SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Right’s Racism Problem

TIMOTHY NOAH APRIL 11, 2012

The Right’s Racism Problem

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

National Review has jettisoned another writer for associating himself with racism. Robert Weissberg, an occasional contributor to the magazine’s Phi Beta Cons blog, will no longer contribute, editor Rich Lowry has declared, because he “participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism.” Whoops! This comes hard on the heels of John Derbyshire’s dismissal, also for racially offensive commentary. By the logic of newsmagazine trend-spotting, one more transgressor at National Review will give us a trend. But I’m not sure we really need one more. Ann Coulter was dismissed years ago for following up a column expressing religious intolerance toward Muslims with one making snarky reference to “swarthy males.” A decade before that, William F. Buckley fired the late Joe Sobran on grounds of anti-Semitism. Indeed, National Review has a laudable tradition, going back to its founding, of disassociating itself with racists (even though some of its own early editorial comment about race was fairly reprehensible). So, to some extent, does the right in general. Remember when Sen. Trent Lott made his fatuous comment, in 2002, praising Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 Dixiecrat campaign for president? He lost the Republican leadership over that. It wasn’t liberals who demanded he step down; we liberals were only too happy to see such an obviously unacceptable character retain a leadership position in the GOP. He was jettisoned by fellow Republicans, who were extremely sensitive to any accusation that the GOP was racist.

The question is why this should be so frequently necessary. Conservatism isn’t an inherently racist belief system, and most conservatives are no more racist than most liberals are. But it is true that if you’re a racist you’re likely to gravitate toward conservatism, and toward the Republican party, for certain fairly obvious reasons. Its modern resurgence after the 1964 Civil Rights Bill (passed with more Republican support than Democratic, though opposed by that year’s Republican presidential nominee) was fueled by southern white migration from the Democratic party. The Republican party’s small-government philosophy has limited federal interference with discriminatory practices at the state and local level, and with racial bigotry generally. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court will likely soon abolish affirmative action altogether. Charles Murray, who two decades ago published a book arguing that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites, is beloved by conservative commentators (“Arguably the most consequential social scientist alive”—Jonah Goldberg) even as the larger social science community regards Murray as a crackpot. The Republican party’s tax policies favor rich “job creators,” who tend disproportionately to be white, and its opposition to the welfare state—initially to cash transfers, then to non-cash assistance like food stamps, and finally even to unemployment benefits—tends to harm lower-income people, who tend disproportionately to be black. The Republican party’s criminal justice policies have put an appallingly high proportion of black men in jail, often for petty drug offenses. Republicans tend to favor the death penalty, which leads to execution of a disproportionate number of blacks. Southern Republicans struggle to suppress a dewey-eyed sentimentality for the Confederacy, even though their party was founded in opposition to slavery, and even though its greatest leader, Abraham Lincoln, fought a war against Confederate secession. None of these affinities or policies is inherently racist. But taken together, they’re going to be a lot more attractive to racists than the liberal policies of the Democratic party.

These facts are so well known that bringing them up is usually regarded as some sort of cheap shot akin to pointing out that a person with a prosthetic leg walks with a limp. But a one-legged person doesn’t have much choice in the matter. Can the same be said of the GOP?

Dismissing the occasional racist is one way for conservatives to deal with their racism problem. Reconsidering aspects of their ideology that repel African Americans and other minorities and attract allies with toxic views on race would be another. But that won’t happen anytime soon. So expect the occasional purges to continue.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 103 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

103 comments

We're living in bizarre times - we have this disgusting spectacle today on top of the extravagantly stupid publicity whore Allen West, who has the gravitas and governing knowledge of a toothbrush. Sigh.

- WandreyCer

April 11, 2012 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is nice to see that you are up so early, Timothy.

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't seem to be a problem once alternative realities are offered. One day, a proud official of the GOP can tell their grandchildren how the GOP decimated the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan.

- Doug12

April 11, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Charles Murray is so yesterday. Several weeks ago I watched an interview by Bob Wright of Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at UVA (and formerly at the Univ. of Chicago), about Haidt's new book, The Righteous Mind. I was impressed by Haidt's presentation of the foundation for the thesis in his book, even though Wright, one of my favorites, came across as skeptical, at best. So I bought the book. It has to be read to be believed. Charles Murray is so yesterday.

- rayward

April 11, 2012 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rayward, I saw that interview, and am intrigued by your response. What is today?

- miceelf

April 11, 2012 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Conservatism isn't an inherently racist belief system, and most conservatives are no more racist than most liberals are." I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, at least not with respect to what defines a conversative today. Entirely fiscal-minded conservatism, fine, but when it comes to social conservatism, I find it difficult to see how you separate the racism, misogyny, and homophobia from the overall philosophy. "Constitutional rights and societal protections for me and not for thee" is the sin qua non of today's conservatives.

- Tristan

April 11, 2012 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spell check of the day--secession not "succession."

- sharib

April 11, 2012 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yet, when confronting right wing people on this issue, we get excuses like, "Well. Look at Herbert Cain and Governor Haley. They are TP favorites. If we were racist would we like Cain and Haley (of course Haley is white but whatever...) There is a ton of denial out there on top of everything else; and people claiming that the only reason they hate is Obama is due to the "fact" that he is a far left wing demagogue (as if).

- Sophia

April 11, 2012 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Herman Cain, Sophia, Herman Cain. Shucky ducky!

- miceelf

April 11, 2012 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to agree with Tristan - only with the most narrow definition of "racism," that is, taking it to be the avowed, self-conscious hostility by one individual toward all members of a different race under any circumstances, does it make sense to say that "most conservatives are no more racist than most liberals are." But to the extent that conservatives, almost by definition, are nostalgic for a past that excluded large groups of people a priori from participating in authoritative roles simply because of their ethnic background, it seems that they are, de facto, more racist than liberals. Moreover, the conservative insistence on the absolute independence of individuals from their social circumstances means that they cannot conceive of structural racism that wouldn't be immediately translatable into such avowed racist attitudes as Mr. Derbyshire evinced. I think that's why when a Derbyshire does show up, they find it so discomfiting; it means that the structural or institutional racism they would like to exclude from political consideration is suddenly rendered visible in individual terms.

- rmutt

April 11, 2012 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's right, Sophia. It's true, for instance, that conservatives hated Bill Clinton, but they didn't doubt he was American or imagine he was Muslim. They thought he shouldn't be president because of his character, not that he wasn't eligible for the office because of his background. Now, what could possibly explain those different reactions?

- rmutt

April 11, 2012 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess you have forgotten (the memory hole out here is enormous), but there was quite a bit off talk in the 90's on the right about Big Bill being from he wrong side of the tracks in Arkansas, of being white trash, etc.

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That should read "the wrong side."

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Conservatism isn't an inherently racist belief system, and most conservatives are no more racist than most liberals are." Viewers of the South Carolina debates might beg to differ. Certainly the GOP has made a lot of hay over the last generation by appealing to racial prejudice among white people at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and racial attitudes are a big reason why the GOP has an electoral lock on most of the old Confederacy today. Cynical electoral strategy, or deep-seated racial animus, which one is it?

- JEFF FREY

April 11, 2012 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>Abraham Lincoln fought a war against Confederate succession... Yes, he certainly didn't want them naming their successors.

- floydsm8

April 11, 2012 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Cynical electoral strategy, or deep-seated racial animus, which one is it?" It may have started out as the former, but it has turned into the latter. If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you rise up with fleas.

- zardoz67

April 11, 2012 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, sharlb and floydm8. Of course I meant "secession," not "succession," and it's fixed now. Now I can move on to my next post, about the War of Spanish Secession.

- Timothy Noah

April 11, 2012 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noah-nothing - returning to a pillar of liberal political strategy I see. Race baiting. The right is racist because the left needs them to be. African Americans need to be afraid of Republican racism otherwise Democrats would never win a national election. If only 1 in 3 African Americans changed their mind, Dems are doomed. And in typical hypocrisy, no mention of how the MSM working overtime to portray Zimmerman as a white racist, albeit in a clumsy and stupid manner. Between economic parasitism, race-baiting, and frugality when giving to the poor --- liberals have both my pity and contempt. But there is hope. Turn your life around.

- mr_rationale

April 11, 2012 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, Rat, by your reasoning, or lack thereof, all that the Republicans must do to get those sweet black votes is to convince them negroes that they are not the racists that Democrats cravenly make them out to be. Shouldn't be too hard, right? And yet somehow all of the incredibly racist shit that Republicans say and do keeps getting in the way. Why can't those dumb blacks figure out what's best for them and vote Republican, dammit!? From your retarded comments, we always knew you were a lazy, stupid piece of shit. Now, it's apparent you are also a lazy, stupid, racist piece of shit.

- bunthorne

April 11, 2012 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like when Mr. Rat appears here. I worry that the uninformed won't have access to public discourse and Mr. Rat assures me that is not the case.

- Nusholtz

April 11, 2012 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry Mr. Noah sir, but I don't recall any war about the War of Spanish Secession. You are probably referring to the French and Indian Wars and the War of Austrian Succession. Keep up the good work.

- Doug12

April 11, 2012 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er, calling it the War of Spanish Secession ... that was a joke. I'm not really blogging about it. War of the Spanish Succession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession Forgive me if you were answering with a joke I didn't get.

- Timothy Noah

April 11, 2012 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's best not to use the word retarded in a derogatory sense. Does an injustice to people with development disabilities to lump them in with those you're deriding. The net value of adding the imagery to your insult doesn't outweigh the cost of offending people who aren't party to the dispute and don't share the dumbass views of rat.

