Redstate

If you want to say, "McCain puts the plight of the illegal immigrant over the plight of American citizens," say that. If you say, "Thanks a lot, Juan McCain!" You're insulting him and/or criticizing him by calling him a Latino name, thereby expressly implying that it's bad to be Latino.

I'm sure most people who do it haven't thought it through to that extent, but that's the exact problem. Racism most often manifests itself as a gut response, and this kind of stuff bespeaks a bad gut.

I suppose I'm open to hearing how the use of Latino names as an insult isn't racist against Latinos, but I haven't yet heard it here.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

First of all, I like that Redstate keeps the bar high, and tolerates no nonsense from those who wish to make caricatures of conservatives.

But, it would not have occured to me that using the name "Juan McCain" means that someone holds Latinos, Mexicans or Hispanics in disdain; to me it says that John McCain cares more about the good opinion of the Hispanic community and/or foreigners than he does Americans and America's best interest. So, calling him "Juan McCain" is not an insult because being hispanic is not desirable, it is because he is identifying with the best interest of illegal immigrants (who are overwhelmingly Latin)over the interests of Americans. I think this was Obama's intent when he made the Senator from Punjab remark about Hillary that caused such a flap. I did not think he was taking a swipe at India, or Indians - he was simply pointing out that in his opinion she was representing the best interests of India over Amercia.

to me it says that John McCain cares more about the good opinion of the Hispanic community and/or foreigners than he does Americans and America's best interest.

The problem with that is, you are still endorsing a dichotomy between "the Hispanic community" and "Americans."

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

because as we know, not all hispanics favor amnesty for illegals. But, it still does not negate my overall argument.

I'm sure there are dichotomies between certain communities within American society. Should our leaders pander to one group at the expense of the others?

Also, there has been much talk in the media as well as polling information about the Hispanic community and their support for candidates or lack thereof based on their stance over immigration. I don't think I am "endorsing" a dichotomy, but neither does acknowledging that there is one make me or anyone else a racist.

I respect RedState's right to set the bar high, but I agree 100% with QueenOfCups.

I have referred to John McCain that way and I am DEFINITELY NOT a racist. If I referred referred to John McCain by calling him a derogatory name for a Hispanic person, then to me, that would be racism. But I don't even know if there is such a word! I don't use racist words because I am not a racist. I have called him "the name mentioned above," but I repeat, I.AM.NOT.A.RACIST. (not yelling, just stating with emphasis.)

Your comment shows that, in your head, the Venn diagram of "illegals" and "Latinos" forms a single circle. It shows an identification of a whole race with law-breaking activity. I think that's part of the problem, and why it's clearly racism.

(-2.75, -4.92)

these commenters use latino names because of John McCain's identification with illegals, not latinos as a whole.

However, the use of latino variations of McCain's name APPEAR as racism because it insults an entire race. My point was that, in most cases, I believe this was unintentional.

In the world of political debate, appearance is everything. If you appear to be racist, then you will be considered one. Leon was right to make his request because these commenters are profaning what is a legitimate position with regard to illegal immigration.

...these commenters use latino names because of John McCain's identification with illegals, not latinos as a whole.

That doesn't make sense. The commenters used latino names because of latino's identification with illegals.

But we agree on the basics.

(-2.75, -4.92)

I think that distinction is very important, and one that Leon has failed to make in this post. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that we want to avoid the appearance of racism.

If you think you've really zinged someone by calling them [a woman], that's a pretty reliable (nearly infallible, in fact) indicator that you don't [act like a man]."

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

nt

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

If you really think you have zinged someone by calling them (a hopeless bureaucrat, say Boyd), that's a pretty reliable indicator, that they don't act like one. In fact, they probably may be one of the greatest aviators, no?:-)

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

n/t

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Is to identify someone not as a woman but as their reproductive organ. There is a corresponding insult using the male reproductive organ.

Your point would seem to indicate that people are anti reproductive organs.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but, alas, you're wrong.

That is a common insult, but not the only one. Men still insult other men by calling them a woman. You want to side with them, go for it.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

First let me say I agree with the prohibition, though on the grounds that this site should demand more elevated and respectful discourse. And there is no doubt that monikers like "Juan McCain" are disrespectful.

But in my view it is important to draw strong distinctions between disrespect and racism, especially for those of us on the right who rightfully disdain the identity politics practiced most commonly by the left---but, alas, also by Mike Huckabee and John McCain. For an act to be racist requires that it be motivated by underlying racism---a hatred of or sense of superiority over others simply because they are of a different race. That cannot be established without further evidence. To say "there is no other reasonable explanation" is logically fallacious. You might not agree with other explanations but if you're going to strike them down as unreasonable you'll need to argue that more affirmatively.

It is not racist to recognize that the demographics of illegal immigrants in this country are overwhelmingly Mexican in nationality and Spanish-speaking---no more than it is racist to recognize that the 9/11 terrorists were of Middle Eastern descent and adherents to a form of Islam. It is not racist to recognize that the conflict of illegal immigration is a conflict that engages not just different political groups in the United States but the government of Mexico as well. It is not racist to point out that one of John McCain's unpaid advisors for Hispanic outreach is a known open-borders advocate with ties to the Mexican government. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the use of a disrespectful moniker such as "Juan McCain" is nothing more than a distillation of the widely acknowledged demographics at play.

So again, disrespectful? Yes. Racist? You haven't offered the evidence, and I believe that we on the right need to be more careful slinging that accusation.

I agree with mcg. I don't want to slide down into the same sort of political correctness that enables race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to run out and cry racism when a politician uses a supposedly racially charged phrase like "shuck and jive".

I've used the name Juan McCain as shorthand to describe a man that seems more sympathetic to Mexicans illegally entering our country than he is to the Americans who are losing their jobs to them. People can disagree with my characterization of McCain's policy but to accuse me of racial thought-crimes goes to far.

soli Deo gloria

name calling is lazy argumentation. If you can't do it through appeals to ethos, pathos, or logos; you probably need to rethink your thesis.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

I'm sure you all remember some of the things said at DKos and DU about Michelle Malkin and Condi Rice, to name just two objects of uninhibited leftist scorn.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

over free speech. Something is wrong here.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

it's clear you mean the term "Juan" as an insult.

That doesn't make me racist, that makes me "Juan"-ist.

To fit your logic the moniker would have to be "Juan McMexican"---oops, that's nationalist, not racist.... "Juan McHispanic"---oops, that's not racist either, really, it is anti-Spanish-language... "Juan McNon-White-Hispanic"... there, that's better.

My point is that these accusations of racism just aren't holding up. I have no objection to the rules and intend to adhere to them, but I frankly take accusations of racism quite seriously and take umbrage that they would be leveled in such cavalier a fashion.

My point is that these accusations of racism just aren't holding up.

In fact, you're just demonstrating you don't really understand the problem and can fall for the most simple "mere pretext" known to man. There is -rarely- a substantive difference between "nationalist" language and "racist" language. It can be different in theory, but it very rarely is in practice.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

"....it's clear you mean Democrat as an insult."

Does the word Democrat have another meaning?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If we just stick to calling him "John McCain," are we insulting the "Scottish community"...?

If we simply TRANSLATE a name from one language to another...are we necessarily denigrating speakers of the other language?

Is sarcasm in the mind of the writer? Or, in the mind of the reader?

Is "racism" in the mind of the writer? Or, in the mind of the reader?

What is race??? There are plenty of persons whose dominant language is Spanish, who are not "Latinos."

---

A man descended of Scandinavian ancestors, living in an area of the United States pioneered by immigrants from Scandanavia, is chagrined that his pre-school-aged children are being taught Spanish language, dances and songs in a state-sponsored pre-kindergarten program, but none of the teachers in the same school know a word of Norwegian, Swedish or Danish. Those teachers, when they attended college in the 1960's and 1970's, were taught that it was cool to reject the Scandanavian culture of their ancestors, and went off to study ancient Peruvian shamanism while they smoked lots of pot and chewed on mushrooms, while wearing ponchos woven of llama wool. As a result, the kids are learning nothing of their own ancestry...but quite a lot about the Folklorico dances of Mexico, and nothing of the old early-American barn dances of their pioneer settler ancestors. They also have no clue of what a "Virginia reel" is. ... The man, in frustration that his kids are being neuropsychologically-programmed to have Mexican culture embedded in their brains at ages 3 and 4 and 5, throws down a sombrero onto the ground and begins dancing around it. Is this man "racist?" Or is he just expressing his frustration that his pre-school- and kindergarted-aged kids are coming home from school knowing more about Cesar Chavez, than about Leif Erikson and Davy Crockett and Benjamin Franklin?

Good freaking grief.

A. If people were upset about Scottish illegal immigration,
B. If his name WERE NOT John McCain,

then yes.

I hope you thusly see the pure idiocy of your point, since there is no measurable illegal immigration from Scotland, and his name is, in fact, John McCain.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Commending

lack of tolerance for bull

may now be viewed as egregious anti-bovinism.

soli Deo gloria

the complete word would be even less tolerable. :)

But yeah, when people carried the joke too far, the joke ended for everyone. So now he's Barack Henry O'Bama.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...and in that thread I noted that it was just used to poke Liberals in the eye, and that potentially the silliest election cry ever could be, "Don't say his name!"

My point in noting it is merely that while it was a meme for a while it's died off thanks to Redstate's editorial staff's clear differentiation between racism and policy.

(-2.75, -4.92)

For returning to us from the Peace Corps or UNICEF or whatever other bleeding-heart organization you were off helping for a period of time. I'm glad you didn't catch Malaria and die. :-)

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

UNICEF took over my classroom, came a few times a year for a photo op and a press release, and gave the school markers to give to the students which the director stole and sold back to the kids at his in-school shop. Absolutely no oversight whatsoever. They built a new bathroom, however. And the director kept it locked until they came back so it wouldn't get dirty.

(-2.75, -4.92)

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

And I cost American taxpayers about $40,000/year, and my town had a population about 40,000 people. And I was always there. So basically the US Gov't paid $1/yr per citizen for goodwill towards Americans in a Muslim nation with lots of natural gas reserves. And also they learned some English, learned about the outside world, and about Democracy. I may have gone for bleeding-heart purposes, but mostly I was operating as a grassroots force against Russian cultural and political influence it seems. So $1/yr per citizen seems pretty cheap.

(-2.75, -4.92)

The question is whether you got to meet and/or create goodwill with all 40,000 of those people - otherwise, your math is a little screwy. Still, you know, there's a place for that kind of thing, for sure.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Looks good on you, though.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

But maybe the Directors will override me on that.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

quoting Al Bundy, "It is good to hate the French."

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

"It was the treacherous French! Who crippled our once-great economy and wrecked our telephone system!"

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

We should get rid of Brussels Journal from the links. Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs thinks it's racist. Any Europeans who defend their traditional cultures and homelands are racist, because Europe should be about abstractions like "freedom", not ethnic ties, religion, culture, or other exclusionary concepts.

We should also ban all diaries by Paul Cella. He once said mockingly, "But I forget myself: patriotism in America, as our wise men have taught, is not about a real country, her people, integrity, sovereignty and traditions; it is only about ideas." He's implying America is the product of a specific people and culture and that absent those people and that culture, America will not endure. That's also racist.

John McCain said that America will be "enriched" by the "fresh blood and culture" of Hispanics. That is not racist, that's allowed. Actually it's encouraged, it will help us win the Hispanic vote.

Trying to say something about the "white vote" is racist though. If someone said Mexico is being "enriched" by the "fresh blood and culture" of white Americans who are moving there, that is also racist.

I think we should have permanent moderators to keep all these rules straight. Otherwise Democrats might start calling Republicans racists.

Look, I don't really care whether "you believe" that insulting someone by calling them a Latino name isn't racist against Latinos, or that you can't understand how that applies to the very definition you cut-and-pasted there, I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone of how it is *not* racist. And no, "You only think it's racist because Liberals have trained you to feel that way!!11!!" is not an explanation.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The socialist/Clinton technique: you are wrong and no matter what is said, you won't be right.
I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am stating that it does not meet the definition of racist, or prejudice, or any other terms you can come up with that try to prove your point. I am very curious to see your response to the commentors that have used french names to question your theory.
If you choose to shut down the use of latin names, does that go for all silly name calling in different languages?

Are we ready to go down the slippery slope of trying not to offend people or at the very least make them uncomfortable?

"An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” -Winston Churchill

You're obviously on some sort of crusade here for... well, I don't care, exactly, but it doesn't involve reading comprehension, even of the material in your own comment. So I'll let you go on unimpeded if you want. All that it's important for you to know is that doing at RedState will get you banned from here. Period. Brave New World, fascists, etc. etc.

P.S. I haven't deigned to respond to people who think "French" is a race.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

...I personally appreciated hearing billevans politely speak his mind ...I didn't find it offense or a crusade.

...does billevans have to go to the countryside for re-education?

It's their site, their rules, and if you don't liek it, start your own conservative website. Violate the rules and get banned-its not rocket scientist unless your an idiot, which people crying witch hunt on a trivial request are proving themselves to be.

If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh

“An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” -Winston Churchill

No crying here. Just trying to point out that not everything is racist just because someone says it is.
Also, no I am not a racist. Yes, racism exists, but not in my world.

“An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” -Winston Churchill

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I appreciate you taking the time make sure that I and everyone understand the rules. I do think that by following this rule, it will help enhance the discussions taking place here.

I hope I haven't caused a rise in your blood pressure.

“An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” -Winston Churchill

n/t

French is not either a race or ethnicity.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

There is a reason why census takers take pains to specify "non-White Hispanic". It is a geographic and linguistic distinction, not an ethnic one. From the White House OMB:

-- Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I agree. Honestly, reading the original article I felt a little like I was entering "Brave New World".

All agree: no racist related comments - it hurts the overall argument.

However, to conduct a witch hunt, to conduct a Red State "Cultural Revolution" and attempt to find defectors and punish them is weird and wrong. It is a fact that humans don't live in jars, humans don't live in laboratories, humans live in the real world. Sometimes people fighting together in foxholes, facing death together, people working together, great friends from different cultures, may still find humor or release or comfort including politically incorrect cultural references for each other.

Finally, to say, strictly speaking, that absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, absolutely completely and totally, that anyone anywhere in the world throughout human history that has ever referred to another person and included in that reference a cultural reference, to say that that person is or was mathematically provably a bigot and racist, is silly and technically incorrect.

Thanks,

Are/were there no illegal immigrants from Europe? Why isn't the good Anglo name "John McCain" itself not good enough to highlight the Senator's immigration stance? Also, please explain why tagging McCain with a Latino name to link him to illegals doesn't also link illegal immigration with the millions of Americans with Latino names who are legal immigrants and citizens of the United States.

(-2.75, -4.92)

I live and work in the Chicago area. We have thousands and thousands of Polish, Russian and Irish illegal immigrants. The problem with the small, but loud, sliver of anti-illegal immigration activists is that they really are anti-Mexican or anti-brown people. They insist on building a wall but don't bother to mention the millions who come here through our airports. While illegal immigration from Mexico and Central American is the largest component, we also have millions coming in from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America who come in on tourist visas and simply stay.

That's quite a comment there, proclaiming that anti-illegal immigration activists really are anti-brown bigots. That's a very leftist statement and a very leftist point of view.

I wonder what you think about people who want to reduce LEGAL immigration into our country? Keep in mind that when asked in the most simple of terms, a majority or pluarlity of Americans usually express support for reducing legal immigration, though sometimes it comes in second to 'maintain current levels.' Is this huge segment of the population 'really anti-Mexican or anti-brown'?

Can one oppose mass immigration and not be guilty until proven innocent of racism?

to get deported someday) is from Portugal.

stay are far less obvious. They did, after all, have the money to fly over rather than walk across a desert. And they probably put significantly less strain on public services than poor illegals do also... and are therefore less visible from that standpoint as well.

Saying that the vocal anti-illegal immigration activists are racists is garbage. I know, because I'm anti-illegal immigration, and I am the least racist person I've ever met in my life. You can't know what's in a man's heart other than your own... and I know what's in mine... and your comment is incredibly ignorant at the least. But then again, the left never feels bad about assuming they are superior in some fashion or other, so I shouldn't be surprised I guess. Please feel free to take your BS rhetoric back to Move-on.org

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I guess RS does want trash like this lying about. Interesting...

Chief Woggowoggo Lives!

One man's trash is another man's treasure!

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh

Assimilation is endangered by the high levels of immigration (the great European wave eventually came to an end, so citing that wave is not a retort) and the decision by our elites to embrace 'diversity' and multiculturalism over assimilation.

...and you would have noted that we've come down against that (somewhat different, and less offensive) very issue.

I believe the current slang term for your effort would be "FAIL."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Use the site contact form if you wish to appeal to management [with respect to this policy].

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

to the "Life's not Fair" policy, and drop it.

Deal with the post by Leon, or go somewhere else. Period.

Someone, PLEASE, end the discussion on this directive!

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Nice, now we invoke outright censorship. See what happens when you open Pandora's Box? You just bring out the little tyrant lurking in everyone.

I'm stepping on your First Amendment rights!

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

miserable day, you just put a smile on my face. Gracias!

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Very amusing. I of course have no First Amendment rights on a private discussion board, but of course I never implied that I did.

I'll be spreading the word around though that RedState has become as arbitrary and capricious as the Coulter forum did before she purged the moderation staff a few months ago.

Some have as little capacity to handle authority as they do to handle truth. You, by your juvenile insta-ban based on no rules violation but simply on having to read an unpleasant opinion, place you firmly among that number.

Hasta la vista, Pedro.

We should have done it months earlier.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

At the end of the story they have links to polls that show John McCain polling better against Al Gore than George W. Bush does (well, did).

Insert "John McCain should have been our nominee in 2000!" conclusion here.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

...laid it down as a general rule last year.

Moe

PS: Reply to This.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Quit whining on this thread all day. If you don't like the policy Leon has instated, appeal to management.

But repeated postings here do not help your cause, past a certain point.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Than this thread's comments should be closed. Surely it is not open simply to allow everyone who agrees with it unconditionally to heap on the praise?

But the above poster was getting carried away trying to poke holes. He clearly wasn't satisfied with the answers he was given here. So I gave him the opportunity to elevate his objections to a higher level.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's an honest expression of frustration. Leon explicitly bailed on further debate, and now Neil is referring an commenter to a "higher level". Yeah, I'd say Mr. Wallis was a bit uppity. But I don't blame him. I'm sorry Moe, but if someone is going to level a charge of racism, then he and/or his cohorts ought to be willing to withstand a bit of blowback. Call the namecalling disrespectful, childish, juvenile, immature, insensitive if you must. But to elevate it to "racist" is borderline slanderous and frankly cannot be supported by facts without knowing significantly more about the person in question that can possibly be divined from a single blog post or comment.

To be clear, I support the goal of elevating discourse here, and have explicitly stated my support for this particular rule. But despite never having used the term myself until this very thread, I reject and am frankly quite angered by the accusations of racism that were peddled along with the rule. It is a tactic I would hope that we on the right could rise above.

Besides, (at risk of adding levity to what is a serious and angry post), if we're going to adopt the left's divisive tactics, I'm going to have to invoke the "moral authority" rule: Puerto Rican commenter ContraMundum has spoken. :)

Having said all that I intend to make my feelings known to the readers of the site contact form as well, as Neil has suggested.

I was a bit heated. :(

use the argument that those opposed to illegal immigration are racist...

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Nobody said that those opposed to illegal immigration are racists. It HAS been said, correctly, that there is a loud segment of the enforcement-first crowd that is quite obviously racist--not to mention the people who are openly and proudly racist (or as they call it, "racialist"). All you have to do is look at the comments of any blog post of note that advocated the Bush/McCain plan, especially that one Linda Chavez wrote that said SOME are racists. To deny that some are racists and that there are an alarming number of them in the debate is either dishonest, which I would hope, or it means you don't see it because you agree with them.

Take a look at who some of the people leading the argument. Some of them aren't exactly pillars of virtue, if you get my drift. We are better than that.

I find it outrageously offensive that some conservatives just ASSume that because I am a conservative, I'll just stand by and say nothing when I see that trash. WRONG. It's because of that disgraceful rhetoric--to include "Jorge Arbusto"--that I lost interest in the whole issue, and since then, I'm far more inclined to support McCain's plan ("shamnesty," as friend-of-VDARE Malkin disingenuously sneers, because she's not interested in the actual facts of the plan).

The people whose feelings are so wounded by the "racist" meme show no hesitation in smearing their opponents on this issue...how ironic.

------------
~ Beth ~

Nobody said that those opposed to illegal immigration are racists.

Are you sure? I mean, maybe that's true, technically. But is "bigots" close enough? If so, then we've got none other than Lindsay Graham telling us that

We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up, and we're gonna get this right.

Here is the video if you need it.Now you may say "he wasn't saying we're all bigots, just some of us." But it is not the only accusation of bad faith hurled our way by this Senator:

If you want to be the person who keeps families apart, bring this bill down.

You know, Wolf, first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is amnesty.

But of course, this is not John McCain, it's Lindsay Graham! True 'nuf. But as Mr. Graham will tell you, McCain helped "turn him around" on this issue. And just in case you don't think John McCain treats us in bad faith, let's remind you of this:

I'll build the g@#@#@~ fence if they want it.

But you, on the other hand, apparently have no problem smearing those of us who feel so wounded, by accusing us of similar exercises of bad faith. Let's be clear: I have made no such smears of my opponents, John McCain included. But you will have to just excuse me if I don't feel a lot of sympathy for him on this issue.

Why was it that neither McCain or any of the other champions of McCain-Kennedy felt the need to inform us rubes of how the bill would enormously increase permanent legal immigration? Why did McCain insist on using words like 'temporary guest worker program' to describe a program which would allow people to come to the US and stay permanently if they so choose? Why would Mr Straight Talk Express resort to such deception?

And if those of us who hold conservative views on immigration are guilty of smearing opponents, then we are only responding in kind to people like Lindsay Graham and those on the WSJ editorial page, who seem to delight in name-calling towards its opponents on this issue.

But of course, no conservative should feel wounded by the racist charge because the charge has been rendered almost meaningless by its overuse and absurdly expanded definition. Its use is also a good indicator that you are winning an argument against the person who used it.

Way to spoil my righteous indignation, crankycon. John McCain is as loyal to this country as they come. He's happens to be screwed up on some key issues, illegal immigration being one of the biggies.

Then again, maybe you're helping to make my point. For one, you're probably not a racist, but you are just prone to audacious overstatement. And two, the slanderous nature of the "traitor" accusation is exactly the problem I have with the "racist" accusation, only more so.

Actually, I was making a stylistic point about concise, telegraphic expression, and neither endorsing nor repudiating the use of "Juan McCane" or its possible meanings. But you have, in your sputtering way, proven that there might be other motives for using it besides that of racism. Thank you.

But the Lord also taketh away. It appears that questioning McCain's patriotism is also verboten. Do I understand you right here?

Please accept my gratitude for allowing that I'm "probably not a racist". Mighty white of you, friend.

Oh hell, here comces the Spanish Inquisition again.

Sounds as if you were, as Rush would put it, illustrating absurdity with absurdity. I apologize for taking you seriously.

Feel free to use it if you can't abide by site rules.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Anyone can be racist, all that it require is for one person to be racially biased.

Historically, racism refered to the belief that one or some races were genetically inferior (or superior) to others - like Hitler and that whole "master race" crap. However genetic studies like the Genographic Project have disproven the notion of separate humans races (species). So in modern usage, racism usually refers to the prejudices people form about the cultures of other "races" (geo-ethnic groups).

Obviously, when discussing the differences between cultures, things can get messy - and that leads to overly-sensitive people (and political trouble-makers) claiming that any negative comment is proof of racism.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

By the way, there are a limited number of ways we can restate the message This is how things are going to be from now on. Deal.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

:thumbs up:

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

That "Jorge Arbusto" crap--now retooled as "Juan McAmnesty--is why I haven't been to quite a few other big conservative blogs (that were once daily reads of mine) for about a year now.
It is a disgrace to conservatism, and more pointedly, it is ultimately self-defeating in the arguments for tougher enforcement of immigration laws.

------------
~ Beth ~

left the gop and America has moved to the left over the past seven years. It is quite sad to me, a 2000 convert to conservatism and the GOP.

We simply did not have a worthy vessel.

The day is coming that I will probably fall in for McCain in nov, but the real duty is to America, not a party or a man, and as one of We the People that run this country, I am going to fight for conservative principles and policies against the liberals in DC.

tooth and nail

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

the nanny state GoP of Bush and Frist failed to inspire or create true conservative candidates that could win. Those that say "don't blame me, I voted for Fred" have it all wrong. Blame Fred for being a failure as a candidate and the GOP for not putting forth good Republicans such as Jeb, Allen, and Sessions.

I will fight along with you GC, we have a huge fight comming in the legislature. But we better make nice and fight for McCain too, or we can kiss the WOT, good judges, and tax cuts goodbye.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Now, after ten years of Senator McCain reaching out to the left and embracing the left in order to stab the back of his own party, he's asking us to do what he has refused to do for the last ten years. He's asking us to put aside our differences and support the Republican Party. Indeed, folks, he not only refused to put aside differences, he exploited them. He exploited these differences to create his own political persona and pander to the party opponents. Senator McCain got much more acclaim, much more respect, much more puff piece media treatment by reaching across the aisle and reaching out to Democrats. I find it curious that it's more difficult for a Republican to reach out to his own party members than it is to reach out to Democrats. He seems to be able to do this with ease -- and, of course, it must be easy! I sit here. I've had conversations over the past number of years with people. "Do you know how much more money you could make if you'd switch sides? Do you know we could get you into Hollywood? Whatever you want! If you joined us, if you abandoned it and you start ripping the Republican Party, do you realize what you could have?" Yeah, I do. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, and I'd feel dirty and tainted. But, yeah, I know.

I know what Senator McCain gets out of this. He gets adulation. He gets praise. He gets endorsements from the New York Times and the Washington Post. But why is that? Why are these liberal publications endorsing a Republican? It must be he's got a lot of liberal policies, points of view that they feel comfortable with should he win. Could it be that they are endorsing someone they know will lose as a Republican? I don't know the answer to the questions. All I know is they raise huge question marks. But to sit here and to witness the manipulation of Bob Dole with a letter to me leaked to the public, to criticize Mitt Romney for attacking a war hero when no such thing happened; when Bob Dole's letter is not an endorsement of anybody; when Bob Dole's letter is not a scolding of anybody. To have it as misrepresented as it has been is quite telling, and it's quite common, and it's not unexpected. In the midst of all this, people like me are being held up and held out as the problem. "If we would just punt what we believe... Come on, Rush! You realize here what's going on." You know, the Howard Kurtz piece today, the big quote that's got everybody ripped to shreds here is in the third paragraph: "Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend he would rather see the Democrats win the White House..."

Here's the quote: "If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than a Republican causing the debacle, and I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the House and Congress paralyzed by having to support out of party loyalty a Republican president who is not conservative." I also added one thing that I don't think Mr. Kurtz put in. I said, "Let me give you an example. If Senator McCain is serious about adopting the left's policies and prescriptions to fix the hoax of manmade global warming, an economic disaster will result. I don't want Republicans getting credit for an economic disaster; given one of the central legs of conservatism and that stool I keep talking about, is fiscal conservatism. But I see Schwarzenegger signing on to it, and I see Schwarzenegger endorsing McCain," but the word that's being misinterpreted -- this is not Kurtz's fault. It's nobody else's fault. I should have been a little bit more specific. "If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than the Republicans cause the debacle." By "if," I meant it's unknown yet. It's in the future. This is February, folks. The general election is November, and what I meant when I told this to Howard Kurtz, "if," parentheses, "down the road I think..." It's an open question yet, and yet everybody reading this thinks that I've just said, "Screw it! I'm voting Hillary or Obama." That's not what that meant to say. I clarify it.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

THE VOTERS ARE RIGHT.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

conservative...

The voters in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, and CA disagree.

So, either those two loudmouth cry-baby traitors are correct, or the millions who voted today are correct. In a democracy within our party's nomination process, I am going to side with the voters.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

The South voted Huck as a better conservative than romney. They also said McCain was just as good of a conservative as Romney... that is how they were correct.

or did they say "We don't like Mormons"? Perhaps they were saying something else, like Huck is a Southerner and McCain is a military guy? Ya know, the military is rather popular in the South.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

what a liberal response...

they did not buy the snakeoil romney was selling.

they found huck and mccain more honest in their sincere conservative values...

it's ok, losing is hard.

Most voters know that McCain is not a conservative but believe he is the most electable. Fearing a potential Clinton victory has caused many conservatives to put aside their ideology and vote for electability.

-----------------------------------------------

"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still."

-RWR January 21, 1985

which will not last long into the general election.

First of all, as an everyday listener to Rush, I can assure you that he never has through this whole primary season called Romney a "true Conservative". He has said repeatedly that none of the GOP candidates are the "true Conservative".

Second, qualify your "traitors" comment would you. I mean really, you don't have to like the guy, but using such a word screams liberal. In fact, it does your arguement no good to call him a "traitor". Oh, let me guess, because he doesn't like McCain--who served in Vietnam--he must be a "traitor", right?

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

I am a loyal gop who will never deviate from the party candidates.

dems are supposed to be the undisciplined voters.

For rush to support romney (a conservative fake with no conservative record) exposed his lack of sincerity with conservative issues.

But hey, that is just my opinion--follow the shepard sheep... if you want to.

.

president... he said that.

he is a fat cry-baby... who is going through vicodin withdrawal. how he is so influential is curious to me.

he is a fat cry-baby... who is going through vicodin withdrawal.

I think you are winning over lots of people tonight.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Because if you do, then tell me, on what day did he endorse or even say that he is supporting Romney? I have not heard that. All I have heard is how 1) there is no Conservative in the race and 2) he is not going to support McCain.

Also, you are twisting his words when you say "perferring" Hilliary to McCain. What he has in fact said is that if the Country is going to go to pot, then let it be on the Democrats watch, not ours. I believe his little quip is "It took a Jimmy Carter to give us a Reagan".

The Dems are not "undisciplined" at least not in the past few cycles. Right now they are fighting over rather shallow things. In the end, come Nov., who ever their nominee is is who they are going to vote for. We fight over ideas. We have since Goldwater. Right now, I would say that McCain represents the Party establishment candidate. As a life long GOP'er, you should know that the establishment does not like Conservatives.

I am not even going to address you last two lines.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

and I equate him with O'Reilly... someone who pretends to be more intellectual than he actually is...

He shills out the hard work of actual intllectual conservatives, and ENTERTAINS while doing so.

He is a personality, and should not be taken seriously... and you know what--tonight it looks like he wasn't

Do you hear that... it is the wind of Rush's irrelevancy blowing softly in the air, and it sounds sweet.

The conservatives were once the silent majority while the libs were loud. The libs spewed drivel daily and conservatives simply rolled their eyes to the rhetoric, while WE simply kept our conservative values confidently to ourselves. Rush betrays all of that--but it is ok, he is simply an entertainer.

Rush did not officially say "I ENDORSE MCCAIN!" But his daily bashing of McCain did by clear inference.

Today, the votes of conservative voters in the South drowned him out.

B standard of conservatism (Fred Thompson level), much less the A standard (Ronald Reagan), so instead, all of the candidates are appealing to some segments of the Reagan coalition as being conservative on "some issues."

Huckabee and McCain are by their very words not conservative across the board, while Romney talks like a conservative now, but who knows.

Rush is trying to preserve the meaning of what it means to be conservative. This batch of candidates invokes his name more than any prior batch of primary candidates, all the while, the resemble him the least.

Nobody is a traiter---but many are doing an imitation of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Rest assured Lucy (the MSM) will pull the ball away at the end.

I heard at least five pundits this evening say that in the end, conservatives will vote for McCain because of the alternative.

They were wrong. Asking me to choose between Hillary or McCain is like asking me to choose which of my kids to shoot in the head.

It aint gonna happen. If Hillary wins by default, so be it. I will NOT actively contribute to my country's downfall either way.

But that's just me. I'm only one vote.

when you see shrillary on tv in the general campaign... you will want to prevent that from being on tv nightly... that and bill in the wh.

SCOTUS, and the War are too important and you know it.

It's ok, sleep of the tears and you'll come around

but I'm not mad. Hillary's shrill voice will only depress me more. It won't make me feel any better about McCain. My retreat from the GOP, after twenty-eight years of absolute party-line voting, will be cold and calculated. Rather like finally deciding to split the sheets, I suspect. There will be a certain degree of melancholy, no doubt, but once you are resolute.......

"If Hillary wins by default, so be it. I will NOT actively contribute to my country's downfall either way." Count me as the second vote, err, nonvote.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

you will come around.

I see no difference in Hillary and McCain, other than we know for sure that McCain is a man. Not quite sure about Hill.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

It is what it is.

The definition of the gop is decided by plurality vote in 2008.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

adherence to principle. When the GOP abandons principle, it abandons me.

he read "how to run for gop president for dummies" and reversed himself on several issues, and you guys bought it.

mccain is the most principled candidate followed closely by huck...

But I could hold my nose and vote for him. There's no odor protection to be had sufficient to to allow me to pull a McCain lever. 06' happened because the Party abandoned it's principles. We don't have to go over it again. It's been covered here about a thousand times. McCain is just a further continuation down that same road... only at warp speed. If he's driving... I'm out of the car.

McCain has a proven conservative record. Quit following the Rush/Hannity hype... McCain is no liberal he is conservative on most issues...

I'm following the Laura Ingraham/ Ann Coulter / Mary Matalin / Glenn Beck hype.

of you own... sheep.

at least you are honest about it.

they think they built reagan, when reagan built them...

huck and mccain are conservatives... the conservative voters proved it, and the radio hosts missed the ball on this one.

Okay, you claim that Huck and McCain are Conservatives and Romney isn't. That's fine. But explain to me how Huck and McCain run around talking all of this anti-rich rhetoric and still meet your criteria for Conservative? I don't recall Reagan ever having such language when it came to rich people. I understand your claims about Romney not having Conservative principles, but I don't understand you giving a pass to Huck and McCain on the same matter. Both of these guys have their problems when it comes to tax policy, and now one wants to make permanent Bush's tax cuts and the other wants to introduce a consumption tax. Yet, I am just supposed to over look that and jump on board? Not bloody likely.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

1) Both vowed to make the tax cuts permanent, Huck took the no tax pledge.

2) I have argued their rhetoric is overblown by Rush, Hannity and other ideologues. You are wrong to suggest Reagan never spoke of economic policies benefiting middle and lower classes. What McCain and ROmney are doing are broadening conservative principles to a group that has not been communicated to by conservatives... as Reagan did (that is part of how Reagan democrats came around)

3) I never said Romney is not a conservative... I said he is unproven as a conservative. Instead, he is a moderate to liberal governor who tried to sprint to the right with no record to support it.

Are Huck and McCain Newt or Phil Gramm conservatives... no. But those conservatives cannot win in the general. The winners bridge the conservative principles to moderates and independents and conservative democrats.

You are failing to distinguish between two things

(1) You are corect that Reagan spoke to benefiting the middle and lower classes

(2) You are INCORRECT in implying Reagan EVER USED the anti-capitalist, class-warefare language used by the left . . . and Huckabee and McCain.

Reagan addressed the concerns of the middle class, but he didn't dish on employers or the accumulation of capital to do it.

I like that Huckabee in particular is trying to address the concerns of the middle class. I dislike that he is addressing them USING THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEFT.

When was the last time a poor person hired you to do anything?

What creates jobs? Accumulated capital. Reagan understood it, and explained it to voters.

McCain and Huckabee do not understand it, do not buy into it, and use left-wing rhetoric about greed corporations.

Point to one example where Reagan talked about corporate greed?

I do not accept that premise... but we can simply agree to disagree.

You are making comments about Reagan that are not true.

For example, talking about greedy executives or corporations (something McCain and Huckabee have both done) is NOT something Reagan EVER did.

Yet your comment tries to make it sound that this is just Reagan's way to "talking to middle class voters"

Not true. Try to find one link where Reagan talked like that.

One link and I will shut up.

You want to speak to only supply-siders and ignore the other republican faithful... fine, I prefer to speaking to all republicans, conservatives, and americans...

I disagree with your premise as to what they are doing.

"evil corporations" or "talk cuts for the rich"

You can disagree---but that doesn't make your characterization accurate

You can't point to an example of Reagan talking like McCain or Huckabee on the points I just mentioned.

If you want conservatives to vote for the GOP candidate in November, don't insult us be re-writing history.

This is not a matter of opinion. Reagan did NOT talk that way. He gave speeches, wrote op-eds for YEARS---and you wont find a single example of Reagan sounding like that.

5 X 5 X 5!!!

The night was bad enough, I thought I was losing my mind

He explained how a strong economy benefited everyone and that capitalism works for everone.

He would never call a drug company evil. He never dismissed tax cuts as being for the rich.

McCain and Huckabee may be fine gentlemen, but don't invoke Reagan's name in comparing his policies to theirs--its not accurate.

Reagan was big into supply side economics.

politicians are usually just that. Even if McCain said it, it does not mean it is in his heart. We need to persuade the guy, we need to bring him along. He is just on man, yes the presidency is huge, but I don't think he really has many axes to grind when it comes down to it. Let us join him and show him he must stand by his friends, the losers lounge is full and full of tears.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

was just to make their candidate seem more like Reagan.

The latest example is dhannon_pdx, who I have challenged to find links where Reagan uses phrases like "tax cuts for the rich" or "evil corporations."

Is there any interest at all in facts?

entire diary, it is a fault I have. I understand your desire to defend Ronaldus Maximus, I am with you on that.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

.

refuse to agree huck and mccain are engaging in class warfare... instead i beliee they are paying attention to voters often overlooked by gop.... but ot overlooked by reagan...

i never said they are using the same language as reagan...you said i argued that.

Reagan reached out without calling corporations evil or imugning tax cuts as being for the rich.

Reagan explained how conservativism works for the middle class. Huckabee and McCain do not, which is why I objected to the language that I quoted of yours above.

Reagan reached out by adding, McCain/Huckabee reach out in the same way liberals do---by not explaining how jobs are actually created in a capitalist system.

"You are wrong to suggest Reagan never spoke of economic policies benefiting middle and lower classes. What McCain and ROmney are doing are broadening conservative principles to a group that has not been communicated to by conservatives... as Reagan did (that is part of how Reagan democrats came around)"

You are using this analysis in response to some of the anti-corporation, anti-capitalist comments by Huckabee and McCain.

Did Reagan ever call the drug companies evil?
Did Reagan ever invoke the rich against the poor, or vice versa?

You ARE mischaracterizing what Reagan was about.

You are hitting the nail right on the head. This guy (or gal) wants to use the whole "agree to disagree" tactic which translates to "you beat me". Reagan never used disparaging language when discussing anything other than when he said that "government is not the solution, government is the problem." McCain is all about government, and Huckabee claims that a president should remind you of some one you work with, not the guy who fired you.

Conservatism is about more than how one lines up on particular issues--as mentioned by a previous poster. But it is how one lines up on these issues that gives us an insight into their governing philosophy. A candidate who claims to want to "get the money out of politics" is saying that some people have a right to political speech and others don't, just as one who says what Huck says is really saying that employment is given or taken away at the whim of some faceless evil, not at the dictates of economic principles.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

planks out of dozens does NOT you a conservative make. McCain and Huck are conservatives like Hillary is (just ask the move-on.org crowd- they'll tell you all about Hillary being conservative). Conservatism is an approach to politics and ethics, not a pandering to a couple of what are thought to be hot-button issues.

(-2.75, -4.92)

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

they need to determine what the strategy will be going forward.

As an attorney, I have had many "frank discussions" with clients--rarely did those discussions involve the client quiting or giving up in the face of the particular challenge at hand

.

1: Contract with America, less abortion.
Result: Loses to Kennedy

2: Moderate Republican, with cease fire on abortion.
Result: Governor of Massachusetts

3: The Conservative
Result: "Silver" in Iowa and New Hampshire

4. Hope and Change
Result: "Gold" in Michigan, wipeout in other primaries

5. ?????

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What's funny is how many levels there are to that comparison.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

We make it a point to exercise our property rights to regulate the ability to post here however we darned well please.

Now grow up, and tell Leon that you're sorry for libeling him unfairly.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

We are merely to be thrown against the wall when the TrueConservative™ (or RonPaulRonPaulRonPaul or whatever this nut is pushing) Revolution comes.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I don't think I'm libeling Mr. Wolf.

I'm just dancing around a sombrero in frustration that I can't seem to identify in what country I reside, anymore.

It's Leon's blog. He can do what he wants with it.

But, even though I live in Illinois...more and more, I feel like I'm Mexico.

Please shake a maraca over me and drive out the evil American "Don't Tread On Me" demons that still seem to possess me from time to time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!