Redstate

Yeah, saying they both said something they might not should have said works, but Webb sure is trying to drag out the Allen story.

And, I doubt the lefties who are using Webb to take out Allen really want to know he signed on to that particular book.

...they have clearly chosen to ignore Mr. Webb's previous commentary on the (metaphorical) size of liberal penises, well, what's one more abandonment of principle? A seat's a seat.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Y'all are missing something else about Webb. Here's the first line in the biography section of his website:

James H. “Jim” Webb is descended principally from the Scotch-Irish settlers who came to this country from Northern Ireland in the 18th century and became pioneers in the mountains of Southwest Virginia.

As a fellow (partial) descendent of "Scotch-Irish settlers who came to this country from Northern Ireland in the 18th century," let me suggest that this statement can be rephrased as follows:

"I am definitely not Catholic."

von

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

...about five pages into Born Fighting (which, btw, ain't a bad book). What's that have to do with the price of bread?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

But I have a natural suspicion of those who, without request, make the point that they are "not" the memeber of some religious or ethnic group.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Point taken, but the Irish/Scots-Irish thing does tend to breed that sort of emphatic distinction (speaking as one of the former*).

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*Then again, I may just be numb to it by now.

Point taken, but the Irish/Scots-Irish thing does tend to breed that sort of emphatic distinction (speaking as one of the former*).

I know that very well -- as I noted, I'm one of the latter.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

He made a statement about his ancestry into which you read information about his religion.

Never jump to conclusions. Read P J O'Rourke on how his family came to be Protestant, and on what he would say to Gerry Adams if he interviewed him. ("Did you ever kill anyone? Or did you just help?)

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

He made a statement about his ancestry into which you read information about his religion.

No Nothern Irish Catholic would identify himself as Scotch-Irish: Webb may as well said he wears Orange on St. Patrick's day. But, if an anonymous commentator on the web is an insufficiently definitive source for you (perish the thought!), go here: http://www.scotchirish.net/. Turn down the volume on your computer first, however, unless you're a fan of bagpipes.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

It is a bit like saying you are from Ulster. Throughout Northern Ireland places have different names according to your political/religious outlook.

I am just saying that he did not say "I am not a Catholic", which absent of any context, would be a somewhat concerning thing for someone to say. All he did was speak about his ancestry. Perhaps he is proud of his ancestry.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

When you say your are Scots-Irish you are pretty much saying you are a Presbyterian or a derivative thereof.

Which was, in point of fact, a not-very-gentle reminder that the progressive Left can't have it both ways. They may really do believe that America is still a deeply racist society that requires constant oversight to avoid backsliding to the Bad Old Days; they may also support candidates that (righteously) sneer at such tripe.

What they may not do is both at the same time, and while I find it endlessly funny that they've abandoned core principles for the sake of a Senate seat*, I see no reason why RedState (or any other partisan GOP site) should let them get away with it clean. The Other Side isn't shy about doing something similar when they think they can get away with it...

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*Not even the Senate. One seat. It's a worse bargain than Wales.

Which was, in point of fact, a not-very-gentle reminder that the progressive Left can't have it both ways. They may really do believe that America is still a deeply racist society that requires constant oversight to avoid backsliding to the Bad Old Days; they may also support candidates that (righteously) sneer at such tripe.

This doesn't make much sense, Moe.

(1) Both candidates for a Virginia Senate seat seem to have more than a passing acquaintence with racist stupidity. This would tend to support a claim that "America is still a deeply racist society," no?*

(2) Since there are only two realistic options in this race, we can expect Virginia voters to nonetheless hold their nose and vote for whom they believe to be the lesser buffoon, no?

(3) As for the argument that one should play tit for the other side's tat: At present, any discussion of "who's the bigger racist" will inevitably finger the Republican, no matter which side brings it up. Webb will always be held to a different standard than Allen. Is it unfair? Yes. Is there any way to correct it? Yes. Stop promoting folks like Allen.

(4) On the other hand, Republicans need to stop destroying folks like Tramm Hudson. (E.g., this post). Hudson, who is color blind in his choice of friends and associates, said something inelegant. But, unlike Allen, he was not mean-spirited and his remarks -- as both intended and properly understood -- were not racist. Folks who actually face racism -- i.e., the African American community -- understood that and immediately forgave him or confirmed that there was nothing to forgive.

(5) The difference between Allen and Hudson is a difference that Republicans in general, and Redstate in particular, needs to understand. Folks like Allen are part of the reason why African Americans historically distrust the Republican party. Folks like Hudson are part of the cure, even if they occasionally say stupid things.

(None of the foregoing is intended to imply that the eminent Moe Lane does not understand the complexities of race in American politics.)

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Both candidates for a Virginia Senate seat seem to have more than a passing acquaintence with racist stupidity. This would tend to support a claim that "America is still a deeply racist society," no?*

Not especially, von. A deeply racist society would - in my opinion - be still engaged in numerous public acts of lynching and other organized violence against minorities, substantial political power held by overtly racist parties and groups, deliberate, forthright enshrinement of discrimination of minority citizens in federal and state law, open and unembarrased repression of minority votes (including by explicitly violent means), unconscious widespread assumption of the truth of degrading and pseudo-scientific racial theories, an uncritical willingness to accept the above state of affairs as something not only normal, but seemly. In other words, it'd look a lot like 1920s America (North and South).

Now, I clearly don't think that we are anywhere near that point these days - but a lot of Hard Left types do, or at least say that they do. And they picked Webb anyway, over what I remember was a fairly liberal alternative - pretty much because they're hungry for a seat, and they've got somebody willing to hold his nose for the sake of six years in Washington. Even if it means dealing with people that Webb otherwise despises - and if you've read any of his books, I think that you'd agree that the man despises people like a large chunk of his current supporters.

IOW, if the Hard Left wants to abandon their previous rhetoric, great: by now it's getting in the way of further progress. But they simply can't have it both ways - and we reserve the right to call them on it.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

What exactly suggests that Allen or Webb are racists, or that they once were?

The one thing to respect about Webb other than his service was that he used to defend decidedly un-PC ideas; like respecting the fighting spirit of Confederate soldiers, or the idea that non-white Americans should not be given public preferences over whites.

That he's now caved on these things is a discredit to him, but the idea that either he or Allen are now, or were at some time, racists is unfounded.

The one thing to respect about Webb other than his service was that he used to defend decidedly un-PC ideas; like respecting the fighting spirit of Confederate soldiers, or the idea that non-white Americans should not be given public preferences over whites.

What shall we respect about Confederate soldiers? That they soldiered well? That they had able generals? OK, fine. I also happen to think that Rommel was an able general who soldiered well. Shall we go about romancing the Third Reich?

This "respecting the fighting spirit" business is, at bottom, an excuse to avoid seeing what is truly there. In the end, it matters little how well you fight; it matters what you fight for.

(My apologies for fulfilling the promise of Godwin's law.)

bullhockey over and over and it gags me.

Nice ad hominem there, von, that's always much easier than thinking.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Well, it seems you hold the thoroughly leftist view that says the Southern soldiers were fighting for slavery and white supremacy...period...so they must be damned to hell...end of discussion.

As you may or may not know, the concept of the nation was not always as it is now. Back then, people were as likely, or more likely, to define themselves as residents of their particular state as compared to citizens of the United States. The South seceded from the Union, then Union forces moved into the South. It was this Northern 'invasion' that Southern soldiers fought against. To them, they were fighting for independence just as the colonies did against Britain. To do nothing as Union soldiers marched through their lands would have been unthinkable, and an insult to their honor. That is what they fought for, and against.

And you do realize that many Southerners can still trace their ancestry back to the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression if one prefers) don't you? To tell them that their great-great-great-whatevers were basically scum is quite insulting, especially when they very likely vote Republican. In reality, your mindset in this whole matter has almost won, but can't you tolerate just the slightest bit of fond remembrance for those who came before?

