That is the point of this whole discussion. Matthews accused the Dems of anti-Italian bias. Do you even read these stories before you comment on them?

I certainly do. Did you even read my post? Claims such as Matthews’ are made all the time…a vague reference, statement, or image is called out as racist, without any sort of overtly racist statement. If Matthews believes this was racial intent, and Kos disagrees, that does not “debunk” anything…it is just a different opinion. You claim Kos “debunks” Matthew’s claim by searching the document for the word “Italian” and not finding it. You’ve got to be kidding me. What if the document was about a judge from South Carolina, and the first point made was about his cotton plantation, and reference was made to how his family became wealthy during the late 1700’s. What word would I have to search for to show that there was a racially-motivated intent in the presentation of those facts? Note that I’m not claiming that such a document or such a word-search would prove anything one way or another…which is my point.

In my post above yours, I almost mentioned Willie Horton. Do you remember, or have you heard of, that ad from Bush v. Dukakis, featuring a criminal who was released from prison under Dukakis’ watch? He was a violent criminal who had commited another crime after release. The ad only showed his picture, and didn’t even say anything about him. And…he was black. And guess what: the ad was racist, according to legions of Democrats. There may or may not have been racial intent, but there no overtly racist statements, and indeed all they did was SHOW HIS PICTURE! Nontheless, the Dems made an effective charge of racism (effective in that the charge was in the headlines for months.) In that way, it was bad politics. I’ve heard even Republicans in the years since STILL using it as an example of bad politics.

So, Kos presented a counter-argument, but debunked nothing. In order to debunk it, he would have to prove that there was no racial intent, which is just about impossible to prove one way or the other. Just showing that there were no overtly racist statements (or even references) just doesn’t cut it in politics.

Oh, and one last, minor point: if Matthews was right, the claim would not necessarily be one of anti-Italian bias by Democrats, but of playing to people with an anti-Italian bias.

And that  leader of an Italian-American organization who demanded an apology from Drudge was Scalito s clerk, for crying out loud! One right-wing hack covering up for another.

You may have misinterpreted me. I mentioned that “Scalito” complaint because I thought it was a good example of how some people can draw racial inferences from the most idiotic things…showing that one can be very obtuse and still reach people with a racially-tinged message. As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t be difficult at all to find reports of Italian-Americans taking offense at having Italian mobsters in movies, or even just mentioning mobsters in connection with a real Italian…just like this Democratic memo. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

“Matthews thinks mention of that trial was a jab at Alito s ethnicity”

That is exactly the point. That is the point of this whole discussion. Matthews accused the Dems of anti-Italian bias. Do you even read these stories before you comment on them?

And that “leader of an Italian-American organization” who demanded an apology from Drudge was Scalito’s clerk, for crying out loud! One right-wing hack covering up for another.

Frameone: Well, I thought that moonbat reference was a little out of character for you. I thought you maybe had an evil twin.

Did I say moonbat? I meant wingnut. Apologies to all my fellow moonbats.

It s not the memo that s in question, it s Drudge/Matthews claim that it contained racist statements.

Matthews said this:  …i m sitting here holding in my hands a disgusting document, put out not for attribution. The democrats are circulating it. It s a complaint sheet against judge alito s nomination. The first thing they nail is he failed to win a mob conviction in 1988. They nail him on not putting italian mobsters in jail. Why would they bring this up? This is either a very bad coincidence or very bad politics. Either way it will hurt them. This document, not abortion rights, not civil rights but that he failed to nail some mobsters in 1988. This is the top of their list. Amazingly bad politics.

Now let me apply Kos’ logic: search the quote for the word “racist.” Come up with anything? No, neither did I. I have just debunked your claim that the claim was debunked.

Matthews made a judgment of intent about which you and Kos apparently disagree. Forming your own counter-opinion about intent does not “debunk” the original claim. That’s why virtually all unprovable claims of intent are, in my opinion, worthless.

Matthews thinks mention of that trial was a jab at Alito’s ethnicity. Kos disagrees. But the claim can’t be debunked…it can only be disagreed with.

At any rate, Matthews may be demonstrably correct in calling it bad politics, since it’s all about perception. Drudge had a story today about the leader of an Italian American organization who demanded an apology from someone who had used the name “Scalito” to describe Alito. That’s a great example of how people can interpret things–including this Democratic document–to claim offense. To tell you the truth, I didn’t even know that Italian heritage was considered an ethnicity until mid-morning today, but apprently other people feel differently.

But who can tell these days what will send a moonbat flying off into the rafters?

Short version: “And, as it turned out, the “disgusting” memo smearing Alito as Italian American didn’t contain any such attack — the attack was completely fabricated, by a Republican pushing the smear to Drudge, where it was picked up by every newsman in Washington fool enough to use Drudge as a source. By which to say, Chris Matthews.”

Then I had to go out (someone took down the “No Blacks allowed” sign from the front of my Country Club, and we had a meeting of the “Skull and Bones” Committee to decide what to do about it. We voted on firing the Paraguayan landscaper.)

When I returned to my mansion (Section 8 helps me pay the mortgage), I saw that Jay C had taken you all to school, so I didn’t need to comment, after all.

Ain’t it great to be white in America?

Alito has credentials, to be sure, but was he chosen because he was the best candidate for the supreme court or because the White House saw political advantage in throwing red meat to the base, getting the liberals yapping at something other than Libby, and putting them in a position to play the ethnic card against anyone who criticized him? That kind of affirmative action does the country no good whatsoever.

I’m curious about that memo. I haven’t seen anyone credit it to a specific source, which is suspicious. If it is genuine and not a Rove plant, it’s pretty stupid. I never would have led with that mafia case for whatever reason: it’s like serving up a moonball to the wingnuts.

The nomination is troubling in that 1) it s liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation s rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues.

Then you get to the really good part. That was the sizzle, here’s the steak:

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

There you have it.

The “lack of diversity” argument is so bogus it isn’t even funny. Had Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman, the same people would not be hailing Bush’s choice to help make the Supreme Court “look like America.”

That sounds like a reasonable counter argument to Matthews.

I’d heard that, but thought it had been debunked over at LGF.

[the obligatory] I’d hardly call that debunking. He rejected Matthews’ reasoning, but in no way did he show that the document was fake or even that Matthews’ analysis was false. What Kos presented was a counter argument, not a debunking.

To carry on with a theme from Kos, nowhere in Matthews’ remark did he say that the document used the word “Italian.” He simply suggested that the point–the FIRST POINT–in the document about failing to win a conviction against a couple of mobsters was race baiting. Though I don’t think it’s a particularly effective example of race baiting, I tend to agree with Matthews. Perhaps you could disuade me if you could explain why, in a document designed to counter the nomination of a judge to the Supreme Court, the very first point listed referred to a case 17 years ago in which the judge failed to win a conviction. What? Is he expected to win every case? And is every loss grounds for rejection of future nominations? And what about the likelihood that associates of the two defendents vowed to make his family sleep with the fishes?