- rusty

April 11, 2012 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding Rat, as frustrating as Rat's comments are, I'd prefer that if we do decide to address his/her misguided beliefs, we do so in a manner befitting a reasonable manner of decorum and address the issue at hand as opposed to personal attacks (that doesn't mean we can't use the occasional f-bomb or so where appropriate). I know it's hard not to stoop to Rats level, but I find his/her comments serve the useful purpose of reminding me how bad and poorly reasoned conservative views can be. It also keeps the blog from becoming an echo chamber for TNR's own readers and editors views. That goes for any of our other regular, conservative, polemic posters too.

- jet

April 11, 2012 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan and others have gotten to the meat of the matter: the distinction between individual racism and structural racism and the right's refusal to acknowledge the existence of the latter. Most white conservatives will say that they are not personally racist, that they would happily have a black family over to dinner--that they never do so in reality is forgotten--but their ideology of individual initiative and individual responsibility cannot acknowledge that present day structural factors as well as the fallout from past overt legal discrimination advantage their own white children at the expense of people of color. Instead they point to measurable differences in outcomes between races--rates of high school graduation, out of wedlock birth, criminal conviction, etc--that are consequences of structural inequality and cite them as reasons to tolerate continued structural inequality, and sometimes, as in the case of John Derbyshire, for overt individual discrimination. I judge that most conservatives--including black conservatives--harbor this denialist pattern of belief. Is that racism? Maybe not in thought, but in deed arguably yes.

- AaronW

April 11, 2012 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Simpsons have already covered this: http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcvdzxx89r1qz4si8o1_500.jpg Picture worth a million words.

- Konstantin

April 11, 2012 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That should be "The Simpsons *has* already covered this."

- Konstantin

April 11, 2012 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are half-right, jet. One person here stooped well below rationale's level. As illogical and a ad hominen as rationale always is, rat has never used foul language here that I know of. And I am a liberal, but as one who often dissents from the groupthink, I suppose that I don't come under your rubric.

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Structural racism? I assume that is the same - or roughly so - as institutional racism, which is a favorite trope of the left. Racism isn't what it used to be, but a lot of people left of center haven't got the news yet. People could definitely benefit from reading our own John McWhorter on race, but he is far over the heads of many readers of The New Republic.

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When we are most convinced of our righteousness and purity (and most sure of our opponents' flaws and despicable qualities) is when we are most at risk. If the right's abiding flaws have been racism, contempt for "lower" classes, sexism, and (of late) homophobia and Islamaphobia, where has the left gone traditionally astray and down what dangerous paths are we likely to get ourselves into trouble? I just a few minutes ago read an article in the TNR "Book" about Robespierre (who foreshadowed the Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot abominations). What crimes are the left working on while we pat ourselves on the backs?

- skahn

April 11, 2012 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, I think that the left is a spent force They had quite a run from Robespierre to Lenin to Pol Pot, but now they are deep in the shadows, reeling from global capitalism's triumphalism.

- liberalref

April 11, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Think fast, libref, choosing from behind the Rawlsian wall of ignorance would you rather be born white or black all other innate attributes being identical. If you answer, "It would make no difference to me", you're either a liar or a fool. But if it would make a difference, what's your explanation? Assuming you would decline to argue that blacks are innately inferior, it seems to me that the only two factors that could be playing a role are system-wide discriminatory factors--such as the fact that while blacks are less likely than whites to use illicit drugs and only marginally more likely to traffic illicit drugs they are many times more likely to go to jail for possession and trafficking--and the carryover from centuries of overt, institutionalized racism which, to my mind, is much the same thing. As for McWhorter, you and I must not have been reading the same articles. Nothing of his that I've read suggests that he believes the fight against racism is a done deal.

- AaronW

April 12, 2012 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I enjoyed the "Spanish Secession" joke, Timothy. Keep it up!

- JEFF FREY

April 12, 2012 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For a while now, liberalref, I've been trying to organize my thoughts on what it is about your online presence here at TNR that is so uniquely grating. I think I've finally got it: it's the smug cluelessness with which you seek to place yourself in the same club as Tim Noah, James McWhorter and the other professionals who labor here for our edification all while putting yourself forward as the final arbiter as who is intellectually worthy to be in the club along with you. (Most of us, apparently, are not.) Now, such behavior would be off-putting enough in and of itself, but if you yourself, liberalref, ever had anything of substance to say on any subject whatsoever, anything other than a restatement of something you read somewhere written by another, then the bogus, sycophantic familiarity you assume with TNR's writers might be semi-tolerable. Unfortunately for all concerned, the fact is that never do you offer any comment more substantive than a brain-dead thumbs-up or thumbs-down, nor have you ever evinced any intellectual capacity other than the ability to read English and repeat what you've read. To return to the point at hand, namely whether or not racism is an active force in contemporary American life and society, I challenge you to explain to all of us your reasons for asserting that it is not. Please give evidence to support your contentions, and please recognize that argument from authority does not count as evidence. If, as I suspect, you did not understand that you were asserting the contemporary non-existence of racism but merely saw a low-cost opportunity to set yourself apart and above myself, I accept your apology in advance.

- AaronW

April 12, 2012 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo Aaron! You hit the nail right on the head!

- bunthorne

April 12, 2012 at 1:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[A]nd its opposition to the welfare state—initially to cash transfers, then to non-cash assistance like food stamps, and finally even to unemployment benefits—tends to harm lower-income people, who tend disproportionately to be black." Correct but the problem is that a distinction is rarely ever made between "percentage" of blacks, as a population (of blacks) versus the number of welfare recipients in terms of absolute numbers. Percentages without absolute terms and absolute terms without percentages are problematic because there isn't any context provided for objective analysis. For example, more whites receive welfare benefits than blacks--in absolute terms, and strangely enough, despite the wildly reinforced perception, whites recipients also represent a greater number in percentage terms. " According to the New York Times, 36 million Americans relied on food stamps. More than 24 million of them were white, 8 million were African American and 6 million were Hispanic of any race." -- The Root "CBS points out that only nine percent of Iowans on food stamps are black — and 84 percent are white." --Think Progress Blacks represent 12 percent of the U.S. population of 313M. For blacks to make up 100 percent of food stamp recipients, more than 95 percent of blacks would have to receive food stamps. So, why does the perception that blacks receive most public assistance dollars exist, or persist? Is it only because a large percentage of blacks--as a racial cohort? Possibly. But I suspect the media abets conservatives by perpetuating this notion by broadcasting videos and publishing photos of welfare recipients in urban areas with significant black populations. For those of you who watch TV news (or used to, like me) weren't left with the impression that only blacks receive welfare?

- tec619

April 12, 2012 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Institutional racism surely exist or is as widely practiced as it was several decades ago but to pretend it doesn't exist is subscribing to a delusion. Even in areas where minority members should think they are safe from racism, it is still practiced, and not necessarily as corporate policy but because a racist few decided to circumvent race-neutral corporate practices and engage in discriminatory behavior. Doesn't the recent settlement between Bank of America and Justice Department over Countrywide's lending practices speak to that fact? For those who don't recall, Countrywide employees steered blacks and hispanics to higher interest, riskier subprime loans despite the applicants' having similar or identical credit to white applicants. Countrywide's credit and risk algorithms didn't factor for race. Yet minority members were overwhelmingly offered more expensive loans. Imagine that!! Did any Fox program air hours of coverage on this outrage? I think not. Discrimination also occurred in the auto lending area. I believe Toyota Motors Credit settled either with the US DoJ or the state of California over similar practices. Another example of employees circumventing race-neutral procedures to screw racial and ethnic minorities. Yet where is the conservative outrage over such execrable behavior?

- tec619

April 12, 2012 at 2:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a self-parody. You write of my cluelessness even as you refer to John McWhorter as "James." Priceless. And further, on the topic of cluelessness. I have never once put myself in the same category as Mr. McWhorter or Mr. Noah. Only a total fool would write that, but then you more than qualify for that honor. John McWhorter is a brilliant linguist and he writes brilliantly on race, too, and much else besides. He is one of a number of what I refer to as my"self-selected mentors". I was very privileged to get a tremendously nice email reply from him last year. Not that you would know it, but there is a huge amount of space between the likes of you and roid and numerous others here and Messrs. Noah and McWhorter. I reside somewhere in that territory, but this would be beyond your grasp. You are a total fraud. You aren't angry at roid, who swears a blue streak at people out here, you are angry with me, because I contest groupthink on a regular basis. I surmise that if I were to treat you as roid has treated me and any other number other commenters, that your infantile self would seek out legal action. A total fraud, as I wrote, just like any number of other commenters who have raged against me, while saying not one word about roid. Your invocation of John Rawls is hilarious (your "think fast" phrase is funny, too - do you think at all?). Merely because I wrote that racism isn't the force that it once was in the US, your troglodytic mind seems to assume that my racial views are akin to someone on the far right. For years, I have attacked that rightist fool, Dinesh D'Souza, for writing a book about the "end of racism." But nuances are definitely lost on the likes of you and D'Souza. It is a major thesis of John McWhorter's that racism is not the biggest problem for African- Americans any more, and that to act as if it is, is counterproductive and retrograde. I have seen how this works before my very eyes, but a subtle dialectical point like this is probably in the stratosphere, as far as you are concerned. Along with the stalwart liberal legal philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, I don't find John Rawls' writings particularly useful. As Dworkin states, his ideas are too abstract. But that is an extraneous issue, because Rawls doesn't even apply here, as I wrote above, because of your pathetic misunderstanding of what I wrote about race. And speaking of being behind a veil of ignorance, it is deliciously ironic that you would employ this Rawlsian concept. Now I need to gird myself for the customary circle jerk that is certain to follow my comment.