Furthermore, most Southern whites, including most Confederate soldiers, did not own slaves. Yes, of course, had they won then slavery would have continued (as it would have had there not been a war...the great Lincoln would not have waged a war to free the slaves w/o the South firing the first shot...ever thought about that?), but the idea that the soldiers were motivated to go fight to perpetuate slavery is absurd. And even if that was their motive (which again, it wasn't), to forever damn them for would make one guilty of judging past societies by modern day norms and mores. How far do you want to take that? Maybe all statues and busts of Caesar should be destroyed because of what he did to the Gauls. Maybe Grant himself should be damned for taking part in the Mexican war, where we racist imperialist gringos stole land from Mexico. Maybe the remains of Richard the Lionheart should be tossed into the ocean since he dared lead one of those evil Crusader armies into the Middle East against the Religion of Peace.

But to get back to what you asked; yes, we could simply limit the admiration to how well they soldiered, and to the abilities of their commanders. Similarly, yes, you could respect Rommel for his skills, or the Wehrmacht for its victories...and it doesn't mean that you respect Hitler or nazism in the slightest, or that you are glad they experienced those early victories. Or to use your words, it doesn't mean one is romancing the Third Reich. Really, it doesn't!

And this brings it back to Webb, because the little bits I've seen of his comments on Confederate soldiers were limited to respecting their battlefield valor, not glorifying the Confederacy or slavery. So tell me, is that out of bounds? Does that mean one is a racist?

So, your idea of what 'is truly there' is not the same as mine. If you think that means I harbor racist attitudes, then so be it, but that very mindset is very clearly a leftwing one. If you don't see how such a mindset conditions conservatives to continually surrender on one idea after another, then that's too bad, but it does. It is to surrender the moral high ground to the Left, over and over, because again, what will they next decide is off limits for discussion in polite society?

And just to be clear about something; I hope Allen crushes Webb in November. And I felt that way before Webb started the inevitable retreat from his formerly reasonsable positions.

Co. H and F, 48th Georgia Volunteer Infantry, Wright's Brigade, Hill's Corps, Lee's Army

In Vino Veritas

It's not leftist to hold that the value of a culture is measured against constant standards of good and evil. I do not assert that everyone who believes in Southern culture is racist; I have long-established family, as you probably don't know, in the Atlanta region. But I will not accept glorification of a dreadful past to avoid hurt feelings. And the notion that the Civil War was sparked by anything other than slavery is disingenuous. (Yes, there were secondary considerations, but the "but for" cause was slavery.)

I'm also well aware that Lincoln wanted to end slavery without a war. It's another red herring to this argument.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

soldier has is how well he personally fought. Neither Billy Yank, Johnny Reb, nor the Feldgrau chose their country and their countries didn't give them much choice about showing up for the fight. Once there they could skulk or bombproof or whatever that would be in German, but most didn't and most didn't have any dog in the fight other than their sense of duty to their country and comrades. I have the utmost admiration for any man who will "bear his breast to the storm," to give some idea where my ancestry lies.

In Vino Veritas

Yes.

Yes.

Only in part of the Africa campaign.

Talk about your non sequiturs.

Never mind, that's an even better non sequitur.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Then why does he have the highest favorables of any gop politician among blacks in the state? He also pulls the highest percentage of blacks of any elected gop official in the state, and they have all heard the confederate flag hoopla many times. His last election he won about 17% of the black vote, and right now has a 35-40% approval rating among blacks. Most of the other gop'ers in the state are in the teens.
Save the planet, Kill yourself

Neither Allen nor Webb sounds much like a racist, a word which the right is now throwing around with the same careless abandon as the left.

Its sad that now even conservatives think that praise of Confederate soldiers is somehow a bad thing, that its something to be ashamed of and that should held against someone.

Conservatives should realize two things; (1) Respect for the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War does not mean one supports slavery! Really, it doesn't. (2) Playing this pathetic game of proving one's moral superiority by taking as PC a stand as possible in condemning ALL things having to do with the Confederacy will not gain the GOP any votes.

So you can support the troops of the Confederacy while opposing their mission?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Yes, in fact one can respect the Confederate troops while opposing their mission. Is that really such a radical concept now?

And/Or, one can realize that their are different points of view about what exactly that mission was. To most of them, they were fighting to repel a Northern invasion and to establish independence, not to keep slaves they didn't own in bondage that didn't benefit them. That a Southern victory would have meant the continuation of slavery for at least a while longer is true, but so too it would have persisted (longer most likely) had the South not seceded and had there been no Civil War.

And to anticipate a possible response, please don't say that I'm saying we could thus respect the savagery of groups like Al-Qaeda. There is no comparison, as treatment of civilian populations during the Civil War was remarkably humane compared to most wars.

Unless I'm mistaken, many of us here routinely mock the left for simultaneously claiming that they support our troops today, even as they oppose what those troops are fighting for.

So either romancing Johnny Reb is wrong, or the Democrats are right, the way I see it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The libs who say that are mostly lying about it. That is the one lesson they learned from Vietnam... you have to pretend to "support the troops." The spitting and baby killer stuff didn't really earn them much support.

Now they only support them as victims that were either too poor or too stupid to know any better but to sign up to serve evil corporations (aka "the man") in search of new people of color to exploit.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

because they're lying as Zuiko says. To the extent that there are some who are genuine in supporting soldiers as individuals, I applaud them.

In Vino Veritas

With the Left, especially the far-left, we know such talk about supporting the troops is nonsense. They never have, they don't now, and they never will. Its not in their nature.

But yes, I think one can be a passionate, ardent supporter of the military, and yet oppose wars in which they are sent to fight. Many conservatives opposed the Iraq War because they thought the idea of spreading Jeffersonian democracy to the Middle East is a pipe dream. So, I think a vote against giving President Bush the authority to go into Iraq would have been perfectly reasonable, but to vote against funding the troops and the effort after the decision has been made is not acceptable. That's one of the many things Kerry got wrong; he famously voted for the war, before he voted against it!

But getting back to the Civil War, which is distant history now, and thus a different type of beast altogether, I admit that I don't get why so many conservatives now feel the need to join the liberal call to condemn the Confederacy, its heroes, and its soldiers, and forbid any public tribute or remembrance to them. Is it to assuage white guilt? Is it out of embarrassment for the fact that 'rednecks' tend to vote Republican, and a need to cleanse oneself of association with them, and to feel morally superior to them? It can't be out of a naive belief that such talk will actually win over new voters for the GOP, can it? Lefties will not see it as 'growth' to be commended by their media acolytes, but rather as weakness, as blood in the water to be exploited on other issues.

but I'm going to try to write a diary soon about contributing to Wikipedia. I edit under my proper name there, and fairly assiduously avoid politics, but I've observed a great number of goings-on, there; and it's much easier to add and keep in information when you know how the system works.

Trying to make Wikipedia be neutral is like getting a job at CBS News with the goal of making them neutral: There's an establishment already biased against you, the pool of potential new contributors is biased against you, and the people you're trying to have have already written your outlet off anyway.

Remember, according to the left, merely reporting what Republicans say is proof of right-wing bias in the news media. They say that because we're "obviously lying," reporters should apply their own judgement (right here the argument admits that reporters are on their side) and omit our side from their reports. To do otherwise, they claim, is just creating an excuse to give the Republican view of every position.

I wouldn't want to fight those clowns.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

It has zero value when it comes to anything political. Everything has to be verified with another (real) source.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Today's WaPo story is: Fairfax Native Says Allen's Words Stung 1,295 words. Page B1

And Dana Milbank smirks his usual smirk on his usual Page A2: Another Day, Another Dozen Apologies From Sen. Allen

Sunday, my guess: Ombudsman defends overkill.

While Milbank is generally a despicable member of the press (his hit piece on Senator Sessions during the immigration debate, mostly for daring to point out what a piece of garbage the McKennedy amnesty bill is, was a disgrace), and while he definitely ranks right up there with people you'd most like to punch, he is actually right in that Allen should stop apologizing.

If the 'Macacca' incident truly warranted an apology, then there should have been no more than two -- to the person the macacca was directed at (even though the offense he has taken is no doubt phony), and to the public so everyone can see how sorry he truly is -- and from that point on Allen should have refused to grovel anymore. Doing so just makes him look weak, and it emboldens the media which would love to unseat him.