Distinguished “progressive” economist and anti-war ideologue Max Sawicky, in an effort to airbrush Christopher Dodd’s recent Byrd-inspired brainfart completely out of existence, puts on the rhetorical high hat and waves his hand dismissively:
The effort to cook up an analogy between Chris Dodd/Robert Byrd and Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond needs a few sentences.
Robert Byrd is a great senator. His hands shake, but he is still sharp. Strom Thurmond was a great segregationist. In his final months as a senator, he was more out-of-it than in. Among other achievements, Byrd was a prime mover in blocking balanced budget amendments that would have screwed up the nation’s finances even more than the Bush Administration has. Thurmond evolved from a segregationist to a garden variety political hack. Byrd’s association with the KKK ended over fifty years ago. Trent Lott’s remark, not for the first time, reflected nostalgia for Thurmond’s glittering racist past. Comparison over. Can we please move on to the next canard?
Well, no, Max, we can’t just “move on” — not on your misleading terms. First, the proper comparison here is between Lott and Dodd, not (as you would have it) between Byrd and Thurmond. Arguing that Byrd is more deserving of praise than Thurmond misses the point entirely, and does nothing to address the rhetorical overlap between Dodd’s remarks and the remarks for which Lott was publically flogged. Which is the precise crux of the matter.
Second, you locate in Lott’s remark a “reflected nostalgia for Thurmond’s glittering racist past,” yet you fail to account for similar Dixi-fied allusions in Dodd’s mush-brained encomium. Which makes me wonder: have you even read the damn thing, Max? Because behold! Thus spake Dodd!
It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true [instructive emphases added]
“He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation“? Sounds like “nostalgia for a glittering racist past” to me — at least, judged by the same standards that allow you to elevate Lott’s blather to such hyperbolic heights. And then there are those other inconvenient moments “in this Nation’s 220-plus year history” that saw good ol’ boys like Byrd blocking school entrances or polishing off big plates of buttered grits before heading out — dressed as pointy-headed ghosts — to agitate against the mud people by setting Jesus-shaped fires in the dead of night…
Here’s Dodd again, this time during the Lott dustup:
If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift,” Dodd said. “I don’t think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside.”
[…] “Mainstream Republican thinking over the last 40 years has been opposed to an awful lot of the civil rights legislation,” he said. “So this isn’t just about Trent Lott, it’s about a party that needs to come to terms with this view here — that you go to the South, you say one thing to one group of people and another thing nationally.”
[…] Dodd agreed that the Republicans should make the decision about Lott but added that if the senator were to stay, a move to censure him “takes on more of a reality.”
“But it ought to be bipartisan,” he said. “It ought not to be Democrats versus Republicans.”
Works for me, Chris. Let’s get on with it, shall we? After all, making political hay out of dippy flatteries lavished on erstwhile segregationalists is something we should all be able to enjoy, regardless of party loyalty. Am I Right?
In other Sawicky-related news, Max expands on his earlier charge that Glenn Reynolds is an internet communist exposer and the evil overlord of a modern day cyber HUAC.
[hat tip: Henry Hanks. More from John Cole.
update: Bryan Preston wants to know why Josh Marshall — one of the internet’s loudest voices in the campaign to pillory Trent Lott — is remaining silent on Dodd’s comments. One theory is that Marshall is “an unabashed and unprincipled partisan” whose prior outrage “was motivated by […] the (R) after Lott
Now as a scholar of language, you can appreciate that “he would have been a great Senator at any moment” could be taken in two very different ways.
1. It could mean that Byrd at his post-Klan best would have made a great contribution in any era.
2. It could mean Byrd at any stage of his life—including KKK membership—would have made a great contribution.
Which do you honestly think Dodd meant? #2 is absurd if taken literally; Byrd at the age of two could have led the Senate in matters of high policy? Really!
I think “the great conflict of the Civil War” is neutral language. Is Dodd obliged to continue denouncing the South after 145 years?
So no, I don’t think there is ANY comparison to Lott/Thurmond. Not even a nit.
cheers.
Why am I to assume the best of Dodd and assume the worst of Lott? Because one is a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why, that would be generalizing. And we know how you feel about that.
No, in truth, I don’t think either Lott or Dodd are guilty of anything other than heaping effusive praise on Senators with dubious pasts in such an historically blinkered way that their idiotic comments came back to bite them each in the ass.
But the question is: why did the Lott statement garner so much more media attention…?
Because Lott’s statement was much more deserving of condemnation, even with the benefit of sympathetic assumptions? As to whether or not Lott did a bad, maybe you should ask Andy Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, and the NRO people who waxed furiously against him. Either the objections to Lott were blessedly free of ideological bias, or his conservative critics were hypocritically rushing to get on the train before it left the station. Which do you think it was?
Well, first, I think that I don’t take my marching orders from “Andy Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, and the NRO people who waxed furiously against” Trent Lott. Having said that, they’re certainly entitled to their opinions, and I’m not surprised that they’re expressing a bit of outrage over Dodd’s statement given their reactions to Lott’s statement.
Further, I certainly don’t see how Lott’s statement is any more deserving of condemnation than Dodd’s—excepting a reading that posits a difference of intention between Lott and Dodd—and I see no proof of that. That most of the major media outside of Roll Call has ignored the story after having played up the Lott affair, is disturbing—even to people like me who think both stories were much ado about nothing.
Hey Max,
Here’s a challenge for you:
Find me ONE statement where that Ku-Kluxer Byrd actually APOLOGIZED for being the state recruiting coordinator for that loathsome organization. You can’t because he never has. He’s come up with plenty of justifications for his membership in the KKK but has never apologized.
