« The Enemy of Their Enemy | Main | Random Links, Open Thread »

January 27, 2008

Comments

What on earth could Erick have had in mind? Could he possibly have mistaken white Democratic voters for all Democratic voters? Could he have simply forgotten that South Carolina's black voters exist?

That's what Confederate flag apologists do when they claim that it's a symbol of pride in Southern culture.

For them, white is normative; all others are exceptions.

Gwangung: yeah; kind of like when Daryl Gates said that"blacks might be more likely to die from chokeholds because their arteries do not open as fast as they do on ''normal people''."

This led to one of my favorite LA colloquialisms: calling the police cars "black and normals".

Hmm, the ugliness has started early this election cycle. I would've thought the two major parties would've called a ceasefire at least until the primaries ended.

There might be a reason why the Democratic Party is more likely to face significant racial divides than the Republican Party. It's on the tip of my tongue...

Dems let us do fun stuff like heart attacks amd strokes. Pain people so they can't move. Force them to see things and hear things. Torture people until they give them cash and kill them all anyway, nothing like tsunamis and vehicular.

Obama, Hillary, Bill there's no difference. Dems are luciferians. It doesn't matter what they are; they choose lucifer to make money and have careers. Dems destroyed all things they didn't like and that included anyone who might have a political career. Bill's fun was ruining all those lives. Hilly's fun probably won't be different. Obama will show everyone what Oprah really is and, no, dems shouldn't be surprised......

unless we all get together and put another Bush in.......

Yes, the party that just overwhelmingly voted for the black guy in South freakin' Carolina ... must be the party of the klan.

What on earth could Erick have had in mind? Could he possibly have mistaken white Democratic voters for all Democratic voters? Could he have simply forgotten that South Carolina's black voters exist?

Exactly. Like Stephen Colbert, Erick doesn't see race. Democrats clearly don't understand the wingnuts noble, Martin Luther King-ian colorblindness!

[/snark]

Wow. I want some of whatever JH is on. That's some strong sh*t.

What on earth could Erick have had in mind?

He saw the number that said Edwards won white males--with 44% mind you, not even a majority--and his little brain exploded and said "I've got a hook!" Never mind that Obama finished only two points behind Clinton in the white males, and she wasn't more than a dozen points behind Edwards. Obama got more than a quarter of the white male voters in South Carolina, despite facing both a white male native son and a white female. That's a pretty amazing accomplishment, if you look at it that way.

so, how are all those black GOP presidential candidates doing? are the GOP primary voters voting their skin color, too ?

I've noticed a serious decline in Erick's good spirits of late. I could not say why.

Black Republican politicians are often subject to brutal but effective portrayals as Uncle Toms by their Democratic opponents, for instance Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell in the 2006 elections. But there are such things as black conservative Republicans, even if some are a bit on the fringe, like Alan Keyes.

So no, not all Republicans are white.

Erick Erickson is a fine Christian boy, which he lets the reader know as often as possible.

I mentioned in a comment in another thread that Roger Stone, a crazy person in the mold of Lee Atwater, has started an organization called _Citizens United Not Timid_ to go after Hillary Clinton.

So, I'm scrolling through Bizarro Universe and I come upon a post by the congenitally outraged Erick taking the House Republicans to task for caving on earmark reform.

He bolds this statement "What a bunch of female body parts," referring to the House Republicans.

Now, aside from wondering how a righteous guy like Erick can learn such language in Sunday school, and aside from imagining Moe Lane contemplating the chink in the uniformity of his quick-trigger banning habits, and aside from remembering the moving words of Leon Wolf and others over there regarding the issue of abortion, and aside from the idea that the Catholics at Redstate, in particular, have a little thing for the inviolability of the nether regions of Jesus' mother ..... and, by extension, the inviolability of the nether regions of even women and girls in countries who might seek birth control counseling, for example, and aside from the amount of perfectly good breath these sort expend about the way women are referred to in rap lyrics and other parts of the culture ...... ........

