Centerfield

Ah, yes, "Schumer's Plumbers."

Staff members for a champion of the right to privacy and a leading critic of identity theft fraudulently obtained the credit report of a rising black political star.

Where's the New York Times when you really need them? I know, silly question. I note the WashPost doesn't go into who their boss was either. And the DSCC is picking up the staffer's legal bills. Naturally.

Abel,

Good post. You are absolutely right; the hypocrisy is amazing. If I may digress for a minute, I recently saw a blurb in a liberal publication for a book dealing with the Middle East (and maybe other things as well.) One of the positive comments was that [the author--I can't remember his name] "should be commended for rising above ethnic loyalties." I'm pretty sure what he meant is that the author was Jewish and the wrote an anti-Israel piece, which, of course, is a popular position on the left. But what about if you are Clarence Thomas or John McWhorter (an African-American professor who has attacked affirmative action)? Do they get any kudos for rising above ethnic loyalties? I think the answer is obvious. In other words, it's good to rise above ethnicity when you are expressing the "right" (left) sentiments, but not when you are expressing the "wrong" (right) sentiments.

You hear a lot from the left about not stereotyping people and about how ethnic groups aren't a monolith; yet, when they actually see examples of non-sterotypical political expression, they don't like it.

Frankly, this bothers me much more when it happens on the left than on the right because I always thought it was a "liberal" value to judge people as individuals, not as members of groups? I wouldn't even mind it as much if the left recognized that it was as guilty of sterotyping as the right. But the left remains as sanctimonious as ever. I consider myself more liberal than conservative, but this kind of stuff drives me nuts. And it's why I can't abide to read the liberal blogs.

Marc,

Thanks for that post. It provides a wonderful example of stereotyping liberals while decrying stereotyping. We are talking about a very small group of african-american democrats in Baltimore exhibiting this grievous behavior not every single liberal-leaning mind in the country and not even the Democratic mainstream, but I appreciate your over-the-top attempts to demonize us all.

If the parties in this scandal--and yes, it is scandalous the behavior of these few Democrats and bloggers--were reversed there would be incredible outrage from the Democrats, as there well should be. But as we saw with Bill Bennet's unfortunate statements recently, Conservatives will circle the wagons, whereas many Democrats have already denounced these attacks and you can be certain more will follow.

Ryan, first, the article refers to actions and words of state elected officials, not just isolated protestors unconnected to official party machinery. Second, the problem is not so much with the individual idiots but the way they are treated by the rest of society. Do you truly doubt that if a small group of white Republicans threw OREOS at a black Democrat, the New York Times and the rest of the MSM would be all over it, decrying the racism of the Republican Party? Imagine if a Republican State Senator said "Party trumps race" when announcing that he would vote against a black Democrat for some position? What if some Republican denounced a white man for being an "n...-lover" for voting for a black Democrat? That is the exact moral equivalent of what Senator Gladden is doing, but I don't hear the usual denouncers of racial intolerance piping up about it.

Remember when that poor civil servant in D.C. made the mistake of using the word "niggardly"? It has no connection to the N word whatsoever, but it made national headlines and he was forced to resign anyway. But if you're Democrat and have the "right" race credentials, no one bats an eyelash when you throw oreos.

The Lt. Gov. of Maryland is being subjected to vicious political attacks based on the color of his skin. That is unacceptable in American politics, period.

Ryan,

If I thought this was an isolated example, I wouldn't have said anything. But it's not. Obviously, not all liberals do it, but this is far from the only example.

The example I used was an illustration of what I consider a more general, but obviously not univeral, phenomenon. (If I gave the impression that all liberals do this, I apologize.) But frankly, this is something I see a lot, even among friends and family. I remember a colleague years ago bashing Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a "traitor" because he dared to work in the Nixon administration. And can you seriously argue that many liberals don't consider people like Thomas a traitor to his race? But what I see often are liberals decrying the lack of diversity among conservatives, yet refusing to accept the fact that not all minorities do or should think alike. If liberals actually do condemn the attacks, that will be a good thing, but there are lots of examples, particularly of African-Americans-even those that aren't necessarily conservative--of being bashed as traitors.

As I said, I don't consider myself a conservative by any means, but I feel great discomfort when I see liberals engaging in this kind of stuff, more so than when conservatives do it.

There's nothing wrong with "clamping down on dissenting points of view". A political party stands for something, and rightly opposes the things it does not stand for. Wake me up when the Republican party begins opposing candidates explicitly because of their race or race-treachery, rather than because of their dissenting point of view or the lack of merit to their arguments.

I heard one of the people quoted in that article on a radio talk show this morning. Because of that, the article should be considered suspect.

One of the people quoted in that article, Salima Marriott, is saying that the writer of the article is attributing more to her than what she said. Please note how quotes are used in the article, and what is not quoted, but attributed to people.

http://www.visioncircle.org/arch...ive/ 004844.html

Michael Steele is a native of, and lives in, Prince George's County, Maryland.

EVERY county and state level elected official in Prince George's County is a Democrat.

The majority of them are Black.

Half of the non-Black minority are Hispanic.

Top school adminsitrators are predominately Black.

If you believe the Democrat's rhetoric, you would expect Prince George's County to be a paradise, especially for "minorities."

You would be wrong.

Prince George's County's rapidly increasing murder rate is second highest in Maryland and the highest in the Washington, DC, suburbs.

Prince George's County's schools are the second worst in Maryland and the worst in the Washington, DC, suburbs. The Black school chief recently resigned while being investigated by the FBI; one of his top assistants ($130,000 per year) has just been convicted on federal drug laundering charges and has been indicted on witness tampering charges.

Prince George's County has more car thefts and violent carjackings than all the rest of Maryland and the DC suburbs put together.

Attacking Michael Steele is just part of the Democrats scheme to distract the public and the press from their ongoing abysmal failure to either protect or educate the people of Prince George's County.

This thread is itself a wonderful microcosmic example of the phenomenon that its about. "mom, he hit me!" "he hit me first!"

Both sides are sanctimonious.

Both sides think they are more principled than the other side, which is venal and unscrupulous when it comes to electoral politics.

The fact is, both sides are wrong to think that they are more principled than the other. And both sides are correct that the other side is venal and unscrupulous when it comes to electoral politics. Pot, this is my pal kettle.

Frankly, both sides could use a good taste of the ol' backhand. Let's send 'em to bed without any supper, or any more senate seats. Let's all get off the cross, because we need the wood for the fire.

I agree in general, Brian. But on this issue, the only kettle that gets called "black" is the Republican one. That IS a major disparity between how the two parties are treated by society at large and the MSM, and that really needs to change.

Yeah, Pat, and we should change it at the same time as we change the takes on any other issues that seem to work in a favorably one-sided way for the GOP instead of for liberals, right?

Like say, spending, or national security. Let me ask you this, suppose an election had occurred in which Bill Clinton was running for President as someone who had served in the national guard, but allegations of sketchy service existed in conjunction with very sketchy record-keeping which provided very incomplete confirmation that he'd served according to his requirements. Now, during this wartime election, suppose Clinton was running against a George Bush who had served IN COMBAT, even if this Bush was prone to apple-polishing.

How do you think this would have been interpreted within the historical cultural context that the GOP is strong on defense and the democrats a bunch of elitist egghead doves?

My point? Both sides use the existing stereotypes to their advantage to get away with things the other side can't. I agree that stereotypes surrounding racism are regrettable. So are others.

This is partly a phenomenom of what happens when someone from the "assumed" constituency "steps out of line" On the Democratic side, blacks get flack for being a Republican. Generally the flack comes from the African-American community but also from the Democratic party. On the Republican Party you see some of the same stuff when a Christian supports a Democrat (i.e. "Questions about whether he/she is 'really' a christian") I should note the key exception to the christian example is the black Christian. (And please don't assume I'm equating past widespread racism with some past or present discrimination of Christians.)
This phenomenom of being "taken for granted" hurts the constituency. You never want to be assumed as always voting one way. When that happens you're usually just rallied up around election time.

