Pieces & Bits (Saturday Morning Ramblings)

252 Responses

Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 7:20 am said:

Thanks for posting that video, Mark–I’d meant to include something like that and it slipped my mind.

How are things in Austin this morning?

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 8:11 am said:
  
  You’re welcome!
  
  Austin remains sunny, mild, and dry, even though it is 45F and overcast this minute. But we have hopes for later in the week.
  
  Sat 21
  H 66°
  L 48°
  Partly sunny and cooler
  
  Sun 22
  H 76°
  L 44°
  Areas of morning fog
  
  Mon 23
  H 76°
  L 50°
  Partly sunny and warm
  
  Tue 24
  H 68°
  L 59°
  A couple of showers possible
  
  Wed 25
  H 70°
  L 49°
  Rain and drizzle possible
  
  No bites on our swimming pool and we have two weeks left to remove it 😦
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:27 am said:

“Funniest headline of the day. So far.” [emphasis added] Yes, let’s wait until this event actually occurs and catch the “after” headlines. Oughta be fun.

I’ve been catching Benen’s Friday afternoon Romney roundup from the get-go but had not tripped onto Drum’s Friday Cat Blogging. Thanks!

Federal “pork” vs. State stimulus. I’ll have some thoughts on this later (post-coffee).

I’ll put some FAQ items in the comments today. Thanks for coordinating (and for a good weekend morning starter). Side note: Read some PL comments from yesterday and see that Greg is suggesting dropping his Morning PL. That would be a disappointment to me (for the links, not the ensuing comments).

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:31 am said:

Yes, Mark, many thanks for the Etta James video. I became a hardcore Etta fan in the early 70s (but must admit I’ve always enjoyed her raunchier tunes). What a distinctive voice. Had the good fortune to see her live several times over a span of years.

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 8:15 am said:
  
  Saw her live once, between 88-90, and I picked this video b/c it is how I remember her.
  
  Stevie Ray backed her some times in the 80s – never got to see that.
  
  LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 8:24 am said:
  
  Wow, did not realize Stevie Ray backed her. What I would have given to have seen that!!!
  
  LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 7:45 am said:

Good morning!

Happy SC Primary Day! The polls are open until 7pm Eastern.

One of the things that disturbs my inner idealist is that much of the ‘news’ in the last few days leading up to today has been noisy but not necessarily substantive. (If the Republicans here disagree, please chime in).

And the bloggers have jumped into the Wisconsin recall mosh pit. This event is tailor-made for bloggers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71597.html

Almost makes you wonder whether they started it all.***

***Not intended to be factual.

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 8:21 am said:
  
  Got a sense of how big a deal the WI recall is from your live feed but also from News Hour last night. It will take months to count and verify sigs. Impressive participatory democracy.
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:46 am said:

Good morning, MsJS!

Housekeeping note: I hope nobody minds, but I reordered the pages in a sequence that makes more sense to me. Feel free to change them back.

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 9:04 am said:
  
  Fine with me. They were just in a random order before (oldest on the right).
  
  LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 7:54 am said:

For those who care, Raju Narisetti’s leaving WaPo for the WSJ.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ask-the-post/post/raju-narisetti-the-posts-managing-editor-to-rejoin-wall-street-journal/2012/01/20/gIQA1G7JEQ_blog.html

A couple of ATiM’ers have left farewell wishes in the comments section.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 9:03 am said:

A couple of ATiM’ers have left farewell wishes in the comments section.

That was funny MsJS. You and yello didn’t pull any punches and I’m glad, the WaPp needs to show some responsibility to their readers/viewers and fix their mess. I fear for the WSJ…….lol.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 9:04 am said:

yello

I spoke to my daughter this morning and she had some suggestions for your son breaking into the oil industry if he is serious about it. Email me and I’ll pass along what I’ve learned.

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 9:16 am said:

Mark:
Got a sense of how big a deal the WI recall is from your live feed but also from News Hour last night. It will take months to count and verify sigs. Impressive participatory democracy.

Not only that, it’s a mini-economic stimulus package!

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/chris_rickert/chris-rickert-recalls-are-their-own-economic-stimulus-package/article_9f78916c-43aa-11e1-87e4-0019bb2963f4.html

LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 9:28 am said:

On PL Liam is simply driving good conversation away. John tried to deal with him as I did and it is impossible to get anything through to someone who has grown that big of an ego. He must be in his 20s.

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 9:35 am said:
  
  Try again, mcurtis–late 70s. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 9:41 am said:
  
  How do you know? Well, he must be off his meds. He’s going to drive the positive contributors and will attract more like himself. So it is shown again that maturity does not always come with age.
  
  I’m a bit worried for my fahter is suffering from dementia. I’ve got to keep my mind going. Liam is not going to help there. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
- msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 9:42 am said:
  
  I put in my two-cents by announcing a 24-hr personal boycott.
  
  The atmosphere was just too petty this morning.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 9:45 am said:
    
    I saw that. It’s hideous in there. As hard as one tried to bring civility it is impossible unless there is some kind of enforcement. Liam has been petty for several days now.
    
    LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 9:51 am said:

mcurtis, you have my sympathies. Watching a loved one go through dementia can be challenging on many levels.

FYI, as you are new here allow me to add that MrJS, aka my husband of 23 years, is on that slide now. Every day has some sort of ‘wow’ episode.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 9:55 am said:
  
  I read that it can start as early as 45 years of age. It really brings to front and center the question of are we meant to live so long. Sorry for the depressing thought.
  
  LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 9:51 am said:

As someone who has been the object of Liam’s nastiness for quite some time, may I suggest you visit the PL when he is taking a nap.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 9:56 am said:
  
  Taking a nap, eh? I think if the Post pulled his badge it would be a lesson. Banned said he was dropped by Rubin’s blog. She hardly gets much traffic. That is really hilarious.
  
  LikeLike
- yellojkt, on January 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm said:
  
  As a relative newcomer I’ve tried to stay out of the personality disputes as I get a feel for the landscape but I’m becoming increasingly vocal. I find Liam’s tirades against doppelgangers, real or imagined, tiresome. As long as someone isn’t outright sockpuppeting (two or more active identities just for either mutual support or false flag strawmanning) there isn’t much use in railing against identity changes.
  
  Plus his accuracy is less than 100% which destroys his reputation when he does spot one.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm said:
    
    I’m me and am 1. He got really bent out of shape when I agreed with a conservative point. Then he insisted on drumming me out of the party.
    
    The people here appear to sincerely want to read other views and learn. That’s great!
    
    LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 10:46 am said:

Funny video of model presidential behavior today in South Carolina here. For all his money, Romney just does not seem to me to have any social grace. Literally walking across somebody else’s breakfast table and apparently stepping in their breakfast, although that part is not clear in the video.

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 10:47 am said:

Over in Europe, talks between Greece and the representative of the private creditors, Charles Dallara, continue into the weekend.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11381417/1/greece-debt-swap-talks-continue-official.html

On the irony front, folks seem surprised regarding Dallara’s “unexpected departure from the country” but later on the trip is described as ” a ‘long-standing engagement’ in Paris”.

And, regardless of the weekend’s outcome, the resulting interest rate on the new debt will be contested by some eurozone countries as being too high.

I’d rather herd cats.

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 10:58 am said:

Okiegirl: Literally walking across somebody else’s breakfast table and apparently stepping in their breakfast, although that part is not clear in the video.

I don’t see any indication of an apology on Mitt’s part, assuming he did step in someone’s breakfast. Maybe he just grazed a napkin or something.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 11:11 am said:

msjs: Maybe he just grazed a napkin or something.

If you say so. Even at that, in middle-class America we were taught not to walk across the top of the dining table, especially if someone is eating at the time.

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm said:

The BrothersJS and I were taught the same thing, okie. I’ve slammed Mitt a lot in the past and am -trying- to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bad primary puns:
People who think the former Massachusetts governor will do something for the 99% against his Willard dumb.

Now that the former Alaska governor has announced she’s backing Gingrich, all other endorsements Palin comparison.

People who point at length to Romney’s flipflops are just Mitt-picking.

This week Romney challenged Gingrich to release a Newton of documents related to his time as House Speaker.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm said:

msjs, lol. I love a good pun!

Newt’s tax plan includes doing away with the capital gains tax. So I guess in April we will find out if Mitt would pay no income tax at all under Newt’s tax plan. (And lots of folks thought it was questionable that Mitt would get about a 40% tax reduction under his own plan!)

LikeLike
tao9, on January 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm said:

Mr. Obama must needs wrangle his base back to heel, so Benen (a minor commissar and overseer, amongst a thousand other Lords of the Echophiles) can be counted on this in a thousand iterations–times a thousand Sargents:

“Mitt is clearly and historically the worst individual ever, who founded and worked for the most diabolical corporate entity ever, securing dirty money for pathologically larcenous haut monde investors, by willfully and joyfully engaging in the most evil enterprise known to man.”

I, merely, desire dirty air, dirty water, my car, theocracy, starving single-moms, and am not quite sure all kids should go to college.

So I got that going for me compared to Gov. Romney, so I’ll vote for him.

Meanwhile Wbg, of the end-of-the-rainbow left, along with bannedJohn, MiddleOurTown, PA, are getting the Jack Merridew treatment over at PL.

And you know what? If you think Mr. Obama isn’t loving it? You’re Simon.

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm said:
  
  Tao, where does that quote come from [the stupid quote about the evil of WMR]?
  
  Did “Benen” write it? Sargent? Who is “Benen”?
  
  LikeLike
  - Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:20 pm said:
    
    I can answer the very last question. “Benen” is Steve Benen (the guy who writes Political Animal; he used to write The Carpetbagger Report as an independent blogger and then he got hired by Washington Monthly to write their political blog when Kevin Drum moved from WaMo to Mother Jones.)(Yes, I’ve been reading them for a long time :-))
    
    LikeLike
  - markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm said:
    
    Benen is explained above. I see that.
    
    LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm said:

Much thanks to lmsinca who has brought me back from the blogging ledge. It’s great to see that all that I used to love about PL has simply moved to a different location.

I do not wish to indulge in any name calling about who or what upset me on the PL. I’ll just say that at the end it was my OWN behavior that made me realize the experience was no longer healthy. I’m tired of spending a couple hours trying to learn from various people of different backgrounds, only to get drawn into arguments with thoughtless racists and ending up feeling as if I need a shower for what I had read and alas for what I had contributed myself. And I’m also tired of defending poor john/banned from over the top liberals who somehow confuse shooting the messenger as eliminating the reality of the message itself.

I can only say that watching the redemption of Newt Gingrich perhaps there is yet hope for me. Sue gave me the best advice I ever received at PL. Scroll wheel RUK scroll wheel. Good advice for the PL that’s for sure, but after reading you guys for the past several days I realized that I don’t need to use a scroll wheel here, and I no longer miss Kevin’s famous Troll Blocker.

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:

RUK!
*waving*

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm said:

RUK, do yourself (and us) a favor. Quit apologizing for PL and jump in here! Your comments are welcomed!

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm said:
  
  Oops . . . sorry . . . did not mean for that to sound so authoritative. But I think you know me well enough to know what I meant even if I did not express it well.
  
  And many thanks for the birthday wishes. It was a big one for me.
  
  LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm said:

RUK, enough about the PL………………tell us what you think of the place, flatter us, tell us we’re smart and attractive. Just kidding. We try not to overdo the PL commentary but as many of us comment both places it’s hard to just ignore them. BTW, our blog is open to the public so any one of them could show up here anytime they wanted without that much effort. We don’t advertise our location but there’s no block in place for the PL……..lol.

Weekends are a little slow but the joint gets hoppin’ every weekday morning with Brent’s (sold2u) Morning Report and various posts throughout the day. No subject is off limits as you’ve probably noticed already and sometimes we delve a little too deeply into the weeds after everyone has already moved on to the next subject….but that’s the way we like it.

Anyway, welcome, and there’s no reason in the world that people can’t participate in more than one forum. I think you’ll find we don’t have the tech difficulties they have over there so the frustration level is lower……………which helps I think.

LikeLike
tao9, on January 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm said:

RUK! YES!

LikeLike
- RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm said:
  
  tao Is my name still reverberating through the mountains of N.Y. or do you need to schedule another trip? Shouldn’t snow shoeing and cross country skiing be hitting the peak season? Surely you can think of an excuse to break away.
  
  LikeLike
  - tao9, on January 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm said:
    
    Going to be at the top of Gore Mt. tomorrow. It’s sort of cheating because I’ll be riding a chair lift to the top…gonna be downhill skiing.
    
    But when I see some Jersey girl with a jacket that costs more than my whole kit, I’ll say, “Are you kidding?/!!”
    
    {don’t worry, when I climb one–soon–on my own power I’ll bark out the RUK tag}
    
    LikeLike
  - RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm said:
    
    Thanks tao…perhaps we can make it an annual tradition. Perhaps one day I’ll visit you for a cross country expedition and then you can visit me on the UP where they really take CC skiing seriously! I’m still a neophyte.
    
    LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm said:

Thanks lmsince, okie and tao for making me feel back at home. I have missed this feeling for a long time.

As far as the format…I was glad to read lmsinca had perhaps disparaged john/banned’s tech skills…because that means I won’t be alone here. lol I can be a bit of a tech luddite. But this site is easy and has many nice features.

Although perhaps you could get Kevin to figure a way to delay our posts for indefinite periods and give us a “network error” response. snark alert

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm said:

RUK, what’s the local perspective on the R primary in FL? It comes up when?

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:
  
  I see the FL primary is January 31st?
  
  LikeLike
- RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm said:
  
  I have to confess my ignorance okie. The FL R’s are pretty much in the same shape as the national party…they’re fractured between tea partiers..Gov Scott has tarnished their image severely, normal small gov’t conservatives…and a very few “moderate” R’s.
  
  I’m as curious as the rest of you to see how it all plays out. I’m especially curious as to whether Romney bails on Monday’s big debate. IMO..not that anybody cares since I’m a progressive and won’t be voting for either of them lol…but I don’t see how that helps Romney…yeah Newt has been cleaning his clock in the debates with ever increasing efficiency…but not showing for a debate reeks of cowardice…just as not releasing his taxes looks suspicious. Does Romney really want to add that to the milieu of his problems.
  
  Anecdotally I can tell you that just as in S.C. the main consideration for a significant segment of the R electorate is their hatred of Obama. And I don’t wish to be seen overplaying the race card…but this is not restrained to the “uneducated” or “lower” classes. My wife had lunch with a Doc who claims to have purchased land in Panama in case Obama wins again. He’s not going to live in a country run by an “N”. My wife also gets all kinds of horribly offensive racist email from a “friend” in Jacksonville she knows from participating in “organized” dentistry. (ADA, FDA, American College of Dentists) She likes this man and it breaks her heart to see this kind of stuff from him. My point being I think Newt has a good chance because these folks care about one thing and one thing only…they want to see the “N” embarrassed in the debates…Newt IMO is clearly the best debater the R’s have to offer.
  
  IMO if Adelson and Newt’s other angels continue to back him in a very expensive state, (3 top 20 TV markets) then I see no reason why Newt can’t continue his Newtmentum…assuming of course he actually wins S.C. today.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm said:
    
    Hello, RUK.
    
    LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm said:
  
  Just remember ruk, a few anecdotal stories don’t make a large group.
  
  LikeLike
  - RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm said:
    
    Agree lmsinca…but there is only space here for a “few” anecdotal stories. But if you point is that not all R’s are racists…absolutely. But there are a significant %. And the examples I gave are only the most egregious.
    
    I understand race is a hot button. My favorite cousins are racists…I grew up in Northern Ky. I’ve lived in the South all of my life…sorry it’s just my life experience. You would be correct if you wished to say that I’m not qualified for any comparison of racism in the North versus the South or the West where you live, but I’ve been swimming in it since the 3rd grade.
    
    I can qualify my comments with this additional “anecdotal” non scientific observation. Everybody I mentioned is our age lmsinca..and I do think it’s a generational thing. I don’t believe that young folks are nearly as racist as my generation.
    
    But I respect your point completely and I wouldn’t wish any of my conservative friends here to think racism is strictly a Southern or R thing….just telling you that I could go on and on and on with examples…another point hidden in my first post is that we tend to think of racism as the province of the poor or uneducated(my family)…don’t know about other states..but that’s definitely not the case here in Florida.
    
    Perhaps you can tell a happier tale of how things break out in California…maybe you haven’t seen so much out there and if that’s the case it makes me happy indeed.
    
    LikeLike
  - Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 21, 2012 at 3:10 pm said:
    
    I gotta agree Ruk. It’s what motivated their hatred for Clinton too. Stupid rednecks.
    
    Common sense dictates that ALL political opposition to anyone is based on race. Duh. Couldn’t of said it better myself.
    
    LikeLike
  - Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm said:
    
    George, usually I “get” your posts, but you’re escaping me here.
    
    LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm said:

Sorry all for the comment bombing on FAQ, okie and I were working on something. It only took me about ten tries…………..yikes.

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm said:
  
  Indeed. I saw “moderately recent comments” and wondered if I would have to change my username to beach.
  
  LikeLike
  - lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm said:
    
    lol, me too
    
    LikeLike
  - Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm said:
    
    wondered if I would have to change my username to beach
    
    The one thing I miss with this version of WP that we went with is that there isn’t a “like” or “recommend” button. That cracked me up, okie!
    
    LikeLike
- ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm said:
  
  Don’t worry lms…okie will put them all in moderation soon enough. 😉
  
  LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm said:
    
    Hey! I only F’d up once! Give a dumb okie a break!
    
    Glad you’re back, scott, and hope you had the best possible outcome.
    
    LikeLike
  - ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 3:36 pm said:
    
    Thanks. Regrettably it’s going to take a bit of time. But we’ll get there soon enough.
    
    LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm said:

I understand race is a hot topic and difficult to discuss and so I apologize if I’ve offended anybody with my observations. And I completely respect anybody who feels the term “racist” is used too freely and frequently brings discussion to an end.

I do not believe that R’s have a monopoly on racism, and I readily concede that progressives have frequently used the term incorrectly and unfairly. I understand that while many folks believe that Gingrich is appealing to a less savory part of the R base with “food stamp” President and other remarks, many others believe he is sincere in his desire to help lift the AA community. In short I do not call folks like Gingrich a “racist”. Although I certainly don’t agree with his strategy which is pretty apparent.

And so for sake of clarity…I am using the term racist only for those who freely drop N bombs and even feel free to explicitly deride blacks as unequal.

Truly sorry if I made anybody uncomfortable with a very tough topic to discuss!

LikeLike
markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm said:

Hi, RUK.

Please play in Mike’s FL poll.

Participate in the FL GOP primary!

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm said:

I understand that it can be hard not to generalize from a few personal anecdotes because they loom so much larger proportionately in one’s experience. But Newt’s racial dog whistling, especially in SC, has been the subject of more than one commentary.

We had a bit of a brouhaha in my family at Thanksgiving. Brother’s daughter and hubby recently adopted a baby, who happens to be black. At Thanksgiving, brother’s long-time significant other more than once referred to the adopted child as “that little *igger baby” and seemed sincerely not to understand why others might consider that inappropriate. Yet she was nothing but loving and kind to the baby, giving her lots of attention. Sigh.

LikeLike
Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm said:

*waving*

Hi, RUK!!!! So glad you could join us–I’d missed you, but I can’t handle the PL any more. I also find it funny that you lurked for a few days–you did it just at the right time, or you would have had to witness our travails last weekend as we rolled out the new platform. You might be interested in digging into the archives–we had a nice set of posts on Veteran’s Day that you would have enjoyed.

okie and lms, I haven’t even wandered over to the FAQ yet. After throwing up this post this morning I’ve been running (three miles literally, the rest figuratively) all over SLC doing errands and working on the Race for the Cure. Site visit to our new venue today with other committee chairs to walk the space (it’s HUGE–you guys should plan a road trip and come do the Race! it’ll be fun!!) and get a better idea for where to situate things. When we started the site visit it was 52 and raining (five hours ago). Now it’s 37 and snowing–ah, life elevated! 🙂

Anyway, it’s good to see RUK here, and I’ll start taking a peek at the FAQ page tonight. Should we throw up an evening thread in a couple of hours or just keep this one running?

And where are the guys, for goodness sakes?!?!

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm said:

Mr. Troll: Common sense dictates that ALL political opposition to anyone is based on race.

Snark? I don’t think anybody was taking that position.

LikeLike
- Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm said:
  
  Of course not, I’m just glad somebody here had the courage to accuse me and my political cohorts of being motivated by racist hatred. I am agreeing with ruk. His comment “Anecdotally I can tell you that just as in S.C. the main consideration for a significant segment of the R electorate is their hatred of Obama. And I don’t wish to be seen overplaying the race card…but this is not restrained to the “uneducated” or “lower” classes. My wife had lunch with a Doc who claims to have purchased land in Panama in case Obama wins again. He’s not going to live in a country run by an “N”. My wife also gets all kinds of horribly offensive racist email from a “friend” in Jacksonville she knows from participating in “organized” dentistry. (ADA, FDA, American College of Dentists) She likes this man and it breaks her heart to see this kind of stuff from him. My point being I think Newt has a good chance because these folks care about one thing and one thing only…they want to see the “N” embarrassed in the debates…Newt IMO is clearly the best debater the R’s have to offer.” rings true to me.
  
  LikeLike
  - Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm said:
    
    George, did you miss this part of his comment?
    
    “I wouldn’t wish any of my conservative friends here to think racism is strictly a Southern or R thing”
    
    I think you’re indulging yourself by pretending that he accused you of racism.
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm said:

RUK:

Anecdotally I can tell you that just as in S.C. the main consideration for a significant segment of the R electorate is their hatred of Obama.

With what % of the R electorate have you had any anecdotal experience about anything?

But there are a significant %

What’s the percentage?

What’s the percentage for D’s?

And, most significantly, how would you know?

LikeLike
- RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm said:
  
  Scott and Troll
  
  I do not mean to irritate. If you think my observations are wildly off the mark I accept your opinions. I can only tell you what I’ve lived..we are ALL prejudiced by our life experiences. Mine have been totally in the South. Perhaps you two have also spent enough time in the South to wish to disagree based on your experience. I respect that.
  
  Again…let me say this as clearly as possible…I do NOT believe all conservatives…all tea partiers…all R’s are racist. I do believe there are also Dems who are racist. I think playing the race card when it’s not warranted is just as despicable as actually being a racist.
  
  Scott…as a personal aside…during my lurking days I saw that you are going through a tough time with your mother. I’m not a Christian..closer to a Buddhist and so hopefully you know I’ll place you in one of my meditations.
  My mother is 86 and right at the edge of needing institutional care. My sister the saint is still hanging in there. My mother in law is 95 and has been in a home for two years. Given my wife’s experience in trying to augment what staff does not provide, I feel for your challenge. I hope it works out as well as it can for you.
  
  BTW Hope I haven’t worn out my welcome on the first day!
  
  LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm said:

I think the two subjects that cause the most discomfort and or anger are race and abortion. There’s no reason why we can’t discuss both of them here and we have. They’re challenging subjects and have much to do with our past experiences, family upbringing and strong opinions.

Obviously, racism still exists in this country and may always, it’s a human weakness in my opinion. But that doesn’t mean we haven’t traveled miles and years away from it. We all have experiences that have enlightened us, angered us, bemused us or even shamed us. I think it’s a real pitfall to attempt to look into someone else’s soul, whether they’re a political opponent, a friend or a foe and imagine we know what’s going on in there. I don’t know a single person here at our blog, or in my circle of friends and family that wouldn’t denounce an overt expression of racism.

Whatever percentage of the population that still harbors racial prejudice is dwindling over time and is being marginalized by their own behavior, they don’t really need us to point it out. They’re embarrassing themselves without any help from us.

The fact that Obama was elected in the first place certainly proves how far we’ve come and I’m not going to ever assume that people who disagree with Obama or even strenuously dislike him do so because he’s black, even if there is a small percentage who might. I can’t change them. My own father changed but it was a long journey that lasted his entire lifetime and it was something he wanted. Not everyone has that motivation.

There’s no reason we can’t share personal experiences either, let’s just not assume they’re indicative of a prevailing theme.

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm said:
  
  There’s no reason we can’t share personal experiences either, let’s just not assume they’re indicative of a prevailing theme.
  
  Second!
  
  And I have to say, one of the biggest surprises that I got during my trip to MI was when my (extremely racist and right-leaning) Dad told me he’d voted for Obama because he was by far the better candidate for the job. He’s on the fence again, now, not because Obama is black but because he’s lost faith in his ability to get anything done. . . and yet there isn’t a single R candidate he’d vote for now (I had persuaded him that Huntsman was a good choice, but then that fell through). I think ruk’s larger point–that racism still exists, but is dwindling–is true, and where you are in the country you may see more or less of it.
  
  LikeLike
  - Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 21, 2012 at 4:14 pm said:
    
    Luckily ruk didn’t infer that most rightwing opposition to Obama is due to racial hatred simply because of anectodal experiences. Obviously he actually knows the overwhelming number of South Carolina Republican primary voters.
    
    LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm said:
    
    Mr. Troll, would you please knock off the sniping? You’re good at it and sometimes it’s truly entertaining, but I’m not sure this is one of those times. Seems to me you can express your indignation some other way?
    
    LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm said:
  
  Imsinca,
  
  Race is tough and I have dealt with this for a long time. I recall Rat Pack shows where they hit on everyone. Everyone. Those shows would discomfort nearly everyone today. Yet, in their time I was too young to know. I grew up in Germany and later on Air Force Bases. I was shocked when I was in the Navy 1970’s and the blacks woud get together and keep out white mingling. In fact they would reject Blacks who would try and talk to whites.
  
  To this day I do not now what to think. On PL there is an anti-Semite who does not realize that Jew != Zionist.
  
  Mike
  
  LikeLike
Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm said:

BTW, Scott, glad to see you’re back in one piece, and I second okieis hopes. We managed to keep the lights on and the kids under control while you were gone, although you missed a fine party last night!

LikeLike
msjs0315, on January 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm said:

In the ‘questionable taste’ department:
Romney’s campaign later put out a statement celebrating the “15th anniversary” of the House decision to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations, during his days as speaker. The Romney campaign plans to deliver an anniversary cake to Gingrich’s South Carolina headquarters to mark the occasion on Saturday.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/21/gingrich-romney-spar-over-ethics-and-taxes-as-south-carolina-polls-open/

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm said:
  
  Is it just me, or does this just smack of pettiness and spite?
  
  LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm said:
    
    Yes, it does.
    
    How stupid.
    
    LikeLike
  - markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm said:
    
    Especially since he has asked Newt to make public what is already completely public. Sometimes WMR’s camp just seems…dumb.
    
    LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm said:

MsJS Thanks for you “hi”

Mich…You know how much I missed you. Remember it was our “relationship” that gave us our first preview into the mind of beach..how scary was that..remember he said I was soooo hitting on you. But as fate would have it I’m leaving in a few moments to have a wonderful anniversary dinner with my lovely wife! But if it wasn’t for that….
awww but you already know what a hottie you are MIch. Who wouldn’t fall for any lady who was Airborne!!! And a scientist too..wow…brains are the most attractive…but I do love a “physical” woman as well. But as far as ever “hitting” on you….my ego is not THAT big!

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm said:
  
  I had forgotten about that particular beach moment. . . he is truly something, isn’t he?!?!? What anniversary is this for you? And congratulations on whichever one it is, and have a lovely evening–I hope watching a romantic sunset. 🙂
  
  Here’s to you and your wife! *clink*
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm said:

Wow, msjs. I can think of better/less childish ways for a national candidate to point up an opponent’s perceived foibles. Popcorn time for the Ds.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm said:

RUK, you certainly have not worn out your welcome. We might not be into the poo-flinging here, but you still have to defend your positions. 🙂

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm said:

RUK:

I can only tell you what I’ve lived..we are ALL prejudiced by our life experiences.

I am not questioning your experiences. I am questioning your conclusions

What percentage of of R’s are racist? You say it is a “significant” percentage. What’s the lower boundary on “significant”? And how did you determine this number?

LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm said:

Oh, as long as we exclude present company, we can impugn the motives of huge swaths of the electorate.

Ok, here goes… All those in favor of affirmative action do not believe African Americans can achieve anything do due their racial inferiority.

Present company excluded, of course.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm said:
  
  Oh, as long as we exclude present company, we can impugn the motives of huge swaths of the electorate.
  
  No we can’t, and we shouldn’t. I hope ruk realizes that now but as he’s not here to respond…………..we’ll have to wait.
  
  Those are really the kind of hyperbolic statements based on emotion or anchored in anger that we’re trying to stay away from, although we all fall victim on occasion.
  
  Don’t get up on the ledge with him though, it’s cold up there.
  
  Your statement regarding affirmative action is wrong also and just as hyperbolic and lacking a basis for dialogue.
  
  I understand your reaction, but I hope we can move beyond it.
  
  LikeLike
tao9, on January 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm said:

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world…

…when The New York Football GIANTS win two more games!

Right? I said, RIGHT?

{don’t make me go Code Red}

LikeLike
- Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:
  
  I’m with you, tao!
  
  When my Pack went down (did you know that I’m a stock owner?) I switched to the Giants. Go, Eli!!!
  
  LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm said:
  
  I sincerely hope the NewYork FOOTball Giants win zero more games, but I do insist that this is the only way to refer to the team.
  
  We always use the proper, full name in our household.
  
  LikeLike
  - Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 6:46 pm said:
    
    😛 qb! 😉
    
    LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm said:

Mr. Troll: Ok, here goes… All those in favor of affirmative action do not believe African Americans can achieve anything do due their racial inferiority.

Okay, I think we all get that this commentary inadvertently pushed your buttons. I personally don’t think that was the intent and would be more comfortable if we did not bring old PL hyperbolic ways and hostilities to this site. Most of us interacted differently (and still do) at PL and I, for one, hope we can push forward. What, exactly, made you think ruk’s comments were intended to “impugn the motives of huge swaths of the electorate”? Maybe all of this is my fault, as I asked ruk his opinion of the R primary in FL.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm said:

tao: Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Good show, tao. I knew there was a reason I like you.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:

scott, are you watching the Syracuse-Notre Dame game?

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm said:

okie:

What made you think ruk’s comments were intended to “impugn the motives of huge swaths of the electorate”?

From RUK: But if you point is that not all R’s are racists…absolutely. But there are a significant %.

Maybe McWing should have said “significant” rather than “huge”. But I’m not surehis point would suffer for it.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm said:

okie:

Yes. Syracuse looks horrible. And ND can’t miss. Orange are bound to lose eventually.

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm said:
  
  Yeah, too many games in basketball to have much chance to have a perfect season. (Has that ever happened?) But the Orange are so very good this year, I would not like to see that loss be to ND. AND, it’s really early in the game so it’s far from in the W column for ND.
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm said:

scott: Maybe McWing should have said “significant” rather than “huge”. But I’m not surehis point would suffer for it.

Depending on what was in ruk’s mind, “significant” may not be anywhere close to “huge.” In which case, Mr. Troll’s point does suffer for it, IMHO. Point is, we haven’t heard from ruk in response. Maybe it was an unfortunate choice of words. Or maybe ruk does perceive a “huge” racial component here. I don’t know. I did not interpret it the way you and Mr. Troll did, so to me it seems like a bit of an overreaction . . . but I’m mulling it.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm said:

okie:

Depending on what was in ruk’s mind, “significant” may not be anywhere close to “huge.”

I know. That’s why I asked him what he meant by “significant”. He didn’t answer.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm said:

scott: He didn’t answer.

He stated previously he was on his way out to anniversary celebration dinner with his wife. Doubt if he’s here.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm said:

okie:

Has that ever happened?

Sure. Indiana was undefeated in 1976. UCLA went undefeated for two straight years, I think ’72 and ’73. Longest winning streak in NCAA history. Guess who ended it?

Notre Dame.

Since 1974, ND has hosted the number 1 team 5 times. They’ve won them all.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm said:

Great stats, Scott. I was being too lazy to look it up. But now that you put it out there, not sure why I would have forgotten except that I’m now officially among the elderly. 🙂

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm said:

okie:

Doubt if he’s here.

He was here long enough to respond to my question. He just didn’t answer.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm said:

Notre Dame is 60% on 3-pointers at half. Unbelievable.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 5:16 pm said:

Looks like major networks have already called the SC vote for Gingrich based on exit polls. Anybody have info or a site showing percent votes for all?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm said:
  
  Verrry interesting about SC and Newt. I do not know how to digest it all even though I expected it. FL, how will that play out? I really do not care for I know where my vote is going. MSNGC points out that Newt is unfavorable natioanlly by 60%. Waserman-Shulz is all for Newt.
  
  LikeLike
Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm said:

Scott:

He just didn’t answer.

Yes, he did, you’re just splitting hairs again, as you have a habit of doing when you’re annoyed with someone. He told you that he respected your and Troll’s opinions and life experiences, he was just relaying his. No, he didn’t give you specific percentages, but you know darn well that that’s impossible to do.

Lighten up, my friend! You’ve had a tough week.

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 5:34 pm said:

mcurtis, I too saw a report that Wasserman-Schultz is at Newt’s watch/victory party. This seems really odd to me. Anybody know if such attendance would be the norm? lol, maybe it’s a southern hospitality thing.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm said:

Mich:

you’re just splitting hairs again

You’re defending the indefensible.

Yes, he did…No, he didn’t give you specific percentages.

Which is it?

…but you know darn well that that’s impossible to do.

So RUK makes a claim that is impossible to even clarify, much less substantiate, but I am the bad guy here for pointing it out? Give me a break.

You’ve had a tough week.

Let’s leave that out of it. I’m sorry I mentioned it.

LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm said:

“He told you that he respected your and Troll’s opinions and life experiences, he was just relaying his.”

And that a “significant %” of our political cohorts are basing their vote on racial hatred. I find it fascinating, and deeply offensive, that ruk thinks its perfectly reasonable, in his 3rd comment, to express an opinion, derived entirely from anecdotal evidence that a significant % of Republican South Carolina primary voters are racist. Is anybody else bothered by the fact that he holds this opinion based completely on anecdotal experience?

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 21, 2012 at 10:34 pm said:
  
  Yes. Mike Teng and I have decided independent of any actual scientific study that 3%-6% of the white population is so racially motivated that they will not vote for a black under any circumstance, and that 15%-20% of the white population does take race into account, although it is not a determining factor for them. We have decided this by casual email and without research of any kind. We just know this to be true. If a black R ran for POTUS, the 3%-6% would vote for the white D, and vice versa.
  
  You can quote us.
  
  LikeLike
Michigoose, on January 21, 2012 at 6:06 pm said:

*throwing up hands*

Go ahead and have it your way. All of us progressives think that all of you conservatives are racist pigs. Fine. Can we come up with a different conversation to have?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 6:18 pm said:
  
  Ditto. Michigoose.
  
  I’ve dealth with skinheads and neo-Nazis for over two decades. Posting in holocaust denial groups and describing the Nazi process made me depressed and nearly killed me at one time. I also learned about myself as well and my racism that is under my skin and though it is tame, it is still there. So I have to recognize it within myself for my era of upbringing was during turbulant times.
  
  However, what Gingrich is saying is subject to criticism and it is attracting a plethora of SC voters. It doesn’t help that SC still flies the confedrsate flag and it doesn’t help at all that this state fired the first shot. This all feed into perceptions.
  
  Now here in Texas some relatives use the N word. Though they are Democrats they really do not want to see another 4 years from the present guy.
  
  Yelling back and forth over perceptions never gets anyone anywhere. Getting angry over what others say and then start to become defensive really says more about oneself than anything.
  
  It’s time to pull back and take a breath. Please.
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 6:20 pm said:

At the moment, Newt has a huge (15 point) lead in SC. Romney far behind in 2nd, with a comfortable lead (9 points) over 3rd place Santorium. Santorum has a 5 pt lead over 4th place Paul. Perry and Cain are less than 1% each.

Results page on TPM.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm said:
  
  It’s a shicking BIG win. Apparently sex philandering no longer matters! I’ll bet Romney’s tax returns won’t matter. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 6:49 pm said:

My point being I think Newt has a good chance because these folks care about one thing and one thing only…they want to see the “N” embarrassed in the debates…Newt IMO is clearly the best debater the R’s have to offer.

It’s quite an intellectual feat to turn a vote for one of three white candidates into a racist vote.

I’m tired of spending a couple hours trying to learn from various people of different backgrounds, only to get drawn into arguments with thoughtless racists and ending up feeling as if I need a shower for what I had read and alas for what I had contributed myself.

Who are the thoughtless racists with whom you ended up in arguments, ruk?

Who are your “conservative friends”?

Michi,

I understand the desire not to see unpleasantness. I think you underestimate some things, including the degree to which many of us are fed up with accusations and insinuations of racism. I’ve been called a racist by many at PL and some here. Yello, Bernie, DD, many others, on no basis whatsoever. My respect for them stands accordingly. It’s par for the course. I’ve probably read scores if not hundreds of accusations by RUK that conservatives and Republicans are racists. After a while, saying, “I didn’t mean all of you” just doesn’t mean a lot any more.

When it gets to the point when racism must be the explanation for one white guy beating two others in a primary, it seems to me fair to question not only the logic of the claims but the spirit and mindset behind them.

I don’t personally intend to engage in a lot of discussion of this. I really have limited interest in people who are fixated on diagnosing racism in Republicans and conservatives, and I don’t think it’s a reach to say this is a case of fixation.

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 6:51 pm said:
  
  qb, this is not PL. Please vent your anger about PL on PL.
  
  LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 6:57 pm said:
    
    I didn’t vent anger.
    
    Nor did I introduce the topic.
    
    If you don’t want discussion of racism and accusations of racism, I’m surprised that you are just taking exception now.
    
    LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:02 pm said:
    
    Why don’t one of you make a post on the topic? Then we can air it out and be done with it. It’s actually a good topic if we’re willing to take it on honestly and without the hyperbole and umbrage.
    
    BTW, I don’t understand your statement about my just taking exception now.
    
    LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 7:12 pm said:
    
    There’s an entire exchange above, started by ruk’s comments about significant numbers of racist Republicans.
    
    I simply meant, I didn’t see you object to that.
    
    I asked ruk those questions for a reason that probably is not hard to see, at least for old timers. Every conservative was called a racist over there.
    
    LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:
  
  Well, once again, that came across as pretty sanctimonious. Sorry, not intended.
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:05 pm said:

I’m going to be out for a bit to do some cooking. Back to respond before long.

LikeLike
ashot, on January 21, 2012 at 7:18 pm said:

I was going to comment on the racism thread, but I don’t know what ruk means or what his perspective and experience is, so I’ll leave that to him. I also don’t see why we need to be discussing it at all when the Republican race just got a lot more interesting.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 7:22 pm said:

Look everyone, I think we need to calm down. Remember when we first started and that first week or two we lost several people because they felt we’d brought our same grievances over from the Plumline, same people, same problems. If you remember we had to work through that and adjust to the new rules of engagement. I know ruk read the rules but I’m not sure he understood them thoroughly, maybe it’s time we all re read them.

Could we give ruk another chance to clear this up? He made a very hyperbolic statement IMO without realizing what the consequences might be or how it might be interpreted. And then some of us responded in kind and now the other half of the comment board is pissed off. The ledge is pretty crowded right now. There is no reason in the world that I can think of to over represent the amount of racism surrounding this Presidential campaign. To the extent that it exists, it won’t fly in the general election anyway.

People make mistakes in their assumptions and their language but we should be able to discuss it like adults and work our way through.

If someone says something you object to can’t we just ask them to clarify their comment rather than throwing our hands up in disgust and going into attack mode. We have ginormous philosophical differences between us and that’s really hard to accept, but I think we should always assume first that we, each of us, have good intentions.

I want to say something funny here but I won’t because I think this is a serious discussion and maybe one that’s long overdue.

LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 7:33 pm said:
  
  I’m in. And I wish you had said something funny at the end anyway.
  
  LikeLike
ashot, on January 21, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:

Since we’re discussing decorum, I think it’s only fair to point out that I think Scott’s response was picture perfect. He asked for clarification which seems to be the perfect thing to do when you think someone may be….shall we say…overstating their point.

Just got my 7 week old son to sleep and now need to finish up a motion, but I’ll be in and out for a bit here.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 7:45 pm said:

One of the problems that I see here in small part and elsewhere in larger part is the desire to defend “our team”, even when we really do know they’ve crossed a line. We all do it to a certain extent but always expect the other side to call out their team when one of them crosses the line.

Jezze did that make any sense? In other words, and I’m not picking on anyone here, scott expected Michi to call ruk on his comment but didn’t say anything to McWing when he responded in kind. Scott had the better approach though by asking for clarification, so I agree with ashot there.

This stuff is hard and we need to remember what we’re trying to accomplish and if it’s worth it to us, then we need to work harder, especially when someone new comes on board.

LikeLike
ashot, on January 21, 2012 at 7:51 pm said:

In other words, and I’m not picking on anyone here, scott expected Michi to call ruk on his comment but didn’t say anything to McWing when he responded in kind.

I got into a similar situation once back at the PL with a conservative blogger (it may have been Scott). To make a long story short eventually I got the conservative to agree his “teammate” was wrong and indicated he expected me to similarly call out my liberal colleauges. My takeaway was that it was a lot of work for very little payoff.

There are enough smart people here that anyone making unsubstantiated claims will be called out. Let’s not get distracted by who calls out who and instead make sure that we don’t let wild and unsupportable claims (not saying ruk’s applies) don’t become common place here. I simply can’t see that happening though given the caliber of posters here.

LikeLike
quarterback, on January 21, 2012 at 7:52 pm said:

lms,

Reasonable statement, although I don’t entirely agree.

I’m not angry or on a ledge, but I’ll respond later.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 8:01 pm said:
  
  lol qb, I can hardly wait……we’ll distract everyone with our brilliant repartee.
  
  LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 7:55 pm said:

Wow did I ever stir up a hornet’s nest. It was not my intention! Can we at least eliminate any red herrings. I do not consider any of the posters here racist FWIW.

I also do not mean to infer that anyone here is a racist. As far as old PL grievances I have no problem with several here who may loathe me. I have earned some of that loathing with some pedantic rants I unleashed on PL. I could give some extenuating circumstances that led to those rants…but I’ll just leave it at mea culpa. Anybody who wishes to hold my intemperate remarks against me I understand and respect your opinion…I have certainly sinned in the past.

This conversation started when I was asked about the Florida Primary. If folks do not wish to admit that racism will indeed play a role in the primary fine. I am not the first person, and certainly not the most respected or qualified to suggest that Newt’s surge in the polls coincided with his “food stamp” President and continued with his attack on the liberal media.

As for Florida…I asked my wife this evening at dinner what % of the R primary voters she thought might be racist…her answer 60% blew me away. When I said significant I was thinking 25%. She bases her opinion on 30+ years in organized dentistry working with dentists from around the state. Dentists are generally a very, very, very conservative lot. Doesn’t make them racists but she believes 75% of her “friends” were racists…again racist being defined at minimum as somebody who feels free to drop an N bomb in mixed company. Perhaps that is too strict a definition.

As far as “anecdotal” evidence..it is overwhelming in Florida. Simply google Dr. David McKalip and see what you find. He is a Neurosurgeon who lives four doors down from me. Again perhaps my wife and I are reverse racists and are unaware of our own prejudice. Perhaps we are confusing “intensity” with “number”, that is to say because people like Dr. McKalip are so very offensive we make a bigger deal out of it than is real.

We can eliminate some hyperbole here. I am not saying all conservatives, or all R’s are racist. Troll you jumped the shark on that one. And to think we used to be buddies. 🙂

Notice I pointed out that I think a lot of racism is generational. And so I understand younger posters here…posters who may live out west..or for whatever reason have not witnessed the onslaught of racism I have seen, who may think I’ve gone off the deep end. And I’m cool with that as well.

But here are some facts to consider…unless you wish to dispute them.
1.) Older folks vote in greater numbers than younger folks.
2.) Florida has a closed primary. This means no I’s will be taking part. It’s a “primary” reason (pun intended) I changed my registration from I to D.

Now for the opinions….I think older folks tend to be more racist than younger…R or D liberal or conservative…again it’s that “life experience” thingy.

Scott I would love to answer your questions but there of course is no way to do so satisfactorily. You love precision, you work in an industry that relies on such precision and numbers I get that. But IMO there is NO way to quantify how much racism exists in 2012. When I grew up people would tell you straight out, now days I don’t think that many racists self identify as such…at least for pollsters..only their friends and families.

As for your %’s I gave you my guess…my wife’s guess…and yes you are correct..how can we know. But it’s kind of like looking at all that snow on the ground and saying the ground is covered with snow, but in the absence of the ability to quantify how many inches, one is then unable to state that the ground is covered with snow. I’m sure some Dems are racist as well, and I’m sure that progressives have played the race card unfairly, as well as fairly in the past.

If we don’t wish to face reality then fine. But I’m simply here to say that Newt will have an advantage over Romney in Florida because of his willingness to play to that % whatever it is.

I would love to hear Mark in Austin, as well as Kevin in Memphis share their thoughts and experiences, them being fellow Southerners.

Like mcurtis I could also give the “other” side of that coin and perhaps that would mollify troll a bit. I’ve also watched a black woman, angry at a superior, brag that she would get even by filing a discrimination complaint. That is perhaps even worst than racism itself IMO.

I’ve come to realize how much I’ve missed the many great people who post here.
I do not wish to become the “beach’ of ATIM. I’m not out to piss people off. But political correctness is a two way street. It’s awful to make false charges of racism.
My offhand comment about racism on PL was directed specifically at one..actually about five if you count the sock puppets who routinely used words like “boy” and even whipped in the occasional jungle bunny. Perhaps my skin is too thin and those aren’t really racist remarks.

And so I close hoping to send this conversation in another direction. Perhaps first we need to agree on racism…what is it?

Troll…forget Rick Perry…I take him at his word about his family’s vacation ranch…so this is not partisan…the question is..do you consider the original owners of the ranch to be racist for painting Nhead on the rock in front of their ranch. Perhaps we simply have different levels of tolerance. This is intended a simple QUESTION…not as an assault on you, your party, or Texas.

Does everybody here believe that race will play little or no influence on the Florida R primary?

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm said:

RUK, no worries about stirring up a hornet’s nest. It’s probably a discussion we need to have anyway. Obviousy (to me) there are some things that need to be aired here.

LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 8:08 pm said:

BTW Mich…yes I’m happy to move on now..no more racism for me! Just wanted a chance to clarify. I’m ready for that party lmsinca promised. Who has the wine?

LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 8:11 pm said:

And so okie…perhaps you can educate me…in fact not perhaps, I know you can!

Since you’ve just had your 60th you’re almost as old as me…sorry for that insult. lol

What has your experience been in the middle of the country? Has it changed as you’ve aged…that is to say do you agree racism seems to be stronger in our generation than in younger folks?

Do you hear many Nbombs in Oklahoma?

LikeLike
ashot, on January 21, 2012 at 8:13 pm said:

Before I get to ruk’s question (welcome by the way), I would like to point out that I think there was a calm and informative discussion on race and, to a lesser extent, racism on MLK day, so it can happen.

As to ruk’s question, I am hesitant to answer given my complete lack of familiarity with life in Florida and in dealing with racism in particular. I live in Michigan where racism certainly exists, but I’m guessing it’s a whole different animal than in the South. Detroit is incredibly segregated and many issues end up being the City against the suburbs. In some cases those designations are proxies for race which maybe creates a false sense that racism is not a problem here. I’m only 32, so I wasn’t around for the race riots that tore the city apart. I’m sure that some older Michiganders probably have some scars from those riots that lead to some…shall we say…negative views of blacks and whites.

SInce I have yet to answer the question, I’ll say that yes, I think it will have little to no influence if for no other reason than whoever someone votes for will be a vote against Obama.

LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm said:

Ah…bedtime….I tune in tomorrow for any chastising I have coming my way.

One thing that does seem impossible to dismiss…whew is race still an ultra sensitive subject…on BOTH sides. Just sayin’

LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm said:

RUK, I think you’re right that racism more overtly manifests in olders (our generation and older) but I have no stats to back that up. (And no more jokes about my 60th, please, lol.) And probably by geographic location. But I don’t think it accounts for more than a very small percentage of votes.

LikeLike
RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm said:

Thanks for the welcome ashot and thanks for an honest response…catch y’all later.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 21, 2012 at 8:21 pm said:

I can’t do this anymore tonight…………….I’m bushed. Maybe y’all will figure it out while I’m gone……………good luck.

One thing I do not understand though is why or how someone would or could benefit from playing a race card in a closed Republican primary between a bunch of white guys. I’ll have to ponder that dilemma in my dreams. Nite all.

LikeLike
- RUK, on January 21, 2012 at 8:43 pm said:
  
  This is the answer to your question as heard around water coolers here in the Sunshine State. The reason they would like Gingrich over Romney is because Gingrich is the far superior debater. In addition Gingrich is not afraid to go full steam ahead at the racial question.
  
  But to be clear…I’m only talking about a % not all. Many of the folks like Gingrich because they think he can embarrass Obama ,.they hate Obama because he is a Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist who wasn’t born in our country. Many hate Obama because he is a “big government liberal” and they are small government conservatives..I think this last group is by far the bulk of the R voting base…but the first exists and if I offend anybody for pointing it out..I truly apologize.
  
  LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm said:

RUK:

Does everybody here believe that race will play little or no influence on the Florida R primary?

I am quite happy to say that race will play absolutely no role at all in a primary between 3 white guys who largely agree on their politics.

I am also happy to say that anyone who seeks to explain votes in a primary between 3 white guys who largely agree on their politics in terms of race or racism is overly and unhealthily fixated on racism.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm said:

lms:

In other words, and I’m not picking on anyone here, scott expected Michi to call ruk on his comment …

No, I didn’t. I didn’t expect anything from Mich or anyone else. Any issue I have derives from what was said, not what wasn’t said.

I’m not sure what I might have said above that would have led you to think I expected Mich to call RUK out.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm said:

ashot:

I think it’s only fair to point out that I think Scott’s response was picture perfect.

Thanks. Unfortunately not everyone seems to agree.

LikeLike
- ashot, on January 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm said:
  
  Well, I don’t think your “I’m quite happy to say” comment was your greatest moment. While I have not had experiences similar to ruk, it seems that he has had some pretty close encounters with some rather racist people. Without knowing more about his personal experiences it’s hard to say whether or not the conclusions he has drawn are reasonable, but to say they are unhealthy seems harsh. Then again, I get pretty riled up when QB goes on one of his rants where he relies heavy on his personal experience with liberals, so I won’t net nanny you too hard on this one. Good night everyone.
  
  LikeLike
RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 1:10 am said:

Scott

Alas I am not alone in my “unhealthy fixation”.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-racial-polarization-is-still-central-to-south-carolina-politics/251765/

‘Why Racial Polarization Is Still Central to South Carolina Politics’

A couple of thoughts…I’m under the impression that “The Atlantic” was a serious, “unfixated”, and respected publication. I could be mistaken. Perhaps it is a left wing rag. You can inform me if this is the case and I’ll accept your opinion.

Florida does differ from S.C. in one dramatic way. We are several states compressed in one. Hence you get the joke that politically the farther north you go in Florida the farther “South” you are. South Florida is so confusing with the progressive Jewish vote combined with the conservative Cuban vote. The real battle is usually waged in the I-4 corridor. One of the stories you might have read if you lived here is the great controversy caused by a man with property bordering I-75 S, about two miles away from where I-75 & I-4 intersect. He decided after Obama’s election (a coincidence? Perhaps?) to begin flying a HUGE Stars and Bars flag. Local leaders were not pleased at the message that conveyed to all of our tourists. As a libertarian you will be pleased to know that the man of course was free to fly his flag. Haven’t been by there in a couple of years and so I am honestly unaware of whether he is still flying it.

Again for this conversation to go any further it seems to me that we have to define what is “racist”.

Again is painting Nhead on a rock racist?
Is using the term “jungle bunny” racist?

And finally the question that is sure to touch some feelings…is flying a Confederate flag racist. My friends who would defend this practice would say that it’s simply observing a tradition, a marking of the end of a certain “way” of living, One guy told me it was like Southerners view drinking sweetened Ice Tea…just part of the heritage.
To which I replied…yeah well you don’t trot the sheets with the pointy hats and that used to be a tradition as well.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 5:46 am said:

scott

you’re just splitting hairs again

You’re defending the indefensible.

In my comment above I was referring to this part of your exchange with Michi. I think it’s somewhat natural that we tend to defend our own at the expense of the other team, yet at the same time demand the other team denounce their own. Maybe you disagree but it’s a behavioral phenomena I’ve noticed since I began commenting at the Plumline and elsewhere.

LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 6:52 am said:
  
  Bingo lmsinca!!! I couldn’t agree more and it’s devastating to actual discussion. And I think you’ll agree that this is an equal opportunity vice. In fact since you referred to the PL I will even go so far as saying that since PL is a “progressive” blog by design, “our” side did this far more egregiously than “their” side. There are more than a few progressives on PL who embarrass the majority of we progressives. I think those on the right engage in the same behavior but in fairness, at least re PL, they were outnumbered, and they were jumped repeatedly by at least a half dozen regulars. That saddens me. And as I mentioned it was one of the reasons I’ve decided to join this group. I grew tired of trying to call of the dogs when innocent, fair, and objective posters like john/banned kept receiving all types of ad hom and hatred from the left. It was truly embarrassing.
  
  But as embarrassed as I was perhaps that’ll help maintain civility in what is a dangerous thread on a very, very, very touchy subject. What if we stipulate that “our” side was far worse than the right on the PL when it came to blindly sticking up for one’s “side”. And so those on the right…you win..we progressives behaved more boorishly than you guys. I say this sincerely. Now can we move past our respective “sides”…this blog has too many fine commenters to worry about “sides”.
  
  LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 5:58 am said:

RUK:

Alas I am not alone in my “unhealthy fixation”.

Alas, I know.

I’m under the impression that “The Atlantic” was a serious, “unfixated”, and respected publication.

The fact that it proudly employed Andrew Sullivan for so long militates against such an impression.

As for the article, it claims that “race is central to the clash between Democrats and Republicans over taxes and spending,” not that it is central to the clash between 3 white guys who largely agree on their politics, ie the R primary. So entirely irrelevant to what I said.

Having said that, the article does indeed display a similar fixation on race, declaring in both the intro and the conclusion that race is central to SC party politics, while the rest of the article explains how it is actually differences in political philosophy over the proper role of government, and not race, that is the polarizing force.

Again is painting Nhead on a rock racist?

Probably.

Is using the term “jungle bunny” racist?

Probably.

…is flying a Confederate flag racist.

Not in and of itself, no..

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 6:10 am said:

lms:

I think it’s somewhat natural that we tend to defend our own at the expense of the other team, yet at the same time demand the other team denounce their own.

Again, lms, I was not demanding that Mich denounce anything, nor did I expect her to. I was simply making the point that, having decided to take up sides, she was defending something that couldn’t be defended. Had she not said anything at all, I would not have objected. It’s just not true that I was looking for her or anyone else to object to what was said.

Having said that, I think it is probably true that there is a tendency to view the comments or behavior of political comrades in a more positive or forgiving light than that of political foes.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 6:23 am said:

Okay Scott

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 6:30 am said:

Let me just say one more thing and then I’ll leave you guys to your debate. This website was designed as a place for people to discuss politics and other topics in a moderate tone. We’re not a site of moderates. As Scott so aptly described us in the “About Atim Page” we ascribe to many political and philosophical persuasions here. Last night I was attempting to assume the roll of a moderator, whether I was successful or not is certainly up for debate. I thought the tone needed to be brought down a notch. Kevin is much better at this stuff than I am, but he’s generally busy with his family on the weekends and I happened to be around so you guys were stuck with me. BTW, anyone can assume that role, but as I’m discovering it takes practice to perfect. 😉

LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 7:00 am said:
  
  You were terrific and IMO “fair and balanced”
  
  And I have learned something. That Scott, who I believe represents a large contingent of folks..and I simply disagree on what is racist behavior.
  
  “Again is painting Nhead on a rock racist?
  Probably.
  Is using the term “jungle bunny” racist?
  Probably.
  …is flying a Confederate flag racist.
  Not in and of itself, no..”
  
  This pretty much wraps up this thread for me, and not in a bad way. I can here the whew through the keyboard! LMAO
  
  Questions 1 and 2 for me are not really debatable. You either have a belief that those are racist or you don’t. Scott doesn’t I do. We can agree to disagree.
  
  The Confederate flag question is something we in the South have been debating for what…over 150 years? It would require nuance and an open mind to discuss and I’m afraid I’ve already used up my 15 minutes of good will and so I’m not going to take us there.
  
  I appreciate Scott’s input an ashot two cents as well. As I suspected ashot at the age of 32 hasn’t really had racism overtly shoved in his face. That’s a good thing…no that’s a great thing so let’s end there.
  
  LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 7:05 am said:

ruk

Questions 1 and 2 for me are not really debatable. You either have a belief that those are racist or you don’t. Scott doesn’t I do. We can agree to disagree.

Probably is not a no and I assume that flying a Confederate Flag could be done for various reasons, some racist, some not. I am not very familiar with this however, being from CA and all, as we’re a hot bed of righteousness.

LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 8:37 am said:

I personally think that to deny racism in the voters is a huge mistake. REfusing the existence of bigotry as well.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 8:44 am said:
  
  I personally think that to deny racism in the voters is a huge mistake. REfusing the existence of bigotry as well.
  
  I agree and it’s a good thing no one did that.
  
  LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 10:34 am said:
  
  BTW, I assumed you were referring to some voters when I made my comment. And that wasn’t really what we were discussing above, but I see you’ve carried your point forward below with scott to clarify. I disagree with you but will have to save it for another time as I’m on my way out the door.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 10:42 am said:
    
    Imsinca:
    
    As far as racism, it is some voters. I was trying to see what attitudes and how mature some people were here. We have a slew of types in this country and it changes across the land. We have concerns over border security which can easily become racist in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. We have a growing hatred concerning Islam and other religions. My point is that we are blessed with feelings we do not want to admit.
    
    I’m suggesting a wide spectrum. Again, my personal experiences with others and my involvement in party politics offers information on this topic. But you know what, it isn’t worth it to me to get all worked up about it. I’ve had my fill of racists in real time no matter what people think here.
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 8:47 am said:

mcurtis:

I personally think that to deny racism in the voters is a huge mistake.

Which voters?

REfusing the existence of bigotry as well.

Who has refused the existence of bigotry?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 8:50 am said:
  
  All voters.
  
  It has been very difficult to parse the thread so do not become defensive. IMO, people who ask who are like Cinderella putting on the glass slipper to see if it fits.
  
  LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 8:56 am said:

mcurtis:

All voters.

Are you racist? I can assure you that I, for one, am not.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 9:11 am said:
  
  Scott,
  
  People who say they are not racist or are not bigots in some way do not really know themselves.
  
  When I walk downtown and see a group of black people dressed in their style of street wear I’ll go out of my way to avoid that crowd. The same is true for hispanic groups on the street.
  
  I was in St. Louis two years ago and there was a black beggar on the street. He was trying to get money from this tourist who just walked by. He said, “Honky, white freek, I ought to kill you. Kill all the white guys.”
  I was very shocked.
  
  While studying for an historical thesis in MA in 1973 I was walking up to Beacon Hill behind two black people. One was a young woman and the other was her daughter. A middle aged woman was sweeping the pourch up ahead of them. As these two passed her she said, “Get out of this neighborhood, niggers, you don’t belong here. ” I was very tempted to say something being from Texas to call that woman down. I didn’t for I saw no real way to make the woman understand.
  
  We have voters who carry biases against Mormons. We have voters who think every Jewish person is a zionist. In every fashion or form we all have issues with other people. To refuse that we do is naive.
  
  I used to say that about myself as well and then I thought about how I do laugh and moan at racial jokes. Sam Kinson makes me laugh guiltily. So I guess there is darkness in me as well.
  
  How id I learn this? Scott, I’ve fought and debated with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, skin-heads, white-power-rangers and so on. I’ve see them up close and I’m not them, but I never deny the darkness in myself.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 9:18 am said:
    
    Was that too honest??
    
    LikeLike
  - RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 10:02 am said:
    
    Not too honest at all from my perspective. In fact a nice counterbalance to my posts mcurtis.
    
    Nobody should ever suggest that racism is only a “white” thing.
    And there are plenty more “isms” and “phobias” than just race. There is still some sexism remaining…and of course Islamaphobia runs rampant through out our society. And yes that too cuts both ways…we just had a Serbian immigrant..a Muslim who was so anti American, so anti Christian that he was banned from attending area Mosques and a couple of weeks ago was arrested by the FBI for gathering bomb supplies.
    
    BTW the reason the FBI found out and was able to arrest him was because one of the Mosque Imams reported him.
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 10:23 am said:

mcurtis:

People who say they are not racist or are not bigots in some way do not really know themselves.

Ah, I see. So you think you know me better than I know myself, despite the fact that you’ve never even met me. That makes perfect sense.

The ridiculous notion that everyone is racist at some level renders the charge of racism to be devoid of moral content, which of course it is not, and is not meant to be when used. If you want to confess your own racist sentiments, have at it. I am in no position to argue with you. But to project those racist sentiments on everyone else, much less me, perhaps to make yourself feel better about your own shortcomings, is absurd and offensive.

BTW, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “their style of street wear”, but if you think that crossing the street when you encounter a bunch of black guys dressed like gang bangers is racist, you have bizarre notion of what racism is. If you cross the street when you see a group of black guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases, then perhaps you have a point about yourself.

Was that too honest?

No. It was too presumptuous and self-congratulating.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 10:26 am said:
  
  Well, Scott, you can go be angry by yourself. It isn’t all about you, btw. I was directing my points in general. However, the glass slippers are all yours.
  
  I’m done with this one.
  
  LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 10:25 am said:

Islam is responsible for saving a lot of Christian documents that would have been destroyed otherwise. Sexism, sure, I can’t possibly remember the total list if bigotry available.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 10:37 am said:

mcurtis:

Well, Scott, you can go be angry by yourself.

I suspect I’m not the only one who finds these self-congratulatory confessions in order to justify groundless generalizations nauseating. In fact I know I am not.

It isn’t all about you, btw.

Right. You accuse me of racism, but it’s not about me.

I’m done with this one.

Good idea. You’ve got little ground to stand on.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 10:39 am said:

Just so we’re clear on definitions. Per Merriam Webster:

racism: : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 10:45 am said:
  
  My ideas are far more mild than this. These influences cause people to subconsciencely vote in certan ways. Heck, I have no longers and ground to stand on. I fall on my swoard. Does everyone feel better now. Scott?
  
  I’m gone. I just do not have the patience to explain this stuff.
  
  LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 11:09 am said:
  
  lmsinca
  
  Thanks for that post. I think I’ve always conflated racist and bigot. But while it seems they’re close relatives they are not totally synonymous.
  
  BTW Do you remember the book released about a year ago that talked about the black diaspora after WWII…great migrations North and West which ripped apart extended families as many fled the South. I’ve seen the author interviewed but I can’t remember her name and I forget the book. I wanted to read that and now I could kick myself.
  
  LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 22, 2012 at 11:14 am said:
    
    lms recommended it again recently somewhere on this blog, but finding that reference might be difficult. I don’t have the author’s name, but the title is The Warmth of Other Suns. I too have it on my read list.
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 11:15 am said:
    
    is this it
    
    LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 22, 2012 at 11:26 am said:
    
    Thanks, mcurtis. That’s the one I was thinking of (don’t know if it’s what ruk was thinking of).
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 11:30 am said:
    
    I tend to read pre-Civil war stuff both primary and secondary works. This does look good. I wonder if it gets into share-cropping. I learned while taking a women’s history course that FDR didn’t give a fig about those people for he depended upon the votes of the southern democratic party. I found this history to be very sad.
    
    LikeLike
  - RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 11:31 am said:
    
    okie girl and mcurtis…
    
    Thanks so much for answering that for me!
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 10:53 am said:

mcurtis:

These influences cause people to subconsciencely vote in certan ways.

Which influences?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 10:55 am said:
  
  I’m done Scott. My point is evading you for some reason. I’ve fallen on my sword. I’ll let others bath in this stuff. (Btw, I listed several things if this is too general for oyu, then I’m very sorry.)
  
  LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 11:15 am said:

mcurtis:

My point is evading you for some reason.

That seems unlikely. You’ve been pretty clear…you think everyone, including me, is racist. I strongly disagree, and I think you have virtually no sensible grounds whatsoever for believing as you do, particularly with regard to me.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 11:16 am said:
  
  I apologize. I’m positive you are totally pure.
  
  LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 12:44 pm said:

lol qb, I can hardly wait……we’ll distract everyone with our brilliant repartee.

It isn’t a matter of elusiveness or aloofness; just being way too busy and exhausted.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 1:11 pm said:
  
  I know qb, I was just teasing you. Nobody ever gets my jokes……is there an online comedy school somewhere that might take me. I refuse to put happy faces behind every joke because it kind of defeats the purpose of telling a joke in the first place……it’s the surprise factor that always cracks me up, lol.
  
  LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:01 pm said:
    
    I know qb, I was just teasing you. Nobody ever gets my jokes……
    
    It’s because you are so caustic all the time. : )
    
    LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm said:

A few scattered points before trying to say something more general:

My offhand comment about racism on PL was directed specifically at one..actually about five if you count the sock puppets who routinely used words like “boy” and even whipped in the occasional jungle bunny.

We all know who you are are accusing here, ruk. For all the accusations you and others have levelled, I have never seen an actual racist statement like this from him, and most definitely no uses of “jungle bunny.” Comments are no longer searchable on the new platform over there, but a google search turns up no instances of this term, ever.

Simply google Dr. David McKalip …

I did. The first article I saw had him apologizing and expressing great regret for forwarding an email. I infer that you exclude the possibility that he could make a mistake and sincerely regret it, which is interesting.

Doesn’t make them racists but she believes 75% of her “friends” were racists…again racist being defined at minimum as somebody who feels free to drop an N bomb in mixed company. Perhaps that is too strict a definition.

If 75% of your wife’s “friends” are professionals who use the n-word in social situations (or worse), I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that your wife’s professional circle is among the most racist circles in America. Knowing you how feel about racism, I am puzzled how she stays friends with them.

If we don’t wish to face reality then fine. But I’m simply here to say that Newt will have an advantage over Romney in Florida because of his willingness to play to that % whatever it is.

This would make a lot more sense if you could cite any examples of Newt’s appealing to racists.

Does everybody here believe that race will play little or no influence on the Florida R primary?

Of course it will have no influence. The candidates are all white. It is completely illogical to suggest that race is an issue in voting for Newt versus Romney.

LikeLike
RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm said:

Accept your first three points but the last two you are bright enough to understand.

Nobody is saying this is a classic case of racism where for example folks might vote against Herman Cain because he is black.

You do not wish to hear Gingrich’s “food stamp” President and “I’ll have blacks appreciating paychecks over welfare checks” as dog whistles that appeal to the racist % of the Party whatever that number might be. Romney simply is not going to go there and I don’t believe Santorum will go there either. As his own R poobahs..Scarborough and McCarthy said this morning Newt is grabbing the “angry” crowd…their words not mine. To be honest as you might expect I’m not really concerned about the R primaries it’s just good political theater for us. If you do not wish to believe reviving the term “food stamps”, they haven’t been around for quite some time now…or talks about blacks that infer at minimum, some would say state unequivocally, that black people would rather have welfare checks than paychecks that’s your choice.

BTW this is not an original observation, I’m hardly the first to bring it up, and so while I respect your right to disagree with the basic premise…Newt is using dog whistles to appeal to the racist part of the base…it is not illogical. You simply fail to accept the premise…which we could discuss I suppose, but while you can disagree it’s hardly illogical.

As for my wife’s friends..and the 75% of dentists in Florida who would feel free to drop N bombs…you are correct I misspoke…I should call them acquaintances not friends. Both of us have shared cocktails and Hors d’oeuvres and chit chat but as you surmise there have been many many uncomfortable moments in the past 15 years. Now that we are preparing for retirement my wife has already left “organized dentistry” and she is happy not to have to deal with those folks anymore. BTW, and yeah jump me for “anecdotal evidence”, but her actual friends are transplants who relocated to Florida from Michigan and Ohio. Yes I know the fact that her Midwestern friends are not racist while the Floridians, especially those from Northern Florida are…does not prove anything other than our personal experience. But then this is just a blog and so I’m not really out to prove anything.

Before you and I get started again I can tell you that I’m going to surrender preemptively. You are a far superior debater and so feel free to claim victory anytime you think we are engaged in any kind of “contest” or “debate”. I say this without snark. After PL and what it did to me I’ve done some soul searching as to why I even bother…I’ve been able to focus on my primary goals…learning something..and of course the social aspect. I do not come here to win anybody over to my viewpoint or to engage anybody in debate…discussions yeah..debates..I surrender..

As for McKalip…I know him personally, as I said he lives four doors down. His apology was virtually mandatory if he wanted to keep his privileges at the Hospital where he practices. His actions since, unlike Newt who HAS apparently finally settled down, do not reflect a man who is truly sorry.

LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 3:13 pm said:

lms,

Now, after reading your comments again, I’m trying to remember what my response was that I was typing last night before I realized I was too tired to finish. Since I promised, though, I suppose I should deliver something.

I disagree that some people left ATiM right away because they felt we had brought old grievances. They left because theywanted to bring their same nasty habits over or simply could not tolerate the idea of being part of a forum where they would be expected to be respectful and defend their positions reasonably and logically. (I saw one of them recently brag about leaving here immediately upon realizing that Scott and I “owned the place.” Lol!)

As to the topic at hand, when the basis of a discussion is someone’s comment about the degree of racism of Republicans or conservatives, how their candidates appeal to racism, and how their primary will be swayed by it, it’s not going to be a nice, pleasant discussion. That’s just reality.

In this case, the comments came after an an exceptional history of such accusations. I’m not going to get out on a ledge over ruk, nor was I even angry. (Puzzled why some of you frequently see anger and upset where it isn’t.) But there is history, and then there is history. I’ll pull my punches and leave that there.

I don’t think my response went into “attack mode” in any way. It was frank and serious, but it was not an attack. I asked the questions I asked for very good reason. I don’t believe a person can say the kinds of things to and about someone that ruk frankly has said and not have a fairly deep well of ill will judgment againt them. I’m a big boy, so the words don’t hurt me, but it would be silly and insincere for me to pretend I don’t view all those attacks as more reflective of his real sentiments than this latest repentance. So, when I saw these (so familiar) comments about PL racists, etc., the meaning seemed quite clear to me. Nevertheless, I don’t think I went into attack mode.

Perhaps my reservations will be proved wrong this time. Hopefully, they will be. But I doubt I will ever entertain accusations of widespread conservative or Republican racism without forcefully challenging them. As I said last night, many of us are simply fed up with it. No one is trying to have a reasonable discussion when they say this kind of stuff.

LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 3:46 pm said:

There is no way to have have any kind of *reasonable* discussion when one side becomes very confrontational and do not address a lot of the things said by others. No discussion takes place and thus no insights or learning can take place. To some the words used by Gingrich, not to mention his history with addressing the poor, are pretty rancid to many looking in.

Yet, let’s dismiss it all and ignore everything. That’s for the best. I’m totally with RUK on this.

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm said:
  
  You mean things like this:
  
  People who say they are not racist or are not bigots in some way do not really know themselves.?
  
  Scott directly addressed it. I’m fairly sure you know that, since you lodged multiple snarky and personal replies.
  
  I’m not going to add what I think of your statement, because it would be construed as a personal attack. I’ll just say, I’m not interested in participating in your universal 12-step program for bigots and racists.
  
  I’m gone. I just do not have the patience to explain this stuff.
  
  When you show up and say things like this, are you really surprised that you don’t get the deference you apparently expect? Perhaps you shouldn’t have come on the scene presuming to be everyone’s superior and instructor. You might find that you would have more meaningful discussions with people if you followed your own instructions and didn’t simply dismiss everything other people say, insult them, and say your thoughts are apparently over their heads.
  
  I know that you claim to be some sort of historical scholar. My advice would be that you let your knowledge and expertise, whatever it is, speak for themselves. Since I already have some experience with your reliability as a historian, you can count me skeptical. But I await being dazzled.
  
  LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm said:

The person who made this statement I am quite happy to say that race will play absolutely no role at all in a primary between 3 white guys who largely agree on their politics seems to forget that groups of white people did not have to have black people involved to make racial statements. I don’t care what party it is.

LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm said:

ruk,

No, it isn’t that I don’t want to hear it. It’s a ridiculous accusation. You are just playing the old card that any critique of the welfare state is racist. It’s tired, it’s not worth discussing, so I won’t any further.

or talks about blacks that infer at minimum, some would say state unequivocally, that black people would rather have welfare checks than paychecks that’s your choice

I’m not even sure you are twisting his words as much as just making something up. It’s really the opposite of what he has said. You can talk about dog whistles all you want. You are in the business of finding racism, and you twist words and imagine what you want in order to find it and confirm your prejudgments.

People form opinions and beliefs about all sorts of things based on experience. I have no problem with that. But they are often wrong; they are often unreasonable. Examining the connection between your extrapolations from experience and reality is entirely reasonable. I think your generalizations about racism and hearing of dog whistles are simply unfounded.

I don’t really see the need for your surrender comments. I have a lawyer’s training and experience, so I would be lying if I said I didn’t think I was pretty good at argument, but I have never claimed any privilege and try fairly hard not to treat people as opponents to be defeated (although some folks do seem to cry out for it at times).

LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm said:

Atacks on the welfare state state made by Gingrich seem to cause him to talk about black people when the majoirty are white. I find that of interest even though you refuse to hear it.

This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial. History requires far more evidence than does a court case. Also Gingrich has a history with the books he subscribes to and one was written by a UT professor and published by the Regency Press. I read it from cover to cover. Then while discussing it with a conservative the claim was made that no one starved to death in 19th century New York. Thanks Newt. That wasn’t a racist comment at all, but these people were Italians, Greeks, ex-slaves, Germans and Irish. They were not seen as worthy back then for very much in this nation. They were worthy of being worked to death. This is also the picture I get from Mr. Gingrich. I don’t get an historian’s understanding of the history of the poor nor do I get insights into how poor laws were replaced by private agencies that failed.

This is perception and some people are going to have it whether you want to hear it or not.

And yes, by stating so strongly that you do not want to hear is confrontational and begs the issue concerning a discussion being possible at all. Maybe I’m reading oyu incorrectly and someone will enlighten me.

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:
  
  I’ve read enough of your comments now to reach a judgment, which is that I won’t waste a lot of time reading more.
  
  Sorry Kev and lms. This guy is not worth my time. Historian and intellectual, my eye.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm said:
    
    Teh be so kind to tell me where I’m wrong. Just attacking me personally doesn’t prove your point.
    
    LikeLike
  - okiegirl, on January 22, 2012 at 4:44 pm said:
    
    qb, IMHO if you were not on the ledge before, you’re there now. I think there is a ladder down. You can just not respond rather than throw out personal insults?
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm said:

mcurtis:

There is no way to have have any kind of *reasonable* discussion when one side becomes very confrontational…

If by “confrontational” you mean things like accusing someone else of racism, I agree.

The person who made this statement…

Above each comment there is a name that indicates who exactly made the comment. In this case, it was me.

…seems to forget that groups of white people did not have to have black people involved to make racial statements.

No, he didn’t forget that. But he doesn’t possess a secret left-wing decoder ring that allows him to uncover what conservatives really mean when they say definitionally non-racial things.

LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:20 pm said:

Scott, you are the one putting the racism claim on yourself. I said that all humans are racist. I should have added in *in some degree* for gthe sensitive here. No one, I repeat no one is as pure as the driven snow.

You do not have to have a secret decoder ring, Scott. The majority on Welfare white and, I think, single mothers. They are not black and they are not black children in school as Gingrich would have to believe. I do not think that is difficult to decipher.

Why the ultra sensitivity?

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm said:
  
  I can see that mcurtis is in fact a racist and bigot, just as he says, since the statistics are quite clear that poverty and government dependency rates are much higher among blacks than whites, he he is unwilling to admit or confront this fact, and attacks Newt Gingrich for wanting to do something about it.
  
  How was that logic, mcurtis?
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:38 pm said:
    
    This distorts what I said and is dishonest. Is this what this group is about?
    
    LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm said:

“I said that all humans are racist. I should have added in *in some degree* for gthe sensitive here. No one, I repeat no one is as pure as the driven snow.”

I’m pretty self actualized and can say without hesitation that I am not a racist. What evidence do you have, besides your opinion, that I, or anybody else on this blog are racist.?

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:37 pm said:
  
  We need a like button.
  
  LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:40 pm said:
  
  I may mistake human-beings, but I did describe events above in a posting where we avoid certain groups on the streets. Why do we do that and not rush into danger?
  
  This is subtle, but even I do not rush into danger. If you don’t do that then I really do not know what oyu might admit to.
  
  Really keep up the direct ad hominems guys.
  
  LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 5:11 pm said:
    
    Please tell us where the ad hominem in this comment is, mcurtis.
    
    Show where it is, so that we don’t conclude that you are no more than a cheap shot artist posing as an intellectual.
    
    LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:17 pm said:
  
  Quarterback: Still fighting?
  
  In this post there is not one. However, I do not read threads in a vacuum.
  
  It is a fair posting style to reference things across the thread.
  
  Mike
  
  LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm said:

Another personal attack from Quarterbakc without even addressing one point.

People in my sentence is general. Deal with it.

Deal with waht is being said about Newt’s claims rather than attack me. I’ve been attacked by the best of them, Quarterback. That what I get for battling with real racists.

You’ve attacked me as an historian as well and did not address Gingrich.

I’m fearful of saying why I am tired discussing this stuff for it seems to fall on deaf and defensive ears.

I’m tired because fighting the real people in life was one thing. Trying to explain how others dismissal of what others see in what is being said and why is tiring. Especially if they do not want to hear it.

Again, do you want to talk about what Gingrich is saying honestly or do you not want to hear about it?

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm said:
  
  You are something. You come in here and start insulting people and proclaiming superiority, then post stuff like this.
  
  I depantsed your historical expertise in our exchange at PL, where you misrepresented that Madison said something that was the opposite of what he actually said. Now you are here telling everyone you are their superior and that we need to defer.
  
  You don’t seem to get that your ipse dixit assertions that a statement is racist are not a substantive argument or point of any kind. You don’t seem to get that all you do is dismiss everything anyone else says–because you are the almighty “historian,” or so you say.
  
  Again, do you want to talk about what Gingrich is saying honestly or do you not want to hear about it?
  
  Do you think these accusations cast as rhetorical questions are some sort of penetrating argument? Seriously? When are you going to stop beating your wife? Answer the question. Stop evading.
  
  Deal with waht is being said about Newt’s claims rather than attack me. I’ve been attacked by the best of them, Quarterback. That what I get for battling with real racists.
  
  I see, so I’m a “real racist” now because I don’t bow down to you and your dog whistle superhearing?
  
  I think you are done here, mcurtis.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm said:
    
    The Madison point still stands for what it says and yes yu were rude on PL. History is also about differences of opinion and you do not own the corner on being right. I dropped that discussion because I had no time to right a book.
    
    I have NEVER said that because I’m an historian I am always right. This sems to be your issue and not mine.
    
    I did not call you a racist at all.
    
    When I said, That’s what I get for battling with real racists you would know what I meant had you read some of what I wrote above about arguing with skinheads, white-power type and others. I was not speaking about you at all. If you got that idea then I apologize for that was not my intent.
    
    Still stop the ad hominems. It doesn’t make you shine.
    
    LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 5:18 pm said:
    
    You dropped that argument because I produced Madison’s actual statements, which said the opposite of what you claimed. No “book” you could write would change that. It wasn’t a difference of opinion but a straight-out misstatement of fact.
    
    Every time I’ve seen you comment at PL or here, you’ve made claims of authority and demanded that people defer to you. But it is becoming clear that you don’t understand what an ad hominem argument is.
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:24 pm said:
    
    Proof? Show me where I’ve demanded deference in context.
    
    Madison’s quote is pretty clear and he is not just made up of
    one letter.
    
    I’m think we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot. Your attitude is very confrontational and I thought we were past that here.
    
    Also I can be driven off for I am working on several articles. I used to be entertained by the give and take. I’ve forgotten that it could become so serious to others.
    
    LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm said:
    
    I didn’t say you claim to always be right. I said you claim to be a historian and expect deference. That attitude is reflected in many comments like this:
    
    I’m gone. I just do not have the patience to explain this stuff.
    
    How is it that we all know already that you say you are a historian with great knowledge of American history, except that you’ve said it enough times to make sure everyone knows? (That’s rhetorical.)
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm said:
    
    Geeze, is that it???
    
    I was tired of the thread. I should have said I’m gone for a bit?
    
    Sorry to misguide you.
    
    Again, I’m sure it has to be ALL my fault.
    
    I expected, “I’m an historian and I know everything so do not question me.”
    
    You didn’t find that one?
    
    Thought not.
    
    LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 4:59 pm said:
  
  mcurtis
  
  Do not let the experience of this thread spoil you on this group. It is excellent. You’ll learn soon enough who you can engage and with whom to be cautious.
  
  You’ve been here long enough to realize that many of us bring a prior history as PLers…and by history I mean some of us for more than two perhaps three years…Q.B. can clarify that because he was on PL when I arrived a couple of years ago, before it was on the WaPo general site.
  
  They may resent me for doing this…if so I apologize in advance to my conservative, Q.B. thinks I’m being patronizing if I call them friends, and so I’ll stick to acquaintances. Although from my perspective I like to think I’m friendly with Tao who is most certainly conservative. I also got along well with Troll McWingnut because of our mutual respect for each other’s military service. Troll was a Marine mcurtis. At any rate just to give you some balanced perspective.
  
  PL is an admittedly progressive blog. It says so right up front on the WaPo entry portal. The conservatives who used to post with us there have migrated to this blog, which from my understanding is neither conservative, liberal, or moderate…just moderate in presentation..hopefully. At any rate the conservatives took a beating over at PL. Often times it wasn’t fair. They were completely outnumbered and you yourself have experienced Liam and you’ve seen some of the others. My point is simply that they have a reason to still be suspicious and defensive. One day they will either accept us as “honest” posters attempting to be as objective as our life experience
  permits. Till that day simply accord them respect. Do not take it personally..
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm said:
    
    Attacks on my craft I take VERY personally. I’ m not black and white about anything other than facts. However, I’m again debating the value here. I’m half in and half out of PL because of Liam. There are nutcases in every party.
    
    Thanks for the post. I wrongly try to send out ideas and thoughts that might make people think along grey areas. I usually fail I guess.
    
    LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 4:57 pm said:

okie,

I don’t know what you consider out on a ledge. I am just calling mcurtis out as someone who came here with bad intentions and is proving it all over this thread.

I am becoming puzzled why you feel the need to be my and only my watchdog.

I’ve just had enough of mcurtis’s putdowns and superiority complex. Still not angry or on a ledge. But this guy just called me one of the “real racists” because I don’t accept his instruciton that criticizing the effects of welfare state is racist.

I’ll await everyone jumping all over him for that, or his serial insults of Scott.

LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 5:00 pm said:

“I may mistake human-beings, but I did describe events above in a posting where we avoid certain groups on the streets. Why do we do that and not rush into danger?”

So, because you behave in a certain when when confronted by a specific situation, you’re comfortable in extrapolating the conclusion that ALL of humanity is racist?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm said:
  
  Racist is too strong a word, I agree. However, we react to stereotypes and those stereotypes come from somewhere. I tried to gives stories of my disgust with people in St. Louis and Boston to provide insight. I even said I’m a racist. I self accusation because I laugh at certain kinds of jokes and then feel guilty about it.
  
  What I do resent is having all the context torn out of my posts.
  
  LikeLike
markinaustin, on January 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm said:

What surprises me is how quickly a discussion can become irrelevant.

Newt called BHO the Prez who put more folks on food stamps. Because BHO did not put a single person on food stamps the statement is open to direct attack.

That this was called a racial dog whistle gave it legs as if it were a TRUE statement.

Newt is happy to defend the fact that food stamps mainly go to white people. It allows the fiction of presidential cause to continue unchallenged. Makes it appear more likely true, as more liberals and black pols yell “race” and more conservatives yell “race card”.
*********************************************************

RUK and mcurtis, I agree with George that assuming racial stereotypes in 2012 is foolish. RUK, a very conservative black R was elected to Congress from FL in 2010. mcurtis, a very conservative black R has been RR commish for a long time and I think he will win a congressional seat this time if we know where the lines are drawn. For those whites who will not ever vote for a black, their choice is to vote against black Rs and black Ds. A black R beat Strom Thurmond’s grandson in SC for a congressional seat. SC has many black R state reps now.

*******************************************************
Back to the relevant. Newt’s food stamps comment, far from being a dog whistle, was a far fetched slam on BHO that is now subconsciously perceived as correct by people who should know better because no one bothered to confront it head on, and everyone got caught up in an irrelevancy.

Or so I think.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm said:
  
  Well, I can accept that. Yet, sorry if I disagree with the reading and Newt’s narrowing the problem down to blacks. That bothers me. Also what bothers me are people who “do not want to hear it.”
  
  Yet, I hardly expected the personal attacks here at the level I’ve seen. I thought we were excaping that.
  
  Yes, the country has improved a lot concerning racism. However, I see it daily, FWIW. But then, no one wants to hear about what goes on in the work place with hirings, firings and other stuff.
  
  LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 6:27 pm said:
  
  mark
  
  Excellent points as always and I certainly accept much of their thrust. However implicit in your statement is that racism is gone! I think from the beginning of this thread, at least I acknowledged that racism is different depending on the generation, and locale.
  
  I’m sorry that I am convinced that a % of voters here in Florida hate Obama for reasons other than his politics. This is not to say that his politics are not justification for those who disagree with him. It is to say that there is still a lot of irrational behavior in our society.
  
  And so Mark a couple of respectful questions.
  Forget about Rick Perry..lets go the owner who painted Nhead on the rock in front of the ranch Perry purchased. Again this is about ownership prior to the Perry family and not intended to be partisan. Are you saying that ONE anecdotal example is rare in Texas? Are you telling us Mark that in your experience there’s not much racism left in Texas? I ask this respectfully not
  incredulously.
  
  It seems to me a parallel question is appropriate. Do you have any idea why so many people wish to assume Obama is a Muslim? Is it simply his middle name? Is there any reason this misconception is far more widespread among conservatives according to Pew than indys and Dems? This is an older poll from 2010 and anybody can feel free to update with better info. But what strikes me is the trend that an increasing number believe Obama is a Muslim. And one of the reasons given in the survey simply blows my mind…yeah the 60% who “learned” of this erroneous “fact” did so through the media…understandable…but the 1 in ten who say they learned of Obama’s Muslim faith did so through Obama’s words and actions! Really?
  
  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
  
  The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
  
  When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.
  
  LikeLike
mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:

Quarterback, I diod not call you one of the real racists and I explained that fully to you. You have a bias against me you take this back to PL. It might be smart to drop it.

I’m superior to no one at all.
Most importantly the real racists are those who I said were the ones who tire me out. Thos are holocaust deniers, skinheads, white-power groups and people like that. Those people are not you.

It is obvious that you do not carefully read and it is possible I need to phrase my sentences better.

Again, for the second time, if you took it that I was calling you a real racist, which is not my online style, then I apologize. Again. I apologize for you were not the subject of that phrase.

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 5:25 pm said:
  
  I accept that, although I think your phrasing most naturally read as I read it.
  
  Buy you need to can the attacks and the insults and the constant accusations of evasion. If people consistently don’t answer your points the way you think they should, perhaps it isn’t always everyone else who is evading or tossing up irrelevancies.
  
  If you expect respect, show respect.
  
  LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm said:
    
    It takes two to tango, Quarterback. FRankly you game in with guns blazing.
    
    I think a tolerance discussion needs to be had as well.
    
    LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 6:09 pm said:
    
    No, it really doesn’t in this case.
    
    I posted a serious but restrained comment in reply to ruk and some of the other commentary last night.
    
    You weighed in with your above comments about how everyone is a bigot. Scott asked you a few simple questions aimed at getting you to explain. You responded with your “glass slipper” insinuation and other personal comments, and then declared that you don’t have time to “explain this stuff” to the mere mortals here.
    
    I later responded in detail and with care to some of ruk’s comments (seeing that I am personally implicated in much of the history he discusses) and to lms’s comments, and you weighed in in response with a comment ending with this:
    
    Yet, let’s dismiss it all and ignore everything. That’s for the best. I’m totally with RUK on this.
    
    Btw, we are all busy people. I’ll wager I am a lot busier than you, just because there are very few people who are busier than me. Please don’t try to patronize us by implying that this is all more serious to the rest of us than to you. We’re all here because we like to discuss interesting things–mostly politics and related matters–with interesting people of other views. But this is just a diversion for everyone here. What happens at ATiM is of no real-world significance at all compared to my real working life.
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 6:15 pm said:
    
    quarterback: You sare unable to stop aren’t you. Bota havev the last word. Gotta makes claims about my posts that aren’t there.
    
    The last word is yours.
    
    LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 5:25 pm said:

Thank-you mark for bringing some sanity to the Gingrich argument. I for one appreciate it. I think it’s too bad so many of us had such a bad experience crossing the street in front of the Plumline that it has challenged our normal behavior. I think it’s time to give it a rest everyone.

I am not choosing sides, but I think we need to read everyone’s comments more carefully and rather than throw out the personal insult, challenge what they’re saying or how they said it, rather than make unsubstantiated accusations re their profile or claim someone is not worth your time. If they’re not worth the time to you, you should be watching the game or knitting.

Honestly, it’s a little disappointing. Maybe instead of discussing racism we should be discussing tolerance and or patience.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:
  
  One can try hard to make amends, but it’s not happening here. Please forgive my presence. Enjoy your group. I wish you all well.
  
  LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm said:

“Also what bothers me are people who “do not want to hear it.”

Scott, QB and I are disagreeing with you. Why are you choosing to phrase it in such a way as to have the reader believe that we somehow acknowledge what you write as true and choose to willfully ignore it? I disagree with you statement that all human beings are racist, even to a “certain extent.”. I don’t believe that is true assertion and you have provided no evidence, other than your own experiences, to demonstrate it. In your worldview, is it possible to disagree with you in good faith? Or is all disagreement with your unsubstantiated assertions based on willful ignorance?

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 5:57 pm said:
  
  Okay. So you do not go out of your way to avoid the types of crowds I mentioned. You are indeed a rare person.
  
  Say that you do not want to hear it say, “Talk to the hand.”
  
  However, we’ll agree to disagree.
  
  Mike
  
  LikeLike
  - Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:
    
    Again, how is my disagreement with your unsubstantiated assertions refusing to “hear it?” I do not agree, for exame, that the only reason a person might avoid a group of uniformly dressed African Americans is because of racism. What if the individual, let’s say a disabled woman, is intimidated by all uniformly dressed teenage males? Is it racist to avoid one and not the other?
    
    Why is disagreement with you refusing “to listen?”
    
    LikeLike
  - mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 6:06 pm said:
    
    Last post. Stereotypes come in to play.
    
    It isn’t always racism. I’ve tried my best to mitigate the point.
    
    You are within the black and white either-or fallacy and I’m not there.
    
    Tchau.
    
    LikeLike
Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm said:

“I think a tolerance discussion needs to be had as well.”

Fine, I’ll start. I have no tolerance for being accused of being a racist even if only to “a certain extent.”

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 6:02 pm said:
  
  Fine, then show me where I named you by name.
  
  I’m done with this nonsense.
  
  I apologize for insulting everyone on this thread and this group. Sorry sorry sorry.
  
  LikeLike
  - Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 22, 2012 at 6:05 pm said:
    
    Well, you wrote that all human beings a racist, and I’m a human being. Is it now ok to make blanket accusation of a very Nast nature as long as we don’t name individuals?
    
    LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 6:10 pm said:
  
  Troll
  
  I don’t believe mcurtis was accusing you personally of being a racist. I know for certain I was not. My interpretation of mcurtis’ musings were just that, they were musings…he was thinking out loud. Now perhaps one could actually do research that would either back or disprove mcurtis idea that much of humanity, in cultures around the world, suffer from some form of bigotry and at times racism. Remember Jesse Jackson’s comment about walking in the streets of DC or some other large city and saying when he heard footsteps in the dark behind him he was relieved it wasn’t guys from the hood.
  
  Stereotypes exist though most of humanity. I’m not an anthropologist so everybody save your fire…I’m simply trying to say that mcurtis meant nothing personal to anybody…if you take it that way perhaps…just perhaps..you might be looking for a hurt. If it generally did offend you..mcurtis and I both have already apologized and so I conclude with an endorsement of lmsinca’s idea. Perhaps since there are some “newbies” here a discussion of tolerance is in order.
  
  LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 6:34 pm said:

I would also like to remind everyone that some of the people involved in this embarrassing exchange are themselves administrators and should have made an attempt to mitigate the damage.

Mcurtis has sent me an email thanking us for the opportunity to participate but he’s moving on. Good job everyone.

I didn’t agree with half of what he said myself so don’t go there with me, I’m pissed enough that I’ll pretend to not be an administrator for five minutes. I think we need to change our all about atim, we’ve set too lofty of a goal.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm said:
  
  Of course qb did make one administrative decision all on his own………
  
  I think you are done here, mcurtis.
  
  LikeLike
- RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm said:
  
  lmsinca….I feel poorly about this because I’m certain my PL rep had a lot to do with this….I readily accept that others’ personal experiences do not involve the racism I’ve seen…sorry if sharing that experience was perceived as an attack on conservatives, R’s, and certainly any posters on this site.
  
  Racism is a tough subject. Perhaps with my baggage I was not the person to bring it up.
  
  I do believe there is a discussion of decorum and tolerance in order. Personally as the newest participant I think Kevin, you, Scott or whomever came up with that header that floats over the posting box at all times is all I need to keep me on the high road. Just read the big bold letters and ask yourself…am I being kind? That is the question isn’t it? Am I being respectful? Maybe we need a discussion on what is kind? What is respectful. I’m open minded enough to profit from any discussion of mistakes I may have made in terms of kindness or respect on this blog.
  
  I am NOT willing to go back and defend all my PL comments since I’ve already conceded it was MY commenting there that drove me here as much as anybody else over there.
  
  LikeLike
- okiegirl, on January 22, 2012 at 6:55 pm said:
  
  lms, agree with your comment.
  
  ruk, this probably would be a good time to just let this go for now. No offense intended.
  
  LikeLike
  - RUK, on January 22, 2012 at 7:01 pm said:
    
    No offense taken okie…I respect your opinion.
    
    LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 7:10 pm said:

I am not embarrassed by anything I said here, lms.

I wouldn’t have invited mcurtis at all, since I saw his MO at PL, which was to tell people they are wrong, he knows more than them, be proved wrong, and then start making false accusations, changing the subject and pretending someone is evading. He attacked me personally over there when I had not said the least unkind word. Same exact schtick. I wouldn’t be surprised that he’s a sock puppet for some other PLer.

If I’d have had my druthers, I’d just have started deleting some of the racism accusations and slights. But then, he was attacking me for responding substantively to you and ruk, after repeatedly insulting Scott without provocation. I didn’t see any admins jumping to correct that.

And in fairness it did appear to me that he directly called me a real racist for not accepting his unsupported verdict on Newt. He said he didn’t mean that, and I accepted it.

But you can just remove me and I’ll leave, too. If we are going to hold discussions of Republican racism and entertain people who specialize in putdowns and condescension, then I don’t need to be here anyway, and I won’t embarrass you any further.

I still like all of you, and it’s been fun. But I guess all good things end.

LikeLike
- mcurtis3, on January 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm said:
  
  I have to respond here. QB you are totally wrong. I didn’t accuse you of being a racist at all. This seems to be something you care to continue with and I do not know why.
  
  I had very little play with you on PL and I do not tell people they are wrong. Having an opinion different from yours or questioning what you assert is not a personal attack on you. This whole thing is taken way out of context and it sems you wanted me to accuse you of things. This was never ever meant to be. How I became the buggyman here I haven’t a clue.
  
  I even tried to pull back and accpet blame, but yu refused to have anything to do with that.
  
  However, I take full responsibilty for not being clearer about certain things. I respect all views and do think people should accept responsibilty for what they say. I’ve been very disappointed at the anger here. I very disappointed in the confrontation since the ad says this was to be a discussion group.
  
  I just can’t let you have the last word on this.
  
  LikeLike
okiegirl, on January 22, 2012 at 7:22 pm said:

mcurtis, I probably should have checked with others first, but I deleted your comment. “I just can’t let you have the last word on this” is part of the problem. As far as I am concerned, if you want to comment on another discussion you are welcome, but this train has left the station. You may petition another admin to reinstate your comment.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm said:

qb, why don’t you go to the top of this discussion and read all of my comments before you decide whether I did a decent job as moderator in this case. You’re free to spend your free time wherever you want. I don’t do the plumline much or even read the comments because the well has been poisoned there, I’d like to keep our blog free of that. I assumed we were in agreement in that desire.

I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that we can disagree without the hyperbolic and personal attacks, I tried to get everyone to crawl down from the proverbial ledge, unsuccessfully I might add. So obviously, someone else can moderate a contentious thread next time. Maybe they’ll be more successful.

LikeLike
- quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm said:
  
  You tried to impose some restraint during the first half, that largely stopped after mcurtis started to insult Scott and then later direct caustic comments and insinuations at me (and anyone who doesn’t agree with his slurs against Newt).
  
  But that’s not really the point. I didn’t remark on the absence of action by others because I expect you to be on the spot and police all the discussions. I remarked on it because you called me out.
  
  I’ll tell you what, from now on I’ll take adminstrating seriously and if someone like mcurtis shows up and starts lobbing insults and stirring up trouble, I’ll just delete the comments. Since you apparently don’t even think my response to what I read as a direct accusation of racism was appropriate, I will guess that you won’t be okay with that either.
  
  LikeLike
  - lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 8:13 pm said:
    
    Give it a rest qb, I came in late to the second half of the thread today so it was too late for me to do any good. If I offended you for calling you out for your comment I’m sorry, but we need to quit this shit with the old grievances from the Plumline if we’re going to make progress. Assuming we want to that is.
    
    I think I made it clear that I didn’t agree with either ruk’s original comment or mcurtis’ racism remarks. I’ve defended conservatives, liberals and libertarians against outrageous generalized attacks since I began blogging, so I don’t think I’ve changed too much.
    
    As I said, there’s more than one moderator here, someone else can take a turn next time….have at it.
    
    LikeLike
quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm said:

My favorite comment of the thread: the guy not only takes a comment to ruk about being a lawyer out of context and twists it to opposite effect, but equates me to holocaust deniers:

This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.

Of this, no one had any criticism, but okie chastised me for my response.

I’ll give it a long rest now.

LikeLike
- lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 8:48 pm said:
  
  I don’t even know what that means but I suppose we could go back through the entire thread and parse everyone’s words and their reactions or we could move forward. I remember a few times being the only left leaning person here and being bombarded by comments and trying to defend my position and I didn’t give up……but go ahead and leave if this is too hard for you and we didn’t defend you properly.
  
  LikeLike
  - quarterback, on January 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm said:
    
    Yes, people who deny a certain history — very vague and obscure.
    
    Who could possibly guess what he was calling me here.
    
    LikeLike
  - lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 9:31 pm said:
    
    qb, I missed that exchange and assumed he was apologizing for that, which I thought you accepted. I came home this afternoon to email SOS’ to help out with a thread that had gone crazy, so I read through it quickly and tried to mitigate. As I said, not very well.
    
    I will concede that much.
    
    LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm said:

Not to change the topic or anything, but having tried to catch up after being away for a few hours, this whole discussion is a perfect illustration of why threaded comments are a nightmare.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 8:48 pm said:

I agree.

LikeLike
lmsinca, on January 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

And now, I’m going away, just from this thread, before I offend anyone else.

LikeLike
markinaustin, on January 22, 2012 at 9:42 pm said:

RUK, I am replying to your question to me concerning the existence of “racism”.

Racism exists. I have written about some of my experiences here.

Is it relevant to this political campaign? Not as far as I can tell. Really. Every attempt to attach racial significance to the campaigns, or to the supposed motives of voters, or to the results of primaries, has been the rankest of speculation, and grossly insulting to the vast majority of persons about whom speculation swirls.

Take the issue that mcurtis pointed to in Texas – the divide over how to treat undocs. In fact, that problem is real. And the debate about what to do is dependent on goals. That some folks may take sides because of racial animus might be a topic for a dissertation, but it is irrelevant to the political debate. We argue for goals we can achieve: secure borders, employer scrutiny, deportation of undocs who commit other crimes and thus come into judicial purview, free education for the children of undocs, a change in total immigration policy to do away with extended family preference in favor of needed skills preference, on the merits of each proposition. The moment I am called a racist for opposing extended family reunion, I have to fight to control myself and stay on point.

Injecting race totally avoids the actual debates about other issues that must be had. Totally.

I would argue that race is relevant only to arguments that are themselves based on race:
e.g.; affirmative action in hiring or in education, the continued constitutional underpinnings of Sec. 5 of the VRA, issues about “profiling”, actual housing discrimination and the like. We can probably list some more.

But every single time it is reflexively raised to explain voting behavior or campaign behavior it will cause nothing but heat, and shed no light.

LikeLike
ScottC, on January 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm said:

There is actually one part of this discussion that I would like to pursue further.

mcurtis used the example of crossing the street when coming upon a group of blacks dressed in “their style of streetwear” as an example of racism, or prejudice, or bigotry. I don’t think it is any such thing.

Humans are constantly placed in the position of making judgments and acting on those judgments. It is the nature of reality for it to be so. When making those judgments, we have to rely on whatever information is available to us at the time. Sometimes we have a lot of relevant information, and sometimes we have almost no relevant information. But either way, a judgement must be made and we act accordingly.

In the example provided, we don’t have a whole lot of information. We don’t know anything at all about the individuals we’ve chanced upon except their appearance. We know the setting, let’s say it is an inner city street. And we may know (or think we know) some general background information, namely things like the prevalence of crime in the inner city or the fact that the crime rate among inner city blacks is higher than average. Now, armed with this limited information, is it irrational at all, much less racist, to cross the street when faced with this hypothetical group? It may be entirely unnecessary. Perhaps the group is a perfectly benign group of individuals seeking to do no harm at all. Perhaps it is even likely that the group poses no real threat. But the question we face is whether the potential risk is worth taking the chance. To determine that it isn’t worth the chance, based on the limited information we possess, may be an incorrect judgement, but it isn’t a crazy or malicious judgement, and so I think the blanket accusation that such a judgment is grounded in racism or prejudice is simply unfounded and unwarranted. In a different context, with marginally different information (say, a group of black men on a train dressed in suits and reading the WSJ), an entirely different judgment would likely be made.

I am reminded of a story that was told to me some years ago in an e-mail from a friend that I had gotten to know on a “race relations” message board. He was a white man, and was married to a black woman. Before they were married, when they were dating, he used to visit her in her home in a predominantly black, inner city neighborhood of Philadelphia. One night, after visiting, he was returning home, walking through her neighborhood streets to catch a bus or a train (I can’t remember which). It was late, the streets were deserted, and as he walked he suddenly spied two large, young black men hanging out on the next corner, watching him suspiciously. He braced himself for trouble, but was determined not to be intimidated, and so continued on his path towards them. As he got close, some words were exchanged, and he ended up in a conversation with them. As it turned out, while he was eyeing them suspiciously and preparing himself for a confrontation with a couple of hoodlums, they were doing the same, assuming that a white man walking alone in that neighborhood at night could only be a policeman looking for trouble. They ended up sharing a cigarette and a laugh at their mutual, unfounded, suspicion.

So was my friend, who was actually dating a black woman at the time, being “racist” for expecting trouble in that situation? Were the two black men being “racist” for assuming a white man could only be there on police business looking for trouble? Or were they each just processing the very limited information they had about each other in the only rational way they could, and ended up simply being wrong? I say the latter.

And I think it is not only wrong, but highly unproductive to assume racism was at work in this or similar circumstances. I personally operate under the assumptions of a sort of modified Occam’s Razor: racism should not be posited without necessity. If two explanations for a given behavior are available, the non-racist explanation is probably correct.

LikeLike
- markinaustin, on January 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm said:
  
  I agree with you, Scott, if you could not divine that from my previous posts.
  
  I even explained why the assumptions are unproductive in the context of this political campaign, right before your post.
  
  LikeLike