The faster that senile pork-barrelling ku-kluxer dies, the better off the U.S. will be.
Er, “any time” includes when he filibustered against the war, and also when he was at the Klan. Nice try.
You’re pedaling faster, but you’re still not getting anywhere. Bryd has said it was a bad mistake, that his remarks then were deplorable. He’s come a long way past it.
You are all trying to make him a bookend to Lott, but it isn’t happening. One reason is that Republicans don’t have a lot of standing to complain about racism. This is not completely fair, but it is true. Think about why.
Methinks you believe Lott was a victim of a double-standard. But remember the conservatives who took after Lott.
The pork-barreling is common to most legislators. Byrd just does it better. There’s evidence of more pork these days under Republican dominance than in previous years. It’s not obvious there would be more under Democrats.
Nor is he senile. I suppose you just meant that as an insult, for which he (and I) could care less.
cheers.
You continue to miss the point, Max. This is about Dodd and a double standard in the press and among those in his party. Like Byrd, Strom Thurmond, too, had come a long way in terms of his views on race. But he’s not the issue here either.
Dodd knew of Byrd’s KKK past. He knew of the “unfortunate” FOXNews incident of a few years back. And yet—of all the instances in American history to stop and dwell on, this idiot picked as one of a handful the Civil War.
The point is, if you’re going to go after Lott, you should be willing to go after Dodd—if, for nothing else, for being incredibly stupid and politically tone deaf. (This, in fact, was my criticism of Lott).
I think your party relies way too much on a quickly diminishing stockpile of racial bona fides. God bless the internet for that.
Saying that Byrd would have been a great Seanator at a time when he wasn’t even born (e.g. The Civil War) clearly places his comment in the context of Byrd as the man, and Seanator, that he is today. Lott’s praise of Thurmond specifically referred to a time when Strom was a segregationist. Big difference. Only a twisted interpretation of Dodd makes his praise offensive, whereas Lott was offensive at face value.
Jeff: Your assesment of the Dems reliance on “racial bona fides” may have some meat to it, but this Dodd nonsense ain’t a good example.
BTW, I’ve picked out my DVD for our bet. You’re gonna hate having to buy it!
Well, I wasn’t the one offended, Brian. Talk to Juan Williams of NPR, for starters. I just want to see some intellectual honesty, is all. Personally, I think both the Lott and Dodd affairs were instances of Senatorial gush, nothing more. But those who got upset over the Lott issue should certainly be upset over Dodd’s comments, because as I’ve said before, Byrd’s past was hardly a secret.
No Chomsky porn, Brian. I have my limits.
Surely, Max, the absurd claim that “of course Lott’s comments were worse, since conservatives are willing to criticize them” proves nothing. After all, Jeff’s complaint is largely that Democrats, possibly because of party loyalty, are refusing to criticize Dodd. What kind of sense does it make to say that the very fact that Democrats refuse to censure him exonerates him?
Also most of the original defense smacks of “Oh, I agree with his other political actions, so it’s ok to praise him (since he’s a “great senator”), whereas I disagree with Thurmond’s political stances.” Pathetic.
Also, I do think that holding a position as a recruiter (or whatever exactly a “kleagle” is, since that’s the way it’s reported) in the KKK is worse than being a garden-variety segregationist.
The Republican former segregationists have all retired now. From the Dems, Fritz “I put the Confederate flag on the State Capital” Hollings is finally retiring, and hopefully so soon will Robert “KKK” Byrd. And a sad chapter in history will finally close.
I addressed this yesterday, and pointed out why Trent Lott was justifiably treated differently.
Hint…it has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with his own sordid past, and the Republican party’s most recent 30 years, with respect to race relations.
The scandal for Lott only became a problem when his past connections with racists and his own racist actions became more widely publicized.
That, plus the past 30 years of Republicans (especially from the South) using racially coded terms and gestures to wink at the white racists in their party, while giving themselves plausible deniability when they were called out on this stuff by their opponents, raised a presumption taht Lott was doing it again in his statements about Strom Thurmond.
Chris Dodd, unlike Lott, does not have a histpry of racist actions, or associations. Period. Therefore, it is much easier to chalk up his comments as being borne out of ignorance, and foolishness, rather than insidiousness.
Not only that, the composition of the Democratic party constituency, with a large percentage of African Americans, makes such “coded” appeals anathema by members of the party.
It is even more preposterous to think that Dodd would make those coded comments intentionally, given that he’s from Connecticut. Hardly a historical hotbed of racial tension.
Therefore, people concluded Lott was engaging in part of a long-term pattern of white Siouthern Republicans winking and nodding to the white Racists in the South. A justifiable conclusion given the history of Lott himself, the past 30 years of Republican party history, and the context.
In Dodd’s case, it’s obvious that it was just a dumb, ill-thought-out statement buttering up Senator Byrd. It had no other purpose of meaning than that. But, he should definitely apologize and/or clarify his comments.
But to claim this is the same as the Lott case is a flat out lie, and disingenuous beyond words.
Of course, that’s the point. Those who want to score political points here are trying to equate the two incidents in order to cover up the past 30-years of covert racism by the Republican party.
Too bad. It’s not going to work.
If there are perceived problems with race relations and the Republican party its probably because the party didn
Amazing how we have the D side complaining about the R’s “30 years of covert racism” when the D’s have their OVERT racism to deal with.
The senator that Dodd so deftly praised has an attempted fillibuster to keep the Civil Rights Act from being enacted to contend with.
So, even if we ignore the pre-Senate activities of Byrd we still have someone who in his ACTIVE role in the Senate wasn’t right for the time. So, we don’t even have to go back to the Civil War to prove that he wasn’t the right Senator for any time.
