« The Problems With Big Mike | Main | Wow »
September 26, 2006
The Racist
This is getting pretty silly. George Allen's argument is now that nobody but his handpicked associates can accurately recall conversations they had with him, and he's one of six people in the country who has never, even in jest or recollection, used the N-word. Meanwhile, all manner of classmates and acquaintances are popping up to note otherwise, and many of them have told their tale to legendary Virginia political analyst and quote-factory Larry Sabato, so now Allen is calling Sabato a liar. Oy. In any case, I have a feeling George Allen would prefer to not be spending the final weeks of the campaign repeatedly denying his use of virulent racial slurs. And I sort of feel bad for all the folks who believed in Allen for other reasons, and are now having to try and swallow his increasingly unlikely protests of racial purity sensitivity.
September 26, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
The quote I saw was a non-denial denial. Something like "I never used the n-word regularly".
This is all really purile, though, and reeks of the New Left techniques of winning elections in the '70s. Blech.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Sep 26, 2006 10:26:22 AM
Would it be too insensitive of me to hope that someone will title one of their blog posts on this subject "Ni^&a, Please!"?
Posted by: Haggai | Sep 26, 2006 10:33:27 AM
Actually, this whole soap opera has put him in pole position for the mother of all Yom Kippur photo ops.
Posted by: The Right Reverend Rabbi Judah | Sep 26, 2006 10:39:09 AM
This is all really purile, though, and reeks of the New Left techniques of winning elections in the '70s. Blech.
What do you mean? If Allen is a stone cold racist, and there's a lot of evidence to indicate that he remains one to this day, I think that's a legitimate issue.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 26, 2006 10:55:09 AM
If he were truly a racist there would be plenty of current things to point to. Relevant things, not imagening that the "M-word" is a racial slur in American culture.
Things like going onto 60 Minutes and talking about white niggers. Things like talking to large groups of people, on camera, and turning all gas station and convenience store operators into Asian Indians. Things like saying on camera that they prefer people of another race to follow them on darkened streets. Things like inventing that one is Jewish out of whole-cloth. Things like trying to get someone of another race convicted of assault and rape on an accusation made up of whole-cloth. (where does the Left get all of this cloth?) Things like bashing Jewish merchants. Things like attacking pharmacists for dispensing drugs with a prescription from "the wrong neighborhood." Things like bashing cobblers for being non-white (see link at handle). Even things like insisting to include the race of story subjects when it is not relevant.
Now, if we had things like the above, Allen could certainly be identified as a racist. Nobody would have to be grasping at straws to make a case about it. If he were truly a racist he would not have to be tricked or baited into a comment, he would be making them as freely as he says anything else.
As I have correctly stated before, if he had a D behind his name nothing would be an issue. He would get the LBJ/Byrd/Biden/Jackson/Sharpton treatment. Since he has an R he will get the Lott treatment.
I prefer the Lott treatment and it would be nice if the Leftists would adopt that method too, but I am not expecting anything like that, ever.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 26, 2006 11:16:23 AM
Yes Montag, and if you have an (R) behind your name then marital infidelities aren't an issue. The different parties are held to different standards on various indiscretions, for whatever makes the media's man-bites-dog story. Republicans have to worry about being racist, and Democrats have to worry about being un-Christian.
In the various political offices I've been in, the Republicans recycle a lot more than the liberals do.
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 26, 2006 11:21:30 AM
Well, one thing we learned from Republicans in the 70s is the lying and the cover-up are often, politically, more important and damaging than the original transgression. Sure, Guy, you may belittle what his attitudes were 30 years as not relevant now, and it's always a preferred method of Republicans to point the finger at others rather than addressing actual substance so throw in the kitchen sink too while you're at it - however the fact is that Allen is certainly disembling and covering-up now. You want current things to point to? The man's veracity is certainly at issue now regardless of his past racism.
Posted by: Andy | Sep 26, 2006 11:22:14 AM
Montag said -
If he were truly a racist there would be plenty of current things to point to.
Why? The mans a politician, he's not going to let his personal feelings interfere with his career. Many politicians push their true feelings into a corner of their mind and hide it away from the voting public.
Posted by: DuWayne | Sep 26, 2006 11:29:50 AM
As I have correctly stated before, if he had a D behind his name nothing would be an issue. He would get the LBJ/Byrd/Biden/Jackson/Sharpton treatment. Since he has an R he will get the Lott treatment.
