It’s interesting to me that the cons have reacted to their movement’s inability to move much beyond its base of white, christian, males the way they have. Time and time again when they put up non-whites for government positions, their first reaction isn’t to defend the nominee by his or her merits, rather they seek the nominees race or ethnicity as a cover to use. Right now the talking points on Alito are out, and they tell the con defenders to say that Democratic opposition to him is because he’s Italian and a descendant of immigrants (of course, most of us Americans are the descendants of immigrants, aren’t we?). Opposition to Condoleeza Rice was “because she’s black”, not because she’s the National Security Advisor who ignored the Al Qaeda threat. Opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was “because she’s black” not because her right-wing beliefs are extrajudicial and outside of the mainstream. Opposition to Alberto Gonazales was not because he approved torture and disapproved of the Geneva conventions, but “because he’s Hispanic”.
The cons are only interested in race when it can be used as a cover for the intellectual shortcomings of the Republican party, and not in any sort of substantive way.
It is indeed early to start using race as a battleground just yet.
It’s OK to call Alito “articulate”, isn’t it?
We learned it from watching you!
Dugger
It’s called the Republicans’ Racist Side-Step:
I think we fucked this one up in the 70’s. The wingnuts completely missed the social justice point behind affirmative action or diversity. All they saw was the political damage that could be caused them by being accused of opposing someone because of their race. This irked them. So, being clever political hacks, they have learned to use it to their advantage: make noxious appointments and defend them by accusing their opponents of bigotry. Social justice isn’t on their agenda; all they want to do is appoint assholes. I can’t call that a victory for diversity.
Who was it who said “I have a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple”? That pretty much sums up their view of diversity: it isn’t about eliminating discrimination, it’s about having enough window-dressing to get people off their case.
But this is similar to the mistake we made in the 70’s with “equal time”. Again, the wingnuts completely missed the social justice point. Instead, all they cared about was the political damage that could be done them by accusing them of not giving “equal time” to minority views. And so they’ve turned it into demands for “equality” in science classes for superstitious fiction such as creationism, for reporters to give “equal time” to both the facts and to partisan lies and spin, etc.
Dugger’s comment should be taken at face value. He and his fellow wingnuts have taken diversity out of its social justice context, and found a way to make use of it it solely as a political weapon to get cover for their actions and appointees. They see it as fair play: “hey, you guys did it to us!”. They didn’t see the point of it then– and won’t see it now, no matter what we do or say– so there’s really no way to argue with them about it. They simply don’t have the same goals that we do.
Basically, we fucked up, and we’ll have to live with this crap until we find a better strategy.
Goat;
Clinton reversed the tables on them and that’s what pissed them off.
They learned this gambit in the 90’s. The fact that they’ve found shills with shekels is our problem. Let the attacks be about the sell-out for a bag of wampum and ignore the race factor.
Don’t forget Michelle Malkin. Criticizing her is prima facia evidence of racism.
Israel have been using this one for years. Don’t like their domestic policy? You’re an anti-semite.
I’m more curious about the crowing of the har right about Alito… They throw a tantrum if there’s even the slightest hint of the left asking whether or not a nominee will rule a certain way, but they’re all proud as hell to trumpet that Scalito will assuredlly rule against Roe v Wade.
Litmus, test, indeed.
IOKIYAR.
“Dugger s comment should be taken at face value. He and his fellow wingnuts have taken diversity out of its social justice context, and found a way to make use of it it solely as a political weapon to get cover for their actions and appointees.”
This is it exactly and its disgusting.
I think it is beyond amazing that now the Dems, like you all, are crying “foul” over use of race of ethnicity.
Let’s look at the record:
Oppose busing = racism
Oppose affirmative action = racism
Oppose abortion = oppose women’s rights
Oppose gay marriage = homophobia (”hatred of homosexuals”; lit., ‘fear of homosexuals’)
Favor tax cuts = discriminates against the poor (read “minorities”)
Any of this sound familiar?
Any of this sound familiar?