Hesiod —
Why are Lott’s “past connections with racists and his own racist actions” (whatever those are) any more of a concern to you than Byrd’s?
And do you honestly believe Trent Lott thought he could wink and nod and otherwise sneak “coded” racist language designed to appeal to a cabal of white supremacist supporters, past television cameras and audio recorders— much less sneak them by someone so vigilant and racially sensitive as you?
Perhaps you do, I don’t know. Because to differentiate between Lott and Dodd you must already believe (precisely as you do) that Christopher Dodd, being from the north and representing a party “with a large percentage of African Americans,” couldn’t possibly be racist; whereas Trent Lott, being from the South, and being a Republican, is an unreconstructed racist (evidently incapable of the same racial growth as, say, Robert Byrd or Fritz Holling), and a stupid one at that—blind to his surroundings and to the fact that sharp guys like you had already cracked his code and were waiting to catch him employing it. 2 leaps of faith, there, I’d submit.
Personally—and as I said to Max—I don’t know what was in either Lott or Dodd’s heart, and I tend to write both incidents off as so much occasional Senatorial gush gone awry; but you seem to be able to penetrate the souls of both men in order to divine their true intentions—a gift generally relegated to dieties –which I’m sure comes in handy when you’re preaching.
In the face of such omniscience, Hesiod, I’m afraid I have no defense.
Of course, here on the temporal plane, your argument—that the two instances are different because Lott is a racist and Dodd is not—begs the question entirely (after all, it was Lotts’ statement that supposedly revealed his racism). But let’s not allow such a tiny inconvenience get in the way of righteous indignation…
Racism within the Democratic party, whether overt or covert, has been minimal to non existent for the past 30 years since Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” went into effect in 1972…and all the George Wallace Democrats switched to the GOP.
It is simpy dishonest and a strawman to argue that Lott, who was ACTIVELY a racist in his youth, and consorted with racists during his politcal rise and even after he became a Senator, is in any way comparable to Chris Dodd and the modern Democratic party.
Period.
If this had occurred in, say, 1968, you’d have a legitimate point.
But it happened in 2003 and 2004. The CURRENT state and political constituencies of the parties are what is relevant. NOT 30 years ago.
The GOP, now, winks and nods at racists. That is a fact.
The Democratic party does not.
Therefore, treating Lott differently than Dodd makes perfect sense and in perfectly reasonable.
“Why are Lott’s “past connections with racists and his own racist actions” (whatever those are) any more of a concern to you than Byrd’s?”
1. What do you mean, “whatever those are?” They are well documented and ADMITTED by Lott himself. So stop pretending you don’t know about, for example, Lott’s national attempt to bar African Americans from his college fraternity.
2. The proper comparison is not Lott and Robert Byrd…it’s Lott and CHRIS DODD. Lott’s comments were treated differently precisely BECAUSE HE had a racist past, and HE consorted with racists and HIS party, even to this day, winks and nods at racists.
Chris Dodd does not have a racist past (at least that I am aware of), does not come from a state with a history of racial tensions, and comes from a party where racist winks and nods TODAY, are anathema, not encouraged.
So, stop erecting irrelevent strawmen. You are trying to tar and go after Chris Dodd. You are trying to compare the reaction to Lott’s comments, with Dodd’s comments.
So, let’s stop the dishonest bulldhit, shall we?
“And do you honestly believe Trent Lott thought he could wink and nod and otherwise sneak “coded” racist language designed to appeal to a cabal of white supremacist supporters, past television cameras and audio recorders—much less sneak them by someone so vigilant and racially sensitive as you?”
I have no idea what Lott’s true intentions were. But Republicans have been slipping this crap into tehir speeches, policies and actions for 30 years. And they rarely, if ever, get calle dout on it. And when they do, they claim their attacks on “welfare,” or “affirmative action” are NOT racially motivated, at all. Nor are they designed to appeal to racial prejudice and fear. We all know that’s bullshit.
“Because to differentiate between Lott and Dodd you must already believe (precisely as you do) that Christopher Dodd, being from the north and representing a party “with a large percentage of African Americans,” couldn’t possibly be racist;”
No. That’s another straw man bullshit argument. I am saying that he has no HISTORY of being racist, and the Democratic party, for the pat 30 years, has no policy or incentive to winnk and nod at racists. The PREUMPTION must be that it was just an ignorant comment, until EVIDENCE to the contracry is presented. Lott’s own history did not, and does not, entitle him to that presumption. Especially about such a well-known issue and Strom Thurmond’s running for President in 1948 on a segregatioon ticket.
“whereas Trent Lott, being from the South, and being a Republican, is an unreconstructed racist (evidently incapable of the same racial growth as, say, Robert Byrd or Fritz Holling), and a stupid one at that—blind to his surroundings and to the fact that sharp guys like you had already cracked his code and were waiting to catch him employing it. 2 leaps of faith, there, I’d submit.”
Nope. Again, Lott may or may not have grown. I think he probably has. The problem is that many white voters in the South haven’t. And the GOP COUNTS on those unreconstructed racists for votes. So they have to wear the Confederate battle flag on tehir lapel as they campaign. Knowing full well it’s a signal to racists that says “we’re on your side.” The “Southern heritage” argument is a pile of horseshit designed to give the politician criticized for doing it a “plausible” reason for winking at racists.
“Personally—and as I said to Max—I don’t know what was in either Lott or Dodd’s heart, and I tend to write both incidents off as so much occasional Senatorial gush gone awry; but you seem to be able to penetrate the souls of both men in order to divine their true intentions—a gift generally relegated to dieties –which I’m sure comes in handy when you’re preaching.”