- liberalref

April 12, 2012 at 2:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice one lib... You caught my name mix-up. Good one! As for the rest of your post, you only make my point for me. Make an argument for chrissake rather than just name check a bunch of writers you claim to have read. And what's with the excessive praise for McWhorter? The "brilliant" linguist? For one thing, he doesn't need your praise. You and I both mean nothing to John McWhorter. The difference between me and you is that I know it. The sad fact is you're incapable of engaging with McWhorter's prose on any but the most superficial like/don't like kind of way, and for some weird reason you feel that a little of the pros' kudos will rub off on you if you laud their genius while simultaneously calling TNR's readership a pack of morons. You can call me and roidubouloi stupid all you like, liberal ref. I believe that most others reading this thread will recognize that such is not the case. But you just insult away; it's all you know how to do. In your meek little way you're as big a troll as Mr Rationale. Rat, at least has something to say, even if it's completely wrong.

- AaronW

April 12, 2012 at 4:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For what it's worth Aaron - I think you and Roi are two of the most brilliant, learned and well spoken individuals I have ever had the pleasure of reading and knowing. I can't think of a time I have not agreed with Roi to a syllable and I have mostly (although not always) agreed with you, but more importantly: you both have razor sharp minds stuffed with an amazing array of knowledge on almost anything. Both of you make your cases admirably and I learn from both of you constantly.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was blessed to receive e-mails from Chait, Cohn, and Noah blasting a certain tendentious reader who accepts nearly everything they write as manna from heaven while insulting and impugning the intelligence of people who use their critical reading facilities. I found this odd, since I have always received perfect scores on my boards for the verbal section, if not the math section. No other TNR reader has achieved the same distinction--those rabble who comment after me that they have are simply knaves and fools. Not that anyone beyond myself would know it, but the SAT now calls the verbal section the critical reading section. I regularly pat myself on the back for this recondite knowledge as well as for its direct implication that I, besides being a genius, am possessed of perfect critical reading skills as well as divination of the right way to read The New Republic. It's very hard living with this burden of refining the BS that all these critical commenters write. Where do they get off? Do they think that liberalism somehow implies democratic access to information as well as the freedom to analyze or interpret that information for themselves? How is it that they do not know the truth: though harassed by some commenters for my boldness in vainly repudiating them without failing to toast myself as the elite and correct reader of TNR, I am right and those who foolishly choose to disagree with me are worse than wrong--they are impudent.

- chaitless

April 12, 2012 at 7:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, in a non-satiric guise: liberalref, many of us would agree with you that you are a smart guy. You seem to be well-read and quite cultured. What we find unappetizing aren't really these things, but they are the heavy-handed dismissals and, to be honest, insults that you so eagerly hurl at fellow readers of TNR, many of whom are just as thoughtful as you. And it's not that you choose to insult most or even many of these smart fellow readers. It's that you take it upon yourself to arbitrate (as a ref!) disputes that often don't really exist. You are almost always on the side of what the writer has written, as long as it's a TNR regular. It is as if the editors are on the side of goodness and dissent must be smoked out, as it is a Bad Thing that threatens to bring down the whole edifice. Live and let live. Specifically, don't take it upon yourself to dismiss other readers as false gods. Sure, we've got our bot-like crazies that may as well be viruses implanted from the Heritage Foundation, as you surmise. (It's not all bad--that's where my username came from and I have managed to neutralize, then defeat, then continuously impugn mr_rationale on this score, simply by posting and redefining the illogical put-down chaitless.) There is plenty of room for all of us, drofnats included, to take the journey into the abyss, to grope around for the best and most civil arguments, and to, by dint of our existence, reconstitute liberalism itself by our own salon of discussion and reaction to the gift of what may be the most pre-eminent American liberal publication. (Besides the New York Times. And [weirdly] in opposition to The Nation, of course.) Not a Confederacy of Dunces nor a Hothouse of Ideology be, but rather a New Republic of Socratics, who by questioning and searching their own humanity for answers ultimately provide The New Republic with its intellectual equal: The New Republic of Readers.

- chaitless

April 12, 2012 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're amazing chaitless.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

from the article: " He was jettisoned by fellow Republicans, who were extremely sensitive to any accusation that the GOP was racist. The question is why this should be so frequently necessary. Conservatism isn’t an inherently racist belief system, and most conservatives are no more racist than most liberals are." The only reason here is that conservatives are held to a different standard. Listen to left talk radio or watch a show like 30-Rock or Colbert. Jokes about gays and blacks abound. The formula is simple: You set up a rightwing "rube" to deliver the jokes and then you profit from the laughs. Of course, the laughs are still at the expense of the target, They still reinforce hurtful stereotypes, and yet they were written and delivered by left-leaning performers. Simple and effective. In the media, the ploy is a little different. Here, the tendency is to attenuate comments by those that are "enlightened" and amplify comments by those that are not. It's pure politics. When Biden makes a crack about 7-11 being owned by Indians (or uses his famous Indian accent), or calls Obama "clean and articulate", or when Reid notes that Obama speaks absent any "negro dialect" these are all ignored by the left media. But when someone on the right uses speaks in a similar manner, they are crucified. Ditto for the likes of Sharpton. He has produces more lines of racist drivel than anyone else in media today. And he's happily employed by a major news organization. And they ENCOURAGE him to go out and continue race baiting. Thus, the right doesn't have much room here. The left has indeed built a very effective framework. And the author is right, the right isn't any more or less inherently racist than the left. As I said before, if you took Obama as-is and could re-wire his politics to lean heavily right, the right would have adored him in 2008. It'd not a race issue at all.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fox News daily produces racist drivel. Daily. And it has an enormous impact on millions of people. Al Sharpton may advocate some unworthy minorities from time to time, but the very fact that he and people like him had to try to gin a full court press for almost two months just to secure an arrest for what even the murderer himself has admitted to be a murder means seattleeng is attempting to deploy the reverse racism card. Fox News, the uncontested leader in news that upsets black-white relations, was weeks behind, often diminished or distorted the truth, and regularly pulled stunts like that of MSNBC (which itself was inexcusable)--and they do this all the time. Don't blame the racist or the gun. Blame the hoodie.

- chaitless

April 12, 2012 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for your kind words, Wandrey. Now, if you will forgive a few personal notes, here are several things for which I am feeling thankful today none of which has anything anyone has ever said here at TNR: -> My wife and children, who are presently in Phuket, Thailand did not get engulfed by a tsunami following the 8.6 Richter earthquake off Banda Aceh yesterday. (There was a sickening half hour when I had no information.) -> I finished the day today surfing at the base of multicolored sandstone cliffs on the very same break where, less than a week ago, Kelly Slater scored a perfect ten on a single wave yet still fell still fell one heat short of winning an ASP tour event. (The swell today was no more than a third as big as it was for Slater & Mick Fanning, else I'd have been nowhere near.) -> In contrast to some of my more junior colleagues, I did not dismiss an old man's complaints of dizziness as insignificant and managed therefore to diagnose a vertebral artery dissection, enabling treatment that might possibly be life saving.

- AaronW

April 12, 2012 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank Wandrey and AaronW. You guys make for good company. Er . . . community. (The coproratization continues!) Also, keep fighting the fight against Marfan's, EDS, and other dissectional diagnoses. It's a terrible way to die.

- chaitless

April 12, 2012 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm damn near elated to see the outpouring of community feeling going on here yesterday and today. Aaron and chaitless, you both deserve praise for your thoughtfulness in commenting. I'm in a weirdly positive place myself yesterday and today as well. I didn't manage to make any life-saving diagnoses, but I did hear from my brother last night that his three years of grueling job searching are finally over, as job application #1,064 bore fruit. I also had a long-overdue dinner yesterday with a neighbor who reminded me that my life's problems and stresses are actually quite small, telling me of how me was the only person (of 50!) in a drug trial who didn't have his liver cirrhosis completely cured-and yet he's managed to come away from that with a very positive attitude, appreciative of what recuperation did did manage to eke out, and has really turned it into a new lease on life. Community is sometimes a beautiful thing.

