I don’t care if they are Democrat or Republican.
And what bothers me equally as much are the seeming defensive, knee-jerk reactions from so many folks on my Republican side of the fence that those using racially insensitive if not bigoted language are victims of media bias and political correctness. As if the media made them do it or are doing the wrong thing in bringing such language to the attention of voters. Or as if the three supporters who never heard the candidate utter such language cancel out the three witnesses who heard the candidate utter the reprehensible phrases. The phrases coming recently out of the mouths of senators like Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Conrad Burns, and George Allen – be it macaca, nigger, ragheads, or you cannot go to Seven Eleven or Dunkin Donuts without having an Indian accent – are unacceptable and show racial insensitivity and ignorance if not racist feelings. There is no way to spin such incidents as mere opposition electioneering, though we see plenty of folks trying.
The first thing that ought to happen is that Congress ought to censure members who have uttered such language. The second thing that ought to happen is that the parties of those members ought to find different nominees next election cycle. And the final thing that ought to happen is that voters should not support candidates who use such phrases when they?appear on their ballots. I might be willing to waive the second and third outcomes for those candidates who genuinely apologize for such language and can prove they are not habitual users of such phrases. I would throw the book at those candidates who lie about using such language and try to blame the press and their political opponents for their own unacceptable remarks.
It is particularly grievous, I think, to see Republicans defending and rationalizing such racial insensitivity. You would think a party?that loses nine out of ten black votes each election should know better. Too bad that such is clearly not the case.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I felt the same way as I was reading many conservative writers yesterday, who seemed to have no questions for Allen and many for all of his accusers. I’d just like to get to the truth myself, whatever it is.
That said, I think the kneejerk defense is less about Allen and more about making Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader. I think that’s something we all want. And I further suspect that the lack of any real questions about Allen will end on Nov. 8th, when he ceases to be the 51st vote for McConnell and becomes a potential Republican presidential nominee. At that point, the whole calculus changes, and I imagine those same conservatives defending Allen now will be explaining to us then why Allen shouldn’t be the nominee. If, however, this whole ordeal does generate some sort of sympathy wave for Allen that pushes him back into the presidential sweepstakes, I am prepared to make the case against Allen as our nominee starting Nov. 8th, and I will make it very loudly.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Republius, I know you mean well, but I think your title goes too far due to its divorce from intent coupled with “terminology”, and I think that what is equally reprehensible even with admittedly publicly uttered bigoted comments is to make such a conclusion that same has been uttered without sufficient evidence.
I am one that used to put teenage and college friends out of my car on the side of the road in the country that uttered the “n” word, so strong was and is my feeling about the use of the word, when used in a bigoted way, and esp by one that I know to actually treat people in bigoted ways.
I am not convinced that Allen used the term “macaca” due to the race of the person to whom it was directed. The term is also a french term for a “silly person.” I do not think that Biden meant his statement about the prevalence of Indian’s owning Dunkin’ Donuts to be a racial slur. In fact, I think he meant it as a compliment to Indian-Americans for their achievements. And I would not vote for Biden for jack. I do think that Biden’s statement about being from a “slave state”, while not bigoted, was an example of how democrats try to get votes based on their alleged “identification” with minorities rather than the success of their policies. And finally, given Byrd’s background, I think his use of the “n” word applied to whites, was the best way he knew how, to show that he understands that a persons worth is not based on race. Byrd regularly gets majority black votes and long ago left the Klan. I support people that leave the Klan and i don’t think, given his long years of service that it helps the GOP to bring it up. I disagree with Byrd on most issues, although he does often vote for conservative judges. I am unfamiliar with Burns.
I am a southerner, but I would vote for a person personally averse to southerners that supported policies I prefer to a a southerner that didn’t!
Allen , Biden and Byrd’s public records in their jobs is well known by their constituents.
I do agree that those that use bigoted comments in public should be universally denounced, so long as one is sure their is bigoted intent from the context. I do not think bigoted statements made years ago, and esp by those that have records of service, are relevant at all.
One thing that is relevant is the double standard applied to the GOP by the MSM. And we should always point that out. But we should not practice the same thing. And I am not saying you are. In fact, I know that you are not. I respect the heck out of you and am proud to write for the same site as you. I am just offering My perspective on these matters. I don;’t think its right to call Byrd KKK Byrd when he left the Klan decades ago and has shown no Klan agenda in the Senate. That has bothered ME for years. We discourage good people with skeletons that have reformed form serving us in this way.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I am glad to see that Gamecock has the same low tolerance for bigotry that I do as a fellow GOPer. As to the facts of what I mentioned, I too believe in redemption. And I list Senator Byrd not for his previous membership in the KKK but for his comments on national television only a few years ago that “you don’t have to be black to be a nigger.” In watching that interview I came away with the distinct impression that Senator Byrd continues to struggle with issues of race.
As for Senator Allen, I look at the evidence differently, perhaps, than Gamecock and am very disturbed at what i see. I believe the “macaca” incident is extremely damning. In addition to using a term which is most frequently deleterious, Senator Allen’s supplementary comments that day in Dickinson County when he said, “So welcome. Let’s give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America…,” are extremely troubling and indicate to me someone who thought he was speaking with a recent immigrant. The whole episode seems replete with racism and immigrant bashing to me. And I am also very troubled that it took Senator Allen two weeks to apologize to the young man. Finally, I am very suspicious of someone who, even though it was awhile ago, took such pleasure in sporting the Confederate flag on his truck and in his room. I just find the pattern and practice evidence troubling.
I do agree with those who believe Larry Sabato had no business supporting allegations against Senator Allen without revealing the basis for such an opinion. Professor Sabato has diminished himself here.
I am also not as impressed as Gamecock by the records of politicians who continue to speak egregiously while covering their tracks with policy pronouncements and personnel appointments. Perhaps I am jaded by governmental and political service, but politicians can act very cynically in order to get what they want. And that is why I listen so carefully to what they say, because at times you can see right through to their soul using their words. Recent revelations from tapes tell us that President Lyndon Johnson was much more interested in civil rights as a political advantage for his party than he was as a humanitarian and legal responsibility.
I find Senator Biden’s remarks ignorant and insensitive rather than intentionally racist, and mention them as an example of hypocrisy from a leader of a party that claims a monopoly on caring for people of color. As Secretary Rice has said about becoming a Republican, she would rather be ignored than pandered to.
As to Senator Burns, unfortunately his record is replete with insensitive racial remarks. In addition to authoring the comment on ragheads, he was known to have responded recently to a constituent who asked him how he handled living in the Washington, D.C. area with all those niggers by saying, “It is a hell of a challenge.”
As Bob Dole famously said about Bill Clinton, “Where is the outrage!” I have no tolerance for public officials coming anywhere close to being racially insensitive or racist. It is, to me, an abrogation of their duties as public leaders. So I tend not to give them the benefit of the doubt when these reports come up because my standard is so very high.
Never, ever in a million years – either as a young man or as an adult – would Ronald Reagan have uttered the kind of terminology we are talking about here. That is my standard. Call it too high. I am proud that it is so.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Republius, you make great points that I really can’t refute! but most of which don’t directly contradict my points, except maybe about Allen’s “macaca” incident, and on that, I have gone back and forth, and that is the incident that caused me to stop supporting him for president.
Thanks for your wisdom and perspective brother.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Mes Confrères:
Please allow me to post here as well, the remarks I offered with respect to Rudyblogger’s posting today, Friday, 29 September 2006, about McCain and Giuliani offering support to George Allen, and George accepting same. It is not entirely clear to me whether my remarks are more appropriate here or there:
I agree completely with Gamecock and Oklahoma Pol. I agree 95% with DaveG; the “other†5% being the crack about “bad moral fiberâ€. I think Republius has gone beyond the pale, as he did yesterday, even more egregiously. He owes George Allen a serious apology!
Stipulated: George Allen acted like an obnoxious Jerk in college. He also acted like an obnoxious Jerk in the “Macaca†incident. That said, it is, in my view, simply beyond the pale, to invoke the whole painful American legacy of Slavery, Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Separate but Equal, and Segregation, every time someone acts like a Jerk toward someons else, and even calls him names. This is particularly so where, as in the csae of “Macacaâ€, the specific name ued, whatever it may or may not mean in French Algeria, has never, ever, ever, been understood as a “racial epithet†in the American context.
Moreover, on yet another level, blithely linking George Allen to Bernie Kerik is shameful, if not defamatory. Bernie kerik has pled guilty to actual crimes. Is Republius calling George Allen a criminal? If so, he outght to face George in a court of law. At a minimum, he should seriously apologise!
The Civil Rights movement was a shining moment in American history, and its legacy continues today, though I do believe we are now down to the “tweaking†and the “fine tuningâ€. I am the descendant of slave owners, and I take seriously the dream of Martin Luther King when he looked to the day when the children of the slave and the children of the slave owner would sit down together at the table of friendship and brotherhood! Jerk or not, George Allen has demonstrated in a 23 year political career that he also takes that dream seriously. Republius absolutely betrays that dream when he uses the excuse of “Macaca†to invite all the bad legacy to come gushing back in.
Finally, at the risk of being overly prolix, I would like to reproduce for you all here my posting of yesterday on “Run Rudy Run†(http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/), becaues I think it is pointedly relevant to the attitude of Republius in this matter, though not as much so as my remarks above:
“SAND BOX BEHAVIOUR!
“I commend to you all for your consideration, David Brooks’ column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, today, Thursday, 28 September 2006, entitled: “The Grand Delusionâ€. I am not, however, reproducing here the entire column, because I want to emphasize as strongly as I can, the gist thereof, as follows:
‘If we lived in a serious political culture, we’d be discussing what we’ve learned from Iraq and how to proceed. Instead, all of Washington is involved in a juvenile game of gotcha. Bill Clinton is fighting about what did or didn’t happen 10 years ago. The White House is still exaggerating the positive. Democratic senators purr like happy kittens as retired generals slam Donald Rumsfeld, and then stop up their ears when those same generals call for more troops and a longer war.
‘Voters now confront a Republican Party that understands the breadth of the threat but has bungled the central campaign, and a Democratic Party that is quick to criticize but lacks an understanding of the jihadists and a strategy for confronting them.
‘Worse, more and more people are falling for the Grand Delusion – the notion that if we just leave the extremists alone, they will leave us alone. On the right, some believe that if we just stop this Wilsonian madness of trying to introduce democracy into the Arab world, we can return to an age of stability and balance. On the left, many people can’t seem to fathom an enemy the U.S. isn’t somehow responsible for. Others think the entire threat has been exaggerated by Karl Rove for the sake of political scaremongering.’
“In those three short paragraphs, Brooks has absolutely skewered the current American political culture, as well as or better than I have ever seen it done. Moreover, this same syndrome that Brooks identifies is playing itself out in Virginia, where the entire substance of one of the most important Senate races in the country has degenerated into little more than whether or not George Allen acted like a jackass in college, some thirty-five years ago! As one of my colleagues puts it: “If we kicked everyone out of government who acted like a jackass in college, Capitol Hill would be a ghost town!â€
“In addition, I fear strongly that in 2008, we will run the risk of giving up on the absolutely indispensable Leadership of Rudy Giuliani because – take your pick – he has been married three times, he favoured gun-control in New York City, he is “tarred†by his association with the “now disgraced†Bernie Kerik, he is in favour of civil-unions, he bunked-in with a gay couple for a time, etc., etc., etc.!
“It may be true that “God loves foolsâ€, and that is why America continues to prosper, but in my judgment, we will be worse that fools if we continue with our sand-box behaviour in the face of the enemies arrayed against us. If I had to “sum-up†Rudy’s greatest appeal for me, “in-ten-words-or-lessâ€, it would be: Rudy is an adult, and that’s what we children need!â€