What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

This is how They see Us

My first thoughts: it is most important that we do nothing to give Them any excuse to see Us like this.

My second thoughts: but even even if We do nothing wrong, They'll just make stuff up.

My third thoughts: I have no third thoughts fit for publication.

Comments (46)

If making your case depends on calling John Lewis a liar then you may have some problems.

We have seen on this very blog folks going from buying into the "federal takeover of healthcare" lie to calling for armed resistance, which BTW you yourself decried.

Instead of a point by point discussion of what is actually in this or that bill, we get "death panels" and other lies.

Representatives who carry your water are called "despicable" when it was they who were misled.

We had years of fiscal irresponsibility but it isn't until a few months after we get a black president that these folks all of a sudden get concerned enough to hit the bricks.

If the latest Harris interactive poll is accurate, a quarter of your side is simply insane.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-Politics-Wingnuts-2010-03.pdf

Golly, why would anyone have a problem?

al,

Actually, Andrew Breitbart, God bless him, has offered a chance for Rep. Lewis to back up his serious claims:

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/

And it will do no good to stand aloof and claim the Left is all about serious policy ideas and never resorts to lies to sell its legislation. I'm a policy wonk myself and love to mix it up with folks over point by point discussion of legislation -- but you and I both know that's not how politics works in this country on either side of the political divide.

Now I'm going to take a look at your poll and try and figure out how you have undoubtably distorted its results.

Next time somebody new to the blog shows up and says (without looking about him much) that we don't tolerate dissent or alternative views, I think I'll point him to Al calling a quarter of "our side" crazy.

Let's note that dear old tolerant Al called the other day for the mass execution of the entire Southern officer corps as a part of his sort of Reconstruction.

I'd rather be ruled by Sherman and I live in Georgia.

If making your case depends on calling John Lewis a liar then you may have some problems.

Like what? Provide evidence. If you're trying to say that we should trust Lewis instead of our lying eyes, you may have some problems.

On the article Steve linked to, even someone on your side of the fence says that he was "sprayed on". Keep the saliva in the mouth and nobody will be accused of spitting, that's all I ask.
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-surfaces-of-rep-emanuel-cleaver.html

Hi, al.

(1) John Lewis is a liar, and the videotapes prove it.

(2) I have, indeed, "decried" anybody "calling for armed resistance."

(3) The rest of your post is quite simply unresponsive to what I wrote.

(4) It would please me a great deal to believe that only a quarter of my side was what you call "simply insane" - i.e., not very smart, not very well informed, & easily led. I strongly suspect that the true proportion is even greater than that.

Really? Wingnuts.pdf? With a document name like that, I'm sure it's chock full of serious, reflective scholarship.

The tapes are hardly dispositive. John Lewis has earned a level of credibility that no one on today's right comes close to touching.

As for my "non-responsive comments", I assumed that I was "them" and I gave you some reasons why we thems might have issues with some of you alls.

"(4) It would please me a great deal to believe that only a quarter of my side was what you call "simply insane" - i.e., not very smart, not very well informed,"

No, by "simply insane", I mean simply insane. If the poll is correct, up to two thirds of your side fits your other categories. If the numbers are accurate the label more than fits.

He is a socialist 67% not very smart, not very well informed

He wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns 63% not very smart, not very well informed

He is a Muslim 51% not very smart, not very well informed

He wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government 52% not very smart, not very well informed

He has done many things that are unconstitutional 53% not very smart, not very well informed

He resents America’s heritage 49% not very smart, not very well informed

He does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do 38% This can more or less be said of most politicians

He was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president 41% not very smart, not very well informed

He is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions
speaks of 45% not very smart, not very well informed

He is a racist 42% not very smart, not very well informed

He is anti-American 43% not very smart, not very well informed

He wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers 40% not very smart, not very well informed

He is doing many of the things that Hitler did 36% not very smart, not very well informed

He may be the Anti-Christ 24% Insane

He wants the terrorists to win 23% Insane


Jeff, I understand the reality of politics, I don't have to like it.

Paul, I advocated a trial and an appropriate penalty should the parties be found guilty. As you live in one of the states whose leaders were a party to the treason and that might well be an existential issue for you, I can understand your taking umbrage.

al,
Before you continue with the Civil War meme, look through this old post and comments. Even if you believe as I do the Union was completely justified in its actions, treason is an overly simple way of viewing the The Brother's War.
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/lincoln_open_thread_but_be_car.html

Al, Al, Al, you're killing us.

Can't you see that the very nature of the data and the report presentation is impossible to accept at face value? We have all seen this sort of crud: the actual question asked is: does candidate X favor restrictions in assault weapons? When the poll comes with results, the category is "take your guns away from you". (This is the hide-in-the-hills insurgent version. There is an exactly mirror-image version by the Sierra Club, of course.)

Or, take "socialist": the poll gears up a series of questions, one by one, that lead the respondent to saying yes, yes, yes, time after time. The questions start out simple and easy: does Obama favor health care reform? They gradually lead you farther from simple: Does Obama favor putting the government in charge of insurance exchanges? And so on. On one version of the poll, answering yes to a majority of these questions is lumped into the category "is a socialist." In another version of the poll, the final question is "Does Obama favor social control of major elements of the health and other industries, to which a yes answer is identified as answering "is a socialist."

Without methodology, this report is NON information. It might even be a anti-information, a net negative of information, merely reading it sucks your intelligence away from you. Al, quick, STOP READING IT! Aw shoot, too late.

Perhaps living in Atlanta my entire life has left me somewhat less than infatuated with John Lewis. Having a wife that worked with inner-city youth in his district and experiencing first hand how "involved" he is in one of the worst educational environments imaginable probably dulled the luster on him as well. But seeing him on the floor of the congress screaming, "They're coming for our children! They're coming for the poor! They're coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled!" when the Republicans were in the process of welfare reform, well that was the day the credibility that you seem to believe has universally earned was forever gone in our house.

But your probably right, al. He has never been prone to exaggeration.

Al, the videotapes are dispositive. John Lewis is a liar.

And this "harrisinteractive" poll you're touting is about as methodologically sound as the average hole in the ground.

John Lewis has earned a level of credibility that no one on today's right comes close to touching.

From the NY Times, 2008:

Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and civil rights leader, said Saturday that Senator John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” in a way that reminded him of former Gov. George Wallace and “another destructive period” in the nation’s history...
Mr. Lewis said: “During another period, in the not-too-distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.

“Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.”

Mr. Lewis, who was referring to the 1963 church bombing by the Ku Klux Klan, added: “As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Senator McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.”

So that brings to mind at least two people on the right whose credibility outstrips Lewis's: John McCain and Sarah Palin. Lewis is a demagogue, al...and a liar, obviously uninformed, and probably not very smart.

He may be the Anti-Christ 24% Insane

If I think he's a tool of the anti-Christ, am I still insane?

If Al really thinks that 2/3 of the people here are stupid and uninformed, and more than 1/3 of those people are insane, then why does he come here? I don't go to DailyKOS for this very reason.

Let's note that dear old tolerant Al called the other day for the mass execution of the entire Southern officer corps as a part of his sort of Reconstruction.

Let's also note that the very reason why some Tea Partiers began threatening to carry guns to political events was that thugs from the Obama camp like the SEIU savagely beat several conservatives who came merely to be heard.

[Ed. Mike T: can you please lay off the crude sexual references?]

Al --

I advocated ["executing most of the Confederate government and the entire Confederate Army and Navy officer core"]. As you live in one of the states whose leaders were a party to the treason and that might well be an existential issue for you, I can understand your taking umbrage.

What I take umbrage at is someone who wanted a Katyn Massacre at Appomattox reading me a lecture about civility and moderation.

It has occurred to a few people that the anger, for civilities sake let's call it that, of the left did not diminish after Bush left office. Holding all the cards it was thought might soften the stance & rhetoric from that side, if not the policies.

Surprise, if anything it's worse. Normal people are awakening to what seems to be a congenital condition among our "progressives". Where formerly they were angry due to policies they couldn't control, now they're angry over people they can't control. People who don't know their place, who don't submit passively to the schemes propagated in Washington, who actually believed all that liberal crap about speech and dissent.
Oh, the silly geese.

It's a mindless anger, there's no time limit, there's no satisfying it, and if you need to feed it, unlikely, all you have to do is turn to the TV channels shown and some of the narrowest, bigoted people in America will serve you your nutrients.
Better, read a Frank Rich column.

What I take umbrage at is someone who wanted a Katyn Massacre at Appomattox reading me a lecture about civility and moderation.

Even if Grant weren't a better man than Al, he was wiser. If Lee and his men were shot like dogs, the sequences of events that would have spiraled out of control there would have likely lead to southern sympathizers in Europe successfully making the case for the British Empire declaring war on behalf of the South to save it from the Union.

What Al forgets is that as strongly opposed as many Europeans were to slavery, they did not regard it as a form of moral crime anywhere near as significant as what he suggested should have been done to the defeated South.

al:

The tapes are hardly dispositive. John Lewis has earned a level of credibility that no one on today's right comes close to touching.

Boy, you just keep descending further into self-parody. So your entire "proof" that this N-word thing isn't a lie, despite multiple sources of videotaped evidence to the contrary, is that John Lewis is just too "credible" (to who? you?) to possibly ever lie about anything, and so must be trusted no matter what. It must take some seriously skewed perspective to be able to make an argument like that, about anyone, without feeling deeply embarrassed.

I doubt al feels embarrassed very often.

That aside, there really should be a 1 year moratorium on any liberal using the words 'racist', 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'xenophobe', 'islamophobe' -- maybe we can just throw the entire '-phobe' suffix in there.

btw, al - there's a far superior Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll from 2006 which found that almost 20% of Republicans were prepared to take seriously (at least) the theory that the Bush administration colluded in 9/11.

Now *that's* some serious *insanity!*

I wonder why you didn't mention such excellent evidence for your "crazy Republicans" thesis - so much better than anything you did mention?

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/08/911-and-birther-misperceptions-compared.html

Let's face it though: learning the truth of the simplest line of a country ditty -- "God is great, beer is good, people are crazy" -- is often an agonizing process for a liberal.

I know it seems like a century ago, but there was a time when elections had consequences, speaking against the Iraq occupation was borderline treason, the filibuster and placing holds on nominations were nefarious procedures - enough so to consider the nuclear option, and voicing concerns about the Bill of Rights made you a terrorist-loving surrender monkey. When Palin talks about Real Americans(TM) it is plain she implies liberals are not, so I will not be trusting anything from Dr. Quit, Medicine Woman.

I know it seems like a century ago, but there was a time when dissent was the highest form of patriotism...

Step2:

"...there was a time when...speaking against the Iraq occupation was borderline treason..."

Oh, really? Are you thinking of somebody around here? Maximos, perhaps? Or Lydia? Or me?

Do you have trouble distinguishing us from Ann Coulter?

"...and voicing concerns about the Bill of Rights made you a terrorist-loving surrender monkey..."

Do you also have trouble distinguishing us from - well, I'm not quite sure, on this one: a cursory Google search suggests that the phrase "terrorist-loving surrender monkey" is pretty much exclusively used by leftists who suffer from a persecution complex.

As for Ms. Palin, have you seen anybody here touting her?

Considering how much time you spend commenting here, it's surprising how little you seem to appreciate the diversity of opinion to your right.

I wonder why you didn't mention such excellent evidence for your "crazy Republicans" thesis - so much better than anything you did mention?

Because the proportion of 9/11 conspiracy theorists appears to be even higher among Democrats?

"As for Ms. Palin, have you seen anybody here touting her?"

Yes, a recent former blogger and still sometimes commenter.

Steve the poll you mention is burdened by a combination that renders it meaningless.

"People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East."

These two ideas are way too far apart and should have been separate questions.

On to the lesson for the day:

"
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.” (Matt. 18:21-35)

Reactions to my counterfactual have been interesting. Many seem to get the warm fuzzies recounting the generosity of Lincoln and Grant and the graciousness of Lee and for all of you history seems to stop there. Mercy was shown but was mercy given in return?

What we know is that putting conservatives on the Supreme Court, pulling federal troops out of the south too soon and allowing traitors to go unpunished resulted in millions of American citizens being subjected to over a century of terror and oppression. I would likely be happy, and the results would have been salutary, with only two of my three suggestions happening so I will confess to my better angels having been over-ridden with the third.

However the reactions are still interesting. Some seem to insist on my having advocated summary executions and shooting while i believe I specified trials and hanging for the guilty. Others seem to welcome the possibility of European nations conquering the United states. The Katyn massacre comparison is especially interesting as it puts the United States in the role of the Soviet Union. This can only be the case if one sees the Confederacy as a legitimately separate nation and the Union as a vile aggressor. That, of course, puts one on the side of those who sought to preserve for some the right to own other men. OK, but is how is acquiescing in the continuance of slavery or ignoring the ungratefulness of those not executed for treason morally superior to my simple suggestion?

Another question? Besides the freedmen terrorized that seems to count for so little, why is my suggestion anymore shocking to the conscience as the Trail of Tears a few years earlier?

I know it seems like a century ago, but there was a time when dissent was the highest form of patriotism...

It still is. I must have forgotten the (intoxicated?) time when I wrote the Tea Parties were unpatriotic.

Oh, really? Are you thinking of somebody around here?

Really, your post describes an Us vs. Them agenda. Why would I delve into variations and degrees of orthodoxy when it all fits such a simple dichotomy?

As for Ms. Palin, have you seen anybody here touting her?

That was my response to William's comment about Palin being innocent of sowing seeds of division.

Considering how much time you spend commenting here, it's surprising how little you seem to appreciate the diversity of opinion to your right.

I do appreciate the diversity of opinion on the right, I only wish Congressional Republicans would act accordingly.

Al - I gather, from your reply, that you take seriously the claim that "people in the federal government took no action to stop the [9/11] attacks because they wanted [the] United States to go to war in the Middle East."

My, what a surprise.

That was my response to William's comment about Palin being innocent of sowing seeds of division.

Of course she sows seeds of division. For example, we've got a president who's fully at peace with the legal slaughter of babies and she's not. What do you want her to do? Just agree to disagree? Congressman Lewis accused her fomenting racial hatred, which is a bit of flat-out, bald-faced, mendacious scumbaggery and itself a form of racial hatred. Get serious.

I will confess to my better angels having been over-ridden with the third

Good to hear. I'm sure on the larger question of Reconstruction we could all agree that it was very poorly handled, that Lincoln would have done it much better, and that Jim Crow was, in many respects, more wicked than slavery. Nor am I inclined to gainsay your argument that some treason trials may have been in order after the war.

Also, I did not adduce the Katyn Massacre to make a broader comparison between the combatants in the Civil War. I cited it simply as a comparable instance of mass execution of an country's officer corps. Mass execution is indeed what you advocated.

In fact, let me further note two things, which I predict Al will decisively ignore.

(a) The sort of pressure that was applied to the insurrectionists in the South who refused to accept the verdict at Appomattox, was in part applied by means of congressional committees of inquiry. Some of those Reconstruction committee inquisitors were legendary, and the drama was intense. Loaded handguns in congressmen's drawers. Almost cinematic stuff.

(b) Given that, I ask Al to join me -- since we are agreed in our repugnance of what he referred to as "millions subjected" to "terror and oppression" -- join me in condemning without qualification that which still exists as an active force today, and which is dedicated to the the subjection of millions by terror and oppression. I mean the Jihad, and I mean specially its corollary the dhimma, the defense of Islam's peculiar institutions of devsirme and jiyza, all the instruments of subjection and humiliation.

I ask Al, in other words, to join me in advocating the Jihad-sedition law

.

Of course she sows seeds of division.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Congressman Lewis accused her fomenting racial hatred, which is a bit of flat-out, bald-faced, mendacious scumbaggery and itself a form of racial hatred.

The George Wallace reference was an example of what that type of rhetoric can lead to in extreme cases. I think Lewis was crazy to make this accusation against McCain, but was more or less right about Palin. There was a National Journal article a while ago that made the same comparison, that Palin is much closer in style to Wallace than to other Republican predecessors.

Get serious.

I'm having a hard time taking the argument seriously that doing what she was accused of doing makes the accuser a mendacious scumbag.

...more or less right about Palin.

What the hell does that mean? When you're trying to destroy someone's reputation, you'd better be right.

Yeah, Sarah Palin is just like the segregationist George Wallace. I repeat: a mendacious scumbag.

Step2 - you really are disgracing yourself here.

Comparing Palin to Wallace because you don't like her "style?"

I'm no great fan of Palin. Though I find her personally likeable, I think she's (a) way out of her depth, and (b) far from being a genuine, consistent traditionalist conservative.

But comparing her to George Wallace is stupid & offensive.

Steve, based on what we now know, I wouldn't put it beyond reason for Cheney to see a silver lining in some sort of an incident. Bear in mind that while folks further down the food chain we quite concerned, we had a president who was over his head and unfocused, a national security adviser who was deferential and an expert on a nation that no longer existed and a SecDef who was on his own agenda. What we know is that Cheney and his crew were willing to institute torture and waste several thousand American lives in an aggressive war. Would I consider it possible that he would be willing to accept a typical terrorist hit (bear in mind the size of the Spanish incident as well as other such attacks) to achieve a larger good (from his point of view)? Maybe, considering that his judgment as VP was so bad, is the best I can do.

Paul, I don't see why we can't deal with any threats with our present laws. Your proposal would best be named "The Al Quaeda Recruitment Act", for it would likely do more harm than good.

There is no way that your sharia proposal would pass constitutional muster. Besides First Amendment issues, it also would unconstitutionally limit the freedom to contract. Our courts currently accept such private business contracts.

"Yeah, Sarah Palin is just like the segregationist George Wallace. I repeat: a mendacious scumbag."

"But comparing her to George Wallace is stupid & offensive."

Yes it is, but to George Wallace, who was the real deal. Submitted for your consideration:

"Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever."

" Let us send this message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today . . that from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man . . . that we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation, wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland . . . . that WE, not the insipid bloc of voters of some sections . . will determine in the next election who shall sit in the White House of these United States . . . That from this day, from this hour . . . from this minute . . . we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no longer . . . . and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for what it is worth."

"...We can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea . . . for it is. We are faced with an idea that if a centralized government assume enough authority, enough power over its people, that it can provide a utopian life . . that if given the power to dictate, to forbid, to require, to demand, to distribute, to edict and to judge what is best and enforce that will produce only "good" . . and it shall be our father . . . . and our God. It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith . . . for where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith. In encouraging our fears of economic insecurity it demands we place that economic management and control with government; in encouraging our fear of educational development it demands we place that education and the minds of our children under management and control of government, and even in feeding our fears of physical infirmities and declining years, it offers and demands to father us through it all and even into the grave..."

The themes will be familiar. Read the whole thing at,

http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/InauguralSpeech.html

and consider an apology to Step2.

Palin is, or would be save for the stakes, a joke, a self-serving slacker, a monument to the empty shells that populism, conservatism and the Republican party have all become. Compare Wallace's speech with hers at the Tea Party Convention and the recent McCain rally in Arizona.

John Lewis's comments during the election were quite prescient given what has followed. She didn't have a clue as to what she was stirring up. (If you haven't read Wallace's speech, go read it.)

To be sure the comparison is somewhat apt when one considers that Wallace chose Curtis LeMay (scary!!!) as his running mate and McCain chose Palin. The comparison breaks down when we consider that Wallace, as a third party candidate, stood no chance of winning and Palin was on the ticket of a major party and could actually have won.
History will not be kind to John McCain.

Wallace is also interesting as his career makes clear how corrupt and evil racism and segregation had made the south. Consider Wallace at the beginning of his career.

"He gained a reputation for fairness regardless of the race of the plaintiff, and a black lawyer recalled, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."

Then he lost his first race for governor and we get this:

"Patterson ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against, while Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outn****red by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outn****red again." In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted hard-line segregationism, and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n****rs, and they stomped the floor." (Wikipedia)

Steve you can't abstract Wallace out from his culture. Wallace is dead but who do you think most of the Tea Partiers would resonate with if we had a flux capacitor?


al,

Use your flux capacitor to go back in time to those days when responsible liberals denounced radicals in their midst:

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2010/04/nostalgia.php

Ooops!

The Tea Party is a surprisngly diverse group of people:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

al, folks in 2010 just don't care that much about race anymore, or at least they don't care about it in the same way they cared 40 years ago:

http://blog.american.com/?p=12121

I suggest you start expanding your blog reading list and open your mind to some inconvenient facts.

al - first paragraph: yup, I thought that's what you thought.

You have allowed ideologically-driven hatred to turn you into a fool.

paragraphs 7-9:

I guess I'm supposed to see this as a more eloquent version of something or other that Palin has said? Is that your point?

last paragraph:

Yup, southern whites, tea-partiers - they're all primarily motivated by race-hatred. Their culture will just have to be liquidated, once and for all to make way for the multi-cultural paradise of your dreams. What other final solution could there be?

What a blowhard. At least Step2 is succinct.

Somehow Southern whites managed to migrate to Massachusetts and vote out the Democrats from Ted Kennedy's seat.

To a certain class of liberals, it will always be the 1960s.

But of course the Islamic parallel to the liberal nightmare of segregation was just my point, which apparently when right over Al's head, because all he could muster was a clutch the stalest platitudes.

"There is no way that your sharia proposal would pass constitutional muster ... Our courts currently accept such private business contracts."

Hilarious. So if someone had drawn up a "private contract" of subjection for blacks, the likes of which Wallace would have endorsed, our courts would accept it?

Al is simultaneously telling us that institutionalized subjugation and humiliation is awful awful awful, the ghost of George Wallace verily haunts us today; but institutionalized subjugation is also constitutionally protected and it is unwise to speak out against it. Good thing the wise liberals of Wallace's age, following Al prescription, refrained from denouncing him, out of a healthy concern that such talk would provide recruitment for segregationists.

"The Tea Party is a surprisingly diverse group of people:"

Jeff, the first sentence of the Hill story is a perfect example of how moronic our media can be.

"Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey."

If we read the story we find that "The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic,"

Going further we find "Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal."

Given the data on ideology, party approval, and the president we can assume most of the "independents" are conservative and Republican leaning/voting. As is often the case the body of the article contradicts the headline/first graph. Any self identification as a "moderate" is likely meaningless. Ask a few key questions and you will almost always get a definite tilt to the right or left - "moderate' just seem to make some folks feel better about themselves.

Given the data in the story we find the tea party folks to be not so diverse.

"I guess I'm supposed to see this as a more eloquent version of something or other that Palin has said? Is that your point?"

One point was that Wallace was a real populist/conservative. Palin is simply running a scam. Possessing some historical perspective would make that clear.

"You have allowed ideologically-driven hatred to turn you into a fool."

Little harsh. I made a qualified statement based on real time observation and what has come out since about the Bush administration. Rather than call me names, why not let us know just what would give you any confidence in the ability and judgment of those folks when it comes to running the government? All I know is that, while Bush and Rice and Rumsfeldt have mostly followed tradition and kept a low profile, Cheney & Co. have done an awful lot of protesting and lying.

"Yup, southern whites, tea-partiers - they're all primarily motivated by race-hatred. Their culture will just have to be liquidated, once and for all to make way for the multi-cultural paradise of your dreams. What other final solution could there be?"

Now Steve, what did i ever write that would lead you to go there? All I know is that after years of fiscal irresponsibility by the former administration these folks hit the bricks within weeks of our first black president taking office. There was this from the article Jeff linked to,

"Over 80 percent of Tea Party members disapprove of the job he’s doing as president...",

and that disapproval started before he had done anything.

"Hilarious. So if someone had drawn up a "private contract" of subjection for blacks, the likes of which Wallace would have endorsed, our courts would accept it?"

No, but if folks who are most comfortable doing business according to another legal system freely contract to apply that code, our courts will enforce that contract to the extent that it doesn't violate public policy.

I don't understand what the big deal is here. We already have sedition laws are seem to work just fine (ask the hope-to-be-terrorists in Michigan), Muslims are a small minority and, from what I gather, only a minority of that minority wish to recreate the old country here.

"but institutionalized subjugation is also constitutionally protected..."

As are Christian Re-constructionists, Scientologists, Intelligent Designers and all sorts of other crazy ideas, hey, this is America, That your Jiadhists choke on the sweet air of freedom should be their problem, not ours.

"and it is unwise to speak out against it."

Where does this come from? Conservatives seem to have a real problem with a very simple idea. Pointing out that people are free to advocate unpopular ideas doesn't mean that those ideas should be free from criticism.

Well, if you cannot see the complexity and even irony here, I can't much help. Never let it be said that the Right has a monopoly on the resolutely simple-minded.

But I will continue to be amused by the liberal who can see ghosts of Wallace all around us, but quails and reposes in sweet abstraction, to the avoid applying his own logic against Jim Crow for infidels.

al: I never voted for Bush or Cheney, and never had "any confidence in [their] ability and judgment" on anything whatsoever. Does this come as news to you?

But if you "consider it possible that [Richard Cheney] would be willing to accept a typical terrorist hit...to achieve a larger good," then you have, precisely, allowed ideology to turn you into a fool.

"Wallace was a real populist/conservative. Palin is simply running a scam. Possessing some historical perspective would make that clear."

Ummm...what's a "populist/conservative?"

"...after years of fiscal irresponsibility by the former administration these folks hit the bricks within weeks of our first black president taking office."

Well, could it be that, when faced with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, they asked themselves: "well, bad as this may be, what are the alternatives?" And could it be that the Obama adminstration has proven, over and over again, not only that they were right to ask themselves that question, but that they answered it correctly, according to their own lights?

...Intelligent Designers and all sorts of other crazy ideas...

I hope Lydia doesn't see that.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.