- janus

April 12, 2012 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chaitless: "Fox News daily produces racist drivel. Daily. And it has an enormous impact on millions of people. Al Sharpton may advocate some unworthy minorities from time to time, but the very fact that he and people like him had to try to gin a full court press for almost two months just to secure an arrest for what even the murderer himself has admitted to be a murder means seattleeng is attempting to deploy the reverse racism card" How about finding the most racist thing you can find from Fox in the last 6 months? Since they do it daily, it will be easy. And then take a listen to this www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo and tell me how it compares. Should be interesting. I think you'll agree the youtube link (courtesy of Sharpton) is about the most hateful racist crap one has (hopefully) ever heard in an entire lifetime. When you add Tawana and the Duke LAX team to the mix, it boggles the mind that MSNBC gives this man a paycheck.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, seattle, how about this: "Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs" http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/05/obama-parties-chris-rock-jay-z-and-whoopi-while-rome-burns http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108050013

- zardoz67

April 12, 2012 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beyond Fox, the best one I ever read was the headliner in the local rag in Knoxville the day after SEAL Team 6 hit the ground: "Bin Laden Dead, Obama Claims"

- ironyroad

April 12, 2012 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Zardoz, this is the best you got? Seriously? That fox called it a hiphop BBQ? Or that they said it didn't create any jobs? Whatever that might be, contrast that to what Sharpton said on the youtube link I posted, and tell me which was more hateful towards another group. Yours is a perfect example of libs and racism today. Such a serious charge that has been watered down to include "any statement made by people I don't like" which is ironic, since racism is all about, uh, hate.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's an explanation of that story from inside Fox News: "The post that broke the camel's back might be familiar to some of you, because it garnered a lot of attention and (well-deserved) ridicule when it hit last August. The item was aggregating several news sources that were reporting innocuously on President Obama's 50th birthday party, which was attended by the usual mix of White House staffers, DC politicos and Dem-friendly celebs. The Fox Nation, naturally, chose to illustrate the story with a photo montage of Obama, Charles Barkley, Chris Rock, and Jay Z, and the headline 'Obama's Hip Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs.' The post neatly summed up everything that had been troubling me about my employer: Non sequitur, ad hominem attacks on the president; gleeful race baiting; a willful disregard for facts; and so on. It came close on the heels of the Common controversy, which exhibited a lot of the same ugly traits. (See also: terrorist fist jabs; Fox & Friends madrassa accusations; etc.) The worst thing about the Hip Hop BBQ incident is that we didn't back away from it. Bill Shine, who is a rather important guy—sort of Roger Ailes' main hatchet man, and the go-between for Ailes and most of the top talent—bafflingly doubled down and defended it. The story still exists on the Fox Nation site, headline and photo montage intact, to this very day." http://gawker.com/5900710/announcing-our-newest-hire-a-current-fox-news-channel-employee

- zardoz67

April 12, 2012 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://newsone.com/1936535/obama-dont-renege/ I think my personal favorite was Michelle Malkin calling Michelle Obama the President's "baby mama." But then it's always been hard to top Rush Limbaugh (that would be the honored keynote speaker Rush Limbaugh, who was invited to be the sole motivational speaker to the freshman Republican Congress, the same Rush Limbaugh that President Bush called a "great American" and who every Republican politician is required kneel before) calling Michelle Obama "uppity" or telling an African-American caller to take the "bone out of their nose"before he hung up on them. Pardon my cutting and pasting some of Rush's beauts, but I can't be bothered with rewording: “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also have to crack up trying to envision Harry Reid saying something along the lines of Trent Lott's joke. "It's too bad the Weathermen didn't succeed in blowing up the Pentagon, we might be in better shape financially if they had" bada bing. Someone funnier than I am could have a field day with this, but my point stands. The racism on the right is loathsome and long standing from the top of the party to the bottom. There is no comparison.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please read: "Social Desirability Bias in Estimated Support for a Black Presidential Candidate", September 10, 2007, Jennifer Heerwig and Brian McCabe. Conclusions: "The highest levels of true support for a black presidential candidate (87%) appears to be among respondents who identify as Republicans. Independents, broadly conceived, have the next highest level of support at 72%. Results for Democrats suggest that only 60% truly support a black candidate. Liberals offer the least support for a black president (70%), followed by moderates (71%) and conservative (73%)." The study also noted: "These results parallel research by Kane, Craig and Wald (2004), which found that liberals and Democrats expressed greater levels of 'anger' at the idea of a Jewish Presidential candidate than conservatives and Republicans." We can debate whether ending affirmative action is racist, whether supporting specific tax policies and welfare policies are racist and whether a disproportionate Black prison population is racist (Tim says "often" for petty drug offenses-what proportion is "often"-we do know that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of all crimes). But, I think, the foregoing study puts to rest Tim's thesis-it appears, based upon race and religious bias-you progressives take the cake on bigotry.

- lobosven

April 12, 2012 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Zardoz, please cite the sentences in the Fox piece that are ad-hominem, race baiting, and disregarding facts. You might want to reference this ABC story that covered the same event and tell me how it avoided the same charges. I expect this is the point you go cold on the topic, since it requires you to back your claims. And when you do, remember this is the most offensive thing you can find from Fox. abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/chris-rock-riffs-on-obamas-50th-birthday-party/ Excerpt here: Rock also talked about standing with rapper-producer Jay-Z in the audience and watching singer-songwriter Stevie Wonder and pianist-composer Herbie Hancock perform together. “Me and Jay-Z looked at each other like, ‘Oh, hell no, we’re never going to do shows here,’” Rock said in the video of his club appearance. “The president is never going to go, ‘Yes, ‘Big Pimpin,’ how did you like that?’” Rock said, referring to a Jay-Z song. … “That’s never going to happen. Let’s just be glad we’re invited.” Rock went on to say that after Hancock and Wonder left the stage, the DJ slowly switched the tunes from the R&B group Kool & the Gang to funk innovator George Clinton and that the music got “blacker and blacker.” The most surreal portion of the night, Rock said, was the moment Beyonce’s “Crazy in Love” started playing. At that point, Rock recalled that first daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha Obama, 10,”came out of nowhere … and started doing the dougie” dance. “Think about this [expletive] moment, a bunch of black people doing the [expletive] dougie in a house slaves made,” Rock, who turned 47 himself last month, said, laughing.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandry, you need to learn how to research. Most of what you attribute to Limbaugh was never said by Limbaugh. See Snopes et al. Roid took a shot a compiling the most hateful things said by Limbaugh. 1 through 3 were yawners, and #4 and beyond was simply a difference of opinion. I challenge you to also find the most hateful thing Limbaugh has said. Chance are its either milquetoast or false.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

miceelf - lolz - Ditto chaitless. Bravo! Anyway, I was wondering if Mr. Rationale is a parody? Surely his comments are satire? I invite him to a stroll in this beautiful not-racist world of ours. We can walk through the city, see how people struggle. We can go to an Indian reservation too and then a factory farm...a school on the South Side, endemically poor - why? Because the people are BAD? Because they're inferior? Really I think not! But poverty is a back-breaking challenge, an hourly struggle for survival, and now it's spreading to so many people; foreclosures in my city are rising, not falling. And, our safety net, such as it is, is so thin and fraying that people are falling through it, working people, middle class people - people of all races. A man nearby burned his house the other day, it appears; he'd been foreclosed on, evicted, and several small fires started in the house and he was taken from it, critically burned. This is what happens when people are desperate, when everything is lost. Did he own the company that fired him? Did he cause the economic collapse of the past few years? The housing bubble? Of course not. But he lost everything and now, maybe his life, because of it, perhaps because of "creative destruction," because of predatory lending practices that amount to usury, because people at the top make stupid decisions and cost others their jobs, their homes and their lives. To address the idea that the Democrats NEED Republican racism, in order to get votes, I think that's absurd. One could just as easily fight the Republicans on the basis of classism, voter suppression; anti-female behavior now being written into law, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-EVOLUTION (yes I know I am shouting with the caps; it is intentional) and anti-education, anti-science, anti-you-name it, not just sentiments but attempts to make laws on these issues, including repealing gay marriage laws, to strike at women's rights, to make health care unavailable to all but the fortunate; because the GOP seems to have embodied all the values of the Middle Ages. Ergo what's a little racism between friends? Sheese. Seriously. Racism certainly is an issue and it isn't the Democrats who are causing it. One should spend some time on Fox blogs, omg if you can stand it; read the comment threads. It's scary, it's becoming more and more open and respectable. We have actual open Nazis now, "protecting white people," and white people pretending they are being persecuted; ditto, Christians. White Euro Christian well to do males as a victim group; you gotta love it. The other side of this is Islamophobia and also antisemitism - there is a lot of thinly veiled antisemitism on the right too; but the main beneficiaries of white fear are blacks and after them, Hispanics though "Hispanic" is hardly a race. In fact though there is fear period. Those People Are Stealing Our Stuff. And, our power. I was watching Pawn Stars the other day and a person brought in a wanted poster for John Wilkes Boothe. Well it was a copy and only worth about $100 but oh well. The commentary was valuable because it was stated that Lincoln was shot because those former slaves he'd freed were now going to have the vote. The assassin thought he'd be a hero in Virginia and he apparently intended to shoot the VP and the Secretary of State as well, in an attempt to bring down the US Government. We're still dealing, apparently, with patterns of voter suppression. This may become an issue in the 2012 elections. It's the one way I think the GOP can win. Fiscal conservatism is one thing but the social and religious extremism, the Ryan budget, Ayn Rand selfishness and stupidity and racism and sexism are not ideals held by a majority of the country. We still believe in the American dream. Nevertheless we've already watched the spectacle of a popular vote winner in a presidential election defeated by fiat of the Supreme Court, packed by Republicans going back to Reagan. We've seen the empowerment of corporations as people with unbridled license to buy air time and just destroy people who challenge their power. We've seen the rich get obscenely richer as everybody else struggles; our blood and treasure are wasted and lost in war; a huge transference of public money has wound up in the pockets of people who've made money from war and now we're talking about throwing people on the streets, because they are Lucky Duckies. Where will the GOP stop in its quest for power? In that regard the whole southern strategy was based on racism and resentment of civil rights laws and fear of the black man getting power, fear of black people period. Along with this is fear of education, fear of "the other," anti-intellectualism. I don't think this can be blamed on the Democrats needing votes. They'd get the votes from the coasts, from the cities, from people with a social and economic conscience, from women, from more educated people, anyway. That said, to the degree that the Democratic Party might be bailing out on left/liberal issues, and itself moving quite far to the right, that's something that should be argued. But it's a separate issue and doesn't get the Right off the hook. The structure of voting districts should be examined but that works both ways. Ditto, the Electoral College, that has enabled Red States to wield disproportionate power and takes the power of the vote away from the people: that is an anachronism dating to the time of the plantations and it is an insult to a democratic people. The fact is, racism, antisemitism, fear of the other in successions of immigrant waves; an assumed system of Christian superiority and the primacy of money are part of American history, along with slavery and the genocide of the Native American people and destruction of environment, factory farming and exploitation of people and resources abroad and also, war and since WWII in particular, the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about is incredibly rich and powerful. This includes the oil industry too. The Right speaks of "American exceptionalism," it is jingoistic nationalism rather than true patriotism I think. Real patriots try to confront our national woes and our flaws and strive to improve things. Those who really love the American land, its incomparable beauty, its ecology, the American people and American ideals struggle for them, for all of them. That means first recognizing where we have problems. Cruelty to whole classes of people and also animals is an ongoing feature of American life, it most certainly is structural and it makes a profit for other classes of people and this is something we need to look at. It isn't enough, Mr. Rationale, just to tell people to "get their lives together." This country needs to examine its heart.

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lobosven - what is the source of this study? It has zero credibility without that cited, but then you have to know that. Not to make light, but I have to laugh - probably because your post is so loathsome. I'm a social worker (a field filled with and even dominated by proud Jewish pioneers and innovators from its inception to today) on the Upper West Side. Trying to imagine these hordes of "angry" liberals at a Jewish Presidential candidate veers in to the ridiculous.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey seattle... how about when Fox's Eric Bolling stated, "Well it isn't the first time he's invited Hoods to the Hizzhouse" when Obama invited over a black actor/poet? Or their refusal to fire Glen Beck went he announced on the View that Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people? Or when Obama is referred to as "the food stamp president" by the dippy Fox News talking heads? Are you really this blind?

- Tristan

April 12, 2012 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If anyone wants a peek of racism in this country at the grass roots level, beyond the rarified confines of the Weekly Standard or National Review, check out the comments on CNN concerning the Trayvon Martin case. They are absolutely horrifying. I can't believe that people think this way, (and worse, would air their racist filth in public). Beyond the racial aspect, it's telling that these "Don't Tread on Me", freedom this and liberty that wingers feel that Martin is partially or competely to blame because he wore a hoody, and didn't submit politely to questions from the 28 year old, live in Mom's basement, self appointed neighborhood watchman.

- dubyadoubte

April 12, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lobosven writes: " But, I think, the foregoing study puts to rest Tim's thesis-it appears, based upon race and religious bias-you progressives take the cake on bigotry." Bobby Jindal says all you need to know about the supposedly racist south. That this ex-Hindu has been elected by all the Bubba's in Louisiana is one of the most under-appreciated data points in existence today. It's interesting, too, that the red and blue states produce black senators at almost equal rates (and far below 12-15% you'd expect) . And while the house does have a lot of black democrats, these dems come almost solely from black districts and they were put there overwhelmingly by black (not white) voters. When the dust settles, white dems and white republicans vote for black candidates at the same rates.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan writes: "Hey seattle... how about when Fox's Eric Bolling stated, "Well it isn't the first time he's invited Hoods to the Hizzhouse" when Obama invited over a black actor/poet? Or their refusal to fire Glen Beck went he announced on the View that Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people? Or when Obama is referred to as "the food stamp president" by the dippy Fox News talking heads? Bolling apologized for it. But what was racist about it? Disrespectful? Sure. It was wrong to brand Common a hoodlum, but given some of his songs it seems Common doesn't mind people thinking he's a hoodlum. Maybe you don't like Bolling talking like Snoop? I don't know. Please clarify? GB saying pres Obama hates white people is racist? It's ignorant. It's hurtful. It's disrespectful. But racist? Did you think Kenye was being racist when he said Bush hates black people? In that case, the same apply: Ignorant, hurtful and disrespectful. But not racist. It was Gingrich that called pres Obama the food stamp president while on the stump. Again, not sure why that is racist. Do you associate food stamps with black people or something? You are aware that more white people use food stamps. And you are aware that food stamp usage has gone up dramatically under pres Obama. But again...where is the racism? You devalue the label "racism" when you apply it to all things you don't like. Save it for the really important things and make sure the word carries the sting it requires to be effective. The Derbyshire piece that recently made the rounds WAS racist. As is the garbage in that Sharpton vid on youtube I linked. Did you watch the sharpton vid yet? Do you think it exhibited racism?

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Do you associate food stamps with black people or something?" Good job, seattle. Slow-clap time, everyone. Attempting to point out racism means that you are obviously yourself a racist; a brilliant way of shutting down having to listen to information you don't like. Bravo, truly. Others here have speculated as to whether rat is human or software code, seattle, but I'm kind of surprised that no one has thought to wonder the same about you. In each and every conversation, you start as if completely afresh, as if you have no experience in the real world and have managed to converse on this site for years while accumulating no data and experience whatsoever. As if you are brilliantly, spectacularly, amazingly naive and actually believe that someone describing the first black President of the United States inviting guests to the White House as having "invited hoods to the hizzouse" involves no implication that blacks are violent gang members and thugs. As if you aren't aware that Republican rhetoric on food stamps and welfare are thinly-veiled attacks on blacks and minorities, hand-in-hand with the mindset that produced "Barack the Magic Negro" and 1,001 watermelon-and-fried-chicken-themed jokes about the President of the United States. Many of the things you've said make clear that you're too smart to be that stupid, Seattle, so I see only two possibilities: 1) You are, in fact, a bot, your "smarts" consisting of a very good conversation-mimicry engine. 2) You're a goddamn liar.

- janus

April 12, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote: The right is racist because the left needs them to be. African Americans need to be afraid of Republican racism otherwise Democrats would never win a national election. If only 1 in 3 African Americans changed their mind, Dems are doomed. fungus-thorny responds: So, Rat, by your reasoning, or lack thereof, all that the Republicans must do to get those sweet black votes is to convince them negroes that they are not the racists that Democrats cravenly make them out to be. Shouldn't be too hard, right? And yet somehow all of the incredibly racist shit that Republicans say and do keeps getting in the way. Why can't those dumb blacks figure out what's best for them and vote Republican, dammit!? Too stupid to refute an argument I see. *Fungus is too stupid to refute an argument I see*** Didn't refute my premise, Didn't refute my conclusion. Counter-argument not related to anything I said. It will be incredibly hard, if not impossible, for African-americans to ever be anything other than a 95% Democrat voting bloc. Has nothing to with republican actions or words -- but rather Democrat MSM and strong incentive to perpetuate myths. Blacks are moving away from Blue states to Red States in droves you idiot. do some basic research

- mr_rationale

April 12, 2012 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey liberal morons: Read the TNR article about African-American moving to Red America. http://www.tnr.com/article/put-differently/86140/african-american-census-migrate-south Do you think these african-american households believe Republicans are racist??? The days of ignorant race-baiting parasites are numbered

- mr_rationale

April 12, 2012 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle - you need to actually read entire posts and respond to them. First of all, I have heard all four of those quotes from Limbaugh and more from Media Matters. Second, I take it all the other instances I quoted are fine with you, baby mama etc, since you never bothered to respond. Of course. As far as thinking that food stamps = black people - yes, I do automatically think that (even though I'm a social worker and know from expereince and hard data that white people who use food stamps outnumber folks of color by three to one) and so do you. We've all been socialized to think this and you know it, so does Newt. He knows exactly what he's doing. That's why he only used that phrase in South Carolina, where my father just retired, and where the racism against black people is so shameless it makes his hair stand on end. White people who care about humility and being full adult members of society admit their socialization and privledge and do their best to admit it and consciously dismantle it. But wingers aren't much for any of that humility and growing up stuff, especially with racial identity, so I won't hold my breath that you'd give it a shot.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironically, racism and bigotry are color-blind in that no particular ethnicity / race is immune to making racial or bigoted remarks or stereotyping. Seattle maybe conflating Chris Rock's comedic reflections on race and racism and the subtle, racial undertones and double-speak employed by some conservatives. To support his assertion that because Chris Rock says 'nigga' that it's proof positive of liberal racism and is equivalent to Rush Limbaugh's bigoted impersonation of Hu Jintao and how he couldn't understand all that jibberish. Comedic lampooning of ethnic stereotypes is nothing new, without which most of the comics would have no careers. The point of their comedy is to poke fun at these cultural/racial & ethical issues. Dave Chapelle's skit about the black white supremacist is a perfect example of lampooning the stubborness of ignorance and racism. As for Al Sharpton, the guy sees the world through his own, rather bigoted viewpoint, and I don't care for the guy. But I always find it funny that this is the only example that conservatives trot out time and again. Furthering Seattle's example of the "I'm not as racists as you" argument of 'conservative' states being equal to or less racists that 'liberal' states is the non-relevant point that Louisiana elected Bobby Jindal. This does not prove that the 'bubbas' can't be racist and vote for a conservative, catholic Indian-American. I guess the folks in the pacific Northwest stereotyping everyone from Louisiana is a tongue-in-cheek way to prove a point. I have first hand acquaintances & in-laws that are rock-ribbed, Catholic Republicans that voted for Santorum and Jindal and yet in the same breath will make off-color and racial remarks about a black woman having a 'nigger fit' in the waiting room of a hospital. I've had friends that are Mexican that didn't like blacks, a black co-worker that didn't like Asians for some reason, I myself have been called honkey and cracker to my face. I think the bigger issue is, not whether or not a particular political proclivity means one is more racist than the other. However, I've observed with the conservatives I know personally is that the racial or ethnic remarks are prefaced by "I'm not racist but..." which then simply signals that what might be a legitimate opinion about some person's stupidity or ignorance is projected upon a segment of society as a whole. Conservatives, as of late, have let the subtle bigotry and racism slip away and become more pronounced in the manner in which they stereotype groups of people. And while we parse statistics about how whites are more poor and higher users of welfare this does not discount the blatant bigotry exhibited when white people say they hate "poor people" just cashing in their welfare checks and hanging around porch talkin' ebonics with their capped gold teeth and listen to rap all day while they work hard. Presumable they're not referring to the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia but then again.

- singlspeed

April 12, 2012 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It will be incredibly hard, if not impossible, for African-americans to ever be anything other than a 95% Democrat voting bloc. Has nothing to with republican actions or words -- but rather Democrat MSM and strong incentive to perpetuate myths" I'll admit that my response was a little sarcastic, yes, and that sarcasm is a pretty weak rhetorical tool. I assumed that you might be intelligent enough to see through the snark, but let me slow it down a bit for you here. You seem to mean, though you do not explicitly state, that there is a percentage of African-Americans above the current 5% who should be voting Republican. Furthermore, you claim that they are dissuaded from this by their tendency to believe apparently false propaganda from the "MSM" and the Democratic party. If it is simply a matter of calling the Democrats on their lies, and demonstrating what a truly broad and harmonious coalition the Republican party actually represents, what is stopping Republicans from doing this? Where, oh where, did African-Americans get the crazy idea that most Republicans probably don't think much of them as people? After all, in the open marketplace of political ideals, the superiority of Republican policies should be enough to convince anyone to vote for them, regardless of the lies spread by the opposition. Unless of course, you mean to imply that African-Americans are not intelligent enough to make decisions on its own, and are mindlessly swayed by Democratic propaganda and animalistic emotion. But you would never think that, right??

- bunthorne

April 12, 2012 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is interesting to me that people think Southerners aren't racist based on Bobby Jindal and Nicki Haley, who are, in fact, Caucasian. Also, the comment that black people are moving to Red America = SO WHAT. Lots of people are moving to "Red America," which, last I checked, was still in America and is also cheaper and warmer than "Blue America." So? Even black people like cheaper, warmer homes. Right? But anyway we aren't talking about Southerners here, we're talking about the Right, and there doesn't seem to be much in way of refutation to the assertion that there is a problem with race on the Right. You know when this came out? When Sarah Palin started making speeches at "real Americans," is when. It's always been there, it IS the "Southern strategy," which was based on fear of civil rights, now it's right out there in broad daylight, goosestepping. Deal with it.

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS: which other president has had to repeatedly prove that he was born in America? Seriously?

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And also, he's been insulted to his face in a way that is simply unheard of. I honestly don't know how the Obama family has dealt with these provocations with so much dignity and self-respect. The personal insults and attacks are beside the absolutely brutal attempts to regard power regardless of the cost to America.

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant "regain" power. Duh. The denial about this issue makes me mad and I don't type properly.

- Sophia

April 12, 2012 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I could write a bot to pass the Turing test I'd be a lot wealthier than I am right now :) Your arguments are unconvincing because we have a sitting vice president that makes fun of the way Indians talk (and operate businesses) and thus mimicking speech patterns and jobs cannot be that offensive. Can it? I mean the whole "snoop talk" thing has even been done by Martha Stewart and every late night comedian for pete's sake. It's firmly crossed over into all of popculture. Ever try gizoogle? And how about the Sharpton video (again)? I submit there is no debate on that one. And yet he is employed by a major news organization. Nobody here has touched that one. So, how can this be? On the one hand, you claim there are all these "coded" examples of racism happening on the right all over the place, but that these require a fair bit of prompting and context to piece together and make the jump to racism. And yet these overt examples on the left don't bother you at all?? Quite puzzling. And a real credibility killer. For you. Sometimes facts are just facts. Again, labeling all things you find unpleasant as "racist" really diminishes the charge. And doubly so when you refuse to condemn a real racist because you like the larger picture he stands for. Condemn hate. Always.

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle - you ignore everything that doesn't fit your ideology. You don't even make the first bit of sense, let alone acknowledge anything said. So typical. Racist is not merely unpleasant, it's racist. Baby mama? Hello? Is there anyone in that skull of yours? The fact that Sharpton has no power in the Democratic party platform, versus Rush keynote-speaker-great-American-Limbaugh? Talk about ignoring reality. Yes, I condemn hate always - your party defines it. So incredibly typical.

- WandreyCer

April 12, 2012 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey writes: "Seattle - you need to actually read entire posts and respond to them. First of all, I have heard all four of those quotes from Limbaugh and more from Media Matters. Second, I take it all the other instances I quoted are fine with you, baby mama etc, since you never bothered to respond. Of course. As far as thinking that food stamps = black people - yes, I do automatically think that (even though I'm a social worker and know from expereince and hard data that white people who use food stamps outnumber folks of color by three to one) and so do you." Wandrey, you are hardly worth engaging because you don't follow-up. But we'll try again. Is the stuff Sharpton said in the youtube link I posted more or less racist than the stuff Limbaugh said? How do you rank Biden's comment "you cannot go into a 7-11 unless you have a slight indian accent"? Here's how I'd rank them: Biden: Most offensive. It's somewhat tame if I heard this in a locker room, but he's a senator and now VP. Therefore it's wildly offensive. Sharpton: This hate-filled rant oozed contempt. This is on par with what I'd imagine from a KKK rally. Limbaugh: For a man that is an entertainer and has spoken off the cuff into a microphone for some 15,000 hours, I'd say "this is the worst you got?" Biden speaks into a microphone for maybe 10 hours every year. Why does he get a pass on something so much more offensive? Malkin: If someone asked how my "baby momma" was, I'd say she was fine and not think another thing about it. I do not see food stamp == black people. So you do. From my postings you might think I see food stamps as being synonymous with tattoos and red bull. :)

- seattleeng

April 12, 2012 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is for WandreyCer. You could have googled the title and downloaded the study instantly. I'm hesitant to name the institution-as-you're likely to take issue with that, too: Department of Sociology, New York University (that's where you live, eh?). Loathsome-hardly. When you look at the study, and see I quoted it verbatim, you can also run a simple math problem: 10% of the study group were Black-meaning, that when you "back-out" those participants, and leave behind just the whites-more like 55% of Democrats would support a Black presidential candidate. The referenced study referred to another academic study which generated the quote. I think, and you would know this better than I, nationwide, Jews are an incredibly small percent of Democratic voters. Thus, it is the bigots within the Democratic party who were angered at the thought of a Jewish presidential candidate. Mr. Cer, I try to avoid worthless ideas about who's racist on Fox, and especially worthless thoughts like "zero credibility", "have to laugh", "loathsome" and "ridiculous". But, Wandrey, isn't that the way of the left-eh-when faced with facts, you run to personal attacks and ridicule. Read the study. Then we talk. Otherwise, I've got nothing to learn from you.

- lobosven

April 12, 2012 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've just been reading this thread and I came across the following, which gave me hope that the era of utterly surreal American defensiveness is not yet over. "If someone asked how my 'baby momma' was, I'd say she was fine and not think another thing about it." Of course you would, seattle.

- ironyroad

April 13, 2012 at 12:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, we again have Wandrey et al bail and refuse to put the comment by Biden, Sharpton, Limbaugh and Malkin in order of offensiveness. Figures. Par for the course. I didn't expect she'd be up to the task. Irony, my database of movie quotes is extensive. From Caddyshack to Superbad and beyond. It's not at all uncommon for my brother and I to greet each other on the phone via with "What up gangsta?" in reference to McLovin' in Superbad. Silly I guess. But it's what we do. Watch the movie Office Space to get a hint at how faux gangster culture has invaded west coast tech in the most ironic way possible. Many I work with my age know the lyrics from everything Grand Master Flash "The Message" to Dre's Bitches Ain't Sh*t (thanks in large part to Ben Fold's cover). So, no, I'd not think twice if someone asked how my baby momma was doing.

- seattleeng

April 13, 2012 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you serious, seattle, or just jerking my chain? In case you don't realize it, there is an entire history of black parents trying to get their kids NOT to fall in to "gangsta culture" speech modes as if they were some kind of racial badge of honor. We are talking about something a universe away from a couple of white kids quoting movie one-liners back and forth at each other with no fear that anyone will read any negative implication into them. Your response is an absolute diamond-hard confirmation for all the things you've been claiming don't exist. Of course they don't exist for you and your brother. But if someone asked you the "baby momma" question in a way that implied you were an ACTUAL criminal and your race was prima facie evidence against you, you most certainly would give it another thought, believe me.

- ironyroad

April 13, 2012 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course! That is the irony covered in the movie Office Space. The engineer is driving to work, rapping along to gangsta rap in his car acting like a total baddass. He's stuck in traffic and creeps slowly up next to a car with a black person and then gets very quiet, rolls up his window, and locks his door with a terrified look on his face. See, the comedy here is that one second he's being a hard-assed, talking about capping hoes, and then next second he's scared and rolling up his window. You are also right that the words don't hurt if there isn't a shred of truth to them. And that is why Baby Momma doesnt' sting me at all. Neither does cracker. Neither does moron or idiot. And Obama is even more privileged than I am. They have a wonderful marriage, a rock-solid family, tons of money. Why would it sting him? He and his wife spend $10,000 on piano and dance lessons alone for their kids. Now, if someone wants to say I have big ears, then there's a shred of truth to that. I'm sensitive there. So is Obama I've read. If someone want to say I'm not a sharp dresser, there's a shred of truth that too. Depending on context, it might sting. But that is where we wrap full circle to Biden's comments about Indians and 7-11. See how hurtful that can be? Now, will you condemn Biden comments as being much more hurtful than Limbaugh and Malkin's? I'm not saying Malkin's comments are OK. I'm saying they are much less offensive than Biden's and Sharpton's. Agree?

