Conservatives cannot help themselves. They try, time and time again, to excuse themselves from their movement’s racist past. They try to deny that the foundation of the current Republican party came about as segregationist racists were turned out of the newly progressive Democratic party in the wake of the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies.
Conservatives wonder why Americans of all stripes idealogically and racially don’t buy their protestations that they aren’t racist. But it is because of the behavior – in this instance exhbited by The Weekly Standard – that constantly denigrates anyone who isn’t a rich white Christian male. The right looks down their nose at anyone who they consider “different” and wonders why the perception of them is so at odds with the world they’ve built up in their own minds.
It wasn’t enough for the Weekly Standard to speak about their disagreement with Ned Lamont, his supporters or even the controversial politics practiced by Al Sharpton (who I happen to disagree with). No, the Weekly Standard, said by some to be the favored political journal of the White House and a major player in conservative politics via editor-in-chief William Kristol (former Dan Quayle chief of staff) – chose to depict the African-American Sharpton as just another white gloved chaueffeur, subserviently ferrying around his white “massa” Ned Lamont.
What the hell is wrong with these people? It shows the lack of moral compass they’ve exhibited for years now, and displays that it is so ingrained in their system and the world they live in that there’s nothing apparently negative about depicting a black person – even one like Sharpton – as just a modern day Step N Fetchit.
Did you happen to catch the show on the History Channel yesterday about the rise of the KKK? Seems they were very influential with candidates who had R’s after their names in the ’20s and ’30s.
Yes, I did actually watch it. Funny, that, eh?
I found it very interesting that they relied so heavily on what we today call “traditional family values” and the head of the organization was jailed for life for rape and kidnapping. Kind of ironic and sad that not much has changed.
I don’t think racism is soley a Republican thing. It is a human thing and therefore there is some in both parties.
However, you calling all Republicans racist because of the cover of Bill Kristol’s magazine is certainly stereotyping.
Lieberman looks outside state for help with independent run
When U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded Tuesday’s Democratic primary to businessman Ned Lamont and ann
Hmm- maybe I need to look back and see how strangely silent you were when your soulmate Jane put up that picture of Joe in blackface next to your boy Bill. But I know- you can find some way to justify that stupidity.
(Does that make all liberals racist, too?)
And of course Harry Belafonte referring to Colin Powell as a “house slave” in the Bush administration didn’t carry a whiff of racism with it, did it?
Or Howard Dean’s comment that the only blacks allowed in a room with Republicans would be waiters and busboys. Nope, not a bit of stereotyping there.
I think I’ll go listen again to Neil Rogers’s “Kiss A Nigger Good Morning.” That should be penance enough for any of the racist wrongs that I might have committed as a conservative:
“Condoleezza, Condoleezza, what you be doin’?
That neo-facist black-haired token schwartza dog.
“Is you there ’cause you a high-toned public Negro?
Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart?
Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza?
Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars.
“Georgie junior says he trusts you, Condoleezza.
Who said our (unintelligible) off the greedy oil woes.
But then he make you clean all the White House bathrooms.
The public sink, the toilet and let’s scrub the floors.”
Gosh, if we could all be just as compassionate as liberals.
Hmm- maybe I need to look back and see how strangely silent you were when your soulmate Jane put up that picture of Joe in blackface next to your boy Bill. But I know- you can find some way to justify that stupidity.
(Does that make all liberals racist, too?)
That’s your best defense? “Other people do it too.”? Sad. Just plain sad.
Are Republicans actually so stupid (and/or bigoted) that they can’t tell satires on racism from racism? Don’t answer that. Instead, one wonders whether they are born that way, achieve it, or have it thrust upon them. I favor the second, in deference to their love of rugged independence, but it would be SO much work.
and now George Allen is using the term “Macaca” to denigrate an Indian supporter of Webb. the racism and their fascination with fascist models is very close to the surface.
That’s supposed to be Al Sharpton on the cover? I thought it was supposed to be Steven Spielberg. But then I think the Lamont character looks like Tony Blair. Maybe Republicans aren’t bigots; maybe they just hire bad illustrators. Nah, sorry, there’s too much evidence of the former.
Hey, Oliver Willis-
I sang the praises of this post at FDL tonight. Thought you might like to know.
Thanks for spotting this cover and treating it with all of the contempt and disgust that it so richly deserves.
TRex
Oliver, for all that Sharpton did for Lamont, Lamont should be driving Sharpton. That’s how you know that the Weekly Standard is gonna screw up the article.
In their minds its enough they are no longer lynching anybody.
Zyhon
“That’s your best defense? “Other people do it too.”? Sad. Just plain sad.”
Uhh, did you actually read what OW said. His entire point was to single out Republicans and conservatives. Mike demonstrated several incidents of obnoxious racism on the left. Free advice: Think first, engage keyboard second.
Belafonte refering to a historical role of slaves that had been broken so badly they were deemed harmless and therefore allowed into the house, thus the term “house slaves’ is not racism its a statement on the role Powell was playing in the Bush administraion.
=======
Dean pointing out that the Centuries long tradition of employing blacks ONLY as servants isn’t racism. Its POINTING OUT RACISM.
==================
Squealing that pointing out racist behavior is just another form of racism is so typical of terrified little bigots. It would be funny if wasn’t so craven.
Racists
This is the magazine that tells us what wars to fight?…
Have you ever seen Harry Belafonte?
Seems pretty clear… if Dean’s “house slave” comment is simply an innocent historical reference to how Powell was acting, then so is the Standard’s “driver” reference. If one is intolerable, than the other is intolerable too. There can be no different standard applied just because one takes a side.
Okay, I might regret this, but I absolutely and categorically refuse to believe that you are so dense you can’t tell the difference between someone being racist and someone accusing someone else of being racist.
Your mixing the quotes.
And still you wallow in the cowards lament “Pointing out racist behavior is the same as perpetuating racist behavior.
Anything to avoid looking in a mirror?
The cover is using Racist icongraphy to insult Rev. Sharpton. Only a terrified little bigot could possibly weasel that into a “historical reference.”
who’s the woman in that illustration supposed to be? hillary? even though she supported joe initially in the primary.
guess they just can’t restrain themselves from trying to take a swipe at her, even though she’s held in rahter low esteem among the move on and dkos crowd they appear to be disparaging.
morans.
What? Depicting Al Sharpton as a chaueffeur is now racist?
Get a freaking life people. Really. The phony outrage is just absurd.
Zeke, that’s Mother Sheehan.
Two weeks ago Joe wanted Shapton’s endorsement – now he attacks Al’s “wing” of the party.
So quickly Loserman forgets his past:
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8152/joeandalmv0.jpg
owlbear -
with the exception of the aforementioned george allen of course, who had a miniature noose hanging from a ficus tree in his office.
It isn’t as racist as purging non-felon black voters from Florida who share the surnames of felons, of course.
Or for that matter,publicly using a racial slur against someone from India.
cindy sheehan?
no, it’s clearly not. look at it again. in any case, cindy sheehan has even less to do with the CT-sen race than hillary.
“if Dean’s “house slave” comment is simply an innocent historical reference to how Powell was acting, then so is the Standard’s “driver” reference. If one is intolerable, than the other is intolerable too. There can be no different standard applied just because one takes a side.”
There is a difference, youre just far too thick-headed to realize it.
Lets try it again.
When Howard Dean stands in front of a crowd of black people, and points out how they might be treated by the other party, that is _not_ racism. It is clearly talking to people about issues that concern THEM. How can you be so thick to not realize that?
I’ll bet you do realize it, though, you’re just perobably one of those paid rabble-rousers. How much you gettin per beligerant post? $0.25?
When a black man points out that Colin Powell’s subserviant role in the Bush Admin is similar to that of a “house slave”, that is _not_ racism. It’s pointing out how a man who used to stand up for progressive values has been silenced and is now deemed harmless by the Bush Criminals.
Cindy Sheehan represents the kind of left wing anti-war faction like Sharpton, Moveon.org and Kos that have supported Lamont.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see how putting Hillary Clinton in there makes any sense.
What? Depicting Al Sharpton as a chaueffeur is now racist?
Get a freaking life people. Really. The phony outrage is just absurd.
Posted by: Jay | Aug 15, 2006 12:31:09 PM
======================
Jay, how do you come to the conclusion that Rev. Sharpton is being portrayed as a chauffeur? What visual clues lead you to that judgement?
Are you even aware of them?
Jay, how do you come to the conclusion that Rev. Sharpton is being portrayed as a chauffeur?
Isn’t that what Oliver said he’s being portrayed as?
yes jay, that was my entire point, that putting hillary in there doesn’t make any sense. yet they did it anyway, because they can’t help themselves, as oliver says.
can you point me to any involvement by sheehan in the CT primary? i didn’t think so.
and while the likenesses on that cover are poor, lamont and sharpton are recognizable once you figure that’s who they are. the woman is clearly not sheehan. the hair and cheekbones are all wrong. so given the poor likenesses of the other two figures, it could be hillary. it could be someone else, like, oh lamont’s mother i guess. that’s why i asked if it were hillary. anyone has better ideas, shoot, but sheehan it ain’t.
Cute dodge.
Do you agree with Oliver’s assesment?
Looks like he ran off. Ah, well.
Oliver, sorry about the mess.
Maybe it’s an analogy that Sharpton is driving the party. Poor choice of caricature, though.
can you point me to any involvement by sheehan in the CT primary? i didn’t think so.
No, but when the cover says “The Ned Lamont Democrats”, it makes more sense that it is Sheehan. She became a heroine of the anti-war left. That makes sense.
Cute dodge.
Do you agree with Oliver’s assesment?
Uh, no. Which is why I made the “get a life” wisecrack.
There’s always motivation behind what Sharpton does. He didn’t go out there and fully support Ned Lamont because he wanted to do right by the Democratic Party. Sharpton’s agenda has ALWAYS been about what’s best for Sharpton. And if that means carrying water for Lamont in the CT primary, or in this caricature, driving him, then that is what Sharpton will do.
However, the claim that this is racist imagery is absurd.
Jay, for once I agree with out.
Stupid, yes. Racist, not so much.
Sorry, that should be “with you”
Every so often, con outlets remind their readers who they are, that no matter what they “say” about house cons like Condi Rice and Michael Steele, that blacks will always be 2nd class in the con party.
Next week: Drawing of Jesse Jackson eating watermelon on the cover of the National Review. Crazy Jay will say “What? Depicting Jesse Jackson eating watermelon is racist now?”
Cons just don’t get it. And because of that, they will continue to struggle to get 5% of the black vote.
Uhh, did you actually read what OW said. His entire point was to single out Republicans and conservatives. Mike demonstrated several incidents of obnoxious racism on the left. Free advice: Think first, engage keyboard second.
Not really. I don’t come here for Oliver’s post. I come here for the comments section specifically. That’s why I usually post in response to others.
It’s a disingenous argument that Mike made. To believe it, you would have to believe that the Weekly Neocon didn’t know that portraying a black man in a chauffeur cap was a loaded statement. This “gee, we didn’t know” stuff is a lie coming from the party that uses every tool to bait minorities.
This “you’re the real racist because you noticed” garbage is fraudulent and needs to be called out at every time.
Next week: Drawing of Jesse Jackson eating watermelon on the cover of the National Review. Crazy Jay will say “What? Depicting Jesse Jackson eating watermelon is racist now?”
To be fair, watermelon is delicious.
And when we question the cover, cons will accuse us of being “objectively anti-watermelon”.
So Sharpton isn’t being drawn to look like a chaueffer because Al Sharpton is always looking out for Al Sharpton and therefore Al Sharpton driving the Lamont campaign is what was meant by drawing Al Sharpton as a Stepnfetch.
Wow Jay, that was mighty George Allen of you.
I can’t believe people try to argue that Red and Blue are equally racist because “it is a human thing”.
Sorry, kids, the modern GOP arose because the Dems purged racists from their lists in the mid-sixties. All the racsists went to the GOP and they based their most successful campaigns precisely on racism (see “Southern Strategy”). It’s the racism party. It’s the KKK party. It’s the old-south confederate recidivist party. That’s just what it is. Who’s David Duke?
Every so often, con outlets remind their readers who they are, that no matter what they “say” about house cons like Condi Rice and Michael Steele, that blacks will always be 2nd class in the con party.
It kills me when somebody says something as racist as “house cons like Condi Rice and Michael Steele” which translates to nothing more than “house niggers like Condi Rice and Michael Steele” and then proceeds to croak about racism.
You just don’t get it. Stop taking the side of racists and maybe your party won’t be considered racist.
Save your diatribe about your jackass friends who are racist and Democrats for someone who cares.
Factcheck, you made a racist comment. In your “house cons” comment, you replaced “niggers” with “cons.” That’s it. Don’t go blubbering about racism when you’re engaging in it yourself.
How do you know I replaced the “n-word” with “cons” unless you’re racist yourself?
(turning the tables)
How do you know I replaced the “n-word” with “cons” unless you’re racist yourself?
Oh I see. In order for me not to be a racist, I have to be unaware of the term “house nigger” because only somebody who is racist would know about it?
Is it even remotely possible for you type something more stupid?
Own up to it. Your little “house cons” remark didn’t fly under the radar. You got busted using racist language in attempting to make a point about racism by referring to Rice and Steele as nothing more than blacks who are acquiescing to white dominance.
You got busted. Deal with it and move on.
whatever crazy jay
whatever crazy jay
Translation: You’re right Jay.
Lee Atwater discusses politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N-gger, n-gger, n-gger.” By 1968 you can’t say ‘n-gger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
…You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N-gger, n-gger.”
The facts do not go away because you choose to ignore them. No modern Republican would ever use the “N” word directly, because society as a whole will not tolerate. However if you use neutral sounding code words (e.g. secure the boarders = keep out the Mexicans, war on drugs = Imprison Blacks, voter ID law = poll tax), it works out rather well. You have accomplished your objective to keep non-whites from amassing political power that may threaten your position, and you can swear on a stack of bibles you are not a racist motherf-cker.
If it makes you feel better crazy jay. Wouldn’t want to upset you.
Bigots
In The Weekly Standard’s Bigot Eruption Oliver Willis says, “Conservatives cannot help themselves.”…
“House Cons” is obviously a riff on “House Niggers”, but it obviously doesn’t mean the same thing, and pointing at Factcheck and going “UH-HUH, SEE, SEE” is like calling Germaine Greer sexist because she calls someone a c**t.