MyDD :: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism from Redstate

Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism from Redstate

by Matt Stoller, Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:55:51 PM EST

Sorry to keep this going, but the argument between me and some of the nice folks at Redstate isn't over. On Hotline on call, former RNC eCampaign Director Mike Turk both backtracked and stood firm:

Are we silencing discussion, Yes. Are we doing it from a fear of what people will say or an intolerance of discussion? No. Should I have used different words in my comment? Absolutely. Should I have assumed this would get picked up and made my case with greater clarity? Apparently. Am I backtracking from my original comment? Absolutely not.

So he's standing by his original statement, yet also retracts it. Interesting. I think you actually could read this consistently, but that would require some weird assumptions that I'll drill into.

Turk's point is that the media is mean to Republicans, and that the response of the GOP is to hunker down and play it safe online. He sees this as strategically unwise - the GOP should ignore the media, and allow free flowering discussions to take place. As he puts it:

Some in the media will troll the GOP site looking for any sign of dissension, while ignoring the gaping chasm between the centrists and the left in today's Democrat Party. The GOP will face challenges with tools that generate volumes of information that biased reporters can sift through.

To Mike Turk, grassroots discussion that makes the Republican Party look like anything but a monolithic machine is a good thing, except when it's picked up by reporters in which case the reporter is biased. That's actually what he's arguing - that public debates within the party aren't news and shouldn't be part of a wider public record. That's quite silly.

Still, the nub of my argument, which remains unaddressed, is that the official Republican Party organization cannot afford to embrace its netroots because a substantial component of their base responds to racism and extremist sentiments. Leon H Wolf inadvertently makes this point in his endorsement of Blanton's earlier racist post on Coretta Scott King:

Blanton says that a certain funeral (of a woman who happened to be black) was a political spectacle, and some Senators liken stem cell research to the holocaust, and Matt Stoller says that these things are evidence of racism. He has pointed to nothing in the comments of any of those individuals which would lead any reasonable person to conclude that they thought black/Jewish people were inferior, mind you. Their sole offense was mentioning certain individuals in the context of making a political point, and these individuals were black/Jewish.

Notice a couple of things. First of all, I mentioned racism and extremism. The holocaust point was meant to suggest the extremism bit, and some Republican bloggers agree with me on that. I didn't claim anti-semitism, though it would be convenient for Leon Wolf if I had.

But let's once again go back to Blanton's original post. Was he, as Leon wrote, simply advocating against injecting politics into a funeral? Let's see.

Why is it that those who participate in these funerals feel compelled to turn a solemn, religious event into a Def Comedy Jam spectacle of anti-Republican, anti-conservative boilerplate "known facts" and demands for handouts?

Wow, that's pretty racially charged language. But maybe he could have written that about any funeral. What about this, though?

I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being.

The prominent black spiritual leaders, like Joseph Lowery, are more interested in subsidization from The Man than salvation from the Lord.

Did he write this, as Leon suggests, about the funeral of a women who 'happened' to be black? Could this have been written about the funeral of, say, Paul Wellstone? Of course not. King's race is very much part of Blanton's post, and to suggest otherwise is just intellectually dishonest (as is his claim that I suggested Redstate was antisemitic, which I did not). This type of misleading commentary is further evidence of what Glenn Greenwald has dubbed an 'authoritarian cultist' mentality on the right; they do not break ranks, no matter how loathsome the words and actions of their community.

This defense of racism, and selective editing to 'cleanse' Blanton's original post, really kind of says it all. They may or may not believe in openness, but when you actually scrutinize their arguments and wording, it's very clear that the anger at 'the media' is really just a basic resentment towards truth and those who might tell it.

Tags: Redstate, Ken Mehlman, Republicans, Mike Turk (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

I tried arguing with them. They just come at you from 100 weird angles. Might be some percentage in it. If you play the truly comprehensive game...

by blues on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:04:16 PM EST

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

I think the descriptive "Def Comedy Jam" remark pretty much makes the case on its own. That kind of crack is only designed to draw fire right off the bat. Intentionally racist or not, it sure is ugly and unnecessary, not to mention incendiary. And hardly the language or tone you would want to use were you trying to make a coherent argument about proper conduct/behavior.

by gsanoff on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:06:51 PM EST

Where have I heard this before... (3.00 / 2)

"Are we silencing discussion, Yes. Are we doing it from a fear of what people will say or an intolerance of discussion? No. Should I have used different words in my comment? Absolutely. Should I have assumed this would get picked up and made my case with greater clarity? Apparently. Am I backtracking from my original comment? Absolutely not."

Am I asking myself questions I can answer? Absolutely. Are these questions terse and off-subject? You bet. Am I using Donald Rumsfeld's press strategy? Possibly.

by Geogriffith on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 12:23:55 AM EST

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

I'm not exactly sure what you think is a "racially charged" about the deaf comedy jam line. It's a simple analogy to illustrate what he perceived to be inappropriate behavior at a funeral. You could substitute any number of different examples to achieve the same results. Since the funeral attendees were largely black, the deaf comedy jam line seems quite appropriate. Sure, this wouldn't be appropriate at the Paul Wellstone funeral. But the Paul Wellstone funeral didn't have a crowd made up almost exclusively of African-American guests and African-American preacher taking potshots at President Bush who was present at the time.

His comments about black culture were also quite accurate. There is a reason that the crime rate is higher and the achievement rate is lower amongst the black community than most other racial demographics. There is social decay that has infected their culture. The fact that 40% of crimes are committed by 13% of the population, high dropout rate, high out of wedlock birthrate, and low average income is a testament to this. But instead of trying to correct the problem, you accuse anybody of racism whenever they point it out.

You seem to think that any time anybody makes a reference to race in any way shape or form that it constitutes racism. It's not. Pointing out that the black community has issues is not racism. That's because the black community does have issues. It's not because they're inferior or anything else like that. As a community, they have made bad choices over the years. That just serve to compound a bad situation set up by decades of segregation and slavery. But at some point they need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop crying racism every time somebody points out that they're not living up to their potential.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 02:34:13 AM EST

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

I'm not exactly sure what you think is a "racially charged" about the deaf comedy jam line.

probably because it paints a rather monolithic picture of "black people". adding to that the stereotype of all white people know about black people coming from things such as 'def comedy jam', and it makes perfect sense to me.

there seems to be a serious point being missed by the nice folks over at 'redstate' and that is the point is not the words used. the point is the idea conveyed.

yeah. the GOP base doesn't respond at all to racism. sure.
*cough*ann coulter*cough*

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
-FW Nietzsche

by heterodox on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 07:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

Good Lord, listen to yourself sometime. Nobody thinks in these convoluted terms.

There was no "hidden" message in anything they said. You're rationalizing their statements to fit your own preconceived notion that they are racist. The classic example being the statement that" it's not the words used" it's the " idea conveyed". In other words is not what they actually said, it's your twisted interpretation of what they said that counts.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

well i supposed based on your incorrect and twisted interpretation of what i said... you must be right.

and what you have to say here really doesn't matter.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
-FW Nietzsche

by heterodox on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

smarter trolls please (none / 0)

by Teaser on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 07:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

'I'm not exactly sure what you think is a "racially charged" about the deaf comedy jam line. It's a simple analogy..."

1)How is the analogy useful in understanding the funeral? Was there humor, or lots of black street cultural references or what?
Contrawise, are you bright enough to understand that an otherwise pointless analogy can be used to smear? (eg 'Reagan's funeral was as orchestrated as one of Speer's Party gatherings' may be a perfectly legitimate simile on the surface, but the hateful underlying message is painfully obvious).
Likewise, the "handouts" line is almost meaningless in context, unless one understands that it is a hint towards the racial slur about "lazy n*ggers".
2)Does someone have to actually say "the behavior at the funeral makes sense bc blacks are inferior to whites" for you to infer racism? Using racial stereotypes to trivialize a funeral for a leader of a community is IMO indicative of racism. For another hateful example, using the term "christ-killers" about a Jewish funeral isn't explicitly saying that Jews are inferior- but it's easy to infer for anyone without blinders on (or the political need to ignore the obvious).

Just because Blanton is half-bright enough to know not to actually use the N-word doesn't mean he isn't saying something racist.

by bugmenot on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

"I'm not exactly sure what you think is a "racially charged" about the deaf comedy jam line. It's a simple analogy to illustrate what he perceived to be inappropriate behavior at a funeral."

