, but much the way we dealt with the soviets for years without thinking of 15 million ukrainians or 13 million "whites" (not an ethnic association, but a political one) or countless victims of WWII.

The winners write the history books, and so we all learned that to some extent, the soviets saved us from the horrible wrong-headed ideology of the germans. But if we had been on the other side, say, if russia had attacked america instead of japan, then we might have learned about how the germans saved us from the horrible wrong-headed ideology of the russians.

I have nothing against russians, mind you, but then, I have nothing against germans either. But the soviet symbol is one which invokes no dread in our sole today not because the cold war is over, but because the soviet institution outlived its nightmare. (and we never had a ukranian press.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 7:16 PM

dreamtrove,

Once again, I think you're missing my point. The operative word is subset. I'm not saying that you are in this subset.

You can call it paranoia or you can call it being thin-skinned or having a lack of humor. But I disagree. Where I think we disagree is I'm guessing you only think of racism as an overt action - a lynching, or a cross burning or something of that nature - whereas I think of racism as any word or decision influenced by prejudicial stereotypes about members of another ethnic group. When a realtor doesn't show certain houses to a couple who is African-American, that is racism to me. When a young man of dark skin is automatically assumed to be foreign-born, that is racism to me. When someone uses code words to mask what they really want to say, that is racism to me. It is this last instance that I am referring to when I say that a subset of those who use liberal as a slur are also using it as a racist slur.

I happen to see racism as very prevalent in this country. I'm guessing you do not. I could be wrong. And I also see that bigots have gotten a lot smarter about the language they use. Maybe it's because I grew up in a pretty diverse neighborhood and have a pretty generic olive like complexion so I can pass as a number of different ethnic groups. I'm not sure. All I know is that I heard a lot of racist crap growing up. The filipinos ragged on the blacks. The blacks ragged on the latinos. Everyone ragged on the Armenians. And the whites ragged on everyone.

In regards to self-identification and polling, here is what I am referring to with the twenty-percent liberal remark: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab3_1.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 7:53 PM