More irrelevent bullshit. I am speaking of facts. And I ma explaining why the two incidents WERE treated differently.
“In the face of such omniscience, Hesiod, I’m afraid I have no defense.”
Can I consider that a concession that you know the bitching about Dodd is phony, ginned up and politically motivated?
“Of course, here on the temporal plane, your argument—that the two instances are different because Lott is a racist and Dodd is not—begs the question entirely (after all, it was Lotts’ statement that supposedly revealed his racism). But let’s not allow such a tiny inconvenience get in the way of righteous indignation…”
Of course, here on the temporal plane, that’s not what I said, and you know it. Hopefully I’ve clarified this for you. If not, your continued ignorance is your problem.
“The senator that Dodd so deftly praised has an attempted fillibuster to keep the Civil Rights Act from being enacted to contend with.
So, even if we ignore the pre-Senate activities of Byrd we still have someone who in his ACTIVE role in the Senate wasn’t right for the time. So, we don’t even have to go back to the Civil War to prove that he wasn’t the right Senator for any time.”
Thanks Rob. That was a point I made in MY post about Dodd’s comments. I expressed my own disaproval of Byrd’s actions. I said Dodd deserved criticism for saying what he said.
I just concluded BASED ON THE EVIDENCE that Dodd, unlike Lott, wasn’t praising Byrd for his filibuster of the Civil Rights act. It was an ignorant comment.
”1. What do you mean, “whatever those are?” They are well documented and ADMITTED by Lott himself. So stop pretending you don’t know about, for example, Lott’s national attempt to bar African Americans from his college fraternity.”
I’m confused. Didn’t you say we should be concentrating on now and not 30 years ago? Then you bring up Lott’s fraternity days? You admit Lott could have changed. So where’s the proof of his racist intent? And if there is none, how are his statements different from Dodd’s?
”2. The proper comparison is not Lott and Robert Byrd…it’s Lott and CHRIS DODD. Lott’s comments were treated differently precisely BECAUSE HE had a racist past, and HE consorted with racists and HIS party, even to this day, winks and nods at racists”
See, here’s the problem with arguing with people like you. Did you even bother to read my original post—or any of the comments before yours—or did you just drop by to dump a link to your post in my comments section and rant at the wingnuts?
Here: I’ll quote from my original post to save you the trouble of having to read it:
Later, had you read my post or my comments, you’d see that I’m NOT trying “to tar and go after Chris Dodd.” But again, you’ve got your boilerplate prepared, so nothing must interfere with the momentum.
Both parties have racists in their pasts. So? As you say, we’re dealing with the parties as they exist now. And you arrive at what you call proof of institutionalized Republican racism by arguing tendentiously that Republicans are de facto racist. Doesn’t such circular reasoning embarrass you?
I mean, Christ, Hesiod. Such a delusional set of generalizations! 50% of the electorate racist or racist enablers? The Democratic party is virtually racism free? These are all “facts”? One wonders if you even know what a fact is.
And what’s this winking and nodding you keep talking about? Teach me the code. Surely you’re not saying that any disagreement with race-based affirmative action policies or a desire for welfare reform (enacted by Clinton) is in and of itself racist, are you? Because that’s what’s coming across. Such a belief certainly helps your arguments along—“I can prove Republicans are racist because they do racist things, like disagree with the Democrats’ policies vis-a-vis race”—but logically speaking, it’s a pretty lame formulation.
But never mind. Stick with absurd and sweeping generalities. They seem to be working for you.
Go. Walk with the angels, my brother. Hang out here long enough and my racism might get all over your saint’s robes.
Jeff,
The problem is, you’re unclear on the meaning of the word ‘fact.’ Hesiod believes the Republican Party consists solely of racists who are carefully constructing messages to attract the massive numbers of people in this country who are also racist. He believes it, which makes it a fact. Independent verification is unnecessary.
“The problem is, you’re unclear on the meaning of the word ‘fact.’ Hesiod believes the Republican Party consists solely of racists who are carefully constructing messages to attract the massive numbers of people in this country who are also racist. He believes it, which makes it a fact. Independent verification is unnecessary.”
I find it truly amusing how people who disagree with me on this are patently lying about what I said. Of course I never claimed that ALL Republicans are racists.
I said that they PANDER to racists, which is a major distinction. In fact, one could argue it’s actually WORSE.
Why? Because while actally being a racist is vile, at least someone would be acting on their convictions, no matter how misguided or wrong.
When you KNOW something is morally wrong, and you pander to it, and encourage it for POLITICAL gain, you are even more of a scumbag. And, to the extent the Republican party is comprised of people who are not racists themselves, but nevertheless pander to racist sympathties to win elections, it’s a party OF scumbags.
Oh bullshit, Hesiod. The Democrats are the party of identity politics and ethnic balkanization these days. They are the party that continues to amplify racial distinctions. To suggest that Republicans pander to racists (how does that work? Only Republican VOTERS are racist?) and that Democrats don’t is just paranoid delusion.
“I’m confused. Didn’t you say we should be concentrating on now and not 30 years ago? Then you bring up Lott’s fraternity days? You admit Lott could have changed. So where’s the proof of his racist intent? And if there is none, how are his statements different from Dodd’s?”
No you’re not “confused.” You are feigning ignorance (or perhaps stupidity) to make a rhetorical point. I used the Lott fraternity issue as an EXAMPLE of his racist past. I also pointed out, in my blog post on this subject, Lott’s MUCH MORE RECENT connections with Mississippi’s overtly racist “Council of Conservative Citizens.”