- seattleeng

April 13, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And Obama is even more privileged than I am. They have a wonderful marriage, a rock-solid family, tons of money. Why would it sting him?" I don't know that it stings them, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But it certainly stings me, and I'm white and have a lot less prestige and wealth than Obama has. It stings because it makes clear that, for a segment of America, the "marriage, family, money," and indeed the office of the presidency count for nothing when measured against race -- for these people, catered to by Fox, race is the only thing that apparently has "a shred of truth." I always thought Sharpton was a racist, but I don't understand the problem with what Biden said -- the guy says dumb things but his heart is mostly in the right place. I don't believe he's malicious, is what I mean.

- ironyroad

April 13, 2012 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle...how is Biden's 7-11 Indian comment more offensive than Rush Limbaugh's 5 minute jibbering impersonation of Chinese? They're both offensive. As I mentioned above, Sharpton is a tool and no less an "entertainer" than Rush Limbaugh. Malkin's comment isn't offensive because baby momma isn't exclusive to any particular racial group. Some might think so but it's not. As for you're adopting 'gangsta' talk like it's not a big deal, I"m not sure why that has any relevance what so ever with regards to some GOP candidate using 'dog whistle' rhetoric regarding welfare recipients or the perception among conservatives that welfare recipients are predominantly illegal immigrants and minorities. And I don't see how your references to the irony of Office Space the movie is a relevant defense of some GOP mayor that ultimately resigned after sending out an email of the WH with a watermelon patch in front (claiming ignorance of that particular stereotype). I don't lay claim to the fact that because I am a big fan of Spike Lee's movie 'Do the Right Thing' that Harry Reid's 'articulate' comment was a-ok to make. In fact, I suggest you watch 'Do the Right Thing'. The salient part here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLYTObRhcSY

- singlspeed

April 13, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I the the presence or absence of malice in these things in an important issue. The malice is found on the right, nine times out of ten. The right does the politics of hate and paranoia enthusiastically, and unlike the fringe left it's NOT the fringe of the GOP.

- ironyroad

April 13, 2012 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, agree on malice to a point. But that still allows very hurtful stereotypes to be propagated AND then it makes it OK for someone who is has slightly more sinister intent to say "Hey, I love Indians! Some of my best friends are Indians! And besides, Joe Biden makes fun of their accent and he's the VP! Why can't I talk like an Indian person at work! We all talk like pirates sometimes, right?" Seriously, after the VP has made fun of Indian accent without any repercussions, how can a fortune 20 company come down on a person who does the same thing in a meeting? And yes, I've seen this happen. See the problem? the solution to the problem is to ignore intent and have a zero tolerance. Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, the left media (writers, performers) make a fair bit of money off of these hurtful stereotypes. I don't expect that will stop any time soon. Singlespeed, OK, so Sharpton is a tool. Would you agree his rant was some of the most racist stuff we've heard from a news host? Ever? Far more than Limbaugh? As for gansta lingo entering the mainstream, these are catch phrases popularized by a subculture and then used by the broader society. These are not phrases with a long history of hurt attached to them (like the N word). Instead, they are short phrases that capture a popular mood at the time. From Mork greeting with "Nanu Nanu" to "Stellllaaaaaa" to "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" to "These are not the droids you are looking for" to "what chu talking' bout willis?" to "dy-no-mite!" to "baby momma" to "what up gangsta?" these phrases have all entered popular lexicon and been adopted by an entire generation. To think that we'd exclude generic catch phrases from a specific culture is silly. Singlespeed writes: ".how is Biden's 7-11 Indian comment more offensive than Rush Limbaugh's 5 minute jibbering impersonation of Chinese" Are you kidding? Limbaugh is a private citizen who is NOT responsible for anyone's welfare. Like him or not, everyone understand he has a right to turn on a transmitter and say just about anything he wants. Biden is a leader of this country, a country with a population of with 3M Indian Americans. Biden sets a tone, and his tone indicates making fun of certain groups is OK. You really don't see a difference? Here, this is VP Biden making fun of Indian accents again. Just a few months ago. He catches himself. But it's plain to hear. Can you imagine if Bush did this? My god. The media would have gone crazy. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gzuGFyMM5h8 don't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the linkdon't eat the link

- seattleeng

April 13, 2012 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Volokh Conspiracy did a pretty thorough takedown on the claims in this article back in 2010. Not sure why TNR is running these two year old memes without any research. I thought that is why we paid for this content :) Maybe with the firewall coming down, they let more stuff through without any checking. Of course, as I indicated above, the fact that these arguments were NOT presented to the court telegraphs that something wasn't solid about them. Now we know. From Volokh ----- This 1798 statute (5 Cong. Ch. 77, July 16, 1798, 1 Stat. 605) is currently making the blogospheric rounds as purported proof that the 2010 congressional mandate to purchase health insurance from a private company is based on long-established practice. Incorrect. Sections 1 and 2 of the act impose a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages, to be withheld by the employer. Section 3 requires that all the withheld taxes be turned over to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis, and that the revenue shall be expended in the district where it was collected. The revenue shall be spent to support sick and injured seamen. So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programs in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programs (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product. Under section 4, if there is a surplus in a district, the surplus shall be spent in the construction of marine hospitals; the executive may combine the tax revenue with voluntary private donations of land or money for hospital construction. The President may also receive voluntary private donations for relief of the seamen, or for operation of the hospitals. Section 5 instructs the President to select the directors of the marine hospitals. The directors shall make quarterly reports to the Secretary of the Treasury. The directors will be reimbursed for expenses, but will not receive other compensation. Today, the 1798 Act is viewed as the beginning of the creation of the U.S. Public Health Service. The Act is very strong precedent for the federal government imposing taxes and dedicating the tax revenue to medical care for the taxed class. Further, the government may provide the medical care directly, or may cooperate with private individuals for the providing of that care. The 1798 Act thus shows that Medicare, while vastly broader in scope than anything from the Early Republic, is generally consistent with constitutional practice of that period. The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good. The Act is a solid precedent for federal involvement in health care, and no precedent at all for a federal mandate to purchase private products.

- seattleeng

April 13, 2012 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not making the claim that this is racist, BUT: one of the strangest things I have witnessed in the Obama presidency has been the very bizarre fixation that Rush Limbaugh has with the notion that Michelle Obama is overweight. Leaving aside the glass house issue, this is just a bizarre notion. It's divorced from reality that it has to come from some kind of irrational and murky place, but I honestly can't figure it out.

- miceelf

April 13, 2012 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle writes: "Limbaugh is a private citizen who is NOT responsible for anyone's welfare. Like him or not, everyone understand he has a right to turn on a transmitter and say just about anything he wants." Limbaugh is not a private citizen. He is a public figure whose broadcasted words to millions of people have repercussions. You can refer to him as an 'entertainer' if you like but his rhetoric is not meant as satirical or comedic or absurd. Remember Michael Richard's racist rant? That had repercussions. As I said, both Biden's and Rush's comments were blatently wrong and racist. One comment is not less racist than the other. But you cannot admit Rush's public broadcasting of his racist version of a Chinese person is equally as insulting as Biden's indian comment. Fine. But you continue to equivocate blatant racial remarks by the Right does by using the "they're not as racist as you are" argument. If you're going to stand there and accuse comedians and Biden as being racists or bigoted, be consistent and admit that Rush and several on the Right make racist/bigoted comments as well and condemn equally. I think Sharpton's comments were racist and blatantly so. I won't apologize for the man either. I've never liked the guy and don't watch his show either just as I don't listen to Rush because they're both tools. As to my point about the adopting of ghetto slang you seem to have missed. I don't care if you dress up like Flava Flav when you go to a business meeting. I listen to rap music but I don't go around acting like I'm a rapper. So what? That has not relevance to the discussion. Just like you seem to think because some Bubbas voted for Jindal is proof that those same Bubbas can't make racist jokes about non-whites. My point was if some white person listens to rap music by black artists and still makes stereotypical remarks about poor black people does not make the comment less racist. See my point? Adopting the phrases of a subculture is not carte blanche to make stereotypical comments or act in a derogatory way that is stereotypical of that subculture. Did you watch the clip from 'Do the Right Thing?' Did you get the point?

- singlspeed

April 13, 2012 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

singlespeed: "Limbaugh is not a private citizen. He is a public figure whose broadcasted words to millions of people have repercussions." Public figure? Like Bill Maher and Louis CK? They all have the right to say whatever they wish, as long as they don't run afoul of laws. Like it or not, it's a country of free speech, isn't it? If some can talk about Sarah Palin's "retard-making c*nt" without repercussions, then why would there be repercussions over Limbaugh's tamer comments? If some can call Sarah Palin an "c*nt" on national TV, then what is the problem with what Limbaugh said? Don't pull this crap one is a comedian the other is not. They are all entertainers who focus to varying degrees on political commentary. Yes, Limbaugh is an entertainer. And they all set boundaries of what we will accept in terms of discourse. Ask yourself: If what was said about Mrs. Palin was said about Mrs. Obama would you be outraged? I certainly would. Why do you let it slide when directed at Mrs. Palin? Singlespped writes: "But you continue to equivocate blatant racial remarks by the Right does by using the "they're not as racist as you are" argument." Not completely. I'm saying they are less offensive than those made by the left. I'm not saying they aren't offensive. Only that there's a lot more damaging stuff coming from the left. Here is a Bill Maher joke: He suggested the president act like a "real black person" in his handling of the BP spill and flash a gun in the face of a CEO and say "We got a motherf*cking problem here" That is wrong on so many levels. And you worry about Limbaugh? You aren't worried about the kid who goes to school and riffs on that???? I mean, with your gangsta concern and all? Singlespeed writes: "My point was if some white person listens to rap music by black artists and still makes stereotypical remarks about poor black people does not make the comment less racist. See my point?" Who made a comment about poor black people? If a co-workers wants to call me dawg is that bad? Can my brother call me gansta? Should I be bothered when a young engineer wearing a beanie comes into my office and says "what up yo?" No to all 3. OK, so we've got a list of quotes here. Sounds like you might put Sharpton's rant at the top. So, can we agree the order of offensiveness is as follows??? 1) Sharpton 2) Maher 3) Biden 4) Limbaugh 5) Malkin PS. Yes, Limbaugh and Biden were equally racist when read as words on the page. But the fact that Biden, our VP, said it, make it that much more hurtful and damaging. If you have more, throw them up. We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet from the 3rd rate progressive commentators, so having Malkin up htere is a bit of a stretch. But we can keep her there for balance.

- seattleeng

April 14, 2012 at 3:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Limbaugh absolutely belongs at the top of that list, and it isn't even close, with his "uppity" comment. And if you don't know why, you don't know shit about racism. Racism isn't about which words are hurtful and which are ok, but does involve a lot of intent. The "-Ism" is the undergirding presumed genetic/moral/etc superiority that is manifest through the words chosen. The point of this article was Racism, and Republicans, especially a lot of Tea Party types, are far and away the worst in terms of using peoples' race to denigrate them. Combine that with the history of referring to blacks as "uppity" and how that designation fits into a larger picture, and Limbaugh wins the contest, hands down. Mocking stereotypes, even in ridicule, do not come close!

And let us not confound sexism and racism. For starters, these two things are not mutually exclusive except on paper because there isn't a word that defines a combination of sexism and racism, so any comparison of insults is irrelevant.

I will give the Republicans credit for what they have managed in terms of things like eliminating mention of race/ethnicity in their rhetoric, and refocusing their rhetoric, like using "parasites" instead of "welfare queens", to reduce or eliminate focus on race.

- GSpinks

April 14, 2012 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, seattle, the malice component is decisive. Everyone knows that Biden's comment had none.

- ironyroad

April 14, 2012 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Pelosi: “One of the great pieces of unfinished business is high-quality child care; I wonder why we just can’t do that,” The American Massage Therapy Association is pushing for licensure and legislation in all states to ensure that massage can become eligible for coverage by ACA. And look at what the states have done with their minimum requirements. As noted, acupuncture, massage therapy, aromatherapy are all required in some states. This is the biggest reason that state lines cannot be crossed. MA, for example, has so many "base" requirements to their minimum insurance that their coverage is $8600 per year. While Utah has so few requirements for their minimum insurnace that their base coverage is $1100. Now, if you are thinking of ACA offering a baseline minimum such as Utah, then perphaps we're closer than I thought. But I'll bet everyone here is LOVING the idea of a minimum closer to MA. Are you not? Expanding more and more every year. Adding in child care and pot. And the next thing you know, the minimum plan is $12,000 per year. Gold plated. For everyone. Because you love big government. Admit it.

- seattleeng

April 15, 2012 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, I keep posting to the wrong browser tab. Irony writes: "No, seattle, the malice component is decisive. Everyone knows that Biden's comment had none." How do we know this? He has made cracks twice. You cannot possibly know this. It is impossible for you to know this. You are simply giving him a pass. And being intellectually dishonest in the process. GSpinks writes: " Racism isn't about which words are hurtful and which are ok, but does involve a lot of intent" You can only know intent if you can look inside a person's heart. You cannot. For this reason, corporations have a zero tolerance policy towards these types of remarks. That you give everyone on the left a pass based on your belief there is zero bad intent is laughable.

- seattleeng

April 15, 2012 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fungus-thorne Do a little research into the Black condition. Dem policies of Gov dependence and victimhood have utterly failed Blacks -- yes they should vote for something else: - 70% of children born to unwed mothers - While blacks are just 12.6% of the nation's population, they're roughly half of people murdered in this country each year. The vast majority of these killings are at the hands of other blacks -- around 90% are black on black - The homicide death rate for young (ages 15 to 24) African American men (85 per 100,000 persons) is three times the rate for young Hispanic men (30 per 100,000 population), the population group with the next highest homicide mortality rate. The rates for young Asian and young white males are 9.8 and 5 per 100,000, respectively. The economic statistics are just as dismal. And it only applies to the Democratic inner city Black Caucus group -- These frightening statistics don't apply to other minority groups or even Blacks of non-African descent. So yes a thousand times over -- Blacks should vote for someone other than democrats who keep them locked up in the Gov dependency and victimhood box. Otherwise despair will continue.

- mr_rationale

April 15, 2012 at 1:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And being intellectually dishonest in the process." How so? Of course I don't know whether or not Biden is a malicious person. I never claimed I did. And you don't know that either. All I can say is, from my perception of him over several years, he doesn't seem like one. And yes, to that limited extent, he gets a pass. By the way, when did this comment by Biden happen -- I don't recall reading about it recently.

- ironyroad

April 15, 2012 at 2:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or let me put it another way: the guy who says in the hearing of the press "This is a big fucking deal" about the ACA passing -- he most definitely gets a pass from me! When I heard that, I wanted to say directly to him, "Mr Vice President, that is the total fucking truth!"

- ironyroad

April 15, 2012 at 2:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony writes: "How so? Of course I don't know whether or not Biden is a malicious person. I never claimed I did. And you don't know that either. All I can say is, from my perception of him over several years, he doesn't seem like one. And yes, to that limited extent, he gets a pass. By the way, when did this comment by Biden happen -- I don't recall reading about it recently." How so? Because you are establishing "special rules" and special rules are ripe for abuse. Special rules say "This thing is bad, but if some people do it, we will look the other way. But of certain people we don't like do it, then they are in big, big trouble" And after you establish the special rule, you go and apply it to Biden (who gets a pass) and Limbaugh (who does not). That is about as intellectually lazy as you can get. Biden's dunkin' donuts comment. Watch the vid (he was a senator at the time). www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU Biden's imitating the accent of an indian call center (January of this year) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzuGFyMM5h8 In the first vid, not how SLY Biden think's he's being. He's got a sh*t eating grin, and he thinks he's being very, very clever. In the second vid, you can watch Biden catch himself, when his inner lizard kicks in and says "NO NO NO DO NOT DO THIS YOU IDIOT" Your "BFD" comment neatly sums this up. You don't care about racism per se. You don't care about making fun of minorities IF it helps what you view as a large cause. Pretty typical from the left. You also looked the other way when newspapers were printing cartoons of Condoleeza Rice as Aunt Jamima and as a monkey, weren't you? Thought so. Because it's fun to make fun of people you don't like, isn't it! Now, tell me again, how are you different from Limbaugh?

- seattleeng

April 15, 2012 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry seattle, but I've watched them and I don't see the malice. And as my distinctions are based on that, primarily -- everyone can make stupid remarks and everyone has -- then I am being "intellectually" honest as I can be. I would not be so if I said the malice doesn't count for me when it does. Perhaps I should note that it is three things that really count: the malice, the intentionality, and the target. With Limbaugh and the "slut" remarks, it was clear that it was malicious, it was intentional, and the target was an individual ordinary young woman without a set of media handlers to protect her. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Condoleeza Rice cartoons but I am opposed to racist images being deployed in the media and political debate no matter who it's about. It IS fun to make fun of people you don't like. That's not at issue. We are talking about whether it's ok to make fun of opponents one doesn't like in public debate on the basis of crude and negative racial or other stereotyping.

- ironyroad

April 15, 2012 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, so as long as my heart is in the right place, you are saying me greeting black people with eager and stylized "What up, holmes!" is OK. Or maybe when I meet a gay guy I would do a great big "Faaabuuulous!" as I shake hands. And the Indian accent, you've already noted, was fine and dandy too. Hell, Biden made the 7-11 crack while talking directly TO the Indian guy. These are all OK with you IF the heart is in a good place. Afterall, this is all Biden did. Hmmm. I think I'll reject your advice. You worry me.

- seattleeng

April 16, 2012 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I said, (1) malice, (2) intentionality, and (3) a target with less power than you. Judging by your style of debate, I'm sure you'll have no problem with the first one.

- ironyroad

April 16, 2012 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, your examples are garbage. It appears that you've construed inappropriate use of words for the manifestation of racism. You seem to understand what the word racism means, but you obviously don't know what it is. I suppose that is to be expected. At least you seem to realize how stupid it would be to do any of those things.

- GSpinks

April 16, 2012 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw, anyone read that recent article about the guy who used to work at Fox but had to leave because the race baiting was getting out of hand? he specifically talked about Obama's Hip Hop BBQ article. It's rather amusing, in a Fox-really-is-doing-it-and-they-are-doing-it-deliberately sort of way.

- GSpinks

May 23, 2012 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close