Yes, your rhetoric is distressingly familiar, it’s the same crap I have to listen to every time a conservative rails against “political correctness”, which basically means you long for the days when you could call a black person a nigger, or tell a woman she should stay home and cook your food and clean your house, without getting sued or losing your job. It’s plain that civil rights and equal rights didn’t stop your bigotry, it merely punishes it - sometimes, when you can’t lie or smear or pay your way out of it.
The myth that all Republicans are bigots is just that — a myth. It is so old, so tired, and so untrue, that hardly anyone, with the exception of a few dimwitted Democrats, and political con men foolish enough to believe that someone believes them, even mention it.
See? It’s like a conversation between people who aren’t even on the same planet, let alone speaking the same language.
Frank, it’s not a *card*. It’s the idea of social justice– that people should be treated fairly, that the disadvantaged shouldn’t get thrown out with the trash, etc.
That’s what it is for us. For you, it is merely a “card”, a political weapon in the arsenal, to be used for personal gain. So you got burned by your racists and sexists getting exposed, and this apparently pissed you off, so in the 90’s you finally decided to “play” the “card”.
Do you give a shit about social justice? About minorities? About fairness? About equality?
No. You just want to *win*. And if you have a “card”, you’ll use it without any remorse. The fact that you don’t care about the race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation of your “card” is a pretty twisted, very small victory for diversity– and a huge loss to America.
Ryland: I’m going to try hard and pretend you’re not a moron, just for a moment.
The point is that the Democrats have played the race card, the discrimination card, the minority card, the “rights” card, for years, with some success, I must grudgingly admit. Now, they want to criticize the Republicans for it? You must be kidding…
Apples and oranges here, Frank. The parallel to Dems accusing opponents of affirmative action of being racists is Republicans accusing those opposed to the Iraq war as being unpatriotic. Both are ludicrous. The issue here, though, is claiming that criticism against a person is not allowable because it reveals some sort of bigotry. Certainly some liberals do that too. My mother (very liberal) is convinced that Martha Stewart was nailed…because she is a successful woman. Period. That’s akin to the “Scalito is anti-Italian” foolishness. But the parallel is not with the AA, busing, etc. arguments.
This is just symptomatic of the average right-winger’s inability to follow an intellectual argument beyond step one. Their take is “okay, you think minorities are disadvantaged in our society? That means you must agree with everything every minority individual does or says.” So when they dredge up a black or a woman or a hispanic who is willing to spout right wing BS they think they’ve got something bulletproof. For a lot of them this is not a political ploy, it is honestly (and tragically) they way that they “think”.
As if on cue, here’s Frank to provide us with an example of this one-step thinking.
Here’s a clue for you, Frank: the positions you list (opposing busing, affirmative action, abortion, etc.), have indeed often been motivated by racism, sexism, ethnic prejudice etc. Maybe not always, but often.
On the other hand, our disagreements with Alito, Thomas, Thatcher, Gonzales, Sharon, have nothing to do with their race, gender or creed. We simply disagree with them.
That’s the difference.
I don’t expect you to understand. I do expect, if you respond, that you will ignore the arguments I have made and complain instead about how I’ve insulted your intelligence.
Maybe you’ll surprise me on both counts.
And meanwhile…
I ve said it many times: saying that Republicans don t care about various social issues is no more valid than saying that Democrats aren t patriotic.
And you always raise stiff objections when someone says latter, don’t you, Scratch?
Goatchowder…
The use of the term “card” implies that a person brings up an issue solely for the purpose of political manipulation. When someone plays such a card they are usually accusing the other side of not caring or not acting properly about the issue at hand, but in doing so they do not further the debate on the issue itself.
Accusing someone of playing a “card” — as a Republican may accuse a Democrat — discloses no position about the issue itself…the person making such an accusation may actually care very deeply about the issue. Unless, of course, they are Republicans, who do not care about any person or social issue, and will play any card they can in order to take power so they can begin killing off old people, coloreds, gays, below average children, redheads, sick people, poor people, New Orleaneans, Canadians, and anyone with any sort of headdress, piercing, or pigment-based injected dermal modification.