“See, here’s the problem with arguing with people like you. Did you even bother to read my original post—or any of the comments before yours—or did you just drop by to dump a link to your post in my comments section and rant at the wingnuts?
Here: I’ll quote from my original post to save you the trouble of having to read it”
I wasn’t addressing your post. I was addressing a COMMENT posted here that DID try to equate BYRD with Trent Lott instead of Chris Dodd. A clever obfuscation and sleight of hand to avoid addressing my central argument.
“Later, had you read my post or my comments, you’d see that I’m NOT trying “to tar and go after Chris Dodd.” But again, you’ve got your boilerplate prepared, so nothing must interfere with the momentum.”
That’s a lie. Why even bring it up then? To tar Chris Dodd…and make a larger political point of moral equivalency between the modern Democratic party’s policies on race and those of the modern Republican party. “See…they’re both just as bad!” Or, it’s to accuse people who don’t exhibit moral outrage over Dodd’s comments with hypocrisy. Again, to make a political point. Even though, as I’ve pointed out, once you get past the surface, there is NO substantive comparison between the two incidents. Saying so is merely a smokescreen.
“Both parties have racists in their pasts. So? As you say, we’re dealing with the parties as they exist now. And you arrive at what you call proof of institutionalized Republican racism by arguing tendentiously that Republicans are de facto racist. Doesn’t such circular reasoning embarrass you?”
It doesn’t embarrass me, because that’s not what I said. You keep making up arguments that I never made, and then “refute” them. As I pointed out, the GOP are not a bunch of racists, per se. They PANDER to racists.
“I mean, Christ, Hesiod. Such a delusional set of generalizations! 50% of the electorate racist or racist enablers? The Democratic party is virtually racism free? These are all “facts”? One wonders if you even know what a fact is.”
One wonders if you eve know how to make an honest argument? It’s pretty clear you don’t.
“And what’s this winking and nodding you keep talking about? Teach me the code. Surely you’re not saying that any disagreement with race-based affirmative action policies or a desire for welfare reform (enacted by Clinton) is in and of itself racist, are you?”
Nope. I myself oppose race-based affirmative actions polcies unless they are implemented to redress specific past instances of institutional racism.
“Because that’s what’s coming across.”
You’ve now been corrected in your misperception.
“Such a belief certainly helps your arguments along—“I can prove Republicans are racist because they do racist things, like disagree with the Democrats’ policies vis-a-vis race”—but logically speaking, it’s a pretty lame formulation.”
The issue is one of perception, to a great extent. Which explains the disparate treatment of Lott vs. Dodd.
Now, let’s say {for the sake of arguent] I am 100% wrong about the GOP and my comments about them are unfair. Fine. Then the CORRECT postion for YOU to take on both Lott and Dodd is NOT to call for their heads. Right? In BOTH cases, then, it would have been just a silly, ignorant misunderstanding.
“But never mind. Stick with absurd and sweeping generalities. They seem to be working for you.”
Assumming I made any “absurd” generalities to begin with.
“Go. Walk with the angels, my brother. Hang out here long enough and my racism might get all over your saint’s robes.”
Might I suggest, alternatively, that you stop using Dodd’s dumb comments to make “absurd and sweeping” indictments of the Democratic party and its supporters? Stop using it as a political stick. And I’ll stop attacking you for being a disingenuous, lying weasel. Deal?
“Oh bullshit, Hesiod. The Democrats are the party of identity politics and ethnic balkanization these days.”
Oh yeah. I forgot about THAT coded appeal to racists by the GOP and conservatives. “Identity politics and balkanization” is code for “paying attention to the concerns and issues of BLACK voters at the expense of us WHITE guys. (wink, wink).” Thaks for reminding me.
“They are the party that continues to amplify racial distinctions.”
How so? By promoting social seciurity and job creation? Or are there other policies you are referring to? This should be interesting.
“To suggest that Republicans pander to racists (how does that work? Only Republican VOTERS are racist?) and that Democrats don’t is just paranoid delusion.”
Certainly, not all racists are Republicans. But there are a significant number who ARE sympathetic to the GOP, precisely because the GOP is perecived of as being for “White people.” A perception the GOP is happy to foster.
Jeff, I’m sure you’ll do a splendid job (as you have been) of responding to Hesiod’s latest blatant asshattery, but I found his last remark so devoid of logic, and so offensive, that I was forced to put in my two cents.
Hesiod, your last remark would be an embarrassment to a junior high school debater. “No, no, I didn’t say, based on nothing but my own prejudices, and without any evidence whatsoever other than my own subjective convictions, that all Republicans are racists! What I SAID, based on nothing but my own prejudices, and without any evidence whatsoever other than my own subjective convictions, is that all Republicans PANDER to racists, which makes them WORSE than racists!”
And you have adduced exactly what evidence of this pandering, this “wink and nod” approval of racism? As Jeff pointed out, assuming our “racism,” or tacit approval thereof, from our disagreement with the Democrats’ (IMHO blatantly racist) policies as “proof” of our racism is a nice attempt at an argument, but using your assumptions to prove your conclusions is a logical error that would earn you a failing grade in a high school logic class. Try again.
And, as Jeff has also pointed out, in addition to totally lacking logic, your point lacks common sense (something you liberals are apparently allergic to) – what BENEFIT do you posit that the Republicans gain by “pandering” to racists? You must, in asserting this, either believe that an electoral majority of the American people are racists (or at least willing to countenance racism), or you must believe that the Republicans are pursuing a racial strategy guaranteed to cost them electoral votes. Which is it?