..... I am never short of astounded when the righteous reveal their true views about women and their physical characteristics, which should be celebrated, rather than converted to a "thing" and a word with which to refer to their enemies, who are legion ... even their own because of a little lapse in spending restraint.

Especially when a guy like Erick and Roger Stone and most of the hard-core tough guys in that party have their own body parts, close by, attached, and quickly available for conversion into insults, and especially when so many of their ilk like Rush and Grover, and Dick, especially dick, are so much more accurately described by reference to male body parts, rather than the body parts of Erick's mother, and sister, and wife, and mistress.

I'm sure that the magic word will rise to the Erick's lips if Mrs. Clinton is nominated. If Obama is nominated, I'm sure that magic word and another one blaming Obama's mother for his being available for nomination will find free rein among the Republican hard cases.

See, whomever gains the nomination on the Democratic side, despite their current skirmishes, must win in November, because I don't really care which one of them kicks Erick right in the body parts he can never find a word for.

Take your straw man to Taking It Outside, DaveC.

But there are such things as black conservative Republicans, even if some are a bit on the fringe, like Alan Keyes.

Yeah, how'd that Presidential bid work out for him?

Is John Edwards in league with the Clintons to make sure white voters, who don't want to vote for Clinton, have a white alternative to go to, lest Barack Obama get more traction?

Could it be..... Satan?

Of all the RedState editors, Erick is most consistently good for a laugh.

And what of the Clintons? Bill is out comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Not that it redounds to his own credit in any way, but, sad to say, he's got a point there.

Thanks -

As always, you misunderstand the purpose of right wing propaganda.

The main purpose of Erick's post is not to accuse Democrats of racism. The main purpose of Erick's post is to inoculate the racist elements among the Republican party against accusations of racism.

This is an ongoing tactic among right wing propagandists.

For example: "Liberal Fascism". The main purpose of the book "Liberal Fascism" is not to accuse liberals of fascism. The main purpose of the book is to inoculate the fascist elements among the Republican party against accusations of fascism.

Many more examples can easily be found.

If Robert Byrd didn't exist, RedState would have had to invent him.

like dewey vs truman. bet they didnt use cell phones or text messaging to determine or be included in their sample

like dewey vs truman. bet they didnt use cell phones or text messaging to determine or be included in their sample

You know, I have checked back at this post several times to see whether Erick has fixed the part about "Democratic voters" supporting Edwards over Clinton and Obama. Not yet.

This was the first time I read through the comments, though. Yow.

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
-America’s First Black President

It is scary how quickly the Clintons threw the black race under the bus. The other Bill made the bet and so will I; $20 says that Hispanics will vote against the black candidate in California by at least a twenty-five point spread. Hilzoy can hold the cash until the election.

White liberals in white states feel comfortable voting for a black candidate. But white liberals in diverse states vote in block against the black candidate (25%/75% in South Carolina).

The Clintons are cold-hearted election winners. Their calculus tells us a lot about who we are as a people. And it ain’t pretty.

This was the first time I read through the comments, though. Yow.

yeah... and when "old grizzly" poited out how wildly incorrect the post is, in light of the way the contest actually turned out, he gets called an unobjective, one-hand-typing, KOSite troll. facts really do have a liberal bias.

and, what will they do when Byrd retires?!

I've noticed a serious decline in Erick's good spirits of late. I could not say why.

"I'm not asking so much!
I try to imagine another planet, another sun
Where I don't look like me
And everything I do matters"

Ricki Lee Jones, Gravity.

Bill: "It is scary how quickly the Clintons threw the black race under the bus. The other Bill made the bet and so will I; $20 says that Hispanics will vote against the black candidate in California by at least a twenty-five point spread. Hilzoy can hold the cash until the election."