First, Kerry was painted as being the 'intellectual' by Democrats just so they could paint Bush as being an 'idiot'. So if he ended up with the 'elitist egghead' stigma it didn't come from conservatives because most of us thought he was an idiot....

Second, when Democrats chose Kerry just because of his military service resulting in 3 Purple Hearts (we all know that is exactly the reason that he was chosen so don't even try to spin that you thought he was the best candidate..) just so you could disparage Bush's service in the National Guard - you didn't take into account what he did after his service... lots of people saw his actions as traitorous... not just protesting the war but claiming that the soldiers over there were 'war criminals', testify to activities that he never, not once, attempted to stop (especially since he was an officer and he is accusing them of crimes), meeting with the enemy in Paris??? What the hell were you guys thinking... that none of this would come out????

Your bitterness at Bush clouded your judgement so don't blame that mess on conservatives... that was YOUR undoing.

Throwing 'oreos' at a black Republican is dispicable... as if he hasn't experienced any overt and covert racism in his lifetime.... to have this take place in this day and age is just beyond the pale... and it is truly sickening to hear anybody defend this type of behavior!!!!

It's long been common knowledge that minority leadership is all about power.

What an extraordinarly racist statement.

Are there minority "leaders" who care only about power and not about advancing the interests of their community or about making the world a little bit better place? Sure. If you want to accuse some specific individuals (say, Al Sharpton), go right ahead. But to make this blanket statement about ALL minority leaders is breathtaking. I imagine that minority leaders are guilty of this sin at about the same rate as anybody. No one I know has recently accused Tom DeLay of having ideals and principles.

Deb,

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, when you refer to "you" I assume you mean Democrats, particularly partisan Democrats. I don't know if Brian is a Democrat at all, much less the kind of partisan attack dog you seem to be accusing him of. I have always found him to be moderate and judicious. But, of course, if you equate criticizing Bush with being a rabid Democrat, I guess it makes sense. But I think before you go off on such a bizarre rant, you should have some idea of what you are talking about.

Second, it's ridiculous to say the Democrats chose Kerry "just" because of his military record. He was nominated by Democratic voters in primaries and, while his service record was probably a factor, it was hardly the only factor. Kerry was always one of the leading candidates for the obvious reason that many Democrats liked his positions on issues.

Third, you obviously think it's ok to attack Kerry's record--who was actually in combat--but not Bush's, who sat out the war in the National Guard. It's utterly Orwellian to take the position that Bush is somehow a hero for NOT having gone to Viet Nam and that Kerry is a traitor for having gone.

Fourth, Kerry NEVER said that American soldiers in general were war criminals; he pointed out that some soldiers had committed atrocities. Are you denying that? Have you heard of My Lai? Whether Kerry attempted to stop the atrocities is irrelevant to whether they actually happened. That's like saying you can't testify that you saw a crime happen unless you tried to stop it.

Fifth, no, lots of people didn't see his actions as traitorous--just right wing Republicans who refuse to accept that Americans can ever do anything wrong or that it's ever legitimate to criticize American policy.

Sixth, I agree with you that it's terrible to accuse Steele of being an Oreo. But I find it ironic when a conservative talks about all the racist abuse that blacks have suffered, but then deny that racism has ANYTHING to do with blacks problems in society.

A few more points:

1. How is it evidence of "hatred gone national" that two employees of the DSCC were promptly fired for obtaining Steele's credit report?

2. What is wrong the statement that "Party trumps race"? Do you think a black Democrat should criticize white Republicans but not black Republicans?

3. It's a bad idea to take an article from The Moonie Times, remove any explanatory elements, and post it to Centrist Coalition.

You write: These punches have included...having the Senate President tag him as an "Uncle Tom." According to State Sen. Verna Jones (D), Mr. Steele deserves it because he has dared to be a "black republican."

In fact, Miller called Steele an "Uncle Tom" back in 1991, and then apologized. Aren't the date and the apology relevant?

And as for Ms. Jones, where does she argue that Steele deserved being called Uncle Tom? Either you read a different article than I did, or you flat made that shit up.

And even the Moonie Times is fair enough to note Democratic criticisms of the racial attacks, such as the spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party who denounced a black blogger's depiction of Mr. Steele as a "Sambo" as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse".

(Yes, in paragraphs 1 and 2, the article claims that black party leaders in Maryland say that the blogger's attack was fair, even though the article goes on to quote the exact opposite. That's what you shouldn't cite to a shit newspaper run by a raving lunatic who claims to be the Second Son of God.)

Short Diane C. Russell on Prince Georges County:

See what happens when you let the negroes be in charge?

"He was nominated by Democratic voters in primaries and, while his service record was probably a factor, it was hardly the only factor."

Oh please, he couldn't find his ass with both hands taped to it.... You know as well as I do that is 'the reason' that he was chosen.... I read the blogs that were saying 'Bring it On' about Bush's National Guard service compared to Kerry's service. Get real, if you can't be intellectually honest stay out of the debate!!!

"Third, you obviously think it's ok to attack Kerry's record"

Since I didn't do that, I suggest you burn that strawman.

No, I didn't attack his service record, I attacked his traitorous activities after he got back... As an officer he would be guilty of a crime if he didn't in fact attempt to stop a crime from being committed, why should he not be charge with a crime... if he in fact saw these crimes being committed and did nothing to stop them... why weren't they reported to the military right then??? Do you condone this type of behavior out of our military leaders? Taking it upon yourself to meet with enemy leaders in Paris, while you are still a member of the armed forces, without the consent of your government, is a traitorous activity...

"Whether Kerry attempted to stop the atrocities is irrelevant to whether they actually happened. That's like saying you can't testify that you saw a crime happen unless you tried to stop it."

Personnally I think a better comparison is that a police officer just turns his head while crimes are being committed and then months later decides that he will 'report' it... He did nothing as a Navy officer to stop these crimes being committed in front of him... I'm sorry you can't paint that to be an honorable positiion!!! It isn't!!!!

"Fifth, no, lots of people didn't see his actions as traitorous--just right wing Republicans who refuse to accept that Americans can ever do anything wrong or that it's ever legitimate to criticize American policy. "

I've already explained the traitorous actions... and that is exactly what they were.

If you have a problem with America's policy, work from within to change it, you don't meet with the enemy during wartime to work against our government's interest.... policy disagreement or not!!!!

Deb,
"You know as well as I do that is 'the reason' that he was chosen...."
I voted for Kerry and it had nothing to do with his service, which I considered irrelevant. So NO, it was not the reason he was chosen by this Democrat-one of many who chose him for a multitude of reasons.
Since you don't know me, I find it slightly presumptive that you claim to know why I picked the person I did!
You may disagree with the choice I made, but please don't presume to know why I, or any other, Democrat did what they did. You don't speak for us.

and it is truly sickening to hear anybody defend this type of behavior!!!!

I for one would like it to be crystal clear that I have no intention of defending this type of behavior. I am merely pointing out that I don't believe that it constitutes very good evidence AT ALL that Democrats are generally more unscrupulous than Republicans.

IMO, such contentions are preposterous, and as a centrist, I view them as good evidence of which side you tend to wingnut for...

The bottom line is that, due to party stereotypes embraced and reinforced primarily by partisans, democrats can get away with racial political chicanery more than the GOP can. And the GOP can get away wirth things like painting democrats as weak on defense. Pick a stereotype, any stereotype, and you'll find that each party has a script that they run to their rhetorical advantage. In general, on each issue, one side has a better story, and they push their advantage.

The problem, of course, is that if you are a partisan, you think that your script is just the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because the other side of the story, the other party's script, has no merit, no insight at all. It's just lies.

Or as Alex once said, "Fools, fools, and wrong again!

[now warming up to the rant, taking it to another level]
Can anyone really listen to more than 2 minutes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken, and tell me that there is anywhere near as much critical thinking and legitimate persuasion occuring as there is preaching to the faithful and the already converted?

Isn't anyone else immediately bored when one of these egomaniacs fields a call from a gushing supporter eager to tell the celeb wingnut how smart and right he is, how important the work he is doing is, and how much he agrees with how stupid, wrong-headed, unamerican, and downright evil the other guys are? Am I by my freaking self here? How many people really enjoy "talking" about politics when it's just an eager back-slapping party where everyone agrees that as soon as we beat the other guys, we can fix everything pretty easily?

Is it really so frightening to deal with serious problems by looking at all of the partial insights that everyone has and trying to move forward in a way that acknowledges it's possible that I can only see the foot, and you only the shoulder, and someone else only the top of the head, and that we'd damn well work together before the beast crushes us all?

Sorry for the rant. My bad.

But on this issue, the only kettle that gets called "black" is the Republican one.

That's not true. Cory Booker, when running against the incumbant Democratic mayor, was said to be "not Black enough" by the incumbant. I mention this because they are both Dems.

In Baltimore, Kirk Schmoke ran against Du Burns. Both Black, both Dems. Du Burns was called "Step n Fetchit".

In D.C., the mayoral and council seat races often have charges of "not really looking out for Black people" attacks with all parties involved being Black and Dem.

Darkstar, what I meant when I said that was that it's only the Republicans that get called out for racist comments by the mainstream media. I agree that there's a lot of the types of behaviour you describe going on out there, it's just that the preachers of tolerance rarely seem to get in a froth over it. But let some poor white political appointee use the word "niggardly", and it's a firing offense and a national news story.

Brian, I don't think anybody in this thread has said that Democrats are worse than Republicans or more vapid or more stupid. What Marc said originally, and what I agreed with when responding to Ryan's point, is that when Democratic operatives do this sort of thing, it's just not that big a story in the national press. But if Republicans were to do something similar, it becomes a HUGE story and further "proof" of how racist the big bad evil GOP is. Truly, imagine if some Republicans started throwing Oreos at a black elected official. What if they showed up with posters advertising cafe' au lait to a political event for a candidate who was part black and part white, or who was in an interracial marriage? Would the reaction be "well, everbody does it, it's bad but not unusual" or would it be "there goes those dang racist Republicans again?" If a Republican had did this, we wouldn't be hearing much equivocation about how both sides do it.

Baldilocks weighs in with her own thoughts on the matter.

And I've been meaning to add that Darkstar makes very good cautionary points. Do you have any links or cites to the radio show you were listening to? I would certainly like to read more about Senator Gladden's and Senator Jones' comments on the accuracy of the story. All my comments presuppose the accuracy of the Washington Times article. I will certainly withhold judgment on the individuals involved pending further review.

A couple o' years ago, I worked for one black Dem candidate with a white spouse, and for a black Republican (running for a different office). I wish I'd kept track of all the assorted forms of racially-related abuse both received from the black community. It would be an invaluable reference right now. The GOP candidate got considerably more abuse in a quantitative sense, but it was truly vicious at times for both. They're friends, and we sat around a bar one night a few days before the elections and compared notes. The general summation was "Damned if you do, damned if you don't, scroom. Onward!"

Despite it all, both were proud of how the positive response from the black community far outweighed the negative. But there was little doubt that the Republican received a heavier ration.

Of course, the GOP's job is made all the harder when stories like this come out.

Now, everybody here knows I subscribe to Heinlein's Razor when it comes to racial politics (if not other subjects); still, this one left me scratching my head. Just how hard would it have been for W to sit down and eat lunch with the students? It wouldn't have cost him more than a couple of hours of time, and it would have made so much difference in the political atmosphere. *Sigh*...