Would this fly on the other side? Senator calls minority nominess "Neanderthals"
"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."
So, my question is in all honesty, do folks think that a Republican Senator could have made this same comment without catching a lot more flak than this?
As of Sunday three papers had covered this via a Lexus Nexus search.
I know people, either in all honesty or kiddingly joke about the leanings of newspapers and television, but is there more truth to it than folks want to admit?
or would it just be a better story if it were a Republican? if so, why?
So, my question is in all honesty, do folks think that a Republican Senator could have made this same comment without catching a lot more flak than this?
As of Sunday three papers had covered this via a Lexus Nexus search.
I know people, either in all honesty or kiddingly joke about the leanings of newspapers and television, but is there more truth to it than folks want to admit?
or would it just be a better story if it were a Republican? if so, why?
Comments
Now if you want a double standard, how about the muted reaction to Trent Lott's remarke vis Iraq that maybe we should just "mow the whole place down and see what happens."? I guess we're past that whole "liberation" thing.
Originally posted by alcimedes
"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."
Of course it wouldn't fly. Liberals aren't Neanderthals like Republicans.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Of course it wouldn't fly. Liberals aren't Neanderthals like Republicans.
Makes the words by MaxParrish seem all the more likely true:
By the later half of 1980?s, the political landscape was perminantely altered.
First, liberalism was in disrepute. The failure of urban renewal, the great society, the embarrassment of Jimmy Carter?s leadership, the economic recovery from Carter?s ?stagflation? , and Ronald Reagan?s supply side economics and staunch anti-communism (as well as the collapse of communism) had fully eclipsed liberal notions of governance. The social policy planners of the 60s were embarrassed by the failure of the 70s, and their credibility evaporated.
Second, the simple divide of ?class?, between left and right, became obscured as formerly democratic constituencies switched sides. The Democrats were no longer led or tempered by a George Meany, or old populists demagogues like Mayor Daley, or cold war liberals like Scoop Jackson ? the ?new class? Democratic elite were cultural - the intellectual/ professional left. The old New Left was gone, but the maturing legions and old passions remained, expressed in broad interest groups. By 1990 most of the 75 major public interest groups were allied (even melded) within Democratic politics ? 90% of their leadership having voted for McGovern. Academia has shifted to the far left; only 2% calling them-selves ?conservative? and ?liberals? became the right-wing of faculty politics.
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
At the same time the right understood, and defined itself in a new cultural identity. What did the old conservative ideological underpinnings of ?capitalism? and ?the small state? really mean to the new right groups? Rather, they saw this as a new class war, one of left elites and snobs (the better sort) who looked down on their pickup trucks, small businesses, mundane jobs, suburban homes, and their unabashed patriotism. To them ?San Francisco Democrats? were rich hypocrites, Hollywood celebrities, left academics, public employee unions, Greens, trial lawyers, and ethnic/racial grievance (and benefit) groups - all seeking power at their expense.
Third, with liberalism as a theory of governance in disrepute, and new Party identities centered on culture groups, new social developments would help redrew politics. Whereas at one time all the think tanks were liberal (e.g. Brookings and Rand), dozens of conservative think tanks sprang up, or became well funded (e.g. Hoover, AEI); whereas, the media had always been sympathetic to liberal positions and issues, cable TV opened up new channels of communication (CNN, Fox News, Christian Broadcasting); and lastly talk radio was freed of the fairness doctrine and(along with the Internet) became the cultural lifeline for the new right.
No longer intellectually outgunned, or censored, the new right has emerged.
In the current political climate, the nature of the ?bile? is different. The right has entertaining, scathing, and humorous radio talk show hosts: Limbaugh may speak of fema-nazis, Hamblin (who is African-American) of the ?whiney whiney colored (phone) line?, etc., but most do it with an understanding as to the exaggeration, the medium, and the entertainment value (the worst, perhaps most serious, is Savage).
The left has rabid interest groups proclaiming ?racism? and ?sexism? at every turn, multicultural and politically correct politics and curriculum, 100s of trendy independent film-makers (e.g. M. Moore), the mainstream media, an endless list of Hollywood whiners, and a Democratic party that finds no limit to accusations of the right promoting corporate corruption, bigotry, and racism (e.g. against Lott). Worse yet, the left leadership has promoted and the media uncritically covered some truly outrageous accusations from what, in prior times, were kook groups.
Most recently, we hear that Bush has Nazi connections; the neoconservatives are cabal linked to an evil philosopher, Trotsky, and the Likud; claims that studies show Bush has an IQ of 91; etc. etc. Even in mainstream publications like Vanity Fair we have photographs highlighting Bush?s personal resemblance to Goebbels. And none of this, I assure you, is less than deadly serious.
You're right, the left does not have as many popular radio or TV pundits, their best being Frankin, Moore, and recently Huffington. You can?t get as far scoffing at conservatives because, frankly, more Americans are conservative than liberal AND liberalism, as constructive ideology, is dead.
Fellowship
Is he fricking serious? There is no limit on free-speech... anyone can spend any amount of money they want if they don't endorse a candidate... republican's have been masters of the game for over 2 decades... remember Newt's gopacs?
He's well on his way to collecting $200 million in campaign donations and he's whining about progressive think tanks and activist groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...Gillespie.html
Gillespie Challenges Foes in AP Interview
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 17, 2003
Filed at 5:20 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie on Monday challenged campaign finance watchdog groups to speak out about billionaire George Soros and other independent efforts to defeat President Bush and urged the organizations to disclose how much the moneyed donors have given them.
In an interview with The Associated Press, the GOP chairman also hinted that the Republican National Committee would air ads countering the steady criticism of the president from the Democratic presidential candidates, but he declined to be specific.
``It could be late this year,'' Gillespie said.
The chairman called on groups such as Common Cause, Democracy 21, the Alliance for Better Campaigns and Public Campaign to criticize the unregulated, third-party efforts by Soros, who said he is committed to spending $15 million, and Peter Lewis, who has earmarked $12 million, to defeat Bush. Gillespie sent a letter to the four groups asking them how much Soros has donated to their organizations in his support of campaign finance reform.
The GOP chairman argued that Democrats plan to direct big donors to the groups to avoid campaign finance laws and use millions in unregulated soft money against Bush.
``Where are the referees? They swallowed their whistles,'' Gillespie said. ``They passed laws to prevent this kind of thing.''
Mary Boyle of Common Cause said Soros' foundation has donated $600,000 to the group's education fund since June 2000, but she said that won't affect its ability to monitor campaign finance.
Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said Soros' foundation has given about $250,000 to his group, but he was quick to point out that he has called for investigations of Democrats such as former President Clinton and the DNC as well as Republicans.
``We are concerned about George Soros' large contributions to affect the 2004 campaign, as we are also concerned about President Bush's decision to swamp the country with $200 million in spending for his uncontested presidential primary race,'' Wertheimer said.
Gillespie said he has not solicited groups to give soft money to help re-elect the president.
Democratic spokesman Tony Welch said Republicans perfected the practice in the last two elections ``and seem to have a problem now that the president's re-election is in serious trouble.''
A key role for the RNC is to register 3 million voters before the 2004 election, Gillespie said, pointing to the GOP's registration of 175,000 in California, 20,000 in Kentucky and 10,000 in Mississippi as early progress toward that goal. The GOP captured gubernatorial races in all three states but lost in Louisiana on Saturday.
He's a bit of an eccentric.
But it's more likely he spoke against Isreal's behaviour which many are quick to call anti-semetic.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Direct quotes please.
He's a bit of an eccentric.
But it's more likely he spoke against Isreal's behaviour which many are quick to call anti-semetic.
Gladly. This guy is pure nut case.
"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe," Soros, who is himself Jewish, told a conference of the Jewish Funders Network. "The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that." He even blamed himself for anti-Semitism: "I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world," he said. "As an unintended consequence of my actions, I also contribute to that image."
Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, called Soros's remarks "absolutely obscene" and said, "It's blaming the victim for all of Israel's and the Jewish people's ills."
They complain about jews being in power and he's saying... they're partly right in the sense that he has real power as a billionaire businessman.
Sharon's heavy handedness... and Bush's arrogant and go-it-alone attitiude have caused resentment in even the most moderate of people around the globe... and that adds more fuel to the already flaring anti-semitic fire... they LOOK for things to justify their attitiudes. Not saying they're right.
Common sense.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
That's anti-semitic? He's right! Trying to understand the reasons for anti-semitism isn't the same as being anti-semitic.
They complain about jews being in power and he's saying... they're partly right in the sense that he has real power as a billionaire businessman.
Sharon's heavy handedness... and Bush's arrogant and go-it-alone attitiude have caused resentment in even the most moderate of people around the globe... and that adds more fuel to the already flaring anti-semitic fire... they LOOK for things to justify their attitiudes. Not saying they're right.
Common sense.
Um no. Attacks on Jews in Europe are not the fault of Israel or the US. It's the fault of the Jew hating bigots.
Originally posted by Scott
Um no. Attacks on Jews in Europe are not the fault of Israel or the US. It's the fault of the Jew hating bigots.
Or the fault of some random attacker that happens to attack a Jew. Depending on the situation.
I'm not sure this use of the word "Neanderthal" is wrong. It's in reference to Bush nominees, not minorities. Are all of the nominees even minorities? I don't know but the comment doesn't single them out. I do know there's at least one minority, a hispanic I think, but that's it.
The word is referring to the abilities (or their lack thereof) of the nominees, not race.
Originally posted by bunge
Or the fault of some random attacker that happens to attack a Jew. Depending on the situation.
I'm not sure this use of the word "Neanderthal" is wrong. It's in reference to Bush nominees, not minorities. Are all of the nominees even minorities? I don't know but the comment doesn't single them out. I do know there's at least one minority, a hispanic I think, but that's it.
The word is referring to the abilities (or their lack thereof) of the nominees, not race.
ohh really bunge would you like to explain exactly the reasons why or are you clueless?
Give me a break would you?
Fellowship
honestly, i doubt there were any racial underpinnings to his comments.
my question is rather, if the same remarks had been made by a Republican Senator, do you think there would have been a different reaction to them?
if so, why?
Heck neanderthal would be a compliment compared to this nasty dose of leftist rhetoric. (Remember kiddies, only Republicans call names
Mr Livingstone, who is holding a "peace party" for anti-war groups in City Hall tomorrow, added: "I don't formally recognise George Bush because he was not officially elected. So we are organising an alternative reception for everybody who is not George Bush."
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
my question is rather, if the same remarks had been made by a Republican Senator, do you think there would have been a different reaction to them?
if so, why?
Well it's a misleading thread title, unless all of the nominess are minorities.
Out of context it's hard to say. Does this Senator have a history of stupid or racist comments? Does the hypothetical Republican have a history?
Helms has said some nasty things and he was never forced out of office. Trent Lott stepped down because members of his own party helped push him out. Every case is different and these are two great examples of how there is no double standard as you hypothesize.
Can you describe an analogous situation - when a Republican Senator used an ambiguously racial term and was called on it? Trent Lott said something about how we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won as a segregationist president.
But even if your premise is true, and the media really would pounce on a Republican who said that, it could be because Republicans are scrutinized more on this issue because of their record on racial issues vs. Democrats.
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, I think it was a stupid thing to say, but just for fun, I'll bite.
Can you describe an analogous situation - when a Republican Senator used an ambiguously racial term and was called on it? Trent Lott said something about how we'd have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won as a segregationist president.
But even if your premise is true, and the media really would pounce on a Republican who said that, it could be because Republicans are scrutinized more on this issue because of their record on racial issues vs. Democrats.
LOL
Fellows
Originally posted by alcimedes
"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."
So, my question is in all honesty, do folks think that a Republican Senator could have made this same comment without catching a lot more flak than this?
As of Sunday three papers had covered this via a Lexus Nexus search.
I know people, either in all honesty or kiddingly joke about the leanings of newspapers and television, but is there more truth to it than folks want to admit?
or would it just be a better story if it were a Republican? if so, why?
Perhaps the reason that the story was not picked up is that it had not occured to people that the Senator was referring to race. If you are honest with yourself, you know he was not. The "racist" angle is pure conservative spin.