The reality is, your position, stripped of its smarmy “holier-than-thou” alleged moral superiority, is nothing more than this:
“No Democrat can be a racist, and all Republicans are racists/racist enablers, because we have more blacks in our ranks, and voting for us, and we adopt more programs urged by “black leaders” than the Republicans, so Trent Lott is a racist because he is a Republican, and his remarks were inherently racist, and a continuation of the inherently racist policies of the Republicans, while Chris Dodd is not a racist because he’s a Democrat, so his remarks are evidence only of a political “tin ear.”
Jesus, if you showed up in my debate class with crap like that, I’d flunk your ass in a heartbeat.
Why not just admit that you’re nothing but a partisan political hack, carrying water for the Democratic party, and be done with it? At least then I could afford you the respect I afford honest people. As it is, you are neither persuasive nor honest, so I afford you no respect at all.
”Now, let’s say {for the sake of arguent] I am 100% wrong about the GOP and my comments about them are unfair. Fine. Then the CORRECT postion for YOU to take on both Lott and Dodd is NOT to call for their heads. Right? In BOTH cases, then, it would have been just a silly, ignorant misunderstanding.”
…from this very thread, written by yours truly:
Go home, Hesiod. You’re making a fool of yourself.
“Hesiod, your last remark would be an embarrassment to a junior high school debater. “No, no, I didn’t say, based on nothing but my own prejudices, and without any evidence whatsoever other than my own subjective convictions, that all Republicans are racists! What I SAID, based on nothing but my own prejudices, and without any evidence whatsoever other than my own subjective convictions, is that all Republicans PANDER to racists, which makes them WORSE than racists!”
Speaking of “asshatery.” Can you people make an argumnet without lying, obfuscating or erecting straw men? I am seriously starting to wonder.
First of all, why did you insert all of that language into my quote? Second, I DID provide evidence, you asshat. And, if I must, I’ll provide link after link after link. I suggest you not gfo down that road of “where’s your evidence,” when you know damn well the GOP has been pandering to racists for 30 years. In fact, that’s the whole reason why you are manufacturing this bulldhit as we speak. To detract attention fro the racist pandering of the GOP.
“And you have adduced exactly what evidence of this pandering, this “wink and nod” approval of racism? As Jeff pointed out, assuming our “racism,” or tacit approval thereof, from our disagreement with the Democrats’ (IMHO blatantly racist) policies as “proof” of our racism is a nice attempt at an argument, but using your assumptions to prove your conclusions is a logical error that would earn you a failing grade in a high school logic class. Try again. “
LOL!! The Democrats’ policies are “IYHO ‘blatantaly racist?’”? Again, WHAT policies are you talking about, specifically? LIST them.
“And, as Jeff has also pointed out, in addition to totally lacking logic, your point lacks common sense (something you liberals are apparently allergic to) – what BENEFIT do you posit that the Republicans gain by “pandering” to racists? You must, in asserting this, either believe that an electoral majority of the American people are racists (or at least willing to countenance racism), or you must believe that the Republicans are pursuing a racial strategy guaranteed to cost them electoral votes. Which is it?”
Speaking of a logic defecit. I explained this, you “asshat.” They use code words and gestures, like supporting the confederate flag, to send signals to RACIST White voters (particularly in the South) that they are “on your side.” Then, when they get attacked as pandering to racists, they claim “I am just protecting Southern Heritage.” A claim we all know is bullshit. The more black folks and liberals who get angry with them, the better! It gives people like you a hard on.
“The reality is, your position, stripped of its smarmy “holier-than-thou” alleged moral superiority, is nothing more than this:
“No Democrat can be a racist, and all Republicans are racists/racist enablers, because we have more blacks in our ranks, and voting for us, and we adopt more programs urged by “black leaders” than the Republicans, so Trent Lott is a racist because he is a Republican, and his remarks were inherently racist, and a continuation of the inherently racist policies of the Republicans, while Chris Dodd is not a racist because he’s a Democrat, so his remarks are evidence only of a political “tin ear.””
That’s of course, more bullshit. I never said, or implied taht NO Democrat could be a racist, or that all Republicans either were racists or necessarily pandered to them. If Olympia Snowe, for example, had said what Trent Lott did about Strom Thurmond, it would have been a one day story, and she’d have been criticized for being ignorant.
Trent Lott’s history, associations, and the recent history of the GOP in Mississippi made the story far more relevant. No one would believe that Olympia Snoew wasa racist.
“Jesus, if you showed up in my debate class with crap like that, I’d flunk your ass in a heartbeat.”
And I’d ask the class who won, and they’d laugh your pathetic ass out of the clasroom.
“Why not just admit that you’re nothing but a partisan political hack, carrying water for the Democratic party, and be done with it?”
I am a partisan political hack. I’ve never made any secret of it, unlike YOU and the other partisqn political hacks around here who lie about Democrats, liberals, John kerry, Chris Dodd, and me…without admitting your own biases. Of course, me being a partisan political hack has nothing to do with whether or not my arguments are correct. They just happen to be correct, DESPITE my partisanship. Too bad.
“At least then I could afford you the respect I afford honest people. As it is, you are neither persuasive nor honest, so I afford you no respect at all.”
Oh shut up you lying, dishonest Bush butt kissing hack.
“Go home, Hesiod. You’re making a fool of yourself.”
I’m just trying to clean out the sewer here.
And, thanks for admitting that you think the GOP hasn’t been pandering to white racists in the South for the past 30 years.
It shows what a lying sack of partisan garbage you are.
Wow. Given up on coherence altogether, have you? “Sewer”? Why I never.
Christ, it’s beginning to smell like burning bacon in here.
Incidentally, Colin Powell called. He wants to know how he’s supposed to act today.
Hesiod,
Are you under the impression that you’re at eschaton or kos throwing around bigoted idiocy?
Please hang out with the atriettes…..rational people don’t care to scroll past your meanderings.
After reading Hesiod’s post, I have come to a singular realization, Hesiod is Chomky!”. How else could anyone eschew completely contradictionary viewpoints in a single statement of thought.
Jeff, I think you need to break out the industrial strength drano, the hesiod is flowing over the edge and now I’m stepping in it. Damn now it’s downstairs, how am I going to get that smell out of the carpet!?
Hesiod the blathering racist is here talking about Republican racism! WOOT!
Anyone who supports affirmative action is by definition a racist. That indicts most of the democrats and particularly the race baters. If you want to start talking about links to racists, and “winking and nodding” the democrats have been doing a lot of that.
And I will preemptively strike down the black racist good white racist bad counter I assume will follow. Just giving you a chance.
To me, the whole race thing pales in comparison with the mind-boggling suggestion that Byrd is a great Senator. Can you imagine if he actually had been around during the Civil War? All the War Department contracts would have gone to three mills in Wheeling– and General Lee would have been in Boston by the time they finally got done rolling the girders for the next half-dozen Robert W. Byrd Bridges and found time to cast a few cannons.
Wow, Hesiod, BRILLIANT EXPOSITION!! Not.
Now, wipe the spittle off of your monitor, and pay attention. I will TRY to educate you:
“LOL!! The Democrats’ policies are “IYHO ‘blatantaly racist?’”? Again, WHAT policies are you talking about, specifically? LIST them.”
Affirmative action – Q.E.D.
Welfare – look at the statistics, nitwit, since the Johnson “Great Society” debacle, and the impact of these policies on (i) the black nuclear family, (ii) black educational attainment, (iii) black prison population.
Opposition to vouchers – read the polls. Notwithstanding the blathering of race pimps like Jackson, Waters, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun and their ilk, the MAJORITY of inner-city blacks SUPPORT vouchers.
That’s just a brief sample of the rogering the Democratic Party regularly administers to its black constituents.
“That’s of course, more bullshit. I never said, or implied taht NO Democrat could be a racist, or that all Republicans either were racists or necessarily pandered to them. If Olympia Snowe, for example, had said what Trent Lott did about Strom Thurmond, it would have been a one day story, and she’d have been criticized for being ignorant.”
Liar. That all Republicans are racist, and that no “current” Democrats are, is PRECISELY what you implied, by your “assumption” that Chris Dodd was simply speaking ill-advisedly, while Trent Lott, based on the Republican Party’s “history” of racism (that’s a laugh – tell me, asshat, how would the Civil Rights bill have passed without the Republicans?), was ASSUMED to be speaking from base motives. Your constant references, WITHOUT PROOF OR EVIDENCE (and I’m not even slightly afraid of your links, etc. – in the words of your limp-dick, haughty, French-looking candidate, who by the way served in Vietnam, “BRING IT ON!”) to the systemic racism of the Republican Party, is EXACTLY that implication. Don’t make such statements, and then deny that you are making them – it makes you look like a damn fool.
“Oh shut up you lying, dishonest Bush butt kissing hack.”
Jeebus, Hesiod, your invective isn’t even very good. “Lying” and “dishonest” are redundant, “Bush butt kissing” is an assumption (because I’m a Republican, apparently, as I haven’t said WORD ONE about W in this entire thread), irrelevant to the discussion, and not very original.
Why don’t you (i) take some typing lessons – or at least spell check, and (ii) try to be a little more honest with yourself (we see through your bullshit, but, apparently, you have fallen into the trap of believing your own), and (iii) go felch your hopeless needledick of a candidate while you still can – come November, you’ll be crying in your (foodstamp purchased) beer, and Mr. Heinz will be back to cutting lines in Boston, glaring at his “beloved constituents” and growling, “Do you know WHO I AM???”
What a complete, clueless, fulminating TOOL you are.
Jebus, this is enough to make me get rid of comments. Do Angry Left bloggers have macros that spew out boilerplate paragraphs at a time with a single keystroke? Have some unexpressed thoughts, please.
Jeff:
I’m invariably amazed, in my stops here, how you, an obviously intelligent person and otherwise entertaining writer, could descend so readily into the utilization of that cheap, dog-eared debate trick of conservatives: the contrived contradiction, or by its more recognizable sobriquet, “Clinton did it, too.”
It goes something like this: you take two situations that have some point of similarity–here, one senator singing the praises of another–and then draw some overarching equivalency on the basis of that one small point of intersection. Plus, it’s always good to throw in a little media bias, which appears to be an almost Pavlovian response for you.
Let me explain how these two situations differ. First, Dodd, unlike Lott–and Haley Barbour, I might add–has no recent affiliation with the Southern Partisan boys. Second, Dodd didn’t say that if Byrd had been around during the Civil War we wouldn’t have had “all these problems” since then. You see, that’s what made Lott’s comments so offensive, the notion he expressed that had the Segregationists won in ‘48, the nation would have been spared–presumably at the ends of swinging batons, smoking barrels and streaming firehoses–the movement towards civil rights for all of our citizens.
Now, I know you’ll consider these distinctions parsed, overly nuanced or worse, Clintonian–for it appears that such argument is only proper with you guys when trying to explain how, for example, a PDB entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US” is, in fact, an “historical memo” from which the administration could only conclude that attacks were forming for targets outside the US–but for those of us not from planet Gotcha, well, such distinctions do tend to matter.
