George Allen and the N-Word
Larry Sabato Joins the Carnival of the Absurd.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
George Allen is screwing with The Narrative. The Narrative, of course, is that all Republicans are racist, especially the Southern ones, and if the facts don't fit the narrative, then new facts must be invented. Allen, you see, is a southern Republican who enjoys a healthy level of support from African-American voters in his own state, and in 2000 received 17% of the black vote against the Democrat incumbent that he defeated. The Democrats in this election have tried to change the facts to fit The Narrative by claiming that a high school photo made Allen a racist, but that was largely unsuccessful. Now, they have decided to turn up the volume on this smear machine several notches, and liberal magazines and the mainstream media have been perfectly content to play along, printing as "news" a bunch of unsourced allegations from anonymous tipsters, all of whom suddenly feel very strongly that George Allen must be exposed as a racist, but not strongly enough to actually go on the record with their allegations.
So what does that leave Democrats with in the way of actual facts to support The Narrative? Not diddly squat, as I explain below the fold...
As I have already explained in detail here, the piece in Salon magazine is barely worth mentioning by anyone who has half a brain - the one named source has a compelling interest in seeing George Allen defeated, and a significant part of his story (the part about how he got his nickname) is both ludicrous on its face, and also indicts him as a racist. (Seriously: if what he says is true, what self-respecting person would not have said, "Where do you get off calling me a Klansman? You can take that nickname and shove it.") The other two sources wouldn't give their names because - wait for it - they're scared of Allen. This, too, is ludicrous on its face:
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. George Allen is a friggin' Senator. Senators do not have goonies or pipe-wielding fiends at their disposal, they have staffers: people fresh out of ivy-league colleges with their political science degrees; a fearsome lot, to be sure. What exactly are they afraid of, that Allen will take a running haymaker at them in the midst of a campaign? Keep in mind, these two individuals are slinging an accusation that Allen is a racist, that he used racist epithets, etc., and are doing so in a very public forum. The only thing they have legitimately to fear is that Allen might respond in kind - say, by calling them liars. This is not a concern that people who are not lying have. I rather suspect that the actual concern is that if their real names are exposed, others on the team or who were close to the situation will be able to conclusively identify whether they were ever in a position to have known what they claim to know, and they will be exposed as frauds. Alternately, they may be afraid that if their names are revealed, people will be able to, say, check their contribution records, or otherwise determine if their motives are less than pure. I'm more than content at this point to write the two anonymous sources off as either hacks, liars, or outright fabrications of Salon to bolster the one named source they were able to find.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that these two people simply don't exist. Even granting that they do, their word is still stacked up against the 19 other people on the team who said that Allen was not a racist, and did not use the N-word.
Now comes Larry Sabato repeating this allegation, and this time it's supposed to be more reliable. Pardon me, but I'm still not buying it.
Now, Larry Sabato is, by all accounts, a bright guy. Like most people who follow politics, I read him on a pretty regular basis - and his stuff is levelheaded and analysis-based. There's a reason he's a go-to guy on handicapping. That does not mean, however, that I know anything about whether Sabato himself is a personally trustworthy person. But even that is irrelevant, because Sabato didn't come by this information personally, and is refusing to say where he did come by it:
Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, would not tell The Associated Press how he knew Allen used the n-word. He told Chris Matthews on MSNBC that he did not know whether it was true that Allen used the word frequently while in college.
"I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case and the fact is he did use the n-word, whether he's denying it or not," Sabato said.
This is pretty clear. Someone told Sabato that Allen used the N-word. We don't get to know who this someone is, what their motivations might be, or what the context of the alleged usage was, nor any other piece of information that might allow us to judge the trustowrthiness of this information. Just basically that Larry Sabato says that some guy told him that Allen used the N-word. Folks, this would be laughable, if it weren't being seriously used to try to change the balance of power in this country.
One other thing is pretty clear: if this were in any other context, these unsubstantiated allegations would never see the light of day. Imagine if, in 1992, Gennifer Flowers, et al, had gone to a major news organization with allegations that Bill Clinton had sexually harassed them, but demanded that the news organization not reveal their name. I feel pretty confident that any reputable news organization would have told them, "Either we get to use your name or you get lost." If, say, Michael Barone had then come forward and said that "He knew that the allegations were true," but not how he came by this knowledge, he would similarly be laughed at. When the stakes are this high, and the allegations this serious, it's flat-out irresponsible to print them without sourcing, complete with full disclosure about potential conflicts of interest.
In other words, this story would have never seen the light of day if it didn't already fit The Narrative that the media and Democrats (so far as they are distinguishable) have concocted about the racist tendencies of Republicans. They already knew George Allen to be racist, so unsourced facts were plenty sufficient to convince them of something that everyone already knows to be true, anyway.
The goal in this case is clear: to chip away at Allen's healthy support amongst African-American voters in Virginia, or perhaps convince marginal Republican voters to stay home. The sad part is that they may truly succeed, unless someone reminds them that The Narrative was never true in the first place.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Van Taylor On His Game — Comments (37) »
George Allen and the N-Word 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He is a media whore. He'll say anything to get his face on TV. Also, isn't it a bit ironic he chose Chris Matthews's show as his venue? What does that tell you about Larry and his leanings?
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
http://race42008.com/2006/09/27/allen-will-survive-sabatos-rathergate-si...
Maybe Sabato was a serial “N” Word User in 2000 or he’s Just a liar or maybe he realizes that whether one used the “N” Word in the past, whether one be FDR, HST, JFK or LBJ, has no relevance to one’s fitness for office when one has a long record in office where one can judge is one tried to re-impose Jim Crow or slavery or hired blacks to work for one’s administration or staff.
Virginians have better sense than Sabato and AP think, just as the American people did when rather released the fake but true National Guard Docs. This incident will help Allen by showing the symbiotic relationship between the MSM and the Democrat Party and the depths to which they will sink to beat conservatives. Add this to Webb’s attempt to get a posthumous endorsement from Reagan, a man he slandered when he quit the administration.
The race is over. As it was from the beginning. Why? Allen is a reliable conservative that Virginians have learned they can trust.
see NRO Sixers piece and Taranto:
http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZiNDdmOTIwMDM5NmI5M2IwMWYwZGJ...
In October of 2000, Larry Sabato moderated a debate between then candidate George Allen and Senator Chuck Robb. The Washington Post covered the debate with an article titled, “Larry Sabato, Immoderating the Debate in Richmond.” (Pub. date 10/25/00) The article is available for purchase on the Washington Post’s website.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008999
We’d say a fair-minded observer would have to give Allen the benefit of the doubt–which is what we said about Kerry in 2004. One may, of course, be more inclined to believe the charges about Allen than about Kerry, or vice versa, because of one’s own personal or partisan prejudices. Every one of us is human.
But newsmen are supposed to strive for objectivity and fairness. That the press reported the Swift Boat story largely as a smear campaign against Kerry whereas it is treating the Allen charges as legitimate and serious suggests a strong partisan bias at work.
As the Post’s Thomas Edsall told Hugh Hewitt the other day, “whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.”
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
At least he won't deny it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_el_se/virginia_senate_29
So, what is the point, again? Will Webb be subjected to similar media scrutiny, or does his non-denial just end the whole sham?
"I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life," Webb told reporters.
I've lived in the South, namely Texas for my entire life. I've heard the word spoken hundreds of times, though mostly by black adolescents and white octogenarians who don't truly understand how demeaning it is. I still cringe each time, and often admonish the user.
I'm not as old as Webb, so I can't speak to what circumstances he grew up in. However, I grew up in the South (as a WASPy Republican, I might add) and that word has never passed or even approached my lips.
Brent Money
-- Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too. --
Who claimed it as a defense?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I have lived in the South for the past 25 years. The Confederate battle flag has little to do with "Southern culture". Its historical presence is confined to the Civil War period in which the South fought to maintan slavery (dithering about "states rights" is just [redacted]; the fight was over slavery).
Wearing a Confederate flag pin, calling people [redacted] (if this actually happened) or Macaca (this did happen), talking about Jews who eat pork chops (of whom I know many): what more do you need to know? Wearing a swzastica pin has nothing to do with "German culture", other than giving credence to a particularly shameful period, which the Volk acknowledge. (I have been to Germany several times. In the main, they are pretty decent people). You choose a particular symbol for a reason, meaning allegiance to an ideal (e.g., the "red-white-and-blue" versus the "stars-and-bars").
Plus, I am a major Dallas Cowboys fan. George Allen's father, the former coach of the Washington Redskins, was a complete [redacted]. He is still despised in Dallas, Texas to this day (we love Tom Landry, a great coach and human being).
Has to be weighed against how they have done their current job, which is pretty good in Allens case, with no overt racism.
Besides, you need to clean up your own act. Red State is not Fark, stop using curse words.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
about what you're talking about, I guess I'd have to respond. Stick to football, your analysis there was so insightful.
In Vino Veritas
There are forums where filthy language and racial slurs are tolerated. This is not one of them. I will not tolerate trash behavior here; and if I have to start combing comments sections on a regular basis to correct this problem I will become very, very cranky.
If this bothers any of you, well, stand not on the order of your coming but go at once. It'll save us time all around.
Moe
PS: No apologies, no explanations, no excuses. Just obey.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
If you think the Civil War was all about slavery, and that the motive of the soliders fighting was to maintain slavery, then you've learned nothing during the last 25 years.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
ought to make the difference for Virginia voters. Being next to West Virginia, they know the Democrats don't mind keeping a former Klansman as their elder statesman in the Senate.
I don't believe this kind of libel will work as well in Virginia as it might in Michigan or California. Some may vote for Allen just in reaction to the libel.
Former teammate Doctor Ken Shelton says, "Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place.'"
"He used the N-word on a regular basis back then," said Shelton, who was in Salon.com.
During a hunting outing with Allen and another teammate, Shelton says Allen drove the three to a black neighborhood and "he proceeded to take the doe's head and stuff it into a mailbox."
A sourced allegation from an identified tipster who suddenly felt very strongly that George Allen must be exposed as a racist, strongly enough to actually go on the record with his allegations.
Allen is cooked like a KKK cross.
I have no doubt that you will update your post with this new information.
[Actually, he doesn't have to, given that anyone with the ability to distinguish red from black would have noted that the Salon article with the original accusation was linked to from the main text. Of course, that would require that you had actually read and comprehended the article, which is always an open question.]
[Now go... do whatever it is you antiwar types do when you're not flailing about like angry kittens. - Moe Lane]
About three weeks ago, I attended a lecture by Larry Sabato at UVA, on the morning before the first home football game (this is why UVA football will never be bigtime, most fans tailgate, UVA fans attend academic lectures...). Anyway, Sabato is an excellent speaker and gave a fine talk, making little jabs at politicians on both sides of the aisle. But he spent much more time attacking George Allen than any other politician. Some of this is obviously explained by the fact that it was the Virginia Senate race. But it wasn't just the amount of time he spent, it was also the personal nature of his words. You could tell, Sabato hates Allen. I mentioned this to some other people after the talk, because I had no idea up until that point, but we were left with the same conclusion about that. Sabato said Allen was dumb, that he was given the quarterback job at UVA because of his daddy, and that the "macaca" episode was just the tip of the iceburg. It is that last one that I didn't think much of at the time, but now seems more significant. He said he had so many stories he could tell, at least implying more substantial racist speech that he had witnessed, since he attended UVA with Allen. Now that I see a handful of former UVA students come out with this racist charge against Allen, then Sabato join in to back them up in a somewhat dishonest way (implying initially that he witnessed the event), I almost wonder if Sabato didn't play a role in organizing this whole thing. He absolutely hates Allen and wants to see him lose this race. As much as I like Sabato, the fact that he would insert himself into this race in such an underhanded way at least leaves me wondering if he might have engineered it.
No one here exactly knows why Sabato hates Allen (and the assumption is that the feeling is mutual), but it's pretty common knowledge that whatever happened between the two goes back to their college days here together. It's not hard to see why; Allen founded Young Virginians for Reagan, and Sabato was, by his own admission, somewhat of a student radical. One can any number of incidents between the two over the years. Or, it could just be something as juvenile as Student Council President/Football Quarterback rivalry. We may never know.
Otherwise I'd say Sabato is a pretty fair guy, but nothing he says about Allen can be trusted.
seems to have forgotten that the task of the political scientist is to interpret the news, not to become it. Sabato has arrogated to himself the role of 'grand poobah' of the Virginia political scene. He is an intelligent and learned commentator; if he stuck to interpretation and scaled back his obvious dislike of Allen he might deserve the title.
In fairness, Sabato has also gone after Chuck Robb and Ross Perot with equal energy. He made no secret that he thought the former was a philandering, corrupt boob, and the latter was plain nuts (way before most people picked up on that). I don't disagree that he stepped over the line with his unsubstantiated Allen comments, but I don't think it's accurate to call him a pure Democrat partisan.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
... just repeated things that anti-Allen people have told him because they square with his overall negative impression of the man. If he'd said he personally heard Allen drop the N-bomb, then that, apparently, would be a lie.
I'd call this behavior more like malicious gossip.
it was hearsay. He did not originally say that he only knew what OTHERS said.
He lied.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
During my final years in the Dem Party in the late 90s it was my disgust with the lying to each other and to the voters and that I noticed that anytime I heard a democrat speak on television they never could give a straight answer on anything and nearly always resorted to character assassination rather than take stands on issues.
I hate the Democrat Party and have no respect for anyone that stays in it, except for the naive, the unintentionally ignorant and the senile.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Why is it so preposterous, so unbelievable, that a man who grew up in Southern California but chose to pretend to be good old boy from the South, liked to fly the Confederate Flag, opposed the MLK holiday, and felt completly comfortable singling out the only non-white person in a crowd and joke about them being from another country as well as calling the person a word that has racist connotations (whether he knew that it did is up for you to decide), could have held racist beliefs and used the n-word when talking about blacks? Just because these accusations have surfaced during a campaign does necessarily mean that they are untrue (or true, for that matter).
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
In answer to your question, it is preposterous and unbelievable to that we are supposed to believe that all these people suddenly remembered all these things about Allen right now. The man was twice elected govornor of Virginia and once to the US Senate, and we are supposed to believe that now, six weeks from election time, a large number of people suddenly recall all these bad things about him?
One of the allegations is that he killed a deer and shoved its head in a black persons mailbox. You might think that something like that would stick in a persons memory. But it seems to have slipped his accusers mind throughout several previous election cycles. How obvious does it need to be for you that his accusers are making it up?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Allen's relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens. If you oppose racism would you have anything to do with a group that, in their Statement of Principles, states that
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
How do you explain your affiliation with the CPUSA and NAMBLA? Sources tell me that you were seen in the company of several party members.
is operative here; never say "never" if you can't back it up. The real problem is that very, very few Southerners over 40 - 45 or so can pass the test. The "n-word" was so ubiquitous in The South through the Sixties and well into the Seventies that it would be the rarest White Southerner who could honestly say he'd never used it.
For those of you unfamiliar with The South of that era beyond what you saw on Dukes of Hazard or Mississippi Burning, most Southerners were/are trilingual; they speak a very formal school, church, and courthouse English, a very casual, highly accented Southern patois, and Black dialect, which in those days had a different vocabulary but is otherwise very similar to what people now call Ebonics or even Gangsta.
The "n-word," nor any other slang or colloquialism, was definitively not a part of formal Southern English, and was not to be used in polite company or as a direct address. It definitively WAS a part of the other two vocabularies, so much so that it passed without notice.
No doubt there are the rare Southerners of that age who could honestly say they've NEVER used it, there were also liberals, communists, labor organizers, even open homosexuals, in The South, but there weren't many and most kept quiet about it. Allen's problem is that in today's PC world, "everybody did it" isn't an excuse. The Republican Party's problem is that this absolute test, at least an absolute test in the media's eyes, is one that only the rarest Southerner over 40-45 can pass.
I know I can't, and were I asked about it, the only answer I could give is that I talked like everyone around me talked and, frankly, in the 'Sixties the talk was pretty rough.
In Vino Veritas
most blacks in the south would care less if a white had said it in the past than either whites or blacks anywhere in the country. The white would be judges on their life's work, not what they said in porivate or in a flash of anger, etc.
see my comments in below discussion on race42008
http://race42008.com/2006/09/27/there-should-be-no-place-in-public-life-...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
while it is probably true of Southerners, it is no less true of Northerners and Midwesterners and Westerners of that age group. Having live in all three of those regions I'm confident of that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
of what I knew from experince, having grown up there in those days. Anything else would be anecdotal.
In Vino Veritas
I was just adding my experience to yours since I grew up everywhere else.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
One either lies and says he has never used "the N word," or one tells the truth, and admits it. Either way, one's moral credibility is entirely gone, to be regained only by a very public display of abject submission to the guardians of racial rectitude. In other words, one must become a functional liberal, which is the whole point of the exercise. The only way to win is never to be asked, and one avoids those accusations only by being on the right (left) side in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
heads they win, tails we lose. I don't know the answer if Southerners are to participate in politics. I've had it done to me even here in Alaska where, outside the military bases, I could practically count the Blacks on my fingers, and the White - Native dynamic is a totally different thing.
In Vino Veritas
Brad From Tennessee
As someone who admired Jim Webb for 25 years, it pains me to see him dive into the dung pit of racist politics through his senate campaign. I have lost all respect for him. Here is a link to a review of his last book, "Born Fighting," which the reviewer compares to a National Socialist text in it's racist view:
http://www.saorsamedia.com/soapbox/jwebb.html
Here is an excerpt of the review of Webb's book:
Race and racism lie just below the surface of this book, which should sound alarm bells for anyone sensitive either to the problems of race relations in America, or to the undermining of the myths of race by solid scholarship since World War II. Words like "blood" and "bloodline" appear so often one wonders if one is reading a passage from Mein Kampf: "That is the story of my people, not for a generation or for ten generations, but for forever" (p. 4), or "Nonconformity as well as a mistrust of central power was now in their blood" (p. 129).”
with Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals, one can much better understand both the positive and negative aspects of my own past scots-irish culture.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You spoke of Scotch-Irish heritage, and that is McWhinney's thing. I only agree with some of it, but it is interesting stuff taken with a grain of salt.
In Vino Veritas
emphasis on some positives!!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I remember meeting Larry Sabato about ten years ago. He graduated from the same high school I did and came back to give a speech. I also had two friends who took his class at UVA. The man is as partisan Democrat as the Pope is Catholic.
What is most interesting about all of this is that these allegations would have to be nearly 30 years old. However, they were never mentioned when Allen ran for Delegate. They were never mentioned when Allen ran for the House. They were never mentioned when Allen ran for Governor. And they were never mentioned when Allen ran for Senate for the first time in 2000. Why are they now suddenly "out in the open"?