Redstate

One way to point out the obvious is to tell "black" people such as "Kweise Mfume" that he actually is American, not African. He could start by dropping the fake "African" name and return to his real name. The concept that conservative black Americans are not "really black" is ludicrous on its face. The fake "African-ness" of people like Mfume is what really needs to be exposed. It's just another way to divide black Americans from other Americans, by making it seem like they are really not part of the whole.

...basically wrote that Clarence Thomas wasn't really black "because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America"

So, if someone is white, but they arguably do not represent the views of mainstream white America, does that meant they aren't really white?  Also, since any judge nominated by a Republican is asserted by Democrats to automatically be 'out of the main stream', does this mean these judges are not white?

These two were staffers of Charles Schumer, the very Senator who is championing for expanded privacy rights and against identity theft

The Newsday article said that Schumer immediately reported this to the US Attorney for investigation.  That's significant, no? In terms of the characterization of Schumer as a hypocrite on issues of privacy and identity theft?

that offset keeping them on the payroll?

too point out this obvious hypocrisy. This is a big part of the problem.

Not exactly true.

I personally talk about it all the time, and have links on my blog to dozens of articles, blogs, and press releases that address hypocrisy in the treatment of minority republicans and conservatives.

Rove is on the payroll despite being the target of a federal, criminal investigation. Libby was until he was indicted.

Are you suggesting that Schumer WON'T fire these two if crimes have been committed?

Libby presumed innocent.  Rove Presumed innocent.  Delay presumed innocent.  These two woman . . .?

Gay Republicans and their staffers being outed by liberal gay activists who believe that if you are gay, you must necessarily be standing and fighting for your "gay brethren," in other words, you must agree with everything the gay lobby says and fight for it. If you don't, you have no right to privacy and are open to anything that anyone wishes to do to you.

One of the first arguments I got into on this site was whether Republicans resort to disgusting identity politics with white voters in the South. Stuff like this makes clear that liberal Democrats are more likely the worst and most blatant offenders.

Now this is the blue state that the red man lives in (though it is slowly changing hues).

I am not surprised that the lib/dems act this way...why should you?

Bush is a liar, though Bill Clinton lied only about sex (never remembered that he did it in front of a US District Court Judge while under oath), Sandy Berger steals then shreds classified government documents and gets a hand slap, but Scooter tells the truth about someone elses lies and faces 30 years if convicted.

The press and the lib/dems are hypocrites...we see this in the way they treat conservatives.  But through the blogosphere the Media can't get away with it anymore.  They are being dragged kicking and screaming into intellectual honesty.

or when Steele is portrayed as a traitor to his race, then the gloves should come off.

What exactly does "then the gloves should come off" mean?

And the image you posted was created by an african american. When an african american attacks another african american along the lines of race, is it "racist"? Does that fit the definition of racism?

If blacks are overwhelmingly democratic, then it generally follows that a black republican does not represent the views of a majority of blacks. The oreo throwing, if its true, is of course over the line, though.

More than any other, the Baltimore Sun is Maryland's newspaper.  (The Washington Post, by comparison, covers VA, DC and MD, and is also very much a national paper). And Baltimore is Maryland's signature city.

We should presume silence from the Sun on this issue to mean either they are indifferent to these tactics, or tacitly condone them.

And, based on today's online edition, the Sun's editors have published nothing on Mr. Steele's candidacy, or the Democratic reaction to it, since they editorialized on October 27th on his announcement for the Senate.

The longer the Sun remains silent, the firmer the conclusions we may draw.

It it racist, unquestionably so-- though perhaps not in the traditional sense. The racism is anti-white, because that is the core of the attack on Steele and Thomas-- they are too "white." If that was not a pejorative, then what would be the problem?

Also, anyone that says Thomas does not represent "mainstream" "black" values is not making much sense. It's true politically, but Thomas is not a politician. He is a Supreme Court justice. What % of black people in the US are qualified to render judgements on complicated legal matters?

He is outside the "mainstream" of black lawyers and judges generally, but lawyers hardly indicate the views of the general population.

I see your point (they seem them as white) and get it now, thanks for clearing it up.

If most blacks are liberal, then why doesn't it make sense to say that conservative blacks don't represent the opinions of a majority of blacks? The % of blacks qualified to "render judgements on complicated legal matters" is irrelevant.

what they did, I don't see the comparison. There is no presumption of innocence here unless you are arguing they are pathological liars who claim to have committed the act when they didn't. Not given that you guys have Durbin and Pelosi as examples to buttress your argument about the attraction your party holds for this particular demographic, I tend to think they were telling the truth.

What exactly does "then the gloves should come off" mean?

Responding forcefully to these kinds of attacks, kind of like what I just did.

And the image you posted was created by an african american. When an african american attacks another african american along the lines of race, is it "racist"?

Why would it not be racist?  When did blacks become exempt from racist comments by dint of their skin color?  Gilliard made it clear in his original post, by singling out Steele and his attendance at a country club (one that had no black members), that he was not only the wrong kind of black person, but a boot-licking puppet.  It is the worst kind of personal attack.

Does that fit the definition of racism?

I believe it is racist to believe that a person with a certain amount of melanin content must be confined to one "acceptable" party or ideology.  It may not fit your definition of racism, but it fits mine.

I wasn't aware that they had admitted it.  If so, sound like they should be reprimanded AT THE VERY LEAST and possibly fired.

Well, I re-read the Newsday piece and it says:

1.  Nothing abou "admitting it."
   
   
2.  They resigned.

So, I'm not sure what your original "on the payroll comment" is about.

Please clarify.

You may have a negative view of Thomas' jurisprudence, but he would tell you (and I would concur) that all he does is faithfully interpret the laws passed by popularly elected legislatures, or in some cases executive acts under the leadership of a popularly elected executive.

Thus, Thomas does not have political views as it pertains to his decision making on the Court and thus it is totally irrelevant where the black voting public stands on the issues.

Note, however, that blacks are actually fairly conservative on social issues, and they back Democrats for other reasons that Thomas has little to do with in any sense.

I was just wondering on the definition of racism as a whole.

I am not defending the attacks or anything, as I think they're the kind of cheap, dirty attack politics would be much better off without.

is called "getting a check."

They were caught and placed on paid leave.

I don't think there is any problem with Mfume taking on a name that emphasizes his ethnic background.  People change their names all the time - one of my favorite Presidential contenders was Pierre DuPont - who went by 'Pete' for all the obvious reasons.  And Gary Hart's last name wasn't 'Hart', either.

I don't like the term African-American because I think it's a bit misleading - what do you call someone who was born in Niger and moves to the US?  And what do you call a black person from Canada?

All the same, I think this is a silly complaint you are making - there is nothing wrong in being proud of your heritige and celebrating it.

Good point.  When Republicans are hammered for "identity politics" in the South, it is USUALLY some sort of inferred "read-between-the-lines" thing.

In this case, it's flat out in-your-face "identity politics."

Schumer's "Alito may roll back the gains of Rosa Parks" was the same sort of un-subtle attack.

this logic is just ridiculous.

Africa is not a culture. It is a continent. There is no such thing as an "African" name as there is no such thing as a singular African language. We can safely assume that Frizzel Gray has no idea whatsoever of the ethnic origins of his ancestors. The assumption of these names is a political statment.

I don't think the points about duPont or Hart are very much on target. Pete is an acceptable nickname for Pierre (Peter). Why Gary Hart shortened his last name I'll leave to his psychiatrist. But neither case has to do with their ethnicity.

Effective?  Very.

A racist rarely confines his prejudice to one group.  Usually the expectations and requirements of racial identity are imposed upon every hue and grouping. Senator Byrd's white "n" statement demonstrated both his contempt of blacks and some of his requirements for "true" white identity.

How many of these must go unchallenged:

"Real Indians stay on the res"

"Real blacks are Democrats"

"True Irishmen are Catholic"

"Real Southern whites are Democrats"

This last one was once as firmly entrenched as any.

Southern white Democrats, angry over their loss of political power and nervous about their opportunities to regain control, effectively employed "race loyalty" to end "Black Republicanism" in the Reconstruction South.  

In order to deprive the "Black and Tans" a working coalition majority of Freedmen and former Whigs they both vilified blacks and castigated pro-Republican Southern whites as Scalawags.  

This double edged racism made life very difficult for the "N word loving" (please do not pounce on me for this reference, the period is replete with it and, yes, I find it reprehensible) Southern white Republican.  Few withstood the pressure and most Southern whites were successfully kept in the fold.  

So how is this effort to define "racial loyalty" for political advantage any different?

It is not.  Let us hope it does not enjoy as much success.

For admitting to willfully breaking a federal law? Welcome to Redstate, Slick Willie.

that's not our standard.

It is.

It's a pity.

. . . excepting, of course, diversity of ideas.

I don't mean to suggest that there is one overall 'African' culture - but people often talk about 'Western' cluture - in this case they mean Western Europe and North America and there are some basic common threads.

And both Dupont and Hart changed their names to make them more electable - Hart anglocized his name and DuPont's name change had EVERYTHING to do with his ethnicity - he called it a 'funny French name' and laughed at how he thought 'Pete' would sound better.  Bush 41 knew this, which is why he famously needled him by calling him 'Pierre' in the first debate.

Don't get me wrong; I don't LIKE Mfume/Gray at all.  I just don't see the problem with him changing his name.  I don't know if it got him more votes or not but he's hardly the only politician to play up their ethnic background for votes.  Al D'Amato did it all the time.

Where are you getting the "paid leave" information from?

I'll retract all that I've said if you point me to that.  I'm just asking for a cite.

The newsday article says nothing about "paid leave" it says "resigned."

Do you know code I don't know?

Again, the Newsday didn't say that they admitted anything.

If they did, I agree that they ought to be tossed.

If Schumer is paying them, he is an idiot.

The image of Mr. Steele is offensive and clearly intended to be so.

It strikes me as what is becoming the norm in politics which is ad hominem attacks.

We attack the messenger instead of rebutting the message. Disparaging the national security dedication of men like John McCain, John Kerry and Max Cleland goes too far. Agree or disagree with their positions on issues and make the case for your position.

There is no need to call Mr. Steele an Oreo or Mr. Bush a moron. Agree or disagree with their positions, but respect the person.

Rather than it being time to take the gloves off, it may be time for us all to put them back on.

is called "I Can Read"

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Schumer-headed Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said two staffers were instantly suspended -- with pay -- in July after admitting they obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate.

Sources familiar with the situation said the committee's head of research, Katie Barge, and a deputy, Lauren Weiner, got the credit report by using Steele's Social Security number, which they say they obtained from public documents.

Records obtained by The Post show the two continued to be paid by the Democratic committee at least through Aug. 31.

in this case the people making the racist attacks of Lt Gov Steele? And shouldn't they be attacked?

of the whole state of Maryland, where his conservative views may or may not represent the opinions of a majority of Marylanders.  

And don't forget that, sadly, most African-Americans are descended from slaves and accordingly have no formal ties to a specific African culture.  It's kind of perverse that some would now insist that they embrace a specific heritage that was stolen from them.

I still don't see it in the Newsday article.  Where are you quoting from?

Regardless, I'm assuming that you aren't just making this up, so assuming that's accurate -- I agree.  See how easy it was to get agreement?

Seriously, that was all I was asking for.

The fact that they were paid for several weeks is troubling.  Without further information, I'm even willing to assume that there wasn't good excuse for it.

And, if this was the type of thing that Schumer had a hand in -- paying them after they admitted it, guess what?  THAT'S BAD.

But like I said, I didn't see that in the Newsday article linked and I still don't, after re-reading it and searching for "admitted," etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

I meant to characterize Mr. Steele as the messenger. His message contains his positions on issues.

Every politician has a message which we are all free to accept or criticize.

I don't think we need to engage in personal attacks on individuals of any philosophy.

Just deal with the message.

I just don't understand how you can reconcile your first sentence with this:

I don't think there is any problem with Mfume taking on a name that emphasizes his ethnic background.

He took his name from Swahili. The odds that his ancestors were from that swath of East Africa where Swahili (technically a pidgin or a creole as opposed to a language)was spoken are nearly zero. This is not an action that is the result of honoring your ethnic identity (such as changing McAuliffe to MacAmhlaoibh), it is political in the same way that Wesley Cook became Mumia Abu-Jamal.

As duPont was an American, ethnically speaking, I don't get the significance of his name change for any reason other than he didn't like it.

And as Gary Hart(pence) already had a very English, perhaps painfully so, last name I don't see how shortening it to Hart Anglicized it.

out there other than Newsday.

The one cited and linked in support of this story (the Schumer-consumer-report subpart of which I have not followed at all) did not mention this.

Had you mentioned that you were quoting from a different source, you could have (paraphrasing Jerry McGuire) "had me at hello."

It may surprise you to know that there are a few of us on "the left" who don't blindly follow democrats in elected office.

My only point was that THIS author seemed to be overly harsh in the implication against Schumer given the sources linked and I felt it right to point that out.

With the additional information that you've provided, I agree that Schumer wasn't harsh enough and should have fired these two without pay as soon as they confessed to it (with the only other option being to send them personally to the Lieutenant Gov's office to make an apology and let their fates rest in his hands).

DuPont took pains to say that he DID like his name, even pointing out that he named his son Pierre.  It was obvious that he changed it for political reasons and so he was open about it - even to the point of making jokes.

I'm aware of the orgins of Swahili as well as the fact that Mfume's forefathers probably came from west Africa, but I think you are splitting hairs.  What is wrong with appealing to ethnic identity in order to gain votes?  Most black Americans have no idea what tribe they have decended from and so a sort of generic African sounding name does the trick.  I don't know that it's smart politics if you are running for an office where you will need lots of votes outside of the group you are targeting, but I fail to see that there's any difference between that and changing your name the other way.  Do you have a problem with Martin Sheen changing his name?

for the inconvenience but quite honestly I've come across maybe a half-dozen lefties who don't just cut-n-paste the party line so I've come to expect, in these conversations, that I'm not dealing with particularly honest people at the first encounter. And given that I still have a grievance with you from one of your first posts on the board I didn't give you the benefit of a doubt.

On the specifics, the story was exhaustively kicked about here when it first broke so I was surprised at being challenged on the leave-with-pay and the self-admission points which led back to point #1.

I believe it is racist to believe that a person with a certain amount of melanin content must be confined to one "acceptable" party or ideology.  It may not fit your definition of racism, but it fits mine.

What also boggles my mind is that apparantly blacks are the only race that can't choose which party to belong to or which political philosophy to hold.

Whites split between liberal and conservative-I don't think liberals betray the "white" race.  Hispanics also split-you don't see too many accusations that a conservative hispanic is a traitor to their race.

I also think that putting a black face on any candidate is tacky, racist and way over the line, and I don't care if the author of the picture is also an african american-there is no excuse.

However, he is dishonest, misguided, hypocritical, egotistical and thuroughly despicable.

I am not fine with dressing him up in black face to make the point.

At that point political satire has gone too far.  Similar has been pulled with Condi, Powell, and Thomas.

I strongly suspect all the liberals defending this guy for doing a black face on Steele would be the first to cry foul, if a GOP supporter or conservative blogger/columnist/editorial cartoonist put Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangle or some other prominent democratic african american in black face in order to attack their message.

were my original points.

DuPont didn't like his name. He probably wouldn't have liked Aloysius either. Growing up Pierre, even as a rich kid, probably had its uncomfortable moments.

Most black Americans have no idea what tribe they have decended from and so a sort of generic African sounding name does the trick.  

Exactly the point. It isn't ethnically linked in the least. He's making a political statement by taking a Swahili name. Yes, it is good business for a radio host on a black oriented radio station and good politics if you're running for office from a congressional district that covers Prince Georges County and Baltimore City, MD.

Do you have a problem with Martin Sheen changing his name?No more than I have with Allen Konigsberg or Taidje Khan. Though I have to admit I patiently watch the reruns of "The Execution of Private Slovik" on the off chance that one day the propmaster screws up.

Your skepticism is warranted. And, short-handing in the case where facts are assumed to be known is common.

Its why I asked.  And, its why I thanked you for clarifying.

If I had to guess, the two were connected (family, friends, etc.) and firing wasn't an immediately "good option" for personal political reasons.

If I'm wrong on that -- i.e., that they just kept them aroud after confessing, and didn't march them over to the Lt. Gov's office to have him decide their fates, it was not just lazy, but wrong, deserves to be pointed out.

have a grievance with you

I trust you meant "disagreement."

On that thread, I don't believe that I've been -- and certainly have not intended to be -- disagreeable or spoken to cause "grievances."  If I have, let me know.  As here, I'm more than happy to correct my mistakes.

a grievance.

To say that they merely indicate a statistical fact is to entirely re-state what was said.

The sum of the statement isn't "conservative blacks don't represent the opinions of the majority of blacks."

The sum of the statement is that conservative blacks do not agree with the majority of polled black voters, and therefore are betrayers of all black people. The writers and quoted individuals in these stories, and the bloggers who do the same, are suggesting that failing to agree with the majority of black voters is precisely the same thing as being against ALL black people everywhere.

Suggesting that they are merely noting that he isn't part of the majority is a vast understatement to say the least.

As I said in my post about, DuPont claimed that he DID like his name, but realized that many americans would not vote for a guy named Pierre.

Most black Americans have a broader idea of ethneticity that other groups do because they know only that they came from Africa.  My ancestors were Irish, Scottish and Jewish.  Just because some of my   family came from the western part of Europe, I don't feel any kinship to, say Serbians or Greeks who live in Eastern Europe.  But black Americans DO feel that way - to them, there is little difference between Mali and Malawi.  This doesn't apply to the whole continent of course - Arabs own the northern part of it - but to most of it south of the Sahara.  Given that tribal warfare is a big problem on the continent, it's probably a good thing that this identification is so generic - no one worries if they are Hutus or Tutsis.

confusing racial identity with ethnicity. There is a huge difference. Which leads us back to my first couple of points. The taking of these generic names is a political statement about their position on racial identity.

And my threadjack is over.

I believe it is racist to believe that a person with a certain amount of melanin content must be confined to one "acceptable" party or ideology.

That's extremely well put.

They're made racist.  Until my brother was six years old, he thought Black people were "tan."  One day he came home from school and was really upset because one of the "tan kids" in his class got sick and threw up in the lunchroom, and he was worried that he would get sick too.  It took us a few minutes to figure out what he meant.

Among us lefties, there were plenty who found it offensive and way over-the-top. (I myself wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.) On the other hand, plenty found it to be "fair game" as described.

I think to a largte degree, people on either side of the political spectrum will usually just keep out of the infighting and stereotyping that goes on among minority groups. If Gilliard as a black man felt THAT strongly about it, I kind of feel ill-equipped to tell him what is and what is not appropriate. Heck, I'm not black, I don't know if the level of outrage or reaction to it is perfectly acceptable within the black community.

I think members of each cultural, racial, ethnic, etc., group basically defines for for themselves what kind of digs are "fair game" amongst one another. Certainly, it would be best if no one ever resorted to that kind of LCD behavior, but in the end, it's hard to deny that the rules are different when members of a minority group attack each other.

means 'Republicans in prominent office or position'.  The establishment Repubs are notorious wussies when it comes to publicly engaging anything that borders on "political correctness", especially when it comes to things racial.  IMO.

racism is a Type of hatred

Their hearts are pure, either.  I'm not a Rousseauean.  

rules are not different when members of a minority group attack each other

when members of a minority group attack each other.your comment is racist by definition

It's kind of perverse that some would now insist that they embrace a specific heritage that was stolen from them.

I find it completely reasonable to embrace something that was stolen from you.  What would be perverse is to embrace something that you deserted.

How is reclaiming and reincorporating into your life something that was stolen perverse?

I meant to show that I link to such individuals. Conservative leadership as it were, if not actually elected officials.

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

what is your opinion on how black people use the N-word about each other, but a white person certainly couldn't use it?

Non-African-Americans ought not use the word.  I can't understand why African-Americans would use the word themselves, given its toxicity, but to each his own, I guess.  

that line of reasoning you really should think through the implications.

If Gilliard as a black man felt THAT strongly about it, I kind of feel ill-equipped to tell him what is and what is not appropriate. Heck, I'm not black, I don't know if the level of outrage or reaction to it is perfectly acceptable within the black community.

If you want to live in a country that acknowledges and subsidizes this kind of mindless bigotry, you need to get comfortable with Matt Hale and the Church of the Creator, with the Nation of Islam's line on whites and Jews, and all manner of others out there. You can't pick and choose which racists you give a pass to.

i guess my point was that i'm not sure if inter-race insults are truly racism. i'm no sociologist or anything like that, but that was just my gut feeling of why things like this are under the rader.

I think it has to do with claiming the word for themselves and taking away its power. I guess when it's used enough that it loses its edge, it's not as utterly devastating if a white person says it.

Needless to say, Cosby would strongly disagree with that.

under the radar. Racism or not, you have a right as a member of society to decide if that kind of expression is appropriate and if it isn't you have an obligation to speak out. I don't want to sound like a Democrat but we really are all in this together.

The source of the insult should not be a factor in determining whether a statement or action is offensive.  If it is uncivil, lacks decency, and is intended to harm another individual's character or reputation, it is offensive.  There is no need to excuse such behavior because of the attributes of the individual making it.  

I thought the point of a colorblind society was to ignore the other person's skin color, to judge them by the "content of their character."  Are we not doing a great disservice to the civil rights movement by excusing this behavior because of the skin color of the individual doing it?