And you claim that it was appropriate (ie not racist) because it was predominately black behavior. That is to say, it was appropriate because
1)Blanton thinks black people can all be lumped together in terms of culture & behavior, and that this culture & behavior is different than that of white people
(ie he's a racist)
2)Blanton thinks that using racial stereotypes to describe someone is Ok if those racial stereotypes exist in society (eg he can make watermelon jokes about the funeral, because the audience was mostly black & we all know of the existing stereotypes about watermelon).
(ie he's a racist)

Note that there are two definitions of racism. One is to believe that one race is superior to others. The other is to practice "discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race". Id say that this is clearly in the second category.

by bugmenot on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

How was it useful in understanding the funeral? I don't know that it was. But the clear intent was to compare the Reverend's apparent cheap shots against President Bush, which was followed by a two minute standing ovation from an all-black audience, to the environment at a Def comedy jam. Which obviously would be inappropriate for a funeral. Whether or not this was a fair characterization of what happened it is certainly a legitimate area of criticism. But suggest that it was a racist comment merely because the analogy included a black comedy show is ridiculous. What if he had chosen a white comedy show? Would you to still try to spin it into racism?

You're correct that an otherwise pointless analogy can be used to smear. On the other hand, people with preconceived ideas about someone's views can rationalize unintended ideas very easily. And that's what's happened here. If a Democrat had said this, he would have been given a pass. Why? Because you don't have the preconceived view that he is a racist. As I said before, that is what's driving this.

The "handouts" line was a cheap shot. But translating it into the racial slur the way you did is an equally cheap shot. And quite frankly, his claim is not entirely untrue. A sense of victim hood and entitlement has settled into the black community. It's something they are going to have to learn to overcome. You don't succeed in life by being a perpetual victim.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

"But suggest that it was a racist comment merely because the analogy included a black comedy show is ridiculous. What if he had chosen a white comedy show?"

That's actually an excellent point, just not in your favor. What if someone had said that the Wellstone funeral was "just like watching Saturday Night Live". My reaction would be confusion- the analogy doesn't make any sense. At all. The DCJ analogy doesn't illustrate anything about the funeral- except that it was full of applauding black folk. See the Reagan-Speer example again- when an analogy doesn't illustrate anything, but does manage to introduce emotional content (eg the "def" and "jam" pointing towards black street culture), it is either idiotically poor writing or bias.

"You're correct that an otherwise pointless analogy can be used to smear. On the other hand, people with preconceived ideas about someone's views can rationalize unintended ideas very easily. And that's what's happened here."

Im afraid Im going to have to see your Professional Mindreader license before I'll just take your word for it. You agree that smear by analogy is possible, but you don't explain how you know it isn't happening. But you agree that "you don't know" that the analogy actually had a point...

"The "handouts" line was a cheap shot. But translating it into the racial slur the way you did is an equally cheap shot. And quite frankly, his claim is not entirely untrue. A sense of victim hood and entitlement has settled into the black community."

So, you agree the handouts had nothing to do with the funeral directly, it was more a comment about black culture...
You act as if having ill-informed and negative views about blacks and black society is Ok, ergo expressing those views is Ok. But those views are racist views when applied to people solely because of the color of their skin (or because you don't like them for other reasons).
Shorter- making jokes about a black person asking for "handouts" because they disagree with Bush's Iraq policy- when you wouldn't make the same joke about white people- is racist. Just as using mob jargon to describe Italians with whom you have a political disagreement would be racist.

by bugmenot on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism fr (none / 0)

------"That's actually an excellent point, just not in your favor. What if someone had said that the Wellstone funeral was "just like watching Saturday Night Live". My reaction would be confusion- the analogy doesn't make any sense. At all. The DCJ analogy doesn't illustrate anything about the funeral- except that it was full of applauding black folk. See the Reagan-Speer example again- when an analogy doesn't illustrate anything, but does manage to introduce emotional content (eg the "def" and "jam" pointing towards black street culture), it is either idiotically poor writing or bias.-----

It certainly is in my favor. Remember your key argument is that the line was racist, not that it was poorly thought out. You argue that the analogy doesn't make any sense. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I happen to think it does, though I don't entirely agree that it accurately characterizes the entire ceremony. You then go a step further and inferred racial overtones that are not otherwise present. And what is that conclusion based on? Your preconceived notion that the author was racist. That's the bottom line. The outcome of your argument is preordained.

----Im afraid Im going to have to see your Professional Mindreader license before I'll just take your word for it. You agree that smear by analogy is possible, but you don't explain how you know it isn't happening. But you agree that "you don't know" that the analogy actually had a point...-----------

I don't have to read your mind. You keep drawing conclusions about the author's racist intent that are not in evidence. That's compelling evidence of preconceived bias. In a later post, you claim that I "deny things that everyone knows to be true", which is a direct reference to a preconceived view. The basic argument is that the analogy doesn't make sense and therefore must be racist. That's not evidence leading to a conclusion. That's preconceived conclusion manipulating the interpretation of the evidence.

----------So, you agree the handouts had nothing to do with the funeral directly, it was more a comment about black culture...
You act as if having ill-informed and negative views about blacks and black society is Ok, ergo expressing those views is Ok. But those views are racist views when applied to people solely because of the color of their skin (or because you don't like them for other reasons).
Shorter- making jokes about a black person asking for "handouts" because they disagree with Bush's Iraq policy- when you wouldn't make the same joke about white people- is racist. Just as using mob jargon to describe Italians with whom you have a political disagreement would be racist.---------------

Yes, the handouts line was more a comment about black culture. But it's not an ill-informed view. Your argument that any negative views about the racial group in general constitute racism is flat-out false. As I said earlier, they have developed a culture of perpetual victimhood. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin and everything to do with their behavior.

For example, pointing out that blacks commit 40% of crimes while representing only 13% of the population is a comment on their behavior not on their race. Arguing that they sit around waiting for handouts is also a comment on their behavior, not their race. 70% of black kids born out of wedlock is not a racial comment, it is a critique of behavior. None of these types of issues were present in the black community 40 years ago. Back then they were strong, and self-reliant. There culture has decayed over the past few decades for reasons that I can't explain. But I do suspect it will correct itself over time.

And no, the joke wasn't racist, it was a cheap shot. He could have done the same thing with a white guy up there. Just because the guy was black doesn't make the cheap shot racist.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

Nothing is out of bounds for people weaned on "hate radio." i listen to this stuff on long drives, and they are forever accusing half the country of "treason" and demanding that the government "start rounding them up."

Katrina is a huge excuse for race baiting on the radio. Rather than say that anything went wrong, let alone that the government has effectively abandoned a city in peacetime, the AM radio crowd goes on about what shifty degenerate welfare recipients the residents were. It lets them ridicule the idea of rebuilding.

by bernardpliers on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 08:58:13 AM EST

Re: Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

Tell me, do you actually listen to it yourself or are you just regurgitating things you hear from other people? I have been listening to those same shows for the better part of 10 years now and outside of Michael Savage tends to get a little wild, I have never heard any of the things you just described. And where I live, they are all over the place. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Michael Reagan, Neil Bortz, Michael Savage, and a few others whose names I don't recall at this moment. Given that type of firsthand experience that I have, I am highly inclined to believe that your statements are more the case of your believing you're own propaganda that of any actual listening experience. Stop believing you're own propaganda.

On the other hand, you're free to post some word for word quotes if you wish to prove me wrong. Somehow I don't expect to see any forthcoming.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

Ok cabville, here's an example: I can't count the number of times that I've heard right-wing radio hosts use the words "aid and comfort" to describe behavior they don't like.
Perhaps you don't know that those words are from the treason clause of the Constitution. Referencing them is clearly tantamount to calling something treason & someone a traitor.

That gives you 3 choices:
1)Claim that right-wing media folks don't use "aid and comfort" frequently to describe their political opponents' behavior.
2)Claim that by "aid and comfort", they don't intend to refer to the treason clause of the Consitution, it's just a coincidence.
3)Claim that using the language of the treason clause to describe someone is not plainly implying that they are a traitor.

Or, there's a fourth choice- you could admit that you were wrong & that right-wing radio folks do in fact frequently accuse their opponents of treason- but Im pretty sure that this option isn't included in your programming.

by bugmenot on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

conservative radio talkshow hosts don't code their language either. I don't get this obsession with this fantasy coded language you seem to think Republicans use.

Nobody tells you what they think more than conservative talkshow hosts. If they think you're guilty of treason they will say so. And with people like Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War, they've done exactly that. If you have any doubts whether or not they're accusing somebody of treason are not, call them ask them. They will tell you.

The statement "aid and comfort to the enemy" has become shorthand for nonmilitary actions and statements that is counterproductive to a war effort. As I said before, these are not people who are shy about telling you what they believe. If they wanted to call somebody a traitor they would just say so.

One guy and the group that definitely calls people traitors with regularity is Michael Savage. He even calls conservative's traitors. I've never seen anybody gets so worked up in my life! The guy needs to start drinking decaf!

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

I see you've chosen option #2- pretending that "aid and comfort" doesn't really mean traitorous behavior. I suppose that makes sense, since option #1 is too easily refuted and option #3 stretches credulity.
Of course, option #2 stretches credulity as well... you're now claiming that the "aid and comfort" in the Consitution is completely different from the "aid and comfort" that Neal Boortz uses. So that using the phrase doesn't imply treasonous behavior.

If you're going to redefine words and phrases for convenience, why not go whole hog and claim that even Savage's use of the word "treason" isn't the same as the Consitution's "treason"? Maybe Savage just means "idiot" or "liberal" or something.

otoh, you've discovered a tried and true conservative argumentation technique- redefinition. You will never (in your own mind) lose another argument again. I mean, let's review:
1)someone says that radio talk show hosts accuse people of treason
2)you say that this is incorrect
3)it's pointed out to you that the language of the Constitution that defines treasonous behavior is so frequently used it's become a catch-phrase amongst the right
4)you redefine the phrase- but only in the right-wing-talk-radio context- so that it doesn't mean what it used to mean.
(and then, for kicks, you say that my taking the Constitution seriously is just me 'seaching for code words'.)

also, I did a quick google check. I picked Rush Limbaigh and Tom Daschle, but it could've been any pairing, and I came up with this:
"Now [Daschle]'s decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein," he told his listeners (2/11/02; quoted in Spinsanity, 2/15/02). "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil."
(11-15-02)"What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently."

That took me about a minute. You claim that those aren't allegations of treason?

by bugmenot on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:54:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Katrina and Endorseing Racism (none / 0)

---"I see you've chosen option #2- pretending that "aid and comfort" doesn't really mean traitorous behavior. I suppose that makes sense, since option #1 is too easily refuted and option #3 stretches credulity.
Of course, option #2 stretches credulity as well... you're now claiming that the "aid and comfort" in the Consitution is completely different from the "aid and comfort" that Neal Boortz uses. So that using the phrase doesn't imply treasonous behavior."----

The Constitution does not get the final say on how phrases are defined in our language. Like it or not "aid and comfort to the enemy" has become a colloquial term to reference any behavior that helps our enemy. That is the way it is, right or wrong, like it or not.

-----------------"also, I did a quick google check. I picked Rush Limbaigh and Tom Daschle, but it could've been any pairing, and I came up with this:
"Now [Daschle]'s decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein," he told his listeners (2/11/02; quoted in Spinsanity, 2/15/02). "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil."
(11-15-02)"What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently."

That took me about a minute. You claim that those aren't allegations of treason?"------------------

I was able to find a slightly larger quotation of what Rush said on 11/15. Here it is.

".....Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you've already tried? It is unconscionable what this man has done! This stuff gets broadcast around the world, Senator. What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently. You sit there and pontificate on the fact that we're not winning the war on terrorism when you and your party have done nothing but try to sabotage it, which you are continuing to do. This little speech of yours yesterday, and this appearance of yours on television last night, let's call it what it is. It's nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain. This is cheap. And it's beneath even you. And that's pretty low......"

These comments were precipitated by a speech and an interview the preceding day in which Daschle suggested that we were not winning the war on terror and then Bush's characterization of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil was wrong. In context, Limbaugh is clearly accusing Daschle of political partisanship on sensitive national security issues that was damaging to the war on terror, not treason.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

the "def comedy jam" line is a clear coded reference hearkening back to the minstrel shows. but of course, the right won't ever come out and simply make too overt a racist slur because that would be controversial and wrong, unless you're ann coulter. so you got the sophomoric "def comedy jam" line which sounds plausibly deniable as having racist intentions and yet is really a wink to the racists who know better than to show their faces.
i mean who the hell wants to compare a funeral for a civil rights pioneer to a stand-up show featuring black comedians? whether or not the funeral was inappropriately politicized, that description is just obnoxious and angry and does nothing to further the debate.

by gsanoff on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 03:11:38 PM EST

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

The def comedy jam line was a clear coded reference heartening back to the minstrel shows? Guys, I don't know how many different ways you can say this. Stop believing your own propaganda. Republicans don't sit around "coding" there words any more than you do.