Well said, Guy....well said.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 26, 2006 11:35:13 AM
This is all really purile, though, and reeks of the New Left techniques of winning elections in the '70s. Blech.
I'm sort of curious about what that means, as well.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Sep 26, 2006 11:35:14 AM
"there would be plenty of current things to point to."
I point to the noose hanging in his law office, and the confederate flag on his lapel, and his use of the n-word as a 30-year old (no, not nipple) during a first meeting...truly a racist? Oh, I don't know. What makes you "truly a racist" in 2006?
I'd say we're all at least a little racist--I know I am--but what separates the good from the bad and the ugly is whether or not you're sensitive to, and aware of, our racial tensions. You don't say nigger to a stranger and you don't display a noose in your office, not if you're paying attention. Macaccawitz is too clueless on racial matters to be a Senator.
As for the Jesse Jackson comment that Guy mentions, it was far from racist; on the contrary; said it sorrow, it was a courageous attempt to talk openly about race and violence. A high point for Jackson, in fact, and to liken it to Allen's actions is ridiculous, but I've now been here enough to see that Guy is ridiculous, so it's probably the best he can do.
And "purile," Nicholas? (When using a 10-cent word you should probably spell it correctly) I'm not sure what elections the New Left won in the 70s, but of all the ways to win an election bringing up a candidate's racial views is a pretty legit one.
Posted by: david mizner | Sep 26, 2006 11:54:35 AM
I love the way everyone one tries to argue with the rightwing nutcases on this site. Even my conservative friends aren't defending the guy. The National Review has a problem with the guy. Larry Sabato- the dean of VA politics and a conservative no less- have a problem with the guy. But not here. Here it's perfectly okay to argue with every nutcase with a computer and a racist to defend. I have nothing more really to say about them than its really kind of sad. Not all conservatives are racists- but by allowing the vestiges of the Southern Strategy to continue to infect your party (Which is what Allen in a few others represent) you will continue to lose power with the very voters you will increasely need to woo- good luck with that and good luck with thinking you can simply win with the mentality of the South as your ace.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 26, 2006 12:38:52 PM
Yep, instead of admitting to a problem and wishing to fix it, the Left must use the "you do too" defense, even though the GOP does not "do it too."
Real cute!
Let's add that is fine for a D to have a brothel run from his apartment. Let's see that happen with an R.
The ONLY thing that both parties let slide about the same is relationship indiscretion and not quite the same. Democrats require a murder to be involved before dropping one of their own. No amount of boss/employee indiscretion, lip biting and rape, or anything short of a dead body will extract a Democrat from office. Sometimes prison works, but not always.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 26, 2006 12:42:27 PM
As I have correctly stated before, if he had a D behind his name nothing would be an issue. He would get the LBJ/Byrd/Biden/Jackson/Sharpton treatment. Since he has an R he will get the Lott treatment.
Well said, Guy....well said.
Oh this is just tiring. The "boo hoo, we don't get to be racist like Democrats do" line. Don't blame us if your absolutist, march-in-lockstep, never stray over the line approach gets you in trouble, because you picked it, not us. You want some give in your worldview, try liberalizing it.
And you are perfectly entitled to be as racist as you wanna be, just like everyone else. With all the attendant consequences.
Second, these whiny examples do not a cogent counterpoint make. Almost all of those folks - save for the odd inclusion of Johnson - have faced considerable mixed press for their views and their tactics. This case is about George Allen, not some hypothetical Republican, and whining that life is somehow painfully different for Southern Republicans will get absolutely no sympathy, none, especially here. You want to change the facts on the ground? You could try a) fostering an improved dialogue between the white and black communities, especially in the South and b) changing the Republican party from within rather than whining about the without.
Enough already. The real headline here is that Allen has managed to piss away an election that was probabkly one of the surest things this season. All he had to do was smile, look pretty, and say nothing. And he couldn't even get that right. And that has nothing to do with Democrats getting a pass on race and everything to do with the man's failings. Republicans, heal thyselves.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 26, 2006 12:51:32 PM
Guy would have a point if all those incidents he mentioned came from one person. Unfortunately, each was attributed to a separate individual. Allen has had the same number of racial incidents as the LBJ/Byrd/Biden/Jackson/Sharpton conglomeration Guy created, revealed only in this election cycle. How much more can be revealed in the future?
As we have all said, it's not the isolated incident that reveals one as racist, it's the accumulation of evidence.
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Sep 26, 2006 1:09:06 PM
verplanck colvin,
I gave one example from each of a group who all have plenty of other examples and sued some others in other threads. Was also pointing out that the Ds don't even feel the need to hide their racism either.
Forgot who asked me about who I would vote for in the Allen race if I voted in VA, but I finally saw his opponent's ad trying to pretend that Reagan would endorse him now. I would certainly vote against that guy for that.
As for Allen, if he turns out to be a racist I would definatly vote against him too. That marriage amendment thing is almost enough to lose my vote, but not sure if it has a chance of being an amendment, so could toss that up to being an attitude without harm.
Not sure how many people they have in the Senate race in VA. I expect when I see my ballot in Knoxville there will be 5 or 6 (frequently the case).
Nice thing about the USA is nobody will be fining me or taxing me if I make the choice not to vote.
BTW, I will be voting early at an electronic device in a shopping center, just as I have done since the mid-1990s. Amazing that Maryland and points north can not get this right yet.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 26, 2006 1:19:27 PM
I will be voting early using a nice easy fill the circle with a black marker ballot. Amazing that any other county would use anything different, because anything different is susceptible to tampering.
Posted by: Adrock | Sep 26, 2006 1:27:01 PM
Guy, that's the whole point. Allen tried to hide his racism, but failed. He got caught slurring an Indian-American on tape. He was off guard and said it was an "aspersion" to let people know his mom is Jewish. He assembled a shaky defense against those who remembered his racist past.
If you can read the "plenty of examples" from Democrats like Jackson and Sharpton and conclude that they are racist, why are you so obtuse in analyzing the numerous examples given in the past months about Allen's racism?
It's the height of lunacy to call Jackson and Sharpton racists and then defend Allen from charges of racism. You hold them to a lower standard than Allen. That's why you're a troll.
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Sep 26, 2006 1:41:33 PM
Montag,
Webb's ad said that he worked for Reagan, which he did, and that Reagan said a bunch of really nice stuff about Webb, which he did. The message is that Webb is able to work with people of all types. If you have a problem with what St. Ronny said about Webb, take it up with St. Ronny, not anyone else.
The issue about George Felix Allen's racism, though, is about George Felix Allen's racism. Not anyone else. The candidates are Jim Webb and George Felix Allen, the issue is what has happened in George Felix Allen's career and campaign, not what LBJ, Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson or anyone else has said or not said, done or not done.
Obviously, since you are unable to discuss the issue at hand, you feel the need to bring, again, irrelevancies to distract everyone.
Do you consider George Felix Allen to be a racist? Do you believe that the items listed sufficiently constitute a pattern of racism? Do you believe that, if he is a racist, he allows these feelings to interfere with his obligation to serve all the public, even those who did not vote for him or who are not white?
Those are the questions at hand. All this blah blah blah about everyone else doesn't have anything to do with it. State your position on George Felix Allen, if you have one, and be prepared to defend it.
Or just shut the hell up.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 26, 2006 1:44:16 PM
Stephen,
Don't forget the "Junior" ;)
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Sep 26, 2006 1:57:01 PM
Stephen,
I did not defend Allen, I criticised hypocracy. All of what I mentioned is relevant no matter what you wish to imagine what I said.
Also, there is one person who can shut me up here and he is not you. Perhaps censorship and attempts at bullying are the way of the world in your home, but you are out on the street now.
If I had already considered Allen a racist I would be stating so in the same manner as I do of Pat Buchanan when the occasion arises. Somehow he never gets elected or nominated to anything in the Republican party, but his attitude sure does fit the other side. Wasn't hard for him to get a Leftist running mate either.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 26, 2006 1:59:42 PM
and still no answer from Guy as to the question at hand. Stephen- you linked else where to red herrings. That's what Guy is. Why do y'all persist in arguing with him as though he is anything else. I think the proper response is not to tell him to shut up or to censor him- it's to ignore him as a troll. there have been a couple of peo on these threads I have disagreed with who never the less made some valid arguments while also not excusing Allen. All Guy is interested in is excusing Allen. That's the sum total of his repetious posts. What the difference between his repetition at that of the guy expousing HSA's?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 26, 2006 2:29:08 PM
What SCMT said
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 26, 2006 2:32:28 PM
I think the goal was to expose the hypocrisy of those who rag on Allen, but give their own a pass...
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 26, 2006 2:35:50 PM
Well said Fred.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 26, 2006 2:52:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