I’ve said it many times: saying that Republicans don’t care about various social issues is no more valid than saying that Democrats aren’t patriotic. What? Dems don’t want to double the defense budget? They must be unpatriotic.
goatchowder,
You sound like a thousand socialist professors I had in my halcyon university days. What hollow crumbling wall of academia do you hide behind? Or are you another unemployed malcontent hitting the bong, sitting on his sofa and waxing his carrot to his bust of Marx?
Diversity for diversity’s sake. All viewpoints, cultures and experiences are equal and valid, right?
“And you, you right wing ignoramus, how can you not support Affirmative Action? Are not for social justice, minorities, fairness and any other strawman I can conjure up to demean your ignorant self? After all, we socialists are all for tolerance and diversity (if it doesn’t include you right wingnuts and your points of view).”
“Wassamatter wit you, Frank D? Pissed off that $10 trillion was redistributed and the poverty rate is still the same? Well, you are a hater, racist, classist and a bigot.”
/flashback to college
Why in the world would anybody ever want this job? Look at all of the monkey poop these people are throwing at him on the day he was nominated. Is it any wonder why America’s best and brightest tend to steer far away from politics and government?
Wilbur: Why should I believe you when you say that “[y]our disagreements with Alito, Thomas, Thatcher, Gonzales, Sharon, have nothing to do with their race, gender or creed. We simply disagree with them.”?
You don’t believe Republicans are opposed to abortion, affirmative action, busing, etc., because of anything other racism and bigotry. Why should we treat Democrats any better?
Youi haven’t said anything that indicates that Republicans aren’t racists and bigots. No, I’m the one who’s suppose to “understand.” I’m the one who’s supposed to accept that my argument is either “crap”, or “apples and oranges”. Even ‘better’:
“Do you give a shit about social justice? About minorities? About fairness? About equality?
No. You just want to *win*.
But you expect understanding from me. Why?
The racism “card” or what have you, doesn’t even work here.
A racist remark with regards Alito would be: “We don’t want mobsters on the Supreme Court”. The implication being that all Italians are members of the Mafia (which they aren’t of course).
But that’s not why liberals are opposing him. We are opposing him because his judicial record is one of disrespect for basic civil liberties and common sense. It wouldn’t matter if he was black, white, or purple, Anglo-Saxon, Italian, or Extraterrestial. His views are those of a nutjob.
The right is trying to get a free ride by playing the “race card”, to cover up the “nutjob card”.
Youi haven t said anything that indicates that Republicans aren t racists and bigots.
Some republicans are racists and bigots. If you mean “..not all Republicans are racists and bigots” then I would agree with you, and implied as much when I said that…
the positions you list (opposing busing, affirmative action, abortion, etc.), have indeed often been motivated by racism, sexism, ethnic prejudice etc. Maybe not always, but often.
Let me spell it out for you: “not always” means I’m willing to believe that sometimes Republicans take these positions for non-bigoted reasons. So watch where you’re flinging those bigoted anti-Democrat distortions of yours!
As I predicted you’ve ignored what I’ve said and spent your whole time complaining about how unfairly you reactionaries are treated. Here, once again, is the moral: making charges of bigotry where bigotry has existed before is not always right, but making charges of bigotry where there’s never been any evidence of bigotry is total toolery.
I don’t want your understanding, Frank, I want you to use your brain.
Handing out clues to right-wingers is like handing out condoms in a convent.
In other news:
Is it any wonder why America s best and brightest tend to steer far away from politics and government?
You’re right, JD. You have the right-wing scream machine and their systematic poisoning of politics over the last twenty years or so to thank for that. I know you’ve been doing your part to urge them to behave more civilly, haven’t you?
Frank, the GOP has a legacy of racism because the GOP has proven over and over again that stepping on blacks or other minorities is no obstacle to power. Ronald Reagan did it with welfare pimps, George Bush Sr. did it with Willie Horton, while George Bush Jr. did it with claiming John McCain had a black baby.
I’m sad it’s so and wish it were not, but it is the cold hard truth.
I and many other Dems opposed Condi Rice not because she was black, but because she had done a poor job in her job. See the difference?
You guys are running all over the place in tangents. Be specific. Could one right wing asshat here point to one example of a liberal or Democrat or anyone saying anything derogatory about Alito’s ethnicity? Could you post the exact quote here so we can all read it? Until you guys come up with the specific instance, you’re all just talking out your asses.
Rhys…
We are opposing him because his judicial record is one of disrespect for basic civil liberties and common sense.
I haven’t learned much about him yet. Could you provide me some examples of the above?
Thank you.
Wilbur…
And you always raise stiff objections when someone says latter, don t you, Scratch?
Actually, no. I just disagree with it. What would you have me do, write a letter to my congressman? This is the only politically-themed site I read regularly, and I post occasionally on subjects that interest me. The petty issue you cite isn’t particularly interesting to me, not least because almost every time I hear the charge (from a Democrat,) it’s usually a knee-jerk reaction to a statement that means nothing of the sort (D: “I disagree with the President.” R: “We should rally around the President, and I think the wording of your public statements are hurting our efforts.” D: “He questioned my patriotism! He questioned my patriotism!”)
Sort of a “patriotism card,” if you will.
Actually, no. I just disagree with it. What would you have me do, write a letter to my congressman?
That would be nice, but I’d be satisfied if I saw you speaking out here against right-wing bullshit that you claim to disagree with — as long as you see fit to post here and criticize things you disagree with.
We should rally around the President, and I think the wording of your public statements are hurting our efforts
If you really think this is a valid characterization of right-wing rhetoric on this topic, then with all due respect, Scratch, you do need to get out a bit more.
This is freaking hilarious. Truly it is.
A liberal accusing conservatives of engaging in identity politics. What is one of the first things Democrats and liberals pointed out yesterday about Judge Alito? That he was male, and that he was white.
There was bemoaning about the lack of a choice that would maintain “diversity” on the court. This morning, some flack from the DNC was on the television talking about how Bush chose to form a Supreme Court that did not “look like America.” It’s all group think. That’s identity politics and it’s at the core of liberal/Democratic politics.
On the other hand, our disagreements with Alito, Thomas, Thatcher, Gonzales, Sharon, have nothing to do with their race, gender or creed. We simply disagree with them.
Oh please. That is such nonsense. I suppose Steve Gilliard was ’simply disagreeing’ with Michael Steele. I cannot count how many times Black conservatives or Republicans were reffered to as nothing more than current day Steppin Fetchits who were doing the bidding of their GOP “massas.” They’re traitors to their race, or accused of “forgetting where they came from.” Of course it all comes back to identity politics because “no self respecting black person” would be Republican or a conservative.
I heard Hatch speaking his quote on NPR this morning, and it was quite clear to me that he was speaking about the reaction of Italians who would normally vote Democrat but who will probably support Alito. He was suggesting that, should the Democrats oppose or shoot down Alito, these Italians might be angry and may be more open to voting for other candidates. Nothing in Hatch’s comments suggests that he thinks that anyone who opposes Alito would do so because he was Italian. Did I miss something?
Thanks Sadie…I’ll check it out.
Here’s an interesting point to consider:
An obviously angry [Chris] Matthews said, “I’m sitting here holding in my hands a pretty disgusting document. This is put out not for attribution, but it comes from the Democrats. They’re circulating it; I can say that. The first thing they nail about this Italian-American is he failed to win a mob conviction in a trial … way back in ‘88. In other words, they nail him on not putting some Italian mobsters in jail from the family. Why would they bring up this ethnically charged issue as the first item they raise against Judge Alito?“
Scratch –
Actually it isn’t interesting at all except as evidence of Matthews shill factor. Did you read the document Matthews says is so disgusting? “Offending” passage below. The reason this case from 1988 is at the top of the list is because it’s the only career “highlight” mentioned from the period when Alito was a US attorney. He blew a major case that just happened to be about the mob. Can you find anywhere in the doc that suggests or even hints that he blew it because he was Italian-American or that he “threw” the case to protect other Italian-Americans? Matthews is an idiot.
Alito Embarrassed Government by Failing to Obtain Crucial Mafia Conviction
U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying You Can t Win Them All. Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a stunning defeat. Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can t win them all. Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases as short and simple as possible. Alito continued, I certainly don t feel embarrassed and I don t think we should feel embarrassed. [Guardian, 8/29/88; Chicago Tribune, 8/27/88; UPI, 8/26/88]
The Matthews piece has been debunked, it’s a fake. See Dailykos for details.
While you’re there, check out the excellent rant by Hunter, one very pissed-off Italian-American who resents the hell out of the way the Republicans are trying to play his people.
no self respecting black person would be Republican or a conservative.
I think the word “black” in that sentence was superfluous.
Thanks Frame…20 defendents, not 2.
Scratch –
The case cited was a major embarrassment according the Chicago Tribune — are we now accusing the Chicago Tribune of racial insensitivity? Should we go back and look at the record of everyone who criticized Alito for mishandling this case and accuse them of racial insensitivity? This is what you got? If Marcia Clark was nominated for attorney general in 2008 do you think someone might bring up the OJ case? Do you think it would be a reasonable defense for Clark to argue, “Well, you can’t win em all. It happened so long ago and it wasn’t that big a case anyway?” I already told you why it was the first thing on the list: chronology. It’s the only thing cited from his career as a US Attorney which came before he was a judge. Here’s the thing. Whoever actually wrote the passage in question would require zero knowledge whatsoever of Alito’s ethnic background to write exactly what was written. I didn’t know Alito was Italian-American the first few hours of yesterday morning when I first started reading criticisms of his judicial record.
“The Matthews piece has been debunked, it’s a fake.”
Boy, you Kossacks sure are easily impressed. Nothing has been debunked, and it sure as hell wasn’t proven to be a fake.
It all comes down to what their intentions are. It could be:
A) what Matthews seems to be implying, which is that this was the first point made because he’s Italian and it was a mob case. Or
B) that the memo is merely stating that he blew a major prosecution as a US Attorney and calling his competance into question, but not his integrity.
Either way, it hasn’t been debunked and it’s not fake (at least that hasn’t been proven).
Sadie…
[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?
I should add that Matthews went on to assert that the passage is an attempt to suggest that Alito was “soft” on Italian-American mobsters when the reasonable reading is that it’s designed to raise questions about his competence in big cases. It may be a dubious charge to attack Alito on his legal competence but its a stretch to suggest its racially motivated.
Frame…
I’d heard that, but thought it had been debunked over at LGF.
Why, Scratch, weren’t you aware that I’m always reasonable?
Frame…
That sounds like a reasonable counter argument to Matthews.
Oh and here’s more proof from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Then you get to the really good part. That was the sizzle, here’s the steak:
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.”
Ya, cuz I spend a lot of time over there.
[...] crats should vote for Alito because& well& he s italian. Based on these new standards of excellence championed by the Republican party, I have decid [...]
Personally, I have never believed that making the court “mirror the nation’s rich diversity” should be our primary concern. Our primary concerns should be qualifications, experience and evidence of judicious impartiality. Among a group of similarly-qualified candidates I think it is right and proper to give preference to members underrepresented groups. Don’t like such preferences? Well, as it is (and has been under dem and repub admins for some time), preference is often given to clearly less-qualified candidates for political reasons, and that’s even worse.
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.
I had written this really cool comment (well… kinda cool), and before I was finished, I pushed the wrong button , and the whole thing disappeared.
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?
The memo was not debunked. Jay C took us to school. I don’t know what it’s like to be a white man in America, but it must be fun to be delusional.
Oops, should have said — the racist charge was debunked. It’s not the memo that’s in question, it’s Drudge/Matthews claim that it contained racist statements. Course the wingnuts missed that distinction …
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.”
“I never would have led with that mafia case for whatever reason: it s like serving up a moonball to the wingnuts.”
But who can tell these days what will send a moonbat flying off into the rafters?
Hmmmm, well a good place to start if you really want to send this moonbat spinning is killing 2000 Americans for no good reason. But I’m just funny that way.
Sadie…
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?”
Did I say moonbat? I meant wingnut. Apologies to all my fellow moonbats.
Scratch:
“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.
Sadie…
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.
Sadie…
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.
Sadie…We’ve got to stop meeting like this. The Chairman of the National Italian American Foundation, who asked for the apology, did not clerk for Judge Alito. Go back and re-read your Daily Kos.