That said, gsanoff does make some criticisms that are worthy of discussion. The argument that the line was sophomoric, obnoxious, and does nothing to further the debate, was a very reasonable one in my view. This was the debate that we should have been having to begin with and not the tired old and inaccurate " Republicans are racist" nonsense. That's not debate, its demagoguery.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

If Republicans don't code things, perhaps you could explain Bush's inexplicable reference to Dred Scott during his second debate with Kerry. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that Dred Scott is frequently used by pro-life groups as a illustration of Consitutional judgement gone awry...
Or, perhaps, you are naive in thinking that politicians do not make coded references to their bases.

And, if "Def Comedy Jam" isn't a coded reference, then exactly what was it supposed to mean?

by bugmenot on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

Dred Scott is also a classic historic example of poor judicial decisions that is taught in every school, or at least used to be. And this is a perfect opportunity to illustrate how you're allowing your preconceptions to influence your judgment.

Why was your first instinct to connect President Bush's statement to antiabortion groups? The question asked concerned the type of Supreme Court Justice he would appoint. He answered by saying "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." He then went on to give a couple of examples, one of which was Dred Scott, where he felt judges had injected their personal views instead of interpreting law.

Dred Scott is a near-perfect example of the point he was making. And a noncontroversial one at that. Yet you still managed to translate it into something it was not. The only political calculations involved in that statement was to find something that would appeal broadly to the American people while at the same time illustrating his judicial philosophy. And Dred Scott does just that. The last thing that was trying to do in the middle of the campaign was sending coded messages to people they already knew were supporting them. Who do you think antiabortion groups are to vote for? John Kerry?

As for the def comedy jam line, it was drawing a direct comparison between the cheap shots that were being taken at George Bush and the huge standing ovations they were drawing from an all-black audience, with the environment at a deaf comedy jam. He felt it was inappropriate for a funeral. They were certainly a few moments during the service were that appeared to be the case.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 12:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

"Who do you think antiabortion groups are to vote for? John Kerry?"

They have the option not to vote. They have the option to file a protest vote (eg Roy Moore). They have the option of voting but not providing money or volunteering for the campaign. They have the option of spreading their disgruntlement to others who might do the same.
Are you seriously claiming that firing up the base is not an important activity for politicians? Is that how far you'll go in denying reality in order to avoid conceeding defeat?

You've got it, Im done talking with you (man, that was quick). You haven't been abusive or anything, but when you need to constantly redefine words (as above) or deny things that everyone knows to be true (as here), you make it clear that discussing something with you is a pointless activity...

I mean, it's not like admitting that Bush hints at some things without saying them explicitly would be a terible thing. Gore did it. Kerry did it. It's just part of politics to do one's best to be everything to everyone...
But you apparently cannot stand to affirm a single potentially damaging allegation from liberals, regardless of its veniality and obvious truth. A sad state of affairs.

by bugmenot on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 02:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Turk + A Further Endorsement of Racism (none / 0)

That disgruntled antiabortion voter argument that you made here is yet another example of rationalization. Bush is a renowned social conservative. Nobody anywhere had any doubt what his views were on this issue. And citing the Dred Scott decision wasn't going to change that one way or the other. There were moments in the debates where he was reaching out to conservative. This was not one of them.

The line that stands out to me here is where you say that I "deny things that everybody knows to be true". This sentence illustrates better than anything I could've said how deeply your preconceptions of these issues are influencing your decision making and judgment. You surround yourself with liberal voices and start confusing their opinions with facts.

For example, I often hear liberals say that the majority of the population supports single-payer health care and they often cite polls which allegedly support this conclusion. Yet every Time single-payer health care has gone before voters in any meaningful fashion, it has been pounded to dust. A great example of the difference between "what everybody knows to be true" in the minds of a partisan, and reality.

We they ringrazia for him cooperation.

by cabville on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.