You’re wasting your eloquence on this dim twaddle, my man, although I have heard that both Rush and Hannity are looking for interns. A little advice: I’d choose the latter, since you’ll have to wipe the saliva from Rush’s formerly Oxycontin-stained lips, whereas with Hannity you’ll need only squeegy it off the studio walls. A fine fate for a Pavlovian like yourself.
Let me explain how the two situations are the same, since clearly it’s not making it through your overdeveloped sense superiority. I don’t think either Dodd’s comments or Lott’s comments were racist; I think those who reacted with faux outrage to the latter are impelled to do so with the former, because the two incidents are the same in terms of perceived transgression (just ask Juan Williams and several other black Democrats). My post here was dedicated to someone else’s trying disingenuously to parse the difference—a difference I find unpersuasive. Byrd’s history is well known; both Dodd and Lott should have known better.
Your Pavlovian comments I’ll let slide. Clearly you’re proud of your education, and without sites like mine, you’d be forced to show it off to the checkout girl at Starbucks. And, y’know, she probably doesn’t give a shit.
Mercy. You leave town for a day and things go to hell. In re: the Lott affair, I’d just like to note that my own unique position.
Well, yes, Max, your position could certainly be characterized as “unique.” “Crack-addled” might be a better descriptive. “Completely divorced from reality” comes close. How you water-carriers for Terry McAwful and company manage to spew this nonsense about the “historical racism” of the Republican Party in the face of the incontrovertible FACT that the most seminal pieces of civil rights legislation in our country’s legislative history became law SOLELY on the basis of overwhelming Republican support, and despite widespread Democratic opposition.
You manage to transmogrify a principled (and empirically supported) opposition to idiocy such as affirmative action, “set-asides,” etc. into racism, with the whole-hearted support of the Jackson/Sharpton/Moseley-Braun/Waters/et al race pimps, and, admittedly, a significant percentage of the black population buys your snake oil. And, of course, we all KNOW that any black who dares to question the “revealed wisdom” of Jesse Jackson, Terry McAwful and the Democratic Party is just an Uncle/Auntie Tom. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell – just a bunch of house n*****s, right?
Jeebus, and you call US racists!! What a flaming asshat you are.
I’m a little late to this, but I wonder if Hesiod considers “school voucher” a code word for racism?
Jeff:
Dude, I thought we were buddies, and you go taunting me about Starbucks, and shit. Actually, I live about an hour and a half from the nearest Starbucks, in a town populated with 47,000 Marines & their dependants. (Someday, I’ll relate somewhere my impressions of the many discussions I’ve had with guys who’ve rotated back from Iraq and their view of the central front in the WoT.) Hell, we don’t even have a freestanding (i.e. non-mall) record store.
Regarding you point of intersection as having actually resided in the fact that neither Lott nor Dodd are racists, well, that appears to me to be an awfully low bar, if we’re defining “racist” with any sort virulence. As a southerner, not born but certainly bred–with many lifelong chums who casually use certain slurs, and entertain certain stereotypes without giving them much thought–and possessing a sympathetic nature, I would never pass severe judgment on men who only slowly transcend the constraints of their culture.
That Byrd, Lott and even Thurmond came to see, in varying degrees, the injustice in their youthful indiscretions is, I agree, beyond dispute. I regard none of these men as racists (though I would argue that Byrd has come the furthest of the three). But, in the manner of a Mensa-question, there is one senator who does not belong with others, Chris Dodd: to wit, no history of racial intolerance whatsoever, and certainly no recent associations with southern partisans.
And yet Dodd is precisely the one you appear to want to hoist on one petard or another. Or, in the alternative, the one who you believe is not being held to account by the liberal media, all the while you’re parrotting FNC daily memos and RNC blast faxes.
Sure, you managed to set Hesiod into full-rant mode, which is admittedly entertaining but hardly difficult. He may be high-strung, but that don’t make him wrong (even when he is.) This has been, at best, not very constructive; and at worst, contrived, much like the Kennedy-Vietnam flap, the Kerry-quoting-scripture outrage, the Ben Veniste’s-a-trial-lawyer-and-hack revelation, etc. You guys have been so sensitive lately, well, ever since your guy’s slide in the polls.
Finally, I have come to realize that my previous comments here have been made with perhap too much familiarity, which I imagine has been galling to you. I was merely trying to emulate the wicked tone you have set here, and for which I have quite a fondness. For that, I apologize.
No need to apologize for your tone; I think you’ll notice a pattern with my responses, however—that being, the more times I’m required to respond to a given post, the less friendly sounding I come across. I really am capable of having constructive debates (and often do); unfortunately, you followed The Hesiodiot on this thread, and I had already surpassed my tolerance threshhold.
Much of what you say is true. And your point that of all the principles Dodd is the only one with no noticeable history of racial prejudices in his past is certainly mitigating on one level; however, 2 things militate against your trump card here: 1) Dodd had the luxury of watching the Trent Lott affair unfold and so should clearly have taken from that some lesson, and 2) It was Dodd who sanctimoniously (and in a show of pitch-perfect Senatorial grandstanding) called for Lott’s censure. Which, of course, means he has set the level of casting the first stone, and so should wait at least 5 years before he commits the same “sin.”
To my way of thinking, that most of the howling partisans who went after Lott (and this includes many in the media) were silent about Dodd, means that they decided Lott meant something racist and Dodd didn’t. But as I mentioned to Max (and The Hesiodiot) above, these people are in no position to judge what is in a man’s heart, and so outrage at one instance should bring outrage at the other.
In my case, I was outraged by neither. But I would like to see some consistency (hobgoblins be damned) from those who were.
Jeff:
Cool, agree to disagree, with a cup of snark, no froth.