I don't see how B-Clinton's remarks can be interpreted as throwing the 'black race under the bus.' It was a statement of fact: Blacks overwhelmingly supported Jackson in his campaigns in South Carolina and Obama in his. And if Clinton's remarks have a racial undertone, then so does your $20 wager -- you're throwing Hispanics under the bus, intimating they're racist too, right? And if I add a $20 wager that Blacks will vote for Obama in California 5 to 1 against the White candidates, am I throwing the Black race under the bus too? Or merely making an accurate assumption about the racial voting predilections of Blacks voting for Blacks?

And everything I do matters

I've heard one of the proposed designs of Redstate 3.0 is simply a looping audio of a primal scream.

They didn't get enough donations for a video version.

White liberals in white states feel comfortable voting for a black candidate. But white liberals in diverse states vote in block against the black candidate (25%/75% in South Carolina).

There is a word used by professional statisticians for those who base their findings on a sample size of one- unfortunately, posting rules prevent the use of this technical jargon, so Ill just say that it is a really very bad idea. (not to mention, how badly underperforming is 25% against an expected 33% in a three-way race?)

Jay, although I agree that Bill CLinton's copmment was not throwing the black race under the bus, and that it was, on one level correct, that doesn't mean it wasn't said with a specific intent - to make people think that Obama is just another Jesse Jackson.

For all those who think that it wasn't a dog whistle moment, I assume you also agree that there really wasn't any signifigance to Reagan's Philiadelphia, MS speech.

I'll just remind everyone that this is the same man who claimed that he couldn't update RedState's software due to a conspiracy of liberal programmers.

“Si se pueda”
-HRC

I respect the Clintons. They are simply applying human nature and math to an election in a one-man, one-vote democracy. They are professionals. Nonetheless, it is scary from a human standpoint how allegiances nurtured over decades can be abandoned so quickly.

Hey Carleton Wu;

Wanna take me up on that $20 bet?

Anybody?

There were a couple of points that Bill Clinton left out with the Obama=Jesse Jackson="just a black candidate".

First, it was not a primary then, it was a caucus. Second, this was *after* super Tuesday, and the nominations had been pretty much decided by then. So, the other candidates left SC for Jesse Jackson - they didn't have the money or the will to fight there.

And Bill Clinton being the wonks' wonk, he certainly knows the details of this history, probably down to knowing a lot of the caucus goers by name. Now, why would he want to leave a misleading impression?

Alan Keyes is the key. If, in the brokered GOP convention, he doesn't become the Republican Party candidate, it will conclusively prove that the Republican Party, to its core foundation, is racist. I hope Erick is getting ready to hand out all those Alan Keyes buttons. It is going to be an interesting race - Keyes, a solid black man chosen by a Republican party that has transcended race, against the Edwards/David Duke ticket. And just think - it will all be conducted in Erick's mind! That's the best and safest way to observe politics.

Can I just say how irritated I am that support for the most outspokenly progressive candidate left -- the guy who started his campaign from New Orleans, moved the debate leftward on issues from health care reform to FISA, and made poverty his signature issue -- is being regarded as some kind of Klan thing?

Jay Jerome: Why the hell are you capitalizing "Black", as in

Or merely making an accurate assumption about the racial voting predilections of Blacks voting for Blacks?

I can't articulate exactly why, but there's something seriously creepy about that -- a sort of elitist antebellum feel -- and I'd suggest that you stop unless there's a reason for it.

So, I gather that if Obama is the nominee, Erick will be supporting him in the general election?

There is a word used by professional statisticians for those who base their findings on a sample size of one

"You're generalizing from one example."

"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do."
-- Steven Brust

Anarch: I think there's a somewhat complicated history around capitalizing the B in Black. Iirc, it started as a gesture of respect. Personally, I have always avoided it, because if I capitalized it, then symmetry would make me capitalize White, and while I don't have very strong feelings about capitalizing the b in black or Black, I find that thinking of myself as a White, with a capital W, gives me the serious creeps. -- I mean, it suggests White Supremacists, or White Identity people, etc. Whereas capitalizing the B in Black just makes me think of James Brown, which is sort of pleasant.

Hey Carleton Wu;

Wanna take me up on that $20 bet?

I still haven't figured out why you're saying whites in mixed states won't vote black, and following that up by offering a bet about hispanics, in California. Either these two points
-have nothing to do with each other or
-are part of some larger point that you've failed to even attempt to make

Either way, I dont really have an opinion about how hispanics in Cali will vote- dont know enough about Obama's efforts in Cali, reaching to to hispanics, or HRC's scores in those areas. Nor how hispanic pols in Cali are breaking in terms of endorsements, etc. Lots of factors, and if you *gave* me 20 bucks for researching it it wouldn't be worth my time.

I do think your mixed-state theory is crapola- if Obama had done badly in all-white areas compared to mixed areas, you'd have another Dems-are-racist theory ready-made. It appears that the only way Dems aren't racist is if they actually nominate Obama. But wouldn't that make them misogynists?

White liberals in white states feel comfortable voting for a black candidate. But white liberals in diverse states vote in block against the black candidate

It just occurred to me- is your theory confined to Presidential elections? If it is, maybe you'd care to explain why. And if not, maybe you'd care to explain the too-numerous-to-count counterexamples.

I have been watching Erick do his thing for about a year, and I can assure you that the only thing he's smoking is a fine blend of Rush and Rove weeds.

Erick posts several sorts of articles. You can identify this particular sort by the following characteristics:

1. He uses a provocative word (like "rape" or "Klan"), usually in the title of the article, and several times in the text.

2. He uses a provocative graphic (like a soviet flag or a picture of Byrd), which has little if anything to do with the content of the article.

3. He generalizes frenetically and implicitly connects statements to people who didn't make them.

4. He does not personally respond to the comments. Surrogates (usually contributors) respond to commenters that disagree with heckling and name-calling.

The inoculation comment is astute, and I think it plays at a less conscious level for a lot of conservative commentators. But for Erick, the goals are pretty simple:

1. Drive traffic to RedState.

2. Provoke the ire of liberal bloggers, thus driving traffic to RedState.

3. Inspire the angriest of liberal readers to comment at RedState, and hopefully embarrass themselves.

4. Inspire liberal bloggers to respond on their own blogs, and hopefully sound defensive (thus generating chatter about his article and RedState in general).

I used to be able to chuckle at Erick's provocative stuff, and then it started to make me angry, because the world *does* need a thoughtful and intelligent conservative blog. Now, it just disgusts me. My stomach is calmed a little by the idea that someday Erick might seek public office in an election in which he's actually opposed by someone. In this scenario, his past words will not appear to reflect personal integrity.

Let's all remember that, aside from being motivated by crass commercialism, Mr, Erickson is a man who apparently believes two amazing things:

1) John Kerry was and is a traitor.

2) Robert E. Lee was a patriot.

That's all you need to know about him.

I do not know what is the problem with the second statement. We are talking about the Civil War general, or am I mistaken? Misguided maybe, but unpatriotic? I know people that are strong local patriots but not "national" patriots, i.e. they would prefer their state to be independent from the union (I am referring mainly to Bavaria here but the same applies in other places too).

I'll just remind everyone that this is the same man who claimed that he couldn't update RedState's software due to a conspiracy of liberal programmers.

Yeah, so PLEASE SEND MONEY!!

First (and last) time I'd ever been spammed by a blog.

Didn't they get bought by Eagle Publishing a while back? Eagle did $8.3M with 220 employees last year. I'm not sure how things go in publishing, but in my industry that's kind of a thin revenue per employee ratio ($37K). How are they making payroll with those numbers?

Maybe they just don't have the capital to reinvest. But hey, people, it ain't show friends, it's show business. Sink or swim.

They are looking for a web developer, though. Good luck finding a good web hacker who'll put up with "Business Professional Attire" required.

Thanks -

Mr. Erickson appears to have confused the turnout of the Democrats in South Carolina and the Republicans. Roughly 2% of those voting in the Republican primary were black. Roughly 55% of those voting in the Democratic primary were black.

He may have forgotten that the Republicans sold out their heritage for votes with the Southern Strategy. It worked. The racists moved from the Democrats to the Republicans. Democrats who had been appealling to racism either cleaned up their act, e.g. Byrd, or moved to the Republican party so they could continue to publicly run as racists.

Hartmut asks:

I know people that are strong local patriots but not "national" patriots, i.e. they would prefer their state to be independent from the union (I am referring mainly to Bavaria here but the same applies in other places too).

I'd argue that what Lee did went way beyond anything any Bavarian has done in recent history. Lee was an officer of the United States Army, who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies.

He then abrogated that oath, and took up arms against the United States -- even leading the armies of the secessionist states.

There's regional prejudice, there's pre-unification history of rivalry (which would explain why I don't think 1866 is a comparable pan-German analogue), and there's treason in defense of slavery. Lee committed the last of these.

stickler,

Yes, one of the real problems that we have seen in the US is that the pro-Union folks have tried to forget about the war, knowing that the leaders of the Confederacy had been traitors but were forgiven for it. The Confederate Irredentists, on the other hand, have been creating a new universe that excuses the traitorous behavior of their leaders and rewrites the history of the United States up to the time that the treasonous insurrection in defense of slavery took place.

Maybe the Radical Republicans who tried to removed Johnson were right, maybe it was a mistake to forgive these traitors and give them another chance. Certainly it has allowed the modern defenders of the insurrection to make excuses for the insurrection. Whatever happened to the idea that history is written by the victors?

It's hard to think of Lee as a patriotic American when his defining career move was to wage war against the United States. We can respect his military achievements and skill, and his public service both pre- and post-war, despite his misjudgement, but "patriotic" goes a little too far.

It seems to imply that the Confederacy was a legitimate exercise of American democracy, and that particular dividing line still runs through our politics. Erick is on one side; I, and presumably stickler, are on the other.

(No) Free Lunch, no. It's better to give them a voice, so we know who they are and what they are thinking, and don't give them (by suppressing and censoring them) a valid excuse for rebellion.

Whatever happened to the idea that history is written by the victors?

That's usually considered a bug, not a feature.

Indeed, (N)FL, the more I read about Reconstruction, the more I think that the Radical Republicans were right: the South should have been re-constructed from the ground up. The plantations should have been seized, their owners tried for treason, and the property handed out to the freed slaves.

Amos Newcombe: the problem with what you say is that it doesn't get at the post-1865 problem. Confederate activists didn't just get to confuse us about what happened in the war; they also turned the old Confederacy into a one-party Herrenvolk society where racial violence went hand in hand with economic exploitation for a hundred years.

History is written by the victors. In this case, the final victors of the Civil War were the ex-Confederates who, after 1877, got their Herrenvolk society back. This is a shameful blot on the record of our Republic.

You guys sound like Dick Cheney talking about Iran. Have you learned nothing from the last five years? About the Law of Unintended Consequences; about the difficulty of bringing a conventional force to bear against guerrillas? Because there would have been a guerrilla war going on for years. Even Grant was concerned about this. [Memoirs, chapter 69]

It was Sherman who said that war is hell, but Lee and Grant knew it too. Your way would have meant more war, more hell, and (thanks to political opposition from the war-weary and partially Copperhead North) a less definitive outcome than what we actually got. The scars from an extended guerrilla civil war would have been worse -- in 1865, in 1877 and in 2008.

While I don't agree with him at all, I think that he's referring the info that I've seen elsewhere claiming that undecideds in SC voted for Edwards more than Clinton or Obama. It's a very obscure statistic referring to only one pre-election poll. It's definitely pulling from thin air....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad