Newspaper Blogs

October 15, 2003

PANDERING TO RACISTS....In case you're wondering what the Haley Barbour flap is about, I figure a picture is worth a thousand words. So here's the picture.

The smiling guy in the middle is Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican party from 1993-1997 and currently a candidate for governor of Mississippi. And where was Barbour when this picture was taken? Why, at the Black Hawk Barbecue and Political Rally, held on July 19 to raise money for — wink wink, nudge nudge — "private academy" school buses.

Still not clear on what the problem is? The BHBPR is sponsored by the fine gentlemen of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a bunch of well-known racist neanderthals based out of Missouri. I think most of my readers are probably aware of the CCC's handiwork, but in case you aren't you might want to visit their website and browse around. You can start with "In Defense of Racism," and then head over to "the TRUTH about Martin Luther King," and then finish up with "Angry White Female" and a report from the Mississippi chapter about how Abraham Lincoln was an imperialist warmonger.

You get the picture. As they themselves put it, "The C of CC recognizes that European Christian heritage is essential for the survival of our standard of living and way of life. There is no acceptable substitute for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons."

And yet, as ArchPundit points out, Barbour is pretending that he is shocked — shocked! — to find out the CCC was behind this shindig and doesn't even know who these CCC characters are. Give me a break.

I am well aware that most Republicans aren't racist and are sick and tired of hearing from Democrats about the Southern Strategy and "codewords" and how their party panders to racists. I don't blame them. But here's the deal: if you want us to stop accusing the GOP of pandering to racists then stop pandering to racists, dammit. Send a loud message that a guy who represented your entire party for four years has no business hanging around with the human effluvia who make up organizations like the CCC and then pretending he has no idea what they're all about.

It won't wash, and it's time to knock it off.

Posted by Kevin Drum at October 15, 2003 05:58 PM | TrackBack


This has been bothering me all day: Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?

And don't say "Enya."

Posted by: Grumpy at October 15, 2003 06:07 PM | PERMALINK

That's funny, I went through the Haley Barbour for Governor of Mississippi website, and didn't see anything about promoting racism or outing Abraham Lincoln in his platform. In fact, his photo album shows him shaking hands with several African-Americans. Therefore, I must conclude that he will actually look out for the minority community in Mississippi, unlike that woomanizing Communist dope fiend Martin Luther King. Hooray for Haley!

Posted by: Norbizness at October 15, 2003 06:11 PM | PERMALINK

The CCC is also supporting a proud Halocaust deniner Ernst Zudel. Link

Posted by: Drew at October 15, 2003 06:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?"

Robert Burns? King Arthur? Stonehenge? James Joyce? Bagpipes? Daniel Davies?

Not that all this crap about "European Christian Heritage" isn't, well, crap.

Posted by: rea at October 15, 2003 06:15 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe there's some sort of Republican "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it come to receiving support from the likes of the CCC and other racist organizations.

Posted by: sktsee at October 15, 2003 06:17 PM | PERMALINK

CCC, KKK, CIA, FBI, it's all so confusing!

I'm baffled!

Why can't we put all this complicated stuff behind us and sit back and admire Arnold Schwarzenegger's buttocks.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at October 15, 2003 06:19 PM | PERMALINK

There is no acceptable substitute for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons."

You know, as a combined product of three of those four civilizations, I'm not entirely sure that lead poisoning, political corruption, the chattelization of women and children, polymorphous perversity, militant polytheism, poor personal hygiene and painting oneself blue whilst sacrificing people to trees stack up to, say, algebra, astronomy and medicine, but de gustibus, I guess.

All I know for sure is that pilaf beats the shit out of haggis (one of your few dishes that could actually hypothetically have shit in it).

Posted by: julia at October 15, 2003 06:23 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, can we expect similar admonishments when prominent Democrats, such as the Senators from New York, go politicking with an undeniable Jew-baiter who actually has incited murders; Al Sharpton? What would you say if Sharpton is allowed to speak at the next convention? It seems self-evident to me that both parties are quite comfortable with the worst sort of slime in their midst, as long as it delivers a few crummy votes.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 15, 2003 06:28 PM | PERMALINK

Better yet, Will, when the Democratic candidate is asked about a picture of him at a debate with Al Sharpton, he can pull a Haley and say "I don't know where that picture came from" and "I don't even know who that guy is".

Posted by: Norbizness at October 15, 2003 06:30 PM | PERMALINK

Yah boo, limey bastards!

Posted by: David at October 15, 2003 06:33 PM | PERMALINK

No offense, but is this a new theme? Like the "Cal" in "Calpundit" is just too painful, what with the dummkopf in Sacramento, so this will turn into a big clearinghouse of information about other dumb state governments, other racist groups and other ideologically bankrupt political machines?

People forget, but Little Green Footballs used to be a nifty little web design site before, you know, it got bitten by that rabid radioactive vampire bat. Same deal here? Please say no.

Posted by: Mike D. at October 15, 2003 06:35 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, this reminds me of the ANSWER marches. Marching with avowed and diehard commies? I didn't know!

These southern republicans deserve all the shit they get. What the hell is wrong with them, they just give you lefties more read meat.

I don't know that the idea that "European Christian heritage is essential for the survival of our standard of living and way of life" is that absurd, as we are living in a society defined by its European Christian heritage. I just don't see it in any danger, as it is the dominant culture in the world.

What threatens European Christian heritage? Salsa? Hip-hop music? These guys are kooks.

Posted by: Reg at October 15, 2003 06:36 PM | PERMALINK

This has been bothering me all day: Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?

ah hem...Whiskey...Beer...the aforementioned bagpipes...too many great bands and musicians to count...did I mention whiskey?...Scotch...peotry and limericks...Braveheart...Austailis (in a roundabout way)...thank you.

Posted by: Cassidy at October 15, 2003 06:36 PM | PERMALINK

Nice backhand return, Norbizness.

Posted by: P6 at October 15, 2003 06:38 PM | PERMALINK

Bottom of the 4th, Cubs up 5-3. Pray for Steve Bartman.

(Attention Republicans: Bartman is white!)

Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 15, 2003 06:38 PM | PERMALINK


One word: haggis.

As for the main point, i don't know... how is it that you can claim that it should have been obvious to Barber that they were racist neanderthals, when it took you 3 paragraphs to explain it to us. the occam's razor type presumption is he probably asked his campaign manager:

"So what is this about?"

"They're raising money for school buses."

"Okay sounds good to me."

And that was it. You are going to need a little more in the way of proof to show him to have been knowingly pandering to racists in my eyes.

See what you are missing about these bigots is that they lie. They lie like dogs, to try to get you to start agreeing with them on something that isn't really controversial, in the hopes they will get you to agree on the nasty stuff.

Posted by: A.W. at October 15, 2003 06:40 PM | PERMALINK

Not to mention those darn Irish monks helped everyone out during the Dark Ages: _How the Irish Saved Civilization_, by Thomas Cahill

Posted by: Diane at October 15, 2003 06:42 PM | PERMALINK

Please change the subject. Instead, let's talk about Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Cruz Bustamante, ANSWER, that congressman from Virginia, whats-her-name from Georgia, um whatever.


Posted by: Republican tool at October 15, 2003 06:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ehh, toytoytoytoy.. sure and begoran you're a lovely lass, Diane. For the sake of the blessed St. Pat, pray now for Steve Bartman in the dear lad's hour of need..toytoytoytoytoy.

Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 15, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINK

Will: actually, I agree with you, although I usually get a fair amount of shit for saying so.

For various reasons that I don't feel like going into in detail right now, Sharpton is not, in fact, as bad as the CCC. What's more, he's also got some redeeming features, unlike the CCC.

However, I would personally be happier if we stopped associating with him.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 15, 2003 06:48 PM | PERMALINK

A.W.: The CCC has a long history with Mississippi politicians; there was a flare-up involving Trent Lott and these guys back in 1999 which was extensively covered ( Barbour was the RNC Chairman at the time (or just got done being the RNC Chairman), and also from Mississippi.

This background, of course, is being provided on the assumption that you weren't being totally sarcastic.

Posted by: Norbizness at October 15, 2003 06:48 PM | PERMALINK

Part of the problem with the whole Buses for Private Schools thing is that Private Schools in Mississippi generally exist so that parents can send their children to a school with no or very very few blacks. When integration became enforced a lot of these "academies" popped up all over the place.

I grew up in Vicksburg, MS and I went to the public schools for those living in the city limits. The school was about 90% black, yet well more than 10% of the kids in Vicksburg were white. An awful lot of the white kids went to the private schools.

Posted by: TAD at October 15, 2003 06:51 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?

Didn't you know? The Irish saved civilization!

Yeah, my Byzantinist late uncle is looking down at me from heaven and is quite unhappy with me now. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for a glib comeback. :)

Posted by: Constantine at October 15, 2003 06:57 PM | PERMALINK

Julia, if you've never painted yourself blue before conducting a human sacrifice, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Zizka at October 15, 2003 06:58 PM | PERMALINK

''It seems self-evident to me that both parties are quite comfortable with the worst sort of slime in their midst, as long as it delivers a few crummy votes.'

No doubt true, but that's not the argument. Barbour is hanging out with the CCC so he can make an easy and deniable appeal to racists. If some CCCesque individual was at the helm of the Mississippi Bowling Guild, it would be unfortunate but not the same thing as what Barbour is doing.

Democrats are not sharing time with Sharpton so they can get tie up the anti-semite vote. They're using him so they can pander to african-americans. I'm not too happy about some of the tactics used in this endeavor, and it is hypocritical to ignore them. But it's farfetched, however, to think that the interests of anyone who would support a Dem due to a Sharpton approval are the same as the person who would support Haley Barbour because he hangs out with the CCC.

I also find it incredibly hard to believe that Sharpton will speak at the Democratic Convention. Or if he does, in a time-slot that anybody sees. That seems more like a rumor gleefully circulated by the right.

Posted by: Thomas at October 15, 2003 07:03 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Kevin, Sharpton has actually incited people to commit murder, and there are corpses mouldering in graves as a result, so I would find interesting an explanation as to how much worse the CCC is; perhaps they have incited murders as well, but once any person has done that, they can't get any lower in my estimation.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 15, 2003 07:05 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas, go ahead and rationalize regarding Democrats who willingly appear with a person who has incited murders with the most vile Jew-baiting, for nothing more than electoral gain. Personally, I won't associate with either major party for precisely this reason; there is no behavior that is too vile for either party to tolerate, as long as it tolerating it goes down well with an important constituency, and doesn't sufficiently offend another constituency. These people would march with the Nazis in Skokie if they could get away with it, and if the Nazi vote would put them over the top.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 15, 2003 07:13 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't you nice republicans just say "yes, this is bad" and then tomorrow you can return to your regularly scheduled "Look! Hispanic-supremacists" nonsense.

It might give you a bit more credibility on the latter. As it stands, it seems like all your carping about racism is purely about politics. I'm sure that must not be the case, of course.

Posted by: Atrios at October 15, 2003 07:15 PM | PERMALINK

More seriously: a couple years back 40% of Alabamans voted to keep interracial marriage illegal. (That's a pretty hard figure based on an actual election ; the national number is 20% in favor of making interracial marriage illegal, based on polling).

If those 40% are not racists, the word has no meaning. Are they Republicans, Democrats, or a mix?

Well, there's some evidence that they're Republicans. When the Civil Rights Act passed in the 60's, gradually the white South became solidly Republican. I don't think it's because they developed an admiration for Abraham Lincoln; as it happens, even today Southern Republicans hate Lincoln. (Evidence from the CCC, and also from Richmond Virginia, where many mainstream Republicans strongly resisted an attempt to erect a statue of Lincoln -- for those of you just arrived from Mars, Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party, more or less).

So is this just one of those things, or do the Republicans court the CCC-types? Well, look at Rove. Look at Ashcroft. Look at Lott (still an influential Senator). Look at G.W. Bush at Bob Jones U.

A healthy chunk of the core Republican constituency is racist. Deal with it.

Now Sharpton. He's made race-baiting anti-Semitic statements, one of which led to riots in which people were killed. On the other hand, he holds no political office and high office in the party. And more important, the Democratic strategy does not depend on courting the anti-Semitic vote. On the contrary, it depends on courting the Jewish vote as well as the black vote. (Sharpton is black and anti-Semitic, but most blacks are not anti-Semitic; they vote for Democrats for other reasons -- for example, because of the CCC Republicans. And as for Farrakhan, he's a Republican as often as not)

OK, how about the elder Gore and WV Sen Byrd. Weren't they racists once? Yeah, but they changed. That's how they could stay Democrats. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond became Republicans.

The "Democrats are the real racists" or "Democrats are just as racist as Republicans" arguments are too phony to take seriously, though of course, like many dishonest arguments, they can "work".

Stuff as dishonest as that reduces political debate to the shit-flicking level. It's because of that kind of stuff that I've become an advocate of incivility. Why bother to argue, over and over again, that 2+2=4? Why waste your time?

Some of you have heard all this from me before, because when I see the same dumb, dishonest argument over and over again I tend to respond in the same way ovwer and over again. And I expect to see that bullshit again in the future. And if I have the energy, I'll repeat that same boring thing all over again: 2+2=4.

Posted by: Zizka at October 15, 2003 07:24 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Will. I'm glad we've changed the subject. Now Kevin, could you please make a few edits to your post so that it discusses Sharpton instead of Barbour. I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: Republican tool at October 15, 2003 07:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Not to mention those darn Irish monks helped everyone out during the Dark Ages: _How the Irish Saved Civilization_, by Thomas Cahill"

Really good book.

Posted by: Cassidy at October 15, 2003 07:32 PM | PERMALINK

Zizka: A healthy chunk of the core Republican constituency is racist. Deal with it.

All the Republican genuflections at places like Philadelphia (Miss.) and Bob Jones University lend support to the assertion.

Quite depressing, really.

Posted by: Cervantes at October 15, 2003 07:41 PM | PERMALINK

Grumpy: This has been bothering me all day: Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?

Green beer?

Posted by: Cervantes at October 15, 2003 07:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm actually pretty sure I'm not a Republican. Checked last night in the shower -- no lumps. I'm equally sure that "Aztlan" means just that, regardless of how you justify it, and further that pale males play for the home team just like everybody else. Raise your hand if you're surprised! Raise your hand if you're genuinely stupid! But I repeat myself.

You give 'em driver's licenses and free medical care and they reward you by voting a Nazi into office. I feel your pain! I'm just wondering about the shape of things to come, that's all.

Posted by: Mike D. at October 15, 2003 07:47 PM | PERMALINK

Barbour's conduct is admittedly unsavory, but Republican racial pandering is, on the broad scale, fairly trivial compared to that of the Dems. Reference to the Reverend Bacon, sorry, Reverend Sharpton is the natural Republican comeback and for good reason. It's no reproach to the Dems that he exists, but it's utterly shameful that every Democrat candidate for president would share a stage with this outrageous racebaiter. It's utterly shameful that the average Democrat tries to rationalize their being on the stage. Face it. Republicans are your moral superiors. Barbour's pandering might slide by in Mississippi, but the national party would never tolerate their candidates sharing a stage with David Duke. Whatever you may think of Lee Atwater and the Southern Stategy in the 70's, in 2003 it's the Dems that have to disseminate inflammatory racial lies every election cycle in order to have a chance of winning an election today. Think I'll go burn a black church.

Posted by: Vidkun Quisling at October 15, 2003 08:03 PM | PERMALINK

Vidkun Quisling: Barbour's pandering might slide by in Mississippi, but the national party would never tolerate ...

But ... but ... Haley Barbour was the Chairman of the national Republican party!

You're making my head hurt.

Posted by: Cervantes at October 15, 2003 08:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans always behave responsibly. After expressing regret that a white supremacist failed to win the presidency, Trent Lott was demoted to the 4th most powerful job in the Senate.

God Bless Republicans.

Posted by: Kaus Hackula at October 15, 2003 08:12 PM | PERMALINK

The CCC is an outgrowth of citizen's councils Will. You know, those who were charegd to make sure the "unsavory" don't vote. And the CCC is hardly a new thing, it comes up all the time, but we'll just ignore it. Ashcroft has a number of ties with the CCC, being from Missouri.

Posted by: Rob at October 15, 2003 08:16 PM | PERMALINK

That last post was a keeper Zizka.

Everytime a Republican's racism is exposed, the conservatives whip out moral equivalency. I thought they were against that? Well I also thought they were against deficit spending, subsidies, big government, nation building, increased entitlement spending....uhm how much time do we have here?

Republicans made an immoral pact with their adoption of the Southern Strategy. Guys, take some personal responsibility (that should be on the list above) and own up to it.

Posted by: Dazir at October 15, 2003 08:17 PM | PERMALINK

Celts contribution: Guinness - I think that is almost enough to qualify us for some sort of special superior status.

Then again, African-Americans gave us Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder (pre-Ebony & Ivory), Smokey Robinson, John Lee Hooker...I could go on. And that's just the field of music. Damn those superior black people! They are better at everything!

Posted by: Maureen at October 15, 2003 08:25 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, if sharing the stage is a big criterion, how do you explain Pat Buchanan's candidacies and sharing the stage in debate forums, and the significant greasefires of support for him and his racist racebaitin' philosophy?

The Western Culture we love so much has very graciously assimilated people of all colors. At the very high end of our culture, to take classical music for an example, there is a preponderance of non-white faces. Could it be that white people are too busy attending NASCAR events and singing treacly praise music at their megacongregation churches to seriously delve into the works of Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? What gives, anyway?

I suspect that the BBB composers make your typical conservative, educated or not, uncomfortable. Universal brotherhood? Disillusion with and rejection of Napoleonic tyranny? Abandonment of worldly struggles, for God?

Why does Brahms hate America?

Posted by: Chuck Nevitt at October 15, 2003 08:35 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all should look up H.L. Mencken's essay "The Anglo-Saxon."

He wouldn't have thought much of the CCC, either.

Posted by: Dark Avenger at October 15, 2003 08:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'll second Atrios here. I actively try and drive the dirtbags out of the Democratic Party--a few of the CofCC clowns used to be Dems in the South Side of Saint Louis. Minus one alderman we've droven them out to the Republicans. I worked to raise awareness that Republican Board of Alderman candidate had ties to the them and she lost. A little more work and they'll just be gone here. Take some responsibility and get rid of the pieces of garbage.

Posted by: ArchPundit at October 15, 2003 09:01 PM | PERMALINK

tsk, Zizka. Don't assume.

Hey, you know what else all these "civilizations" have in common?

No monotheism til much, much later.

Let's hear it for paganism, foundation of our civilization.

Posted by: julia at October 15, 2003 09:18 PM | PERMALINK

According to one of Lott's fundraisers, the Barbour firm is especially central to Lott's money chase, especially for the majority leader's so-called "Leadership PAC," the New Republican Majority Fund.

Does anyone really believe that Haley Barbour doesn't know who the CofCC is?

They cost him a lot of money.

Posted by: julia at October 15, 2003 09:47 PM | PERMALINK

Both major parties have major problems. Some of the problems are more morally repugnant than others.

I'm attending the caucuses in my state this time around. I hope that the intellectual heirs of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower do the same.

Theirs is a heritage of compassion, steadfastness, defense of our union, conservation, efficiency in government, pragmatic social reform, civil service, defense of labor, economic fairness, service to country and prescience in it's warning of the threat to democracy posed by the military industrial complex.

It's still a winning formula.

Dean has raised a rabble which, if they succeed, will a go a long way toward breathing new life into the Democratic party. There's no reason why the party of Lincoln cannot do the same thing. If we are cursed (in my opinion) with a two party system (as opposed to IRV), a strong, competitive progressive Republican party is essential to the long term health of the country.

Posted by: dorsano at October 15, 2003 09:51 PM | PERMALINK

People need to stop these Sharpton comparisions. Sharpton doesn't even make the New Hampshire primary polls. Pat Buchanan won the 1996 Republican New Hampshire primary! If Dole had gotten ill during the primaries it would have been Clinton vs Buchanan in 1996

Posted by: Drew at October 15, 2003 09:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yah, the Celts get worthy credit for Guiness, but I believe beer has been traced back as far as ancient Sumer.

Posted by: Stephane at October 15, 2003 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or are we seeing a resurgence of the Know-Nothing Party?

It's become the standard Administration response to everything from false pretenses for war, to revealing covert agents, to association with neo-nazis... hell, we've seen it in their followers, too, with Glenn's "It's just too complicated!" response to the Lott and Plame debacles.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at October 15, 2003 10:28 PM | PERMALINK


I'm no fan of the CCC, but when you object to quotes like "The C of CC recognizes that European Christian heritage is essential for the survival of our standard of living and way of life. There is no acceptable substitute for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons." you just make yourself look stupid.

Do you deny that this is our heritage?

I mean I'm descended originally from Russian Jews, but culturally I get pretty much 100% of who I am from those sources.

Do you object to the reference to "European Christian Heritage"? Well, unless you're a pretty orthodox Jew you probably celebrate Christmas at least a bit... I put up a Christmas Tree, not a menorah, because Christmas is more fun.

If you think the CCC is wrong what culture would you substitute? The French? Maybe Democrats would, but not Republicans. The Arabs? Going to kill your female relatives for sleeping around? Africa? Well, look at Africa... China? The food's good and the beer's cheap, but I'm not a real fan of the culture. What do you suggest?

Posted by: Mike at October 15, 2003 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

It's about heritage. And history. And states rights. And sticking up fer kin. That's just how things are done around here, you best get on out if you know what's good fer ya. You hear me boy?

Posted by: andrew at October 15, 2003 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Celtic contributions? Well, the Celts, at various times, lived over much of Europe and lands eastward. Their traditions and legacies imbue many civilizations with light, music, beauty and good whisk(e)y. They were gradually pushed westward by various unsavoury elements until they survived only on the far western edge of Europe; Ireland, the highlands of Scotland and so on. They have influenced our art, our music, our food, and our drinking. It is said that God gave the Irish whisky so that they would not take over the world.

Umm. I'm going on aren't I. Good titles for further research provided on request.

MKK--Celt, Saxon, Cherokee, and who knows what

Posted by: Mary Kay at October 15, 2003 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

More dishonest rationalizations. Yeah, it is so unimportant for the Democrats to be seen with someone who incites murder (by the way, he has done not once, but TWICE, but then again, what's a few murders when there are votes to be had!) that any Democrat who wants so much as to be elected dogcatcher in New York makes a point to schedule a photo-op with the Sharpton. And gee, I know how silly it is to actually raise the issue of prominent Democrats associating with someone who incites murder, when really, it is only the slime that Republicans associate with for electoral gain that is a proper topic of conversation. The moral myopia of people who belong to political parties never ceases to amaze. You people spend tons of energy informing your opponents of their moral flaws, but wouldn't consider for a moment saying to your own political leadership "Do a photo-op with that shitbag one more time, and I'll never write you a check again!"

Posted by: Will Allen at October 15, 2003 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Mike?

Christianity comes from your heritage, not theirs.


Posted by: julia at October 15, 2003 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

I would agree with you Will, but I don't know much about Sharpton. I'm not one for the moral "tests" that people seem to like putting the other party, through.
I'll go look for a credible source. I think there must a different interpretation of the event than yours, or else the Democratic candidates should definitely speak up.

Posted by: andrew at October 16, 2003 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

"There is no acceptable substitute for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons." you just make yourself look stupid. Do you deny that this is our heritage?

Sure. This is why we're all writing in Ogham instead of those ugly letters that first evolved from somewhere around Baghdad and using I II II IV instead of that fancy Hindu-Arabic numerology.


If you want to deny your Hindu-Arabic cultural heritage that's fine with the rest of us, but your computer will stop working, because you won't be able to use zero any more. Zero has nothing to do with heritage from the Greeks, Romans, Celts, or Anglo-Saxons.

World heritage. We're a big human race. We've done a lot, collectively, that we can all be proud of. Why restrict yourself to being proud only of the things that people with less melanin in their skin did?

Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 16, 2003 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Andrew, do a google search on the words "Sharpton", "Crown Heights", and "Freddy's".

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

I'm no fan of the CCC, but when you object to quotes like "The C of CC recognizes that European Christian heritage is essential for the survival of our standard of living and way of life. There is no acceptable substitute for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons." you just make yourself look stupid.

Do you deny that this is our heritage?

No -- well, not for me at least -- but I deny your attempt at a logical question between those two remarks. The Chinese, Muslims and Hindus got along reasonably for a millenia or more with civilizations that were, in their time, the equal of any other on the planet. I wouldn't choose to be living in any of their dominions right now (although I am, in fact, a resident of China; long story) but that's not to say that their heritages are in any way inferior to mine, just that they're different.

Posted by: Anarch at October 16, 2003 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

those ugly letters that first evolved from somewhere around Baghdad...

Didn't the Roman alphabet descend from the Greek alphabet, which was in turn descended from the Phoenician? [Which in turn descended from the Sumerian hieroglyphs, IIRC, but that wasn't an alphabet but a syllabary.] That technically makes it "around Baghdad", I suppose, but at least 1600 years before it was known by that name...

Addendum: has a good collection of orthographies, btw.

Posted by: Anarch at October 16, 2003 01:10 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously Barbour knew what was up, and obviously the CofCC (which was chosen to alliterate with the KKK) is slime.

And most internet libertarianish people (Reason, Instapundit, etc.) would condemn them as unreconstructed racists. For example:

The thing is that white racists are to the right what communists/socialists & nonwhite racists are to the unsavory base that is often pandered to in order to get votes.

The situations are only considered asymmetrical because people have been conditioned to believe that communists "weren't that bad" (despite the 100 million dead - still and counting in North Korea, Cuba, etc.) or "are irrelevant today" (despite the fact that ANSWER et. al. were behind the antiwar rallies). And others believe that nonwhite racists don't exist (but they do - Sharpton, MECHA, etc.)

Everyone condemns the Klan, the CCC, etc. unhesitatingly, particularly when the Republicans start trying to earn their votes. We just gotta jump on ANSWER & Sharpton/MECHA/etc. when the left-liberals in the Democratic party start going for *their* votes.

Posted by: DLCdem at October 16, 2003 02:03 AM | PERMALINK

Calpundit...amen to some of the above comments. It's pretty hard to take you seriously unless you just as vehemently condemn Al Sharpton. And we know that's not going to happen. And frankly, it's a big reason why many Americans won't take any of the current Democratic candidates seriously. If one of them, say, Joe Lieberman or John Edwards, really wants the nomination, he should actually show some conviction and refuse to appear on a debate with Sharpton (also Braun...because she's a crook, if not a racist). Remind everyone about the Tawana Brawley nonsense, and everything else. Oh, sure, Sharpton would complain that Edwards or Lieberman would be racist. but it's not racist to expose a racist.

Posted by: Robert at October 16, 2003 03:32 AM | PERMALINK

And the above poster is absolutely wrong about Sharpton speaking at the convention. He most certainly will speak at the convention, because anyone who knows anything about Al Sharpton knows that if they don't let him, he will kick and scream, long and loud, and make it a racial issue. That will be the Democrats' worst nightmare at convention time. Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, et al., would be doing the party a huge favor if they would stand up to him right now and run him out of town. I guarantee you if Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman collectively refused to appear in a debate with Sharpton, that would be the end of it. But they don't have the convictions, or the guts, to do that.

Posted by: Robert at October 16, 2003 03:40 AM | PERMALINK

How could anyone take the claims of these uneducated, homophobic, anti-semitic white supremacist morons about "the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons" seriously? Apart form the Bible, they don't seem to have read much of that "heritage" they're blabbering about. Otherwise they couldn't be what they are and say what they say.

And Mike, how and why exactly is French culture not a part of that "heritage" so that it could serve as a substitute to it? You are just being silly here, right?

Posted by: novakant at October 16, 2003 04:05 AM | PERMALINK


Boycott Arnold's movies, the Viper Car Alarm, Disneyland until Arnold resigns leaving Cruz Bustamante to serve as Governor.

Spread the word.

Browse these websites and email them from their site that you will not buy nor rent Arnold's movies from the video store. makers of the Viper Car Alarm once owned by Darrell Issa and email them from their website that you will not buy the Viper Car alarm. and email from their website that you will not go to Disney Land.

You will refrain from doing business with these 3 entities until Arnold Schwarzenegger resigns leaving Cruz Bustamante to take office as Governor.



Stop the Republican Texas redistricting effort.

Call JC Penney Corporate Headquarters in Plano, Texas and tell them unless they get Governor Goodhair Perry to stop redistricting until 2010 when it should happen again, you will not set foot in another JC Penney Store again.


So let it get written, so let it get done.

Call them at 1-800-322-1189



Posted by: at October 16, 2003 04:19 AM | PERMALINK

If you don’t like Sharpton, then you should especially hate the CCC and, indeed, all white supremacist groups for helping create them in the first place. I personally look forward to more Republican strengthening and nurturing of groups like the CCC so that we might grow more Sharptons.

Posted by: td at October 16, 2003 04:44 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, where racist groups have occasionally been in the news over the years, and I never heard of the C of CC. And I'm 46 years old. So I find it very plausible that Barbour never heard of them. You might find that hard to believe out there in California. The proof is in his reaction afterwards.

When I see David Duke challenge Bush for the nomination, and George Bush welcome Duke into a debate as an equal...then I'll be concerned. Because that's how far you have to go to find an equivalent to the Democrats welcoming Sharpton with open arms. Haley Barbour isn't exactly openly appearing on the national stage with racists portrayed as his equals. That's exactly what Dean, Kerry, et al. are doing. And the above poster who likened Sharpton to Buchanan must not have been alive back then, or not more than a child. Tawana Brawley and the Crown Heights affair make Pat Buchanan look like the Pope by comparison.

Posted by: Robert at October 16, 2003 05:16 AM | PERMALINK

Robert: First, the CCC was referred to repeatedly during the Pickering confirmation battles. This was a huge story both nationally and Mississippi. Second, oddballs run in primaries when they think that other candidates don’t represent their views. That’s why Buchanan ran and that’s why Sharpton is running. The fact that David Duke and like candidates don’t run in a Republican primaries means that the people who would otherwise support such candidates a) simply aren’t voting, or b) feel that their views are represented by mainstream Republican candidates.

Will: Isn’t it illegal to incite murder? If so, why wasn’t Sharpton prosecuted? You sound an awful lot like Clinton blaming the Oklahoma bombing on “right-wing talk radio.”

Posted by: Jimmy at October 16, 2003 05:44 AM | PERMALINK

Grumpy asks:
This has been bothering me all day: Can someone remind what, besides freckles, the Celts have contributed to "European Christian heritage"?

Mary Kay has a good answer:
They were gradually pushed westward by various unsavoury elements until they survived only on the far western edge of Europe; Ireland, the highlands of Scotland and so on. They have influenced our art, our music, our food, and our drinking.

But there is more.

There was an extensive wave of Scots-Irish settlement in the back country of the South in the decades before the American Revolution. Many Southerners celebrate their scottish ancestry, in addition there is a (pretty goofy) scholarly group who study the "celtic" nature of Southern backwoodsmen and argue that southern social practices, assumptions and the like are essentially "celtish".

I was a member for a while in a Scottish heritage society, (I am distantly related to John C Calhoun), and one thing that I noticed was that most of the chapters and most of the members were east of the Rockies and South of the Mason-Dixon line.

More recently, and more to the point, is that Scottish games and scottish heritage festivals across much of the south were, for a long time from the sixties through the nineties, gathering places for white pride racists. I went to the Richmond and Alexandria games in Virginia, which were not too bad, but I have heard stories about the games at Stone Mountain and elsewhere.

The point: there is a legitimate place for ethnic pride and ethnic identity in a plural society. Many people, including many southerners celebrate their ethic heritage. Some people, especially in parts of the South, conflate white identity with Scottish or "celtic" heritage. For a while this conflation was eased by the strong racial awareness that was prevalent at Scottish games and in clan associations. When Nathan Bedford Forrest et al formed the Ku Klux Klan they were drawing on Victorian fascination with the Scottish clans, and latter day members of the clan societies (clan Monroe, Clan Colquhoun, etc) can easily have blurred into membership or support of Klan societies (note spelling.)

I think I need to blog on this myself, later today.

Ted K.

Posted by: Ted K. at October 16, 2003 06:08 AM | PERMALINK

When the Democratic party puts Al Sharpton in a leadership role, gives him power over how the money is spent and promotes him for executive office, I'll see an equivalency with this situation.

An equivalency in their willingness to demagogue race is not terribly relevant otherwise.

Trent Lott's family connections with the CofCC were on the front page of all the papers for weeks while the controversy raged over bringing down the formerly all-powerful Senate Majority Leader, a man who held the whip in Republican party politics for years.

I really think you folks need to drop the "he didn't know" argument, unless you think that Barbour somehow missed it when one of the leaders of the party he ran was overturned by a national scandal that potentially endangered a midterm election and led to a vote of no confidence from the president.

Posted by: julia at October 16, 2003 06:29 AM | PERMALINK

You're concerned about Al Sharpton and I don't like him either. Sharpton, though, is a luny fringe candidate, who does not and will not ever have a chance either in the Democratic leadership or any Democratic administratition. Meanwhile another luny fringe candidate has become the attorney general of the US. He, who is in charge of the civil authority in the US, has this to say about his understanding of democracy:

"There's a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king but Caesar, you release Barabas — criminality, destruction, thievery, the lowest and the least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the eternal, you release the highest and the best."

So the guy in charge of the courts, the constitution, civil liberties, the police and security in the US "has no king but Jesus".

This guy has the following to say to the "Southern Partisan" about the civil war and "revisionism":

Your magazine also helps set the record straight. "You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

The guy who is in charge of ensuring that the federal constitution is obeyed sees himself as a soldier in the battle for state's rights:

"Southern Partisan: That's great. I did not realize that you'd been such a big part of fighting the states' rights fight.

Senator Ashcroft: Well, frankly, there aren't any big parts. There are just a lot of soldiers, and I happened to have been one of the soldiers at whom they fired a shot..."

This guy met CCC member and agitator against racial integration Thomas Bugel to discuss the plight of fellow CCC member Dr. Charles "Tom" Sell, convicted of plotting the murder of an FBI agent and a federal witness. The CCC was satisfied that Ashcroft promised to help even though ""those efforts had to be put on the back burner when his 2000 reelection campaign for Senate began."

So why are you worrying so much about a luny who will never play a significant role in US politics? Should you not rather worry about the luny who is in charge?

Posted by: novakant at October 16, 2003 06:30 AM | PERMALINK

above post as a respones to Robert

Posted by: novakant at October 16, 2003 06:34 AM | PERMALINK

Mm, if Barbour didn't know who the CCC was, how did he find the event where he was photographed with their leaders. And as others have said, Barbour is a national figure.

Will Allen is a libertarian so he gets a free ride. But within the two-party system, the Republicans rely on getting the CCC racist vote and the Democrats do not rely on getting the Sharpton racist vote. On the contrary, they rely on the Jewish vote, and they've been getting it so they must be something right. If the big Democratic candidates start sending out coded anti-Semitic messages, then we'll have a problem.

Whoever said that the Republican racist pandering is less than the Democratic pandering needs to go to the store and buy themselves a reality sense.

People are on a platform with Sharpton because they're debating against him and running against him.

Posted by: Zizka at October 16, 2003 07:08 AM | PERMALINK

Scots are a major group in Canada, especially B.C. where my brother lives.

Posted by: Zizka at October 16, 2003 07:12 AM | PERMALINK

If anyone disputes my characterization of Sharpton as someone who has incited multiple murders, do the search I suggested above, and read for yourself. When one condemns one's political opponents for pandering to racists, while one's own political leadership panders to someone who has incited murders through the most vile Jew-baiting, one's complaints ring hollow, because one's actions have revealed that any moral reference point has been abandoned, and the only principle that really matters is winning, pure and simple. If Sharpton is such a fringe chracter, why do the Senators from NY do photo-ops with him? To what possible end? Do the Senators from NY normally politik with fringe characters, because they have nothing better to do with their time? Unitl the political parties are willing to make a good faith effort to police their own grounds, any complaints about the condition of their opponents' is mere empty chatter.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 07:22 AM | PERMALINK

I'll trade you Haley "CCC" Barbour for Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Ashley "Do Boy" Bell, Cruz "Nigger" Bustamante, Diane "He's married to a white woman" Watson, Hillary "You fucking Jew bastard" Clinton, Bill "Jews, that's J-E-W-S" Kinney, Charles "I want to slap a white man" Barron, and Louise "White man is the enemy" Farrakhan.

Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Posted by: David at October 16, 2003 07:48 AM | PERMALINK

Celtic music is beautiful and Celtic mythology is glorious. I am a militant polytheist. I wish the polytheists of the ancient world had been more militant. "European Christian heritage" is an oxymoron, Christianity was imposed on the European pagan cultures through torture and murder over a period of over a thousand years. "Christmas", i.e., Yule, the Winter Solstice, was pagan not Christian. Easter is also pagan in origin.

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson at October 16, 2003 08:09 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, dear.

David, hon, you really have to work on changing your responses just a hair between posts, or someone might think you're reciting talking points without reading the responses.

Do you by chance work in telemarketing?

Posted by: julia at October 16, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINK

You may remember the amusing incident in the 2000 runup when Al Gore wanted to conduct a back door romance with Sharpton and Sharpton insisted that he use the front door. Sharpton made clear that he would punish Gore if Gore didn't publicly give him a big wet kiss, and Gore of course caved.

I love the line repeated in several of the posts here that Democrats don't rely on Sharpton's constituency so they're not tainted by him. This takes a special kind of Orwellian doublethink. The only reason that anyone would appear on a stage with Al Sharpton is terror of offending his constituency--the not insignificant numbers of blacks voters who are obsessed with race and eat up any paranoid racist lie that Sharpton and the other race hustlers like him spread. It is an inconvenient fact that there a number of blacks who are willing to believe that AIDS is spread by Jew doctors, and the Democrats are dependent on the votes of such people. Democrats have so marginalized themselves with the larger electorate that they can only win a national election and most statewide elections by getting a large black turnout and 90% of the black votes, including the votes of the scum Sharpton plays to.

It's politics 101 in 2003, and it doesn't matter how you spin it. Any Democrat who wants to win has to smile and give a big hug to this loathesome toad. If I were a Democrat I would try to change the subject quickly.

Posted by: Vidkun Quisling at October 16, 2003 08:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't consider myself a Republican, but I usually vote that way simply because I've yet to find a Democratic candidate that appeals to me. I came close to voting for Gore on the grounds that he was supposedly Pro-science, but his obvious dependence on Carville during the campaign really turned me off.

If I had proof that the RNC chairman was a racist, I'd want him out of the office just as I have wanted anyone else fitting that criteria out of the office. I certainly don't condone the CCC, and in fact I loath it on two grounds. First, that they are a bunch of hate filled self absorbed racists. And second, that the fact that a bunch of hate filled racists use a few points of belief I do agree with to further there own dispicable goals makes it harder to get people to listen to my own beliefs without being prejudged as a hate filled racist.

What I note is that whenever there is a scandal or the hint of a scandal in either party, pundits on either side immediately start belittling the hatred, pandering, and racism in some members of thier own party and making arguements about moral equivalency in the other.

Of course, hatred is not moral no matter who does it, and the best policy would be to denounce it no matter who is doing it. hold people to diffferent standards based on the color of thier skin, ethnic background, or religious affliation is ridiculous. I don't care what color you are.

I leave you with this excellent peice by Walter Williams:

"Rush Limbaugh's comment on ESPN regarding Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb was: "I don't think he's been that good from the get go. I think what we've had here is a little of social concern from the NFL. The media has been desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Kweisi Mfume, NAACP's president, criticized Limbaugh's remarks as bigoted, ignorant and racist. Democrat presidential hopefuls chimed in with their criticism, and Eagles' owner Jeffrey Lurie called Limbaugh's comments "despicable."

Being 67 years old, I've personally experienced racist language as well as racist acts, not only in my hometown of Philadelphia but during my 1959 to 1961 stint in the Army while in South Carolina, Georgia, Korea and California. I'd like someone to tell me precisely what it is that Limbaugh said that can rightfully be characterized as racist. For the life of me, I can't find it. Limbaugh's statement is opinion that can be characterized as correct or incorrect -- but racist, no.

The true tragedy of the flap over Limbaugh's remarks is that it's reflective of an ongoing process in our increasingly politically correct world where people are losing the freedom to say what they think lest they be subject to intimidation, extortion and other costs by our well-established grievance industry.

On an earlier ESPN show, Limbaugh criticized the NFL's new hiring rule that turns black prospective coaches into diversity pawns. Under the NFL's "diversity" program, the Detroit Lions were fined $200,000 for failing to interview minority candidates before hiring their new coach, Steve Mariucci. Limbaugh pointed out that the reason no black coaches showed up for the interview was because they knew president Matt Millen was interested in Mariucci.

The message to other teams, not wanting to be fined, is to interview black coaches even though they might have no intent whatsoever in hiring them. That's a despicable practice that I can relate to. While interviewing for jobs early in my career as an assistant professor, there were at least two different university interviews where I suspect there was no intention to hire me. They only wanted to interview a black candidate so as to keep the affirmative action lady off their backs. I was simply a pawn, a statistic. Now my question to you: Does Limbaugh's criticism of the NFL's diversity policy also make him a racist?

Liberals are selective in terms of what they deem racist. Take Dusty Baker, the black Chicago Cubs manager, who said: "Personally, I like to play in the heat. ... It's easier for me. It's easier for most Latin guys and easier for most minority people." Baker added, "Your skin color is more conducive to the heat than it is to the light-skinned people, right? You don't see brothers running around burnt and stuff, running around with white stuff on their ears and nose and stuff."

Then there was New York City Councilman Charles Barron who said, addressing a 2002 Washington, D.C., reparations gathering, "I want to go up to the closest white person and say, 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing,' and then slap him, just for my mental health."

Then there's the liberal California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who while giving a Black History Month speech used the word "nigger." He claimed it was a slip of the tongue and got off the hook. Sen. Robert "former Klansman" Byrd used the term nigger in a Fox News interview. His Senate colleague Democrat Ernest Hollings told reporters in December 1993 that he attended international summits alongside "these potentates from down in Africa." He added, "Rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

Here's my challenge: Ask liberals in the media and elsewhere, who are demanding Limbaugh's head, why they didn't demand the heads of the authors of these clearly racist remarks. "

Both sides should be ashamed of those that cross the line, rather than making excuses over it.

Posted by: celebrim at October 16, 2003 09:02 AM | PERMALINK

Only, see, he's not the head of the RNC any more. He's running for governor of Mississippi. Said so in the post. Maybe some of the other stuff you're looking for is there too?

Dja know the last Blackhawk Barbecue was in honor of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

Are we sure he was a racist? I need to know how far back to go here.

Posted by: julia at October 16, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINK

How is it that Al Sharpton is an equivalent to Trent Lott? Trent Lott and Haley Barbour and their cohorts are still more dangerous than Al Sharpton, simply because these men are closer to polically and econonomically powerful groups who are happened to be dominated by whites.

True, Al Sharpton is at times a race baiter, but I think he has changed greatly, just as Robert Byrd did when he abandon the KKK, thus his racist past, something that Trent Lott never did. Republicans always overlook this fact.

Posted by: MGJ at October 16, 2003 09:26 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you all for changing the subject. We don't want to talk about Barbour's racist connections. Let's just keep talking about Al Sharpton.

Posted by: Republican tool at October 16, 2003 09:57 AM | PERMALINK

no, no, no, as long as Al Sharpton exists we cannot criticize racist Republicans because then we're hypocrites... doh

Posted by: novakant at October 16, 2003 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Grumpy, as 'Celts' include all people in Ireland (ie. including 16th century Scottish immigrants), than you can safely assume that they brought perpetual, irredeemable sectarian warfare to this 'European Christian Heritage'. Maybe this is what the CCC has in mind?

- A Celt

Posted by: Chris at October 16, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you all for changing the subject. We don't want to talk about Barbour's racist connections. Let's just keep talking about Al Sharpton.

Yes, the grown ups are in charge now. It's all about accepting responsibility.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 16, 2003 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

In case you can't grasp simple things, novakant, you can talk about anything you wish. There is no reason, however, for anyone to take what you have to say seriously, because the behavior you tolerate among those on your side indicates that you don't really mean what you say. You simply mean to win. Fine; everybody likes to win, but the desire to win, and the willlingness to take any action to facilitate that desire, doesn't qualify you as someone worth paying attention to.
It would be as if Limbaugh came back on the air and said that Ted Kennedy's alcoholism disqualified him from participating in debates pertaining to public policy.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Yet more blaming others. Yep, the grown ups are in charge all right.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 16, 2003 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Somehow the Jews of New York have forgiven the Democrats for their dealings with Sharpton. It may have something to do with the fact that Sharpton does not hold public office or party office either. Given the choice between Barbour's party (which it is) and "Sharpton's party" (which it isn't), Jews vote Democratic. Will Allen should really be working a lot harder on the outreach in New York City. I'm sure that his cutting insights and warm personality would change a lot of minds, if only he weren't wasting them on the likes of us.

Farrakhan, as I said, is a Republican most of the time. Byrd has changed and apologized, as I said. Some of that other stuff being cranked out comes from pretty deep in the wasterbasket.

Posted by: Zizka at October 16, 2003 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

well Will, what the %§&!* do you know about "my side"? suffice it to say I'm not a Dem, I just hate racism, anti-semitism and homophobia as documented on the CCC website and I feel free to criticize people who associate themselves with such ideas without having to attach a disclaimer to all my posts, reassuring everybody that I would also object if some Dem did a similar thing

I could go on elaborating but this is getting tiresome

and thanks for doubting my intelligence, calling me a hypocrite and comparing me to Rush Limbaugh, all in one posting, love it

Posted by: novakant at October 16, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

By Zizka's towering moral calculation, the corpses produced by Sharpton are acceptable as long as Jews in NY continue to vote for Democrats. Somebody contact the Nobel Committee!! As was said previously, what's a few murders when there are votes to be gained!

Spinning, I am not "blaming" anybody, I am simply disputing the notion that politiking with racists for electoral gain is beyond the pale for prominent Republicans, while it remains acceptable for prominent Democrats to politik with, for electoral gain, those who have incited murders. You disagree, because you like Democrats, and dislike Republicans. Fine, but don't dishonestly assert that someone is "blaming" others when they find such moral reasoning grotesque.

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Well, novakant, this site is produced by a Democrat, so when you write, "no,no, no, as long as Sharpton exists, we cannot criticize racist Republicans because then we're hypocrites..", it is not a leap to think you are on the same side as Mr. Drum. You'll notice that I never disputed anyone's right to criticize Barbour, but merely inquired whether Kevin was willing to be as hard on Democrats' associations. To his credit, Kevin indicated that he thought associating with Sharpton was wrong, although I think he soft-pedals Sharpton's actions somewhat. If you're not on the Democrats' side, why not simply say associating with Sharpton is grotesque as well, instead of implying that anyone is saying that you can't hammer Republicans?

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Barbour is running against Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat. Musgrove has also attended CCC events. But this doesn't tell us anything about the Democratic party, does it? NOOO, of course not. Nor does Sharpton, nor Bustamante (n-word use , plus membership in a racist organization), nor does Robert Byrd, nor any other Democrat who may make a racist statement.

Lott was driven out of a leadership position for what he said. When was the last time a Democrat was forced to step down for this kind of thing? Uhm, gee, can't think of any.

But don't mind me, I'm just a registered Republican. Don't let the facts get in the way, just label this "hate speech".

Posted by: Pete Harrigan at October 16, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Republicans: "We may be worse, but they're bad!"

Pete, who used the phrase 'hate speech' here?

Oh, right: just you.

Posted by: Cardinal at October 16, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I am simply disputing the notion that politiking with racists for electoral gain is beyond the pale for prominent Republicans, while it remains acceptable for prominent Democrats to politik with, for electoral gain, those who have incited murders.

The moment I see Republican party leadership criticize Barbour for this, I will take this argument seriously.

There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who have criticized those within their own campaigns for actions similar to this. These are good people to do so. This should be the common approach, especially among self-proclaimed grownups.

The incorrect approach -- the one you're taking -- is to suggest that Republican party leadership is immune from criticism because there are others in the Democratic party who are sinful. This attitude leads to division.

If you wish to criticise someone other than Barbour because someone is criticizing Barbour here, that is indeed "blaming" others to avoid addressing what Barbour is doing.

You seem to be giving Barbour a pass because someone else is a bad person.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 16, 2003 01:11 PM | PERMALINK

"By Zizka's towering moral calculation, the corpses produced by Sharpton are acceptable as long as Jews in NY continue to vote for Democrats."

Funny I don't recall him mentioning anything of the sort. As I remember it the setting up of a strawman argument in any debate kinda loses you credibility. It was a fair attempt (almost) at a feint though .

Posted by: Ahab at October 16, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINK

In my first post I acknowledged the facts about Sharpton. I have given several reasons why I think Sharpton is less a factor in the Democratic Party than large numbers of generic white racists are in the Republican Party. One is that white racism is integral to the Republican national campaign, whereas, rather than anti-Semitism being central to the Democratic national campaign, THE JEWISH VOTE is central to the Democratic campaign.

The aggrieved group in the Sharpton case, New York Jews, has concluded differently than you have. So now I look at you, and LO! -- you're someone who has a longstanding, intense animosity to the Democratic Party and all its works. What a shocker! Who would've thunk it?

I've already covered Byrd's KKK membership. Twice. It was before most people were born, incidentally.

Posted by: Zizka at October 16, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINK

Zizka says:

"Somehow the Jews of NY have forgiven the Democrats for their dealings with Sharpton".

This assertion has exactly nothing to do with whether it is tolerable for Democrats to appear with, for electoral gain, someone has incited murders. The victims are dead, and cannot speak for themselves. To refuse to address whether it is acceptable for prominent Democrats to seek electoral advantage by appearing with someone who has incited murders, and instead to raise the issue of an religous group's voting pattern, a grotesque rationalization is pursued.

Spinning, I challenge you to reprint one word on my part that defends Barbour. I have not. I simply responded to Kevin's original post by asking what standrads he was willing to hold his political party to. To his credit, Kevin indicated that he would prefer that Democrats disassociate themselves from Sharpton, although I think he soft-pedals Sharpton's actions. Thus, I have minor disagreement with Kevin at this point. I have major diasagreement, however, with the rationalizers in this thread who find it so difficult to say that prominent politicians should not seek electoral advantage by appearing publicly with those who incite murder. Gee, what a terribly high standard to adhere to!

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 01:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Zizka, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer make sure to back-slap with a person who incites murders just for the hell of it, and not because there is electoral advantage to be gained by appearing to be on friendly terms with someone who incites murders. As long as the Jews vote for Democrats, it really is of minor consequence, after all. I'm sure that would have been a comfort to the people butchered, if they had been so informed prior to their deaths. All for the greater good, and all that. Hey, there are elections to be won, after all!

Posted by: Will Allen at October 16, 2003 01:50 PM | PERMALINK

Sheeesh. I don't know who is "guilty" here. The Dems establish the entire Slavery game, then after the evil Abe destroyed that --- they developed the Jim Crow system in the south.

Now I can walk onto any college campus in the country and see segregated dorms, segregated graduation ceremonies, et. al.....

And my Dem friends tell me African Americans can't have vouchers, because, "they aren't intelligent enough to decide where their children shall attend school."

Why haven't any black people risen to any level of significance in the Democratic party?

The Dems are just bearing the White Man's Burden, in my estimation...

And the world still turns.

Posted by: Erik Rousseau at October 16, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINK

Spinning Tops,

You will see criticism of Barbour over this from prominent Republicans. What happened to Trent Lott? Is he still Majority Leader? No. Democrats did not drive him out. Republicans did.

But you will never see Democrats criticizing Sharpton or any other left wing racist, because it never happens. Ever.

At some point it just becomes intolerable to listen to a bunch of left-wing hyprcrites winging stones from their big old glass house.

Posted by: Pete Harrigan at October 16, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, bad metaphor. Should be "intolerable to WATCH left-wing hypocrites, etc." I mean, how do you hear someone throwing stones?

Posted by: Pete Harrigan at October 16, 2003 02:31 PM | PERMALINK

I know this post was a long while back, but to the "militant polytheist," I say that one of the good things you can say, even if you're a nonbeliever, about the impact of Christenization is that it eliminated all of that human sacrafice associated with Celtic and Germanic paganism. No more slitting people's throats to use their death-spasms as a way of predicting the future, and no more strangulation while stabbing to worship Wodin :-).

Posted by: dn at October 16, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

What is with this constant bickering?

'Democrats made slavery! Dixiecrats were Democrats!' waahwaahwaah. Nevermind the guys who made the Dixiecrats are... Wait, that was who Lott was praising. Isn't he a Republican?

'Al Sharpton did hate speach!' ... Well, what position does Al Sharpton hold aside from occasionally wrong pundit? What, he's somehow worse than Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh?

...And aren't we talking about people who actually hold offices and positions, not pundits?


Posted by: Crissa at October 16, 2003 03:32 PM | PERMALINK

Lott is still one of the most powerful guys in the Senate. Try again, Pete. What a load of lying crap.

How can Democrats take away Sharpton's power? HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY. They can't demote him from Majority Leader to committee chairman, the way they did Lott.

Will, as always, you've convinced yourself. And the evidence. as always, justifies a conclusion you came to God knows how long ago. And you've reponded very selectively to the various things I've said.

Posted by: Zizka at October 16, 2003 03:32 PM | PERMALINK


How is Sharpton worse than O'Reilly or Limbaugh? How about his involvement in both incitement to murder and a faked racial beating. And that is my point. There seems to be no line a Democrat can cross to get criticism from the left. Unless,


You are right. Sharpton cannot be demoted from a Senate position he does not have. But he isn't even criticized. He is treated as an important figure by Democrats, despite his despicable history.

Meanwhile, Barbour's action is being used to brand the Republican party racist as his Democratic opponent does the SAME THING and neither he nor his party are criticized.

Zizka, I know the current definition of lying employed by the left is disagreement with the left, but I can tell you that everything I wrote above was factually accurate as far as I know.

You are free to disagree with me over left wing hypocrisy. You can call me a moron or ignorant, if you wish. The lying charge, however, is simply inaccurate. I never said Lott was driven from the Senate. Further, I claimed that Sharpton and other left wing racists receive no condemnation from the left, not that he should lose his political power.

Switching metaphors again, get your own house in order, then you can attack the right over racism. As far as I can see, the race charge is purely partisan demagoguery.

Posted by: Pete Harrigan at October 16, 2003 04:14 PM | PERMALINK

oh, pfui.

(all the substantial arguments have been made and ignored, so why bother?)

Let's see. Al Sharpton represents the Democrats in much the same way as David Duke represents the Republicans. He's a racebaiter who runs for office occasionally.

They even dislike most of the same people.

What else you got?

Posted by: julia at October 17, 2003 06:07 AM | PERMALINK

And David Duke was invited to appear at Presidential debates with all the major candidates when, exactly?

Let's face it, Al Sharpton's appearances at the debtaes merely confirms that racism is part-and-parcel of the Democrat party.

Posted by: Al at October 17, 2003 07:24 AM | PERMALINK

Sharpton's appearance at the debtaes has to do with the fact that Shartpton is running for president.

Duke was not running for president.

He did, however, get his party's nomination and support when he ran for congress.

Really, you're going to have to find another talking point.

Posted by: julia at October 17, 2003 08:01 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, wait, I'm wrong. We are in bed with antisemites.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."

His speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, which he was hosting, drew criticism from Jewish leaders, who warned it could spark more violence against Jews.

Mahathir, who is known for his outspoken, anti-Western rhetoric, criticized what he described as Jewish domination of the world and Muslim nations' inability to adequately respond to it as he opened the meeting of Islamic leaders from 57 nations.

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir said. "They get others to fight and die for them."

Here, a prominent democrat evinces support for Mr. Mahathir's world view.

Woops. Sorry, guys. Our bad.

Posted by: julia at October 17, 2003 08:07 AM | PERMALINK

There goes Julia, AGAIN failing to address the racism that is a basis of the Democrat party.

No, Julia, Sharpton did not get up on stage with Dean and Kerry and Gephart merely because he is "running for President". There are LOTS of Democrats who are running for President who didn't get up on stage at the debates. Rather, the Democrats WANT Sharpton up on that stage so that they can appeal to the bigots who support Sharpton that make up a segment of the Democrat party.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats here - Kevin Drum especially - is appalling. Race baiting blacks like Sharpton are fine and dandy - yes, let's give a privileged position as one of only 10 Democrats at major Presidential debates. But Barbour attends a BBQ put together by some questionable Southern group and he's the real racist - even though the DEMOCRAT he's running against, Gov. Musgrove, has attended functions of THE VERY SAME RACIST GROUP.

So admit it, Julia, Democrats are the REAL racist party here - the party of Gov. Ronnie "I attended CCC events too" Musgrove, Lt. Gov. Cruz "N****r", "MeCHA" Bustamonte, Rev. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, Sen. Robert "KKK" "white n****r" Byrd, Rep. Jim "Anti-Semite" Moran.

Posted by: Al at October 17, 2003 08:33 AM | PERMALINK

you're cute when you're foaming.

Posted by: julia at October 17, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINK

Crissa -

What the Lott incident shows is that Republicans should be carefull letting Democrats into their party.

Back when Lott and Thurmond supported segregation, they were Dems.

This whole brouhaha is about a former Dem praising another former Dem for what is still a Dem policy.

Dems supported race discrimination, then for approximately three years they didn't, now they do again.

Up until Lott's remarks, Reps were clamoring for his removal, precisely because of his annoying habit of saying dumb things, especially the nice things about Teddy Kennedy.


Posted by: LeEllis Brown at October 17, 2003 09:43 AM | PERMALINK

Claiming that our culture is somehow descended from the Arabs because we use 0 is frankly inane.

Go over to an Arab and ask him to describe the hallmarks of his culture. He'll list a lot of things, but I doubt he'll include 0.

That's a stupid as saying that Arabs are adopting Western culture when they use computers. 0 and computers and similar things are tools, not culture.

And these silly attempts to show that our culture is somehow equally descended from the Arabs and Hindus as it is from Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo Saxons is excellent evidence for the proposition that political correctness kills brain cells.

Finally, I note that no one objecting to this quote has yet suggested an alternative to "the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons". And, of course, you can't with looking even stupider than you already do.

Posted by: Mike at October 17, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but i need a little actual background to the story before i conclude that Barbour was there with knowledge of who he was pandering to.

You guys simply don't take into any kind of account the fact that organizations like this lie and lie all the time. it would not be beneath them to trick a bigwig into coming to their innocent sounding rally. The fact, Calpundit, that it took you several paragraphs to even explain who they are proves it is not obvious to everyone. Maybe you walk around town with a list of hate groups in your back pocket, but not everyone is like that.

So you need a little more about the circumstances behind the pic before I am going to conclude that Barbour knew what he was getting into.

Posted by: A.W. at October 17, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Mike, you should really take some classes in the history of ideas. You will see that the Egyptians and Sumerians invented such trivial things as alphabetic writing around 2000 BC, while "we" were still running around in bear skins. You will see that Greek thought didn't somehow fall from the sky and that one of its more interesting achievements was the development of truly abstract reasoning which judges ideas according to their logical validity and not their origin. The Sophists would have laughed out loud at the notion of "Christian values". You will see that hadn't there been that "Arab" guy Averroes (Ibn Rushd) who rediscovered Aristotle, much of European Renaissance thought would probably have taken a distinctly different course. You will also see that a good part of modern European philosophy was devoted to debunking exclusive and bigoted definitions of "culture", "heritage" and "religion" and steering humanity towards rational and universal principles.

Posted by: novakant at October 17, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

It must be easy to do, mistake the CCC for some nicer bunch of folk. Maybe they disguise themselves with masks or hoods or somewhat? John Ashcroft met with them a few years ago and he didn't know who the heck! And he's from Missouri! Here's a link about it:

Posted by: maximumken at October 17, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

"I'd like someone to tell me precisely what it is that Limbaugh said that can rightfully be characterized as racist. For the life of me, I can't find it. Limbaugh's statement is opinion that can be characterized as correct or incorrect -- but racist, no."

Celebrim, if you're still here. It's not "racist" perse - though one could argue that Rush is calling the media racist for favoring a black -- it's wedge politics - Rush is pitting white against black by saying that blacks are being favored.

Rush could simply have said he's over rated - why bring in race?

People are sick of this crap - and it's just easier to call it racism. I have no idea if Rush is a racist or not - but what he's doing is dispicable -- attempting to empower and embolden whatever racist strains exist in each of us and in society at large.

just say no.

Posted by: dorsano at October 17, 2003 08:45 PM | PERMALINK

"(despite the fact that ANSWER et. al. were behind the antiwar rallies)."

The antiwar movement split (in the U.S.) early on. ANSWER may have been influential in Europe and the rest of the world (I can't say); but it wasn't here.

It was driven largely by UnitedForPeace, MoveOn, CommonCause, VeteransAgainstWar, and WAMM. The ANSWER people showed up at the protests to be sure -- but they were less than 2% (most of the time)

ClearChannel orchestrated the Dixie Chicks protests and some of the pro war rallies. Which is a unique role for our 4th estate (in other countries it would called a harbinger of fascism - but we defeated fascism and we know it's dead)

The main objective of the "anti war" movement in the U.S. was to bring an end to "Bush Doctrine" - but it seems that Bush has saved the movement the trouble - it's unlikely that any U.S. president will be able to make a case to the world (or even to the us at home) to fight a preventative war based on intelligence data.

Posted by: dorsano at October 17, 2003 09:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, yeah the Republicans pander to racists, like the NAACP, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton? Ho hum when the Dems get rid of the Grand Dragon I'll be able to take this seriously. Its sort of the same vein as look Arnold groped Hitler.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at October 17, 2003 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Novakant, I'm still waiting to hear the alternative to "the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons".

You can't suggest one, can you... and it's burning you up inside, right?

Posted by: Mike at October 18, 2003 06:31 AM | PERMALINK

PANDERING TO RACISTS: Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and other Democratic political candidates. See article:

Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, is challenging Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove in the Nov. 4 general election.

A photo on the CCC national Web site shows Barbour and several other casually dressed people — including state Sen. Robert "Bunky" Huggins, R-Greenwood — at the Black Hawk political rally this past summer in rural Carroll County, about an hour's drive north of Jackson. . .

Lord said the CCC held a separate barbecue the same day as the Black Hawk rally, which traditionally attracts a broad spectrum of candidates, Democratic and Republican. Lord said some black candidates were among those who spoke at the rally.

Musgrove said Thursday he had attended the Black Hawk rally in the past but didn't this year because of a scheduling conflict."

Posted by: David at October 20, 2003 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, well, David beat me to it. Musgrove went to this rally as well.

Isn't is a bit, oh , explicitly hypocritical of you all though?

Democrat goes to CCC rally--no fuss

Republican goes to CCC rally--fuss.

Answer that.

I won't hold my breathe waiting. This will just turn into one of those things like ignoring Kleagle Byrd's membership in the KKK--a situation that is usually backied up with Duke's UNSUCCESSFUL run for congress, a run, I might add that was NOT endorsed by the national RNC.

Posted by: jack at October 20, 2003 07:15 AM | PERMALINK


David Duke did not have the official party endorsement when he ran for Senate in 1990, Ben Bogart did. David Duke did not have the official party endorsement when he ran for Governor in 1991, Clyde Holloway did. I do not recall him running for the US House (Louisiana House, yes, and he won, crazy New Orleans suburbs).


And in 1991 I held my nose and voted for Edwin Edwards, the last Democratic candidate that I voted for. It was more of a vote against Duke. And yes, I'm a Republican.

Posted by: David Block at October 20, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

The Great "Celt" debate is fundamentally a debate about Celtic identity and who possesses it. HELLO!!! The Irish are not Celts. DNA tests carried out on Irish bodies found in bogs has determined that the people now in Ireland are of the same stock as the 6000 year old bodies.This predates the Celts by thousands of years. The Irish adopted Celtic culture and symbols in much the same way as much of Europe later adopted Roman ways of life.The dominant culture of the time is always copied. Hey the world drinks coca cola and wears baseball caps!

Posted by: Archie at January 6, 2004 05:37 AM | PERMALINK

online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:45 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, but is the standard reply to Byrd still just, "Well, he said he was sorry"?

So did Lott. That doesn't mean anything. Democrats not only allow Sharpton to run, something they could stop, they kiss his ass on the campaign trail. Democrats have the support of, and support in reciprocation, militant communist psychos as well (does anyone remember Clinton letting the Weathermen off?). Democrats are, in no way, better. The media is basically just yelling, constantly, that Republicans must be the racist ones, and people just ignore how deeply infest the Democratic party is with ANSWER types. Look, I'm no Repug. I won't vote for Bush, and I hate this shmuck. But, are you really going to claim that Democrats are any better?

By the way, if you think I'm kidding about media spin, try this. How much media attention did Duke's run for Senate get when he was a non-official Repug? How much attention did he get when he was an official Democratic primary candidate? Spin that one, morons.

Republicans are better at pandering to white racists, Democrats are better at pandering to anti-semites, black racists, and psycho communists.

Posted by: Fred Erix at August 3, 2004 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

3552 You can buy viagra from this site :

Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 12:49 AM | PERMALINK


Posted by: penis enlargement at August 8, 2004 09:46 AM | PERMALINK

6778 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 05:04 PM | PERMALINK

6052 ok you can play online poker at this address :

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINK

8322 get cialis online from this site

Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

3675 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see.

Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

4221 Get your online poker fix at

Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINK

8945 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich
and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINK

3094 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 09:11 PM | PERMALINK

5028 for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model

Posted by: Adult DVD at August 19, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINK

788 check out the hot blackjack at here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: play blackjack at August 22, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINK

7643 Herie is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 06:08 PM | PERMALINK

732 check out for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 10:33 PM | PERMALINK
Contribute to Calpundit

Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter