Harry and Trent: A Tale of Two Gaffes

[davidbcoe]

I’ve been kind of absent from the blogosphere recently, except for my weekly Magical Words posts. The “Robin Hood” project was pretty consuming, and I just haven’t had much time to comment on politics or sports or life itself. I’m finally finished, though, and, it seems, just in time. It’s as if in the last week or so the entire world has gone

Comments

[hedwig_snowy]

I think explaining in that manner - that it's not hypocritical - is acceptable. I certainly think it was an idiotic thing for Reid to say. The main problem I have with his defense is the idea that it was perfectly ok because he wasn't somehow giving his own views but what white america thought instead. That excuse doesn't hold water and is offensive in itself. Own it Harry. You said it. He apologized and people will forgive him or not. People like nothing better than to point out hypocrisy even when they're ten times more hypocritical. Reid probably wasn't going to be re-elected even before this and this certainly didn't help his chances.

[davidbcoe]

Yeah, I guess I have less trouble with it than you do. His wording sucked, clearly. But what he said, was a) said in private, and b) totally true. I just don't see what the problem is, aside from the use of the phrase "Negro dialect." The fact is he WAS talking about White America, just as I was in my post when I said that he was right. The fact is that White America was leery of embracing this African-American candidate, and he's about as non-threatening to whites as any candidate of color could have been. Again, I just don't see the problem, particularly when compared with what Lott said.

[hedwig_snowy]

Fair enough.

"Totally true": Possibly. Why would anyone elect an inarticulate street thug (of any race) for President? But, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, even in a private conversation, should have more sense that to voice it that way.

Also, I see that the census will contain the word "Negro" as part of the African-American category. Who thought that was a good idea? Apparently, they'll still a lot of people out there using that term about themselves. What? Are they over 100?

Another commentor wrote: "We wanted Barack Obama but we would have had one heck of a time getting him if he wasn't half white"

I'm not sure what the numbers are but I'd guess they'd be pretty small for those who voted for him because he was half-white. Did they see him as less threatening, more "articulate", and therefore less black? Yikes! We got a long way to go even with after electing a black man President...

[davidbcoe]

>>I'm not sure what the numbers are but I'd guess they'd be pretty small for those who voted for him because he was half-white. Did they see him as less threatening, more "articulate", and therefore less black? Yikes! We got a long way to go even with after electing a black man President...<<

Yeah, I don't think she was saying that people voted for him because he was half white, but rather that people were willing to vote for the black candidate because he was not a "threatening" black man, and that this was a function of him being mixed race. And that is very sad....

[kmarkhoover]

Lott was pining away for the good ol' days of segregation when People of Color had separate drinking fountains and knew their place. Senator Reid used a term that was unfortunate, but not in the same league.

RepubliKans can shriek all they want. There's a damn good reason their party is viewed as being racially intolerant. Mainly, because that's the default position they operate from, along with a healthy dose of xenophobia, fear, and unreasoning hatred.

That's who the RepubliKans are. And all the whining they do in the world isn't ever going to change that reality.

[davidbcoe]

I agree with you, Mark (not surprising, I know). I'm particularly struck by the fact that the people who are rushing to condemn Reid are (aside from Michael Steele) folks like John Cornyn, with his 6% rating from the NAACP, and John McCain who is notorious for having opposed the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday when it was first proposed. They're equating Reid with Lott for political reasons, but maybe they're also doing it because they're just that stupid and out of touch with racial realities. Maybe they don't see a difference. To be honest, that idea terrifies me....

[shiny_elfriend]

First of all, well said! If only politics were the art of telling it like it is, and not the art of spinning it like a top, someone who thinks like you did here would have the shiny new job at Fox.

I can't even tell you how many people around here have commented that we were fortunate Barack Obama is mixed race because darn it, we wanted him elected and we know how things stand. Yeah, that is the sort of thing it's better to just know in the privacy of your own head and not say aloud, but true is true. It's insensitive, but it's not racist to acknowledge that racism exists and effects how people vote. Pretending it doesn't to make ourselves sound like we're above it all as a country is inauthentic to say the least. We wanted Barack Obama but we would have had one heck of a time getting him if he wasn't half white. That's the way it is.

[davidbcoe]

Thanks, Gina. There is a quote I've been trying to remember all day long; something to the effect that Republicans get in trouble when the speak their minds and Democrats get in trouble when they speak the truth. Certainly applies to this.

Well said!

[ext_216252]

While it’s true our actions speak louder than our words, those same actions can also augment our words making them louder, sometimes louder than we intended and sometimes louder than they deserve to be.

Re: Well said!

[davidbcoe]

Thanks for the comment! Rhetoric and action reinforce each other. And yes, when poor rhetoric reinforces negative actions, the effect is powerful.

[markwise]

Exccept the fact that it was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act. It was the Republicans who ended slavery and extended Voting Rights to former slaves.

These are things that seem to be forgotten by folks these days.

[davidbcoe]

Yes, Lincoln, a Republican, ended slavery, and Republicans in the Reconstruction Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments extending rights to former slaves. The Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1964 and 1965, and they were intended to end the remnants of Jim Crow. They were shepherded through Congress by a Democratic President (Lyndon Johnson) but they did have substantial support from moderate Republicans as well as liberal Democrats. The main opponents were Southern Democrats and conservative Western Republicans. So those two laws were truly bipartisan

[markwise]

There is no proof of ralical intolerance in the Republican Party. Ever ehar names such as Condelezza Rice, JC Watts,Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell? Michael Steele is black and is the Leader of Republican National Party.

As for Social intolerence, the only that they are intolerant of is wasting money which the Democrats love to do.

[davidbcoe]

>>Ever ehar names such as Condelezza Rice, JC Watts,Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell? Michael Steele is black and is the Leader of Republican National Party.<<

Ah, the "Some of my best friends are African-Americans" argument... Might want to take Colin Powell off that list. Having a few high profile African-Americans doesn't change the fact that the GOP has been opposed to every major piece of Civil Rights legislation over the past thirty years. And social intolerance would cover the frothing-at-the-mouth opposition nearly every elected Republican voices for any type of social justice for homosexuals.