Beyond the Palin

Why the GOP is falling out of love with gun-toting, churchgoing, working-class whites.

By Rick Perlstein | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 10, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 20, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 08/30/2009 9:29:46 PM

    PEQUOD your are so right; JOE THE PLUMMER, KILLING GRANDMA; ELECTING BUSH MAN OF GOD; I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 08/30/2009 9:28:37 PM

    57% of my fellow Americans have been kept stupid for a long time. This was the Bush/Rove strategy and it worked. KEEP um stupid. The next thing you know corporations flourished and i think every well connected individual in America became rich. The rise of private security firms like black water, independent contractors like Haliburton, and Exxon Mobile all made billions. Credit card companies used legislation to put people in permanent debt forcing them to pay unnecessary high interest rates. We were then sent in a catrophic war in Iraq and neglected Afghanistan. There was no uproar.

    Now that the government is trying to pass helath care and immigration reform there is a big uproar. The GOP always comes up with these stupid themes. JOE The PLUMER is a prime example. This is how the GOP gets the common man vote. GEORGE BUSH USED RELIGION TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM. YES BUSH CLAIMED THAT HE AND NOT GORE HAD THE MORAL STANDING TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY and 50% of my dumb Americans fell for it. NOW WE ARE TO FORGET THE DISASTEr THAT THE REPUBLICANS PUT US IN and believe in Joe the plumber analogies and death BEDS FOR GRANDMA instead. We should support the Republicans becasue they believe that insurance companies are making tremndous profits and that we should leave health care alone. We should not trust our government who is trying to help the average person we should trust Republicans they will pass the reform we need. They will torcher illegal immigrants and save grandma let vote for them. It is this stupidity that has us in this mess.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 08/30/2009 9:28:26 PM

    OBAMA SAVED THIS COUNTRY WITH HIS ECONOMIC STIMULUS, he wants the 50 million uninsured tcitizens to have insurance and he wants illegals to have a path to citizenship. My fellow stupid AmERICANS think that this is evil and that our government is over reaching their limits and is taking over our rights. MADNESS. ABSOLUTE MADNESS. WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT that is legislation that invades every citizens privacy. BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN KEPT STUPID WE ARE SUPPOSe TO BELIEVE THAT THE PATRIOT act PROTECTS US. MADNESS. AMERICA IS IN A GREAT DECLINE. OUR STUDENTS ARE DUMB COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THIS IS A FACT. THE WE HAVE OLD FARTS YELLING ON T.V LEAVE OUR HEALTH CARE ALONE. MORE RIGHT WING MADNESS. YES OUR HEALTH CARE IS EXCELLENT AND EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO BASIC HEALTH CARE AND WE WILL NOT CHANGE NOTHING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO KILL GRANDMA.


    THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE ARE SUFFERiNG; WE VOTED FOR BUSH INSTEAD OF GORE. OUR COUNTRY WAS IN GREAT SHAPE WHEN CLINTON LEFT. WHAT HAPPENED, BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE AND TRANSFFERED ALL THE GOVERNMENTS WEALTH TO HIS GOOD OLE BOYS AND THEIR CONNECTIONS. LEFT US IN DEBT AND DIMINISHED OUR STANDING IN THE WORLD. NOW WE HAVE a LEVEL HEADED PRESIDENT WHO WANTS THE BEST FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON and we got the REBUBLICANS WHO KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE DUMB not only DuMB BUT IGNORANT and they know just what kind of tactics to use to get these dummies tvote for them.

    OBAMA WON and we need to follow his lead. GOVERNMENT IS implementing it's duty to serve the people. WE ThE PEOPLE CAN NEVER FULLY TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT but to say we do not trust the OBAMA adminstration but we trust the BUSH ADMINISTRATION is ludacris. Britney SPears is a perfect anology of who voted for BUSH AND WHY WE ARE IN THIS DISASTER.

  • Posted By: cs4455 @ 08/29/2009 7:24:22 PM

    The Party of No knows it's own hypocrisies. They simply fail to care about them anymore.

  • Posted By: Pequod @ 08/04/2009 12:44:23 AM

    Republicans have always been a party of wackos but these days they really, honestly can't see their own hypocrisies.

  • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/21/2009 7:01:37 PM

    "So is that the best you can do in a debate? A personal attack? Typical Conservative. . . . Calling Sotomayor a "racist" was also a very stupid move- you insulted the fastest growing demographic." - BRT929, 7/21/09, 11:18AM

    Boxer was rightfully 'checked' on her BS by Alford, but exactly! Their hypocrisy and tactics never change so I'm never surprised. In 40 years Latinos will be 30% of the population, AAs 15%, and other non-whites 9%; that means people of color will be the majority in America at 54%. I sent a big "bravo" to Sessions & Co. for again turning off even more Latino and AA voters that could have considered the GOP.

    ConReps have once again proven how their pointed finger accusing others of racial politics always leaves 3 pointed back at themselves, and displayed their usual antic of appealing to whites' insecurities. They made Sotomayor's confirmation hearings primarily about (her) race. Latinos saw that shyt, did not appreciate it, and will remember come voting time.

    A Latino male was also a plaintiff in the Ricci case but, of course, had Sessions, Graham et al mentioned that fact it would have blown up the bullshyt insinuation that Sotomayor discriminates against poor downtrodden *sniff*sniff* white males in favor of minorities. And it is funny how a Latina couldn't possibly be judicially impartial if she was a member of the Puerto Rican LDEF but a white male (Alito) that admitted to being a member of a group whose sole purpose was to limit the number of minorities and females at a university (Concerned Alumni of Princeton) can be/are.

    The only reason Sessions' Keebler-elf-goofy-looking ass is even on the Senate Judiciary Committee is due to Specter leaving the GOP, but this bama has some nerve saying Sotomayor had a "prejudice problem" when his appointment to a federal bench was rejected by the same committee over 20 years ago because Sessions is a blazing racist.

    He once said SCLC, NAACP etc. members were "un-American", "communist-inspired" (familiar?) and "forced civil rights down the throats of people", called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" and "used to think they're [the KKK] OK" until he learned some of them smoked pot. Out of hate and anger over an increase in black voter turnout throughout various counties in Alabama in '84, Sessions tried to intimidate voters by prosecuting the civil rights workers for "voting fraud" and he also called an AA former assistant US attorney "boy" then told him to "be careful what you say to white folks." During Sessions' confirmation hearings he did not deny any of these incidences and merely chalked them all up to "joking." (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102).

  • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/21/2009 6:58:54 PM

    "So is that the best you can do in a debate? A personal attack? Typical Conservative. . . . Calling Sotomayor a "racist" was also a very stupid move- you insulted the fastest growing demographic." - BRT929, 7/21/09, 11:18AM

    Boxer was rightfully 'checked' on her BS by Alford, but exactly! Their hypocrisy and tactics never change so I'm never surprised. In 40 years Latinos will be 30% of the population, AAs 15%, and other non-whites 9%; that means people of color will be the majority in America at 54%. I sent a big "bravo" to Sessions & Co. for again turning off even more Latino and AA voters that could have considered the GOP.

    ConReps have once again proven how their pointed finger accusing others of racial politics always leaves 3 pointed back at themselves, and displayed their usual antic of appealing to whites' insecurities. They made Sotomayor's confirmation hearings primarily about (her) race. Latinos saw that shyt, did not appreciate it, and will remember come voting time.

    A Latino male was also a plaintiff in the Ricci case but, of course, had Sessions, Graham et al mentioned that fact it would have blown up the bullshyt insinuation that Sotomayor discriminates against poor downtrodden *sniff*sniff* white males in favor of minorities. And it is funny how a Latina couldn't possibly be judicially impartial if she was a member of the Puerto Rican LDEF but a white male (Alito) that admitted to being a member of a group whose sole purpose was to limit the number of minorities and females at a university (Concerned Alumni of Princeton) can be/are.

    The only reason Sessions' Keebler-elf-goofy-looking ass is even on the Senate Judiciary Committee is due to Specter leaving the GOP, but this bama has some nerve saying Sotomayor had a "prejudice problem" when his appointment to a federal bench was rejected by the same committee over 20 years ago because Sessions is a blazing racist.

    He once said SCLC, NAACP etc. members were "un-American", "communist-inspired" (sound familiar?) and "forced civil rights down the throats of people", called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" and "used to think they're [the KKK] OK" until he learned some of them smoked pot. Out of hate and anger over an increase in black voter turnout throughout various counties in Alabama in '84, Sessions tried to intimidate voters by prosecuting the civil rights workers for "voting fraud" and he also called an AA former assistant US attorney "boy" then told him to "be careful what you say to white folks." During Sessions' confirmation hearings he did not deny any of these incidences and merely chalked them all up to "joking." ([url]http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102[/u

  • Posted By: brt929 @ 07/21/2009 10:49:56 AM

    Posted By: StrictConstitutionalist @ 07/20/2009 10:27:59 AM The Republican party's failures in recent elections are due to their abandonment of Conservative Principles in governing - not because they were aligning themselves too closely with conservative causes. John McCain only got some of the conservative vote because he "threw us a bone" by selecting Sarah Palin

    Your statement is completely specious when you consider that only 23% of the voting public is registered Republican. While the Republican Party is currently making some headway; it will be short lived.

    Americans are afraid, they are looking for economic stability. However, it was Republican policies brought us to this point, and I don't think Americans have forgotten that.

  • Posted By: StrictConstitutionalist @ 07/20/2009 10:27:59 AM

    This Liberal hack acts as though he is trying to "inform the electorate." In reality, he, like the rest of the liberal media, is trying to flood the news with liberal propaganda in order to scare Republicans away from conservatism. Don't buy into it, my fellow Americans. If your enemy tells you how silly you are in the manner you are waging a battle, they are most likely worried about your success.
    The Republican party's failures in recent elections are due to their abandonment of Conservative Principles in governing - not because they were aligning themselves too closely with conservative causes. John McCain only got some of the conservative vote because he "threw us a bone" by selecting Sarah Palin. If you want to energize the Party, put a TRUE conservative at the top of the ticket! (BTW - don't play games this time.... put a true conservative at the bottom too!)
    The Democrats energized their base by turning to the left. Both Obama and Biden are clear Liberals. Why can't the Republican party show that same courage and commitment to principle in nominating a ticket? Until they do so, they will be stuck playing second fiddle to the dismantlers of our Republic!

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/20/2009 6:51:02 PM

      Well said and spot on!

      There have been a flood of articles just like this crap on Newsweak lately.

  • Posted By: RichCarter @ 07/19/2009 10:40:25 PM

    This guy pearlstein is not making much sense.
    Is he for ruining the country or against it?

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/19/2009 9:44:29 AM

    I see that 40yrStalker is back among us. Still accusing everyone of racism and talking in circles; some things just never change. So 40yr, which imaginary job are you working these days, is it lawyer, bank president, or are you a super-hero now?

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/19/2009 1:00:02 PM

      Here's one of Jimbo's favorite posts to izageek:

      Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 05/12/2009 8:54:59 PM

      Hey Boy -

      Remember the Nazi Party in Germany? They were led a a fascist, correct? And that fascist placed large-scale controls on his nation's businesses, in effect telling them what to build, and how much. Sounds like a modern day liberal, doesn't it? (hmmm, sounds a lot like having a 'car czar', actually)

      Maybe if you actually paid attention to history, you might learn something and not MAKE A FOOL of yourself every time you post something.

      Your sorry @ss has been kicked around yet again. Jiimbo-mania is running wild,

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/19/2009 9:42:14 PM

        Thanks for repeating some of my best stuff!

        • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/19/2009 9:55:45 PM

          Jimbo, it is definitely worth repeating:)

      • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/19/2009 1:07:21 PM

        40OCD, I thought you'd be a church on this fine Sunday. They kick you out of there too?

    • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/19/2009 10:00:15 AM

      Jimbo,

      Unfortunately, the race-baiting old constipated democrat just won't go away. He is currently unemployed because his man Obama refuses to fix the economy. It is ironic. 

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/19/2009 5:53:00 PM

        You are correct. My favorite thing about 40yr is that while he is busy accusing everyone and everthing of racism, he in fact is regularly harassing/stalking the female posters. And really, isn't misogyny just another form of racism? And I'm guessing the word "ironic" never even crossed his little mind.

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/19/2009 7:37:39 PM

    In fact, the more of this endless Bella nonsense I read, I am struck by how similar it sounds to 40yrStalker; lots of words, talking in circles, always careful to toe the liberal line, accusations of racisim against anyone who dares disagree.

    Is it just me, or could it be that Bella is really 40yrStalker in drag?

    • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/19/2009 8:00:02 PM

      Jombo, That is exactly what I thought. Of course, he will come back with the standard homophobia and "projecting lines that he always does because he has them written down somewhere so he won't forget how to reply. He is a tiresome old cuss, isn't he? 

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/19/2009 7:20:55 PM

    Wow, BodaciousBella sure likes to speak endlessly and suck up bandwidth. And say...well not very much. Sounds like the same tired liberal claptrap that I've been hearing since my 9th grade "Social Problems" teacher insisted that thieves only stole things because they were hungry and the victim of racisms or some other sort of 'ism'. Which struck me as comical then and still does.

    I think Bella is saying the same thing, but only with lots and lots and lots of words. Yawn..

    • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/19/2009 7:33:55 PM

      Kind of resembles some other Windbag that we have up here, doesn't it, Jimbo?

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/19/2009 11:37:10 AM

    It's a good question whether the GOP ever loved anything.

  • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 2:51:34 PM

    From the footage I've seen, Reagan didn't participate in mean-spirited mudslinging or the 'politics of personal destruction' that Republicans took to new lows in the Clinton era but Reagan was, indeed, a dirty racist. I already mentioned his efforts to keep apartheid alive in South Africa, but here are some interesting quotes from a 2002 Time Magazine article:

    " . . . The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. . . . they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.

    The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.

    Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" ??? a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

    Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a word about Reagan's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it."
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html?cnn=yes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y - Bush I's Race-baiting
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk - Jesse Helms' Racebaiting

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/16/2009 3:55:44 PM

      "The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as Barry Goldwater... all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats."

      This sounds slightly off the mark. Goldwater supported civil rights, including legislation. Goldwater just supported limited government and states rights more (and by states rights I mean actual states rights, no code words). It is instructive to read the second chapter of "A Conscience of a Conservative" where Goldwater makes a case against the Brown v Board decision on the basis that the federal government has no jurisdiction over education under the Constitution, yet makes it very clear that he supports civil rights. It so happens that Goldwater's support of states rights lead to him voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this attracted the Southern racists. So while Goldwater did use a message that was MISINTERPRETED as racially coded, Goldwater's message was not inherently or deliberately racial.

      Moreover, I thought Reagan's views on race were more complicated than a mere "dirty racist". I won't go into details because I am no expert on Reagan and I really don't care about him. But if I understand correctly, Reagan did some things to support civil rights and opposed others. Reagan did apply the Southern strategy. But Reagan himself was not racist. I have to wonder if BoricuaBella's view and/or representation of racism in Reagan and the Republican Party is skewed and is merely some parts of a larger and more complicated picture.

      Things like this is precisely why the Republican Party needs to get rid of the racism in its ranks and pandering to the Southern voters is problematic. You take a good political philosophy of conservatism and leaders like Goldwater supporting that message. And then these stupid, bigoted, pseudo-conservatives come in and misinterpret and misconstrue the whole thing. You go from "states rights" being a genuine concern about states rights to some code word for racist garbage. You go from conservatism meaning "maximizing freedom" to conservatism meaning traditional values and opposing the freedoms and rights of gays. This is a disgrace.

      • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 5:54:00 PM

        I began to wonder if you were any different than Quid, Greg etc. and was no longer going to engage you directly due to that quip about "hysterics" and now you're talking 'around' me wondering if my views are "skewed"? I could make quite a few not-so-flattering judgments on how your comments come across etc. but that would be unnecessary and neither here nor there since I know true tone or manner doesn't come over accurately in print.

        That said it is quite evident that some appear to think the definitive of a racist is a dipshyt coward that wears white sheets, dons pointy hats and stomps up and down the street yelling racial slurs and whining about some "Jewish conspiracy." But that is naïve, small and, more specifically, dishonest. The minute people quit acting as if those are the only true racists or kinds of racists may be the time substantial headway is made in this thing called 'race relations'.

        I've read excuses and attempts to paint people in 'kinder and gentler' lights via lines like "They're not racist; they're just racially insensitive!" or "They're not racist; they're just ignorant!" and, frankly, that is tired and apologist. Contrast that with how, in a short span of time here, I've been labeled a racist many times when I'm ½ white, never been called racist in my life, and no one can quote one statement of mine that was racist - all because some people don't want certain things brought up or like the truth delivered straightforward.

        Often strong advocates of "states rights" don't have a problem with the federal government issuing a 'law of the land' and overriding "states rights" when it serves their purposes. I could provide many examples but, quickly for clarity's sake, there are things like the 1793 & 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts or, recently, how some advocates wanted Dumbya Bush to initiate an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman only.

        I will NEVER be a advocate of "states rights" - the clarion call of slavers that wanted to maintain their right to own humans - in a wider sense because history has shown how oppressive that can be. People can talk legalities and whether Brown vs. Board was an unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government from here to eternity, but I feel there are situations where the government NEEDS to step in and render rulings that apply nationwide and prevent abusers from oppressing and denying rights to others; while "states rights" advocates would have those that are suffering or being denied continue being oppressed and WAIT for the majority of voters in a state to get the "holy ghost" and start behaving like they have sense or humanity.

        IMO any politician (i.e. Goldwater) that opposed the enacting of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts were devoid of humanity and people I'd never want to share airspace with. Ditto for conservative Republicans that supported them and c

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/16/2009 9:19:03 PM

          The "quip about "hysterics"" was an honest observation, not a "quip". As a point of fact, you are turning off the people you are conversing with and who you ought to be trying to convince. Maybe this is true tone and manner coming out poorly over print, but you seem to only converse civilly with those who agree with you and unkindly lecture anyone who disagrees. You have rather strongly represented and presented evidence for only one side of the issue. You have posted post after post of evidence of Republican racism and claimed you have more from your job. You have posted about "white privilege" and failed completely to address white people's concerns. I think Quid, Greg, etc are finding all this insulting and that is why they are calling you racist (and if this is so Quid, Greg, or etc reply to this post saying so). Moreover, you HAVE made "not-so-flattering judgments of how my comments come across" including misrepresenting what I actually said or think and making me seem racist when I wasn't. You know, when Greg calls you a "racist" and I tell you to tone down the "hysterics", maybe it is time to reconsider some of what you are saying and how you are saying it.

          In light of (in my opinion) how strongly you are representing only one side, I was challenging you to consider whether you accurately and fully represented the issue. To have one's views challenged in this matter is healthy. I am help to consider that you may know something I don't or you have a more balanced view than you are representing, which is why I said "I WONDER if your views AND/OR REPRESENATION ... is skewed" rather than simply "your views are skewed".

          Are you interested in civil discourse where people will justifiably disagree with you or not?

          I think knowing the difference between an overt racist, someone who is insensitive, or someone who is ignorant is important. Some people put there foot in their mouth by making racist comments but are racially tolerant otherwise and feel awful afterwords. Some whites have honest concerns and don't understand the issues and we can work to educate them and discuss their concerns. Are their actions/views racists or acceptable? Absolutely not and there is no excusing racist behavior. But unlike overt racists, we can work with these people to improve race relations and our society. We should aim to work with them.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/19/2009 3:31:18 AM

            Note there is a typo that doesn't make sense but I don't want misunderstood at all. Should read "Are their racist actions/views acceptable? Absolutely not and there is no excusing racist behavior."

          • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 9:40:34 PM

            BK, Well said, but your words will fall on deaf ears, because this is a poster who is a known race baiter from way back. Your effort is to be commended though. Unfortunately, some people like living in the 1860's and there isn't much you can do or say to change it.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 2:11:09 AM

              Greg, you didn't deserve my defense of you. Saying "some people like living in the 1860's" is offensive. You should apologize to BoricuaBella for this and any other stupid things you said.

              • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/17/2009 7:53:25 AM

                BK, There are a lot of things that I don't deserve. I definitely don't deserve the current and ever increasing tax bracket that I find myself in.

                Apologize, for what? I have proven that I can have conversations with both liberals and conservatives on this site without any problem. They can be the biggest neo-con or the biggest flaming liberal on the planet, and it has little affect on me, BK. Have I been guilty of typing the absolute last thing on the planet that they wanted to read, just to piss them off? No doubt. The difference is that they do it every post and get pissed when you give them back better than they gave to you. I play those guys like the fiddle they are. My first post lastnight was a right jab to 40 just to set up my uppercut. He is the most pompus ass up here. When you look up the word racist, there is a picture of an old constipated democrat (40OCD), sitting in his unkept single-wide with a Chevy Vega parkd out front foaming at the mouth drooling on himself because of a lack of good dental insurance and a pronounced overbite. BK, 40 will always pull out the playbook Paul published lastnight when you back him into the corner. He should apologize to everyone on this site and crawl away. The same thing that he is currently doing to you (playing the good guy go-between you and Bella) he did to me. He was trying to get this poster that I was having difficulty with to be more civil. I can tell you how that went- not well. It will go the same way for you. Don't be sucked in by this creature, BK. He is the root of all things evil and is a dispicable S.O.B. Can I make it anymore clear for you than I have?

                There! I apologized.

                • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 1:16:36 PM

                  "Apologize, for what?"
                  Honestly, this comment that BoricuaBella is living in the 1860's I find inappropriate. Apparently you said other things in appropriate, but I am so sick of this discussion that I won't check what. I don't find any of this acceptable and worthy of my consent.

                  As for 40YearR, I proudly respect him even if you do not. You are welcome to your own opinion of him, though I don't like how you described him. In any case, let's move on.

                  • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/17/2009 4:43:19 PM

                    BK, I agree that 99 % of the time that it would be inappropriate. With Bella and 40, however, I would stand behind that statement until my dying breath. Those two are some racist thugs that can't get away with that crap with me. They will only get the royal treatment from me. BK, you seem like a great guy. I didn't agree with your post about Paul and I, but I immediately recognized you good intentions. You tried to do that with 40Bella, and you got a load of crap. Everyone on here can see the civilized folks. Those creatures are neither civilized or cultured enough to take out in public let alone carry on a conversation with.

                    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 4:51:23 PM

                      "BK, I agree that 99 % of the time that it would be inappropriate."
                      Fair enough.

            • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 10:35:14 PM

              BK, You try to remain neutral and objective, you ask for a comment, and you get a post that says:

              "BK, . . . because this is a poster who is a known race baiter from way back."

              That's a statement by one of the pair of the most aggressive, relentless, 'earnest', celebratory race-baiters I've seen at NW since I came here 8 months ago, indeed in my entire life.

              It's the answer to 'why don't we just get along' question. People who want to get along don't make those kinds of statements, nor do they race-bait the way that poster has and does.

              • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 1:17:22 AM

                I know. I figured if I was going to speak for Greg, he should have the opportunity to support or deny my claim. Unsupported claims of what Greg thinks are just bad. And if Greg felt insulted he should reply. I was just hoping said reply would not have even more insults.

                It truly is a shame that we can't all just get along.

              • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 10:39:43 PM

                40, I wrote that one just for you. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist replying to it. Dad gum it, Gabby:) You been had.

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 10:46:01 PM

                  Do you think telling lies is clever covert?

                  I've been 'had' by challenging you to paste posts by me to support your lie that I'm a racist?

                  How small and self-delusional, indeed, you demonstrate yourself to be to congratulate yourself... in this way... on this specific...

                  • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 10:49:32 PM

                    40, lay off the red wine, ok? I'm just gave your chain- a little tug. I was merely pointing out that I knew you would respond. :) Life goes on.....

                    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 11:06:39 PM

                      You demonstrate my very point again, covert.

                      You tell outrageous lies, repeatedly, and when called on them, you limply try to 'dismiss' them as just little 'chain tugs'.

                      Yes, life does go on, including in spite of, and including, lying racists thinking that it's 'impolite' and 'lacking of a sense of humor' to point out that they're lying racists.

                      • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 11:15:11 PM

                        Now, 40, you ran into the room one too many times and yelled fire when there wasn't one, but that's your problem. You made the name for yourself- Race Baiter. Now all you have to do is live with it. Copy and paste to your hearts content any post that you want. I stand behind all my posts. I think I might actually go thru some of your posts and count how many times that you typed the word racist. That number should be in the thousands. Run 40 Run. :)

            • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 11:10:18 PM

              ^^^Don't you and your twink co-hort have an ass to crawl behind and lick or are you playing the top to Paule's bottom this week?

              Just so you know, 4 racist white nothings and nobodies at NW (and dumb ones at that) ??? "everyone."

              And it's fine if you insist that I am Tinkerbell, Little Red Riding Hood or anything else your paranoid mind comes up with. I usually have pity for those with psychological problems, so it's o-tay little Greggie.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 11:30:47 PM

                BoricuaBella,

                I was taught, have always thought, and certain posters here a NW simply comfirm, that habitual harassment, denigration, ridicule, are irrefutable demonstration of fundamental insecurities, indeed recognition of personal inadequacies and inferiority. How evident it was in grade school and junior high. How remarkable it is in adulthood.

                That is only further embellished by first 'demonstrating' how 'clever we are' in the threads in this article, and the unceasing declarations and self-congratulations that accompany such.

              • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 11:18:15 PM

                That's why we love you 40D.

          • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 11:02:17 PM

            There have been several foul things stated about minorities at this NW blog that went unchecked. And you, BK, appeared more angered at my opinion that the GOP is full of racists yet, tellingly, had no commentary or outrage about Bahanson's uber-bigoted statement that minorities "always look to the government to help instead of looking inward to themselves." However, the minute a minority responds to racist generalizations like that, at times we are the ones judged as if we're supposed to bow down, keep quiet and simply take it? And I'm not quite sure why you felt I needed your help to see Bahanson's "side" since I'm not too shabby at reading/comprehending and assumed Bahanson was an adult capable of answering for him/herself and needing no one to speak or explain for him/her.

            And you've some nerve to talk about me "representing only one side" of an issue when the majority of this blog consists of a never-ending bastion of white views either from the liberal or conservative POV - and no voice that represents the 31% of this country that is non-white. I'm now convinced that the chasm between the GOP and minorities is too wide and contentious to repair and I'm cool with that. There is no need for the GOP to come canvassing for Latino or AA votes in 2010 as I doubt the GOP will even be on it's way to repair by then.

            A few friends of mine are reading this exchange as I am writing an article (due next Monday). I told them what would happen, and how things would go down. They didn't believe me, put money on the table, they were shocked, and I won the bet.

            I will CONTINUE to give my POV however I want, whenever I want, and regardless of whether any of you line up to run behind my comments to throw a tantrum, complain or cry about them or not.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 1:34:40 AM

              On second though, I'll take back the my claims of you being racist. I'm kinda mad at you for how this conversation went and I hate calling people racists, so maybe I shouldn't make such claims. More relevantly, you response to Bahanson says "I'm really not interested in [white people telling] any group to get over a damn thing." You are right that white's shouldn't tell people to get over oppression and what you said is mostly okay. Just don't dismiss white people's concerns because they didn't experience oppression. The other claim of racism was rather weak.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 1:06:18 AM

              Moreover, by "representing only one side" I did not mean you representing minorities versus everyone else representing the whites. The fact that you erroneously thought that makes a racist out of you and me and I don't appreciate you making me look racist like this when I'm not. I meant representing the side of Republicans being racist as opposed to the counter-position that the Republicans are not as racist. You did represent one side very, very strongly while merely stating that there was some truth to the counter-position.


              "I'm now convinced that the chasm between the GOP and minorities is too wide and contentious to repair and I'm cool with that."
              I'm sorry you think that. There is indeed a lot of bad blood between the GOP and minorities. Both Republicans and minorities are responsible for this, for both have antagonized both sides and in the process good people on both sides got hurt. But to heal, they must get past the bad blood and have a calm, open, thoughtful conversation. That means the GOP needs to finally reach out to minorities. But that also means you, BoricuaBella, must admit your contribution to the bad blood and consider the concerns of others. You seem unwilling to do this and I think you should reconsider your approach to the issue before you give up to on the GOP or write your article.

              I hope the GOP and minority relationship will be repaired. I hoped I could contribute to this here, but you, Paulejb, and others are too stuck in your own corners to meet in the middle and have a thoughtful conversation and consider other sides. I keep trying to get you guys to look beyond your own corners and none of you budge. Perhaps I am too judgmental of people who do not seek moderate, balanced views in the way I do. This healing clearly needs to start with people more in the middle and more desiring of such a conversation.

              I'm sorry this conversation between you and I, BoricuaBella, took a turn for the worse. You seem like a nice and knowledgeable person outside of heated disagreements. If you feel more like having a thoughtful conversation, let me know.

              NOTE: I suggested you were racist twice here. I take no please in such accusations. Feel free to correct this and I will very gladly take it back.

              NOTE: This article you are writing better have nothing to do with this conversation. You do NOT have my permission to use my screen name or anything I said for your article. I don't want you releasing what I wrote to you out of context and second-hand, misrepresenting me. I would appreciate if you replied stating you understand this.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 1:02:59 AM

              The full quote of what Bahanson said is "Wether intentional or not, it is a platform designed to promote racism and keep minorites in a position where they always look to the government to help instead looking inward to themselves." Many non-racist Republicans have criticized Democrat policies for making minorities too reliant on the government and hurting the minority communities in the process. This is a fair and common criticism and there is no good way to state this criticism. These same Republicans criticize the Democrats for making people (of all races) dependent on the government. Many Republicans with such criticism do not think the uber-bigoted idea that "all minorities are looking for a government handout". I recognized that Bahanson was merely criticizing the Democrat's policies and saw no need to be outraged. Instead, I saw the need to encourage the Republicans to offer their own policies to address race-related issues if they are going to criticize the Democrats.

              You claim to need no help understanding Bahanson's side. But Bahanson had a number of COMMON misconceptions, concerns, and criticism shared by many other white people. (It's a shame Bahanson went away because it would be nice to clarify some of these misconceptions and discuss his concerns.) Instead of politely correcting his misconceptions and addressing his concerns, you expressed outrage and indignation and ignored most of his concerns. It is clear from all this that you did not understand Bahanson's point of view and that you need educated on the white point of view of this issue.

              For example, Bahanson said "If laws are passed that make the opportunities equal, but the results are not, [Democrats] cry racism." and you responded with a lecture on the history of racism. You didn't address his concerns at all. At the end of this you state "Unless some white person and their ancestors or current family members lived through even 200 years of 1/2 that kind of oppression in the US, I'm really not interested in their barking or telling any group to get over a damn thing." (I can't believe I didn't criticize this quote before. You completely dismiss white concerns and claims of reverse racism in this quote. Dismissing minority claims of racism is racist but you dismissing white claims of racism is okay?)

              By the way, I don't expect you to "bow down, keep quiet and simply take it" (thanks for trying to make me look racist again by putting words into my mouth I didn't say). I expect you, like I expect from everyone else, to understand and consider all sides of the issues (or at least make an effort). You have not done so. Note I am not picking on your side, as I have criticized the other side when they haven't done the same.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/16/2009 9:56:51 PM

            Some typos: In light of (in my opinion) how strongly you are representing only one side, I was challenging you to consider whether you accurately and fully represented the issue. To have one's views challenged in this MANNER is healthy. I am HAPPY to consider that you may know something I don't or you have a more balanced view than you are representing, which is why I said "I WONDER if your views AND/OR REPRESENATION ... is skewed" rather than simply "your views are skewed".

        • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 6:08:24 PM

          40Bella, Welcome to NW you dirty no good racist. Can I make it any clearer for you? Everyone calls you one because you are one!

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 10:40:26 PM

            Covert, you only remind everyone of, and further confirm what you are when you tell lies like this.

            Who do you think you're convincing? Of what?

            I've got a collection of your race-baits of izageek. Paste some of mine; there aren't any....

            • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 11:34:51 PM

              I'm sure you know that you're entering Nutland, 40.

              I was reading along in BK's post and got to the point where the defense of Quid and Greg started and I was like OH HELL HO, there will be no learning and nice exchange with this person.

              How BK looked right over the lbs. of foul and immature comments by Quid, Greg, etc., Greg's racist "plantation" etc. crap and the way they immaturely run behind posts making the most inane comments was just ridiculous.

              And then to have the NERVE to come at me and try to explain why those idiots felt "insulted" and were calling ME "racist"?

              Nope, I've got no use for that kind of hypocrite!

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/17/2009 12:06:49 AM

                BoricuaBella,

                Unfortunately, NW has allowed itself to become 'Nutland' to those who need such a haven and outlet.

                I agree with most of what you say. And, as a white whose closest 'brush' with racism was to be called an F'ing haole in Hawaii, I cannot say by any means that I can begin to perceive what it must be like to be a person who is partly from a gene pool that is so abused simply because of that. I have said to a few that the revelation of my own 'outrage' over such relatively insignificant bigotry gave me insight that surprised someone who has always tried to 'see through others' eyes'. I can say that even now, so much later, that there is an ember in me that would be rage about if I allowed it. I am not angry... but I could feel rage... strange to me...

                What I am saying is that in this very small way, I have the slightest, meager, perception, appreciation, empathy, for what it must be like to have the perspective you have. Me? If I had to cope with the implied, institutional, then overt racism over being AA, I think I would be an axe murderer. (That's the short version.) I would not have the capacity to maintain the level of 'cool' that you, iza, and my fully or partially AA friends do. I lack the lexicon to express my wonder and admiration over it. 'You folks' are so much better than I for that; I have no idea how you do it.

                We will discuss it more when I have more time.

                But I will say that I too was surprised, shocked would do, by those comments by bkrummel. I will only say that I have never seen anything of the kind from him, never anything near it. As an admirer of his posts, and only an infrequent poster with him, I will ask you to step back from what I can understand that looks to be obvious (and may actually be, but I've seen enough of him to think not) to you, to give him the benefit of the doubt, and to see what plays out.

                I know that is a lot to ask of you. It is just a reflection of the perceptions of him I have developed watching his posts over time. I am certainly willing to change my view, but I hope I will not find that to be something I feel impelled to do.

                Gotta sign off now. Early morning, work still to do, thought I'd pop in. I share your disdain for all the others you have mentioned.

                Aole Pilikia.

                • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/17/2009 7:37:27 PM

                  Actually, 40YearR, I did have a small bit of 'respect' for BK (the negligible amount anyone can have in anonymous cyberspace having not read much of their comments).

                  Right now my opinion is as it was yesterday when I wrote how I'd absolutely NO USE for that kind of hypocrite and that there would be NO learning or nice exchange with BKRummel. However, I really do respect my elders *stick out tongue* and appreciate the spirit and way in which you gave it and will take your advice, step back and consider (maybe in time) seeing him/her differently. *smile*

                  I was planning on using full quotes but no screen names in the article but, now, I will be using screen names - since nobody tells me what the fluck to do. I don't care if participants believe me or not but my word is my bond and I will not take anyone's words out of context nor paraphrase them. They will be included just as they were stated.

                  I really and truly don't mind civil and respectful disagreement free of snide shyt, sarcasm and sly attempts at attacks, Mr. 40. I welcome it as it can be a wonderful learning experience for all and dismantle a lot of walls. Where BK first went wrong was arrogantly getting in the mix to speak for and 'explain' another participant's words - then proceeding with personal attacks on me of "hysterical", "indignant", "insulting" etc. instead of debating my statements or the topic.

                  Where he/she went wrong was trying to tell me what to do ("tone it down", "ignore X, Y or Z") as if he/she was my "massa" or parent. Greg and Paul had began spreading lying rumors and being straight up asswipes, so I was done and totally disgusted when BK overlooked their bullshyt to defend those fools. If he/she had no idea of the crap they'd written and how they'd been running behind my comments making immature and asinine comments, he/she would have done well to have just stayed out of it. And letting Paul and Quid send him/her flip-flopping and apologizing all over the place was just weak. Weak, weak, weeeeeak.

                  (I can't be fazed but the conflict appears to bother him/her. I hope he/she notes how he/she feels sitting her reading someone talk about him/her as if he/she wasn't there and remembers it the next time he/she enters conflict then proceeds to try to get personal).



                  p.s. I have some African blood (like virtually all PRs) but my Mami is ½ Indio and I am not part African American.

                  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/18/2009 12:51:55 AM

                    Hello BorucuaBella,

                    I hope that I do not compress this so much that you take a meaning from it that I do not mean.

                    Bkrummel is an earnest thinker and discusser. There were some posts, or one, that surprised me. My view is that he is a fundamentally good guy. I see him as a good person with whom to discuss and debate. On that level, I think he will engage with you, if that is what you want to do.

                    There are jackals here. Bkrummel is not one in my view. There are at least two. One will pose, but the fabric of it all is lies, distortions, abuse, ridicule, and joyful racism. The butt-buddy is just a follower, but an eager one. They revel in the fight, and they merit being fought back against.

                    There is, according to the customs that are apparent, room for both. Pick your adversaries, and address them at the level they deserve.

                    • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/18/2009 2:17:49 AM

                      40, I know you wrote this to get a reply so I wouldn't want to disappoint the old windbag. Butt-boy? To quote a famous poster up here: "are we projecting," 40? Paul and I have an official "trusty side kick" agreement. Did you miss it? He punishes you with the facts and then his trusty sidekick comes along and cyber smacks you off your chair in that single-wide. Got it? Any questions? Run 40OCD Run.

                      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/18/2009 2:45:11 AM

                        "Run 40OCD Run."

                        Neither lies, harassment, pleas nor wishing will bring that about race-baiting, butt-sucking jackal.

                        • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/18/2009 2:47:31 AM

                          40OCD, I wouldn't want it any other way you dirty no good racist.

                          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/18/2009 7:08:39 PM

                            covert, You simply continue to demonstrate to all what a liar you are when you call me a racist and fail to paste any racist posts of mine. You cannot, because there are none.

                            Lie away. You do my work for me, put your own posts into proper perspective for everyone, when you do that.

                            • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/18/2009 10:54:44 PM

                              40OCD, Check the record. My words are up here like yours. Now, I know, do to your advanced age and all, that you can be a little forgetful. You have made some bad decisions up here at NW, 40, in my opinion. You, for example, don't go out on a limb for some questionable characters on this site, 40. You just keep walking gleefully off the end of the branch. Then, laying there on the ground with your lumps and bruises, you decide to cry racism instead of for help. Bad choices. If you were my kid 40, I would show you a whole new meaning of the words tough love. I hadn't been up here for more than 10 posts and you and others started your racism with me you low-life S.O.B. At that point, I hadn't said or done anything besides telling you my background you miserable creature. All those words are up here 40. You call Paulejb a racist. Unlike me, who will from time to time pull your chain with some controversial remarks, Paul hasn't said one thing to you that was remotely racist. You have hounded and stalked him relentlessly, old man. I had always made it a point in my life to respect my elders, 40, until I met you. Some people will let you slide for things you do, 40. I'm not one of them. The Army taught me not to walk by a mistake without correcting it, 40. You, my friend, are a mistake. I'm just trying to correct it. If you don't like being called a racist, 40, don't call me one. If you decide not to, then I'll overlook yours. Simple as that.

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/18/2009 10:39:40 PM

                    You say a lot about how personal I got with you. Without going into details, I think some of my responses to you were taken personal when I did not mean them that way. I am sorry you took them personal. Also, I found your 07/16/2009 5:54:00 PM post to be a very personal attack on me, especially since it made me appear racist and this post was a reply post where I tried to debate you only on your facts and conclusions.

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/18/2009 9:09:37 PM

                    I am a he. 40YearR told you this already and you know that. Please stop calling me he/she.

                    I am sorry you felt I personally attacked and was arrogant to you. As for entering what was going on between you and Greg, Paul, Quid, I shouldn't have gotten involved in it. I owe this apology to both you and Greg, Paul, Quid equally. However, your suggestion that I was a hypocrite for not condemning Greg, Paul, Quid as racists for their comments I felt put me in the bad position of condemning whatever they said or confirming your comment, thereby damaging my character. I chose to defend my character and end the argument and as a result I acted weakly.

                    "I was planning on using full quotes but no screen names in the article but, now, I will be using screen names - since nobody tells me what the fluck to do."
                    I am not trying to tell you what the "fluck" to do as if I were your parent. I am making strong personal request that I feel necessary regarding you using my name and words in an article that you apparently will publish. I really do not want this argument to be published. If you feel the need to use my words anyways, I strongly request that I be made anonymous with my screen name omitted. You may not like how I request this, but I am not saying this to be an *** to you. I am truly worried about what your article will say about me. Your article is part of why I am bothered by this argument and is honestly a source of great stress. Please do not violate my wishes to make a point that "nobody tells me what the fluck to do". As for your word is your bond, you may be a very trustworthy person but I don't know you that well. Though I will take your word if you promise in someway respect my wishes and at least keep me anonymous in your article. Please leave my screen name and hopefully also my words out of your article.

                • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 2:31:07 AM

                  "But I will say that I too was surprised, shocked would do, by those comments by bkrummel. I will only say that I have never seen anything of the kind from him, never anything near it."

                  I'm disappointed you are shocked (I think you had something much stronger in mind) by my comments. It was not my intention to come off condoning the ridiculous comments of Greg and others. I had not read the horrible stuff Greg said and should not have defended that ***. I, however, read what BorcuaBella said and some of it was rubbing me the wrong way. If you have anything beyond defending Greg that you found truly shocking, let me know and I would be happy to explain or apologize for it to you and BorcuaBella.

                • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/17/2009 12:13:38 AM

                  Night, 40D. You old constipated democrat. Come back tomorrow so you can get some more bruises, ok? Sleep tight.

              • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 2:09:02 AM

                "How BK looked right over the lbs. of foul and immature comments by Quid, Greg, etc."
                Because I wasn't reading all the comments and I know Quid, Greg, Paul, etc can be idiots. The comments here go back for days. I don't need to read and criticize every ridiculous thing those idiots say. Seriously, Greg and Paul are children. Telling them to grow up is a waste of time. If they are saying mean or racists stuff to you, ignore them. Not that you should not be offended, but listening to them accomplishes little good.

                I am sorry you were offended by my defense of Quid, Greg, etc. Many of Greg's comments about you being racist, etc. are highly inappropriate. I see how you were offended by my defense. I in fact now take back what I said about why they called you a racist. I was concerned about you possibly crossing the line and forgot that they were idiots. I should have let their insanity stay between them and you.

                You, unlike the "children", I thought you were someone I could take seriously. I thought you said a few things that crossed the line. I criticize my own side when they do things like that. I really want to have a thoughtful conversation with my side taking the high ground.

              • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 11:39:00 PM

                Poor 40Bella! You are a victim. You poor thing. Terrible how these people have treated you after you treated them so nicely. Your kind words are above reproach. Poor 40Bella.

            • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/16/2009 10:43:36 PM

              As our good friend would say, 40, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 12:14:52 PM

          The concept of states' righs is an important one, and I believe it's an unfortunate thing that the phrase was hijacked by racist elements and that it has been rebranded to mean "racism and unfair treatment of minorities". You don't have to be a vicious racist to believe that the states ought to have more power than they do these days, but unfortunately the strongest desires for states' rights in America still seem to be those of groups in some Southern states that have never been terribly thrilled about the end of slavery in the first place, or thrilled about the associated gains in civil rights either.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/18/2009 2:37:24 PM

            Precisely, which is part of what I was getting at.

            "unfortunately the strongest desires for states' rights in America still seem to be those of groups in some Southern states that have never been terribly thrilled about the end of slavery in the first place, or thrilled about the associated gains in civil rights either"
            Firstly, I don't think such groups are interest in states' rights as much as institutionalized bigotry. I tried to make it clear that I was aware of and despised that sort of thing. An interesting thing occurred to me when you said this that there has been a rather weak desire for states' rights outside of such bigotry in spite of the massive growth of the federal government powers over the state governments. This growth should be concerning regardless of one's political views.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/16/2009 9:44:44 PM

          States rights refers to the 10th Amendment which determines that certain things are the role of the states and not at all the role of the federal government, nothing more. Unfortunately some may have used states rights to justify their bigotry or used "states rights" becoming code for things that aren't states rights. But one of my key points is that these people do not understand and have abused "states rights". This is a tragedy that does great damage to both equal rights and to important Constitutional ideas. It is a tragedy that you think states rights as "the clarion call of slavers" and not the Constitutional limits on federal government power that is really is. I think these bigots need kicked out of the Republican Party for doing this damage and wrote so before.

          I am disturbed that you feel "any politician (i.e. Goldwater) that opposed the enacting of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts were devoid of humanity and people I'd never want to share airspace with." Legalities matter a great deal. I expect my leaders to do what the law requires, even if it means opposing a good policy that I strongly agree with. That is their job, their oath. Too often people make the mistake of judging our leaders (esp the courts) based on whether they agree with the outcome and ignoring important legalities and technicalities that drove the final decision. They do great damage to the Constitution by putting their political agenda first. I fear you have made this mistake with Goldwater. To avoid this mistake, I put respect for the law and competent leadership above all else in politics. We must have equal rights for all, but let's do so the right and lawful way.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 07/16/2009 11:45:10 PM

            Hello BK,

            I continue to admire your complete commitment to at least try to remain objective and fair-minded, and to engage in civil discourse.

            I don't have time to get into detail or to address all of your specifics or all of my thoughts. I will just share with you that I was a very interested young person during those times. I came from very stridently, committed racial family and social circumstances.

            It wasn't 'polite' to disagree then. But I felt, and thought, then, and I much more firmly believe now, that the whole 'states rights' 'thing' then was just the strategy employed to preserve racial biases and discriminatory practices. It was part and parcel and concurrent with 'separate but equal' and 'you can't legislate love'.

            I consider 'arguments' that the federal government lacks the capacity to ban racial discrimination in schools to be sophistry in its purest form. State's rights do not reach so far as to enable institutional discrimination. Frankly, to my eye, having been steeped in all the 'political' jingoism of the time, it in fact was racial bigotry, and a more fundamental desire to continue historical discriminatory practices.

            A very good friend of mine recently reminded me of 'finding the good' in all others. Certainly, there is some good in all. But, I must say that what I saw then was 'rationalized' racism and a desire to continue racial domination. It also was accompanied with frequent laments that we didn't 'just ship them all back.' I do believe that the 'good' of Goldwater in supporting any antidiscrimination measures was far outweighed by his, when it all gets boiled down to its practical effects, Goldwater maintained this 'states rights' position on discrimination more for 'political' purposes than some academic 'Constitutional ethic' about states rights; the alternative to me on the subject leans toward personal preferences on the subject as the more likely explanation than any other.

            Brown v. Board of Education was necessary due to reality. The voting rights act was necessary due to reality. Both were implementation of our Constitutional rights, the rights of everyone, and refutations of the insistence of racists that they be free to deny, by various means, Constitutional rights, full citizenship, to those they wanted to deny them.

            That's my 'piece' on that notion. I'm mean nothing negative toward you in saying this.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/17/2009 3:45:40 AM

              "But I felt, and thought, then, and I much more firmly believe now, that the whole 'states rights' 'thing' then was just the strategy employed to preserve racial biases and discriminatory practices."
              This is possible. States rights was certainly used this way. The whole civil rights area was before my time and I may have to take your word on this. I don't condone such an interpretation of states rights and have said so.

              I should note I was taught states rights in government class to mean the 10th amendment and limits on government I described. Such a concept dates back to the founding of the country far before civil rights.

              One issue seems to be (the main issue I raised) is how Goldwater viewed civil rights and states rights. Keep in mind my initial point was about whether Goldwater was racist. Goldwater supported prior civil rights acts, just not the 1964 one, so I think it is fair to say that Goldwater supported civil rights to a point. Based on Goldwater's writings it is suggested that he supported civil rights except when it conflicted with states rights. Now whether Goldwater meant this as I suggest or was doing this for political purposes as you suggest is certainly debatable. Admittedly neither you nor I know the mind of Barry Goldwater. Moreover, I have noted that the concept of states rights was twisted and Goldwater's stances have had something to do with this.

              Now I don't support Goldwater's view of Brown v Board or the Civil Rights Act. I initially was going to clearly state this but for some reason omitted it. Brown v Board and the Civil Rights Act were needed. They were legal protection and enforcement for rights that already in the Constitution. I agree totally what you say about them.

              I am glad for your thoughts. I know you mean nothing negative by it and really had no reason to say so. If BoricuaBella approached what I said this way rather than saying Reagan was a "dirty racist" and Goldwater was "devoid of humanity", my response would have been much different. Statement like these and some other things BoricuaBella said are contrary to the sort of fair-minded discourse I am committed to (let's just leave it at that).

          • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/16/2009 11:00:24 PM

            Oh so, basically, what you are saying (re: "states rights") is that you are no different than the rest and would put 'constitutional legalities' over stopping the lynching and terrorizing of people to keep them from voting! Despicable!

            And I "ought to be trying to convince" people here? Oh, really?! I think I wrote earlier that if the Republican party stayed the same and continued to lose that this would be fine by me. Kissing white ass is something I've never done and something minorities will NEVER DO and I should make it clear - in no uncertain terms - that I've absolutely no desire to convince anyone of anything and couldn't care less if a reader was turned off or not. See it has been my experience that individuals will see, feel and make the connection or they won't.

            I don't give a damn about LOSERS like Greg, Quid or Paule and I just looooove how you called me "insulting" as you looked right over the infantile comments of those 3 idiots, but I'm not surprised. You whites do stick together, doncha'? *joke*

            I don't need you to explain "states rights", law or anything and, as you're not my parent, keep your advice on how I 'should' communicate. But the next time you want to call something out, get it right. Go back and read all my comments then note that the ONLY time I got snarky with people was AFTER they first attempted to talk *** to me.

            One of the bigger piles stated was 'although Reagan applied the racist southern strategy, Reagan was not a racist'. Do you have any idea how Asians, Latinos, African Americans and some whites would look side-ways at you upon hearing such colossal apologist shyt like that? No, you don't, because you're the type that wants your sensibilities respected yet can't seem to get out of yourself to respect others'.

            Your crap about me failing to "address white people's concerns" is ridiculous. First of all, it is not my (or any minority's) job or mission in life to appease whites, address their concerns or make them feel comfortable. Secondly, when I tried to get to the root of Bahanson's angst, you took it upon yourself to answer for Bahanson that he "just wanted white people like him to have the same opportunities as black people." It was more than appropriate to ask for clarification on exactly which "opportunities" these were if anyone is to understand that POV. And to label a reasonable and logical question as a "typical indignant response" was absurd and cowardly. It amounted to nothing more than you giving an angry retort due to having no answers to the question. But, consider. Maybe if asked to provide examples - and one finds they can't provide any - is the moment a connection is made that one is operating on assumptions and scapegoating and blaming another individual or group for their own personal issues and insecurities.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/16/2009 9:52:07 PM

            I should clarify that it the tragedy that you think states rights as "the clarion call of slavers" is a tragedy created by those who abused the concept of states rights and lead you to justifiably think this. It is not your fault that others have abused and twisted states rights.

        • Posted By: Quid Pro Quo @ 07/16/2009 6:37:49 PM

          "I began to wonder if you were any different than Quid, Greg etc. and was no longer going to engage you directly due to that quip about "hysterics".

           

          What a freakin' laugh! BK might surprise me, but I don't think anyone here is waiting around with baited breath to see if a moron like yourself will engage us 'directly'. You can quip all you want telling others to get "flucked", but you start whining and playing the victim as usual if anyone delivers a 'quip' in your direction.

           

          I will acknowledge that you are amusing and good for a "elitist" chuckle though.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 12:17:36 PM

    Since this discussion seems to have been threadjacked by one on race, I'll offer up an interesting quote from John Wayne, who is a cultural touchstone for a great number of conservative Americans:

    "I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.... The academic community has developed certain tests that determine whether the blacks are sufficiently equipped scholastically.... I don't feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves. Now I'm not condoning slavery. It's just a fact of life, like the kid who gets infantile paralysis and can't play football like the rest of us."

    I'm rather shocked. But it's a clue as to the nature and persistence of some of these attitudes. Wayne's influence runs deep in American conservative culture.

    • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/19/2009 2:35:54 AM

      What this 'wonderful' American had to say about Native Americans:

      "I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them if that's what you're asking. Our so called stealing of this country was just a question of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. . . I'm quite sure that the concept of a government-run reservation. . . seems to be what the socialists are working for now - to have everyone cared for from cradle to grave. . . But you can't whine and bellyache 'cause somebody else got a break and you didn't, like those Indians are. We'll all be on a reservation soon if the socialists keep subsidizing groups like them with our tax money." - Playboy Magazine, Volume 18 Issue #5, "John Wayne: The Playboy Interview", Richard Warren Lewis, Pg. 78, May 1971

      I wonder how Wayne is enjoying the barbeque!

    • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/19/2009 12:57:43 AM

      *sarcasm* If people just ceased speaking of racism, it'll all just go away. And, of course, racial tensions continue merely because people tell the truth or call out racism and certainly not because some people continue to be racist and intolerant and operate out of hate and under faulty stereotypes, assumptions etc.

      I saw the bigger picture regarding the John Wayne quote and the relevance in relation to this whole subject. There is no way to deny that these kinds of mindsets were the building blocks in the rise of the modern conservative movement. and still persist. Trying to excuse them simply because 'that was the way things were back then' will never work (and I doubt it will fly with the Almighty). It's about where you were, were you are, and where you're going and the opening article on Sarah Palin was discussing her future in politics or the GOP and, naturally, progressed to the Republican party's future.

      The "That was 40 years ago!" argument is too simple-minded for words and when it comes to the GOP I think Willy Shake said it best with ". . .what's past is prologue. . ." (Shakespeare, Tempest). The end of that quote makes it clear that people have the power to determine what tomorrow will bring but, for damn sure, finding a path to a more positive future can not be done with lies and avoidance and without honestly and truthfully dealing with and acknowledging the past and where it has currently lead, then determining the next direction to take.

      In the 40s the GOP's ranks grew when southern Democrats (dixierats, oops, I meant dixiecrats) began leaving that party in response to Truman's efforts to end racial segregation. In the 50s the GOP's ranks swelled again when loads of southern politicians (including Bill Clinton's "mentor" William Fulbright) signed the "southern manifesto" in angry response to the Brown vs. Board decision and joined in opposition to the Dem's proposed civil and voting rights legislation. In the 60s and 70s the GOP was in full swing employing their "southern strategy" and intentional race-baiting to get the votes of racist/prejudiced whites. In the 80s the GOP's Reagan - in addition to repeating his racially polarizing hyperbolic bullshyt about some 'welfare queen from the south side of Chicago' - said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 was "humiliating to the south" (http://osdir.com/ml/macosx.nutters.general/2004-06/msg00114.html).

      • Posted By: BoricuaBella @ 07/19/2009 1:01:40 AM

        I place Democrats like Al Gore, Sr., William Fulbright, Robert Byrd (all of whom voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act) in the same 'devoid of humanity' box as I do Goldwater, Reagan etc., but in the late 80s the GOP's Bush I kept up the race-baiting with the "Willie Horton" ad. In the 90s GOP wing-nuts stirred up angry racial backlash support for welfare reform during Clinton's presidency via erroneously painting the typical recipient as a lazy unmarried AA female with 3-4 out-of-wedlock children . . . which brings us to the new millennium and what do people of color witness from the GOP side in 2008 and 2009?

        Despicable supporters at GOP rallies who've taught their children to hate and refer to blacks as "monkeys" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagD-4AH4Vc). Intolerant supporters that offended Muslim McCain supporters in their faces to the point that a couple mentioned they'd changed their minds about voting for McCain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9y78WNllao&feature=related). Top Republican leaders perpetuating racism and mailing out 'Magic Negro' CDs, and the pleasure of hearing Pat Buchanan's vile ass mischaracterize Judge Sotomayor - an uber-intelligent Latina that graduated summa *** laude from Princeton (my alma mater) and ran the Yale Law Journal - as "not that intelligent" and an "Affirmative Action pick."

        Maureen Down described them as a "gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction" *giggle* but out the mouths of top leaders in the GOP comes drivel that speaks to their insecurities and fears over their lessening power and realization that their pool of voters is shrinking and this country has changed.

        You'd think Sotomayor was solely responsible for discriminating against Ricci et al and ruining their lives - the way some conReps speak of it - when the case was decided by a 3-member panel that upheld a prior decision of a lower court, and 4 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AGREED WITH SOTOMAYOR AND THE OTHERS. So are those 4 Supreme Court justices also "anti-white"?

        Regarding the Ricci case, I'm no attorney yet don't feel the exam should have been thrown out simply because no minorities passed. By the same token, I agree with Ginsburg that Ricci et al had no right to a promotion and no one was promoted in preference to them. IMO all the men taking the exam should have been 'on it' if they wanted to be promoted and for those who didn't study enough to ace it, oh well. I live by the rules my parents taught my siblings and myself: "Stay focused, stay on your game, study harder and be 3 times as smart." There was no need for the NAACP to get in the mix and go yapping, however, in the scope I know for a fact that this case is but one in comparison to the many CURRENT proven cases of racial discrimination against minorities that have netted millions in judgments.

    • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/18/2009 12:39:47 PM

      Vig (A.K.A. Pilgrim:),

       

      John Wayne's headstone reads: "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learnt something from yesterday."

      Everybody says things and has beliefs that change and are refined over the course of their lifes. If people didn't change, Senator Byrd (D) would still be a member of the KKK, right? I think you'll find that The Duke changed over his life and would be embarrassed by those words. You are wrong on your assumption that those words are somehow part of the conservative culture. Have a great Saturday, Vig. Get out there and smell the roses, Pilgrim. Actually, go buy a DVD- I highly recommend "The Shootist" :>) 

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 3:48:37 PM

        It seems perhaps that's the quote we ought to remember, then.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 3:45:38 PM

        As long as those attitudes have indeed changed. I absolutely recognize that it was almost forty years ago. I'm glad to hear that things are indeed moving forward.

    • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 07/18/2009 1:36:05 PM

      Vigilance, you admit to Wayne being dead for 20 years and that he made these comments almost 40 years ago. People have sought change and indeed much has changed for the better since that time. Yes, Wayne was a fine actor, however to insinuate that his ideas and influency about white supremacy running deep in conservative culture is simply inaccurate and wrong. It is certainly not representative of my views (and none of the conservatives that I know) and never has been.

      Also, you admitted that some people today aren't even aware of Wayne. Your comment here only serves to anger a whole generation of people that didn't even know he said that all those years ago. Is that your intention, to stir up and perpetuate their anger? That only serves to keep racism alive. I'm shocked that you, who seems to hate racism, would do that.

      In case you haven't noticed, people in America are trying to let racism die. i.e., we have elected our first black president. Your comment and attitude here only serves to hinder the effort. Racism will truly die when all people are treated as individuals, and not members of a given race.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 3:48:11 PM

        I was just surprised, Shanshayla. I'm glad to hear that the sins of the past won't be visited on the present day. To the extent that my post did that, I apologize for it. I do indeed believe people should not be judged by the sins of the past.

        It happens on both sides. There are many in conservative America today who'd like to lay the sins of Clinton, Carter and Johnson at Obama's feet. There are many liberals who will be blaming Reagan and Bush for decades to come. I would hope we can all move forward and put down the past, so if you're telling me that Wayne's attitudes are not representative of modern conservatism, I'm overjoyed and quite willing to believe you.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 07/18/2009 12:26:58 PM

      "who is a cultural touchstone"

      Or I suppose a better phrasing is "was", to clear up any confusion to people who aren't as familiar with him anymore. Obviously I'm well aware he's been dead for some time (since 1979). His films live on, however, and still represent some of the more reverently viewed cinema of an era by conservative America, probably akin to the way many of Lucas' and Spielberg's films are held in high regard by liberal Americans today.

      The quote is from an interview with Playboy in 1971.

  • Posted By: pourichard @ 07/18/2009 7:04:02 PM

    I would respond to Bill O'Reilly at his webpage but need to pay for the premioum membership. So here it is: Bill, you are full of XXIT!

  • Posted By: carleens @ 07/18/2009 6:20:11 PM

    To Newsweek & Rick,
    Thank you for this great article. Once upon a time I was a liberal woman, and after decades of supporting the Democratic Party. I started connecting the dots due to articles like this.
    One day the light bulb went off in my head and I said to myself, since I hear sooooo many liberals talking trash about Rush. I need to find out for myself. Well that is what I did, and guess what, everything Rush said made sense.
    Liberal writers like you helped expose me to conservative thought. This is why I have to thank you. You have turned many people I know like me to become CONSERVATIVE. A reality you do not want to HEAR.
    Newsweek, I was a big fan of your magazine. However, this was the last straw for me. I will never purchase another of your magazines. I have shared this article with many other people (Democrats, Republican, & Independents) and they ALL feel the same way.
    Thanks again for help turning me to CONSERVATISM,
    Carleen Steinberg

  • Posted By: gregcovert @ 07/18/2009 5:22:33 PM

    I'd take Sarah Palin over the racist Barbara Boxer any day of the week. Unlike the other day when the General gave her a free pass (Call me Senator not Ma'am), this fine person of color didn't do the same. The only place I found it was Rush and Fox. Go figure! She is a skunk and a disgrace.!



    http://www.breitbart.tv/god-awful-black-chamber-of-commerce-ceo-rips-sen-boxer-for-condescending-racial-remarks/

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/18/2009 8:00:48 AM

    Wow, 40yr Stalker it back, and as always, accusing everyone else of racism. Of course, this is just a lame attempt to divert attention from the fact that he is a misogynist, who harasses and stalks women.

    So Ken, oops, I mean 40 yr, what's up? What fantasy job are you doing now? Lawyer, bank president, or are you a super-hero these days?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse