Gay Patriot Header Image

The Rise and Fall (& Rise Again?) of George Allen

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:21 pm - November 9, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Ronald Reagan,Virginia Politics

When I was law studentl at George Allen’s alma mater, the University of Virginia School of Law, the Commonwealth’s currently outgoing Senator was beginning his rise to power. He won a special election to Congress in 1991. When the Democrats who then controlled Virginia’s government eliminated his district, he announced his bid for Governor.

Many of my professors, including two right-of-center ones, were skeptical of his candidacy, recalling how mediocre a student he had been. But, during his 1993 gubernatorial campaign, they became impressed with his political skills, with one noting that he had shown qualities reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. He ran a great campaign that year, coming from behind to win a convincing victory. He put together a solid record as Governor, so good that at the conclusion of his term in 1997, GOP candidates swept all three top offices in Virginia.

That year, I met the then-Governor at a rally in Annandale at the close of the campaign to elect his successor. I showed him my cowboy boots which I said I was wearing in his honor. He examined them, asking if they were deerskin (which they were) and asking how they felt. He was quite personable and showed a similar ability to talk to the other Virginians who approached him.

It wasn’t just his campaign style which impressed me, it was also how his strategy. In 1993, social conservative leaders were upset that he didn’t seek their blessing before running. Yet, they refrained from criticizing him because he had appealed directly to social conservative voters.

But, as his aspirations for national office increased in recent years, he seemed increasingly eager to please those social conservative activists whom he had once bypassed. A man who reached out to Log Cabin in 2000, he has becoming increasingly eager to placate the anti-gay forces in the party.

I think that hurt him this year. But, that alone did not account for his defeat. He simply went into this election overconfident and was not easily able to overcome his blunders, as a more deft politician would. Given all his missteps in this campaign, it’s amazing that he came so close to winning. Indeed, he may well have pulled it off had he not brought up the racier passages in Jim Webb’s novel. That appears to have backfired as polls taken immediately after that should a bump in Webb’s poll numbers.

As Allen appears likely to concede, he seems to be accepting his defeat with dignity. With a graceful concession speech, he puts himself in a strong position to run for the seat his senior colleague John Warner is expected to vacate in two years. So, instead of running for President in 2008 as he had hoped, he may well be making a bid to get back into the Senate.

And let us hope that when he does, he recalls that he can attribute his initial success in Virginia politics to more mainstream conservative policies, closer to those of Ronald Reagan than to those of Pat Robertson. George Allen lost this time by fewer than 8,000 votes to a man who “used a video in ads that showed Reagan praising him.

A Republican may have lost in Virginia, but the image of the Gipper still sways voters. And it’s to that legacy which George Allen must turn if he wishes to rise again in that state’s politics.

UPDATE: In an excellent piece on concession speeches, Peggy noted Allen’s grace in concession: “Sen. George Allen, gentleman of Virginia, said, ‘We are placed here on earth to do something well.’ He vowed to do all he could to help Jim Webb come in and serve in the U.S. Capitol.



  1. Macacalypse Now!!!

    Comment by sean — November 9, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - November 9, 2006

  2. It would also be a good idea for him to overcome his racism. The USA must shed its racism and all vestiges of it. Allen is a vestige of that racism and he deserved to lose on that point alone.

    Comment by fnln — November 9, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - November 9, 2006

  3. His days are over.

    George Allen will be on a lot of sh*t lists now. He cost the Republicans control of the Senate. All because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut. Now I hope he learned his lesson: it’s better to be a macaque than a dumb ass.

    Comment by Allen — November 9, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - November 9, 2006

  4. you liked him because he asked about your boots? so webb ‘s tour of duty in vietnam and in the reagan white house were less impressive than that?

    Remarks of James Webb at the Confederate Memorial
    June 3, 1990

    you’ll be glad you did

    Comment by lester — November 9, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - November 9, 2006

  5. Hopefully this will put “paid” to Allen’s Presidential aspirations. He’s just not the “right stuff” to lead the GOP to the White House in 2008…or even 2012.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 9, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - November 9, 2006

  6. No, Ted, he’s not. The campaign proved that.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 9, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - November 9, 2006

  7. I thought Allen was on record as not being very satisfied with being a Senator. If he runs for Warner’s seat, he may find himself up against another Warner.

    Comment by Ian — November 9, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - November 9, 2006

  8. “A man who reached out to Log Cabin in 2000, he has becoming increasingly eager to placate the anti-gay forces in the party.”

    The anti-gay forces in the party… Seriously, aren’t the anti-gay forces found IN the party platforms? You talk about “anti-gay” forces as if the party isn’t anti-gay on the whole and you are not in denial.

    The marriage issue turns out the party to vote…because the party is anti-gay.

    Comment by jimmy — November 9, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - November 9, 2006

  9. #8. Follow up: And I thought it was the policy of this blog, as you lend YOURSELVES to the task of purging the GOP of gays, to claim that LCR is NOT RepublicanSo why would it matter if he reached out to LCR? Or is it just the other ‘gay patriot’ that makes this argument?

    Comment by jimmy — November 9, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - November 9, 2006

  10. just as an aside, whoever came up with the “slur” macaca was probably well educated. as it is the genus name for those cute little monkeys. who know’s it may have even had an affectionate connotation originally.

    Comment by markie — November 9, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - November 9, 2006

  11. Ok, I’m done gloating now (but I, too, miss Little Ricky Santorum already). So I figure I would suggest some reading for y’all to check out when you aren’t throwing the football around with quarterback macaca this winter. Leon Festinger and his colleagues wrote a book entitled WHEN PROPHECY FAILS. “Reactions to Disconfirmation” is the most important chapter.

    Comment by jimmy — November 9, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - November 9, 2006

  12. George Allen lost his seat because of character issues.

    Will he run again if John Warner retires? Maybe. But I doubt the GOP will want to put money on that pony again if Mark Warner is the Democratic nominee.

    Comment by Chase — November 9, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - November 9, 2006

  13. Why would anyone want to see George Allen run again in 2008 for ANYTHING, considering that he seems willing to kiss up to the Log Cabin Gang when that suits him and to kiss up to the Religious Right when that seems like a more politically helpful route? In other quarters, that is called “unprincipled” if you are kind and “amoral” if you are honest.

    What does George Allen stand for? What you have described is narcissistic me-first-ism… an unattractive quality in anyone but a dangerous one in a person entrusted with the power of the State. If the man had any morals, then he wouldn’t have been skipping merrily all over the political landscape making nice with anyone who could help him. Men with moral compasses don’t jump ship.

    Considering how loudly this blog ranted about their perception that John Kerry and Howard Dean have engaged in this sort of thing, I am rather surprised to find that you seem willing to forgive Allen so quickly for it.

    Comment by Ann C — November 10, 2006 @ 12:30 am - November 10, 2006

  14. “It would also be a good idea for him to overcome his racism. The USA must shed its racism and all vestiges of it. Allen is a vestige of that racism and he deserved to lose on that point alone.”

    Indeed. And note that this was not mentioned in GPW’s post. The Great Revision begins.

    Comment by JonathanG — November 10, 2006 @ 1:13 am - November 10, 2006

  15. What racism? No one could corroborate the allegations that he used racial epithets in the 1970s. And no one has presented evidence that he harbors racist sentiments. It’s just another accusation cooked up by his adversaries.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 1:25 am - November 10, 2006

  16. jfc west, macaca and nigga did flow of his tongue

    Comment by markie — November 10, 2006 @ 1:30 am - November 10, 2006

  17. We have no clue what “macaca” meant, but there is no evidence that he ever used the “N” word. See what I said above about the failure to corroborate the allegations.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 1:49 am - November 10, 2006

  18. Dan, you may have no clue what macaca meant, but millions of people who live in the francophone states of Africa do and Senator Allen did, as well.

    Senator Allen used a racial slur common in french African states. Senator Allen’s mother is french African, born in Tunisa. You don’t have to be Matlock to figure out that when George Allen said he made up the word, he was lying.

    After all, it takes a BIG mistake for a popular incumbent Senator, former Governor and presidential front-runner, to lose a re-election bid. “Macaca” falls into that category.

    Cause make no mistake, George Allen would have won if he hadn’t said that. Least you forget, Allen was up 18% points before he said it and afterwards, the race was a statistical tie.

    Webb didn’t win the race, George Allen lost it…. and rightfully so.

    Comment by Chase — November 10, 2006 @ 2:21 am - November 10, 2006

  19. Allen is an underperformer. The governor’s race, he did well in, but he only got 52% against the awful Chuck Robb when he ran for the Senate in 2000. Robb was unpopular, was out of step with his stage, and didn’t even campaign for half of the year.

    I think that Tom Davis (VA Congressman – called a “moderate”, but he is no moderate if you ask me) will want John Warner’s Senate seat very badly and it’s going to take a lot to keep him from running for that seat.

    Comment by Carl — November 10, 2006 @ 3:39 am - November 10, 2006

  20. Dan, you note that Allen’s failure to win on Tuesday indicates in part he isn’t the right stuff for the GOP prez nod…

    If that were the criterion… Slick Willy would be gutting chickens at the slaughterhouse in AK right now… Reagan should have never run in 1980… nor Nixon, nor Bush 41 or 43, nor the faceless and easily forgotten Democrats who have been one-time losers but were the right stuff to run for their Party’s prez nod.

    Don’t get me wrong –Allen isn’t even on my shortlist of hopefuls. But neither is Rice, Cheney, McCain, Newt or others.

    I wonder if Tony Snow would run? Tony Snow versus Jon Stewart from the DailyShow —at least the election would be intentionally funny at times… instead of funny by default.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 10, 2006 @ 9:21 am - November 10, 2006

  21. Please add to Chase’s nonsense the point that Sen Allen, while a college student some 30 years ago, allowed a Confederate flag to hang on the wall of the dorm room he shared with 3 other jocks.

    I think Chase has a problem with masculine, athletic, successful men. Like with Gryph, those angry unresolved issues only make you seem more bitter, Chase. The intervention worked well for Gryph; maybe we should try it for you?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 10, 2006 @ 9:25 am - November 10, 2006

  22. Yes, Chase, I agree with you, Webb didn’t win the race so much as Allen lost it; I said as much in the post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 11:14 am - November 10, 2006

  23. #21. Or he has a problem with racism.

    Comment by jimmy — November 10, 2006 @ 11:22 am - November 10, 2006

  24. #17. Ok. LOL.

    Comment by jimmy — November 10, 2006 @ 11:23 am - November 10, 2006

  25. There is overwhelming evidence that Allen has, at the minimum, racist tendencies. There are too many independent and detailed descriptions of him using the “n” word over the years. Are all those people liars? His cosy relations with outright racists when he was Governor is exemplified by this image. Even if you don’t believe “macaca” is a racial epithet, Allen’s automatic assumption that Mr. Sidarth, with his brown skin, could not have been from the USA and certainly not from Virginia demonstrates a troubling attitude towards non-whites.

    Comment by Ian — November 10, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - November 10, 2006

  26. No, Ian no, there are not such descriptions, at least not corroborated. If there were so many, how come they never came out until this campaign, given that the man has been in politics for about two decades?

    Ok, ok, there may be independent and detailed descriptions but there are also detailed descriptions in a novel and that doesn’t mean they happened.

    George Allen has his faults, many of them. But, racism is not one.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - November 10, 2006

  27. #23:

    Then I hope he has a problem with the member of a racist and anti-semitic cult joining the 110th Congress.

    Comment by Attmay — November 10, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - November 10, 2006

  28. Your last comment confuses me, GPW. You say “there are not such descriptions” and then “how come they never came out until this campaign”. I don’t think one can honestly say that the descriptions of his using the N word don’t exist. I suspect the reason it never became an issue before is that in his earlier campaigns, his racism (or lack thereof) did not become an issue, as it did this time.

    Looked to me like “macaca” was his family’s word for “sand n*****”

    Comment by Bill — November 10, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - November 10, 2006

  29. I say they didn’t come out until the campaign because people were trying to build a case that he was a racist. If there were such abundant evidence of his racism, it would have come out in previous campaigns. That’s what I’m saying.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - November 10, 2006

  30. #26: Dan, doesn’t it bother you that Allen automatically assumed that Mr. Sidarth was not from the US let alone from Virginia? Doesn’t it disturb you just the slightest that, as Governor, he had cosy relations with known racists? And finally, I can’t get over Allen’s odd suggestion that his own mother couldn’t bring herself to tell him of his Jewish forebears because she was afraid he wouldn’t love her anymore. And that suggesting he was part Jewish was somehow “casting aspersions”. No, you put it all together and the simplest explanation is that Allen is at some level a racist.

    Comment by Ian — November 10, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - November 10, 2006

  31. Dan, doesn’t it bother you that Allen automatically assumed that Mr. Sidarth was not from the US let alone from Virginia?

    Try reading the quote.

    This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great. We’re going to places all over Virginia, and he’s having it on film and it’s great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he’s never been there and probably will never come. […] Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.

    The reason you never saw the portion of the quote I bolded in regular play or mention is because it makes obvious that Allen is pointing out where Webb isn’t. At the time, Webb was flying around the country fundraising; Allen is simply making the point that he (Allen) was in Virginia campaigning, in touch with the “real world”, and Webb was out fundraising in Democratic strongholds like Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

    As for the rest, who cares? After all, when you have Cardin’s staffers in Maryland making racist statements about Jews and black people, and Lamont’s staffers making pictures of Joe Lieberman in blackface without a peep from you, Ian, I find it hard to believe that racism is your problem here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2006 @ 1:24 pm - November 10, 2006

  32. So, when Kerry does it, and the context is left out, it is insulting the troops, but when Allen does it, and the context is left out, it is not racism…it is an indication of where Webb is not. Uh huh. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Let’s twist a little more on a Twister game.

    Comment by fnln — November 10, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - November 10, 2006

  33. Michigan-Matt, I think it’s funny that you believe I have a problem with masculine, athletic men. For if that be the case, I would have to have a problem with myself.

    You’ll probabaly sneer because that doesn’t fit into your stereotypes that all liberals are waif-ish, pot smoking hippies or that all gay Democrats are effeminate queens.

    Yet, I have no doubt, I could kick your _____.

    Comment by Chase — November 10, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - November 10, 2006

  34. Larry Sabato sat on Hardball and said he had zero doubt that Allen had used the “N” word. He wouldn’t have said that if he himself didn’t know it for a fact. He wouldn’t even jump into that subject unless he knew for a fact. I trust Larry to be telling the truth. And the idea he used the term macaca as a precious cute term to describe a person following his campaign from Webb’s is basically just admitting that you’re a hack who would rather ignore the obvious than admit the truth. Get a fucking clue, please. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - November 10, 2006

  35. Yet, NDT, Cardin and Lieberman won despite all that. And since the thread was discussing Allen and not Cardin or Lieberman and the comments are a reflection of the topics Bruce or Dan choose to discuss, then why is it Ian or anyone’s responsibility to bring it up here?

    And while Allen was pointing out that Webb wasn’t in Virginia, he still called the kid a Macaca and inferred that he wasn’t from America. Staffers doing it is one thing, but Allen did it, on camera in front of Virginians and America. He deserves what he got.

    You hack.

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - November 10, 2006

  36. InthemajorityNOW in #34, Larry Sabato also refused to name his sources. He could not corroborate his accusations.

    You can name call all you want, whether you call me (and/or other commenters here) hacks, but that doesn’t make your accusations so. I have faulted George Allen for running an inept campaign and acknowledge there is much to criticize about the man, but he is not a racist. Hardly a hack.

    His critics trot out articles from the Nation magazine, hardly a credible source and from a political pundit who can’t substantiate his allegations. Sabato has been following Virginia politics for decades. if he knew about Allen’s use of the “N” word, he owed it to the people of the Commonwealth to bring it up when that Republican was first running for statewide office.

    If he has “zero doubt” Allen uttered the word, then he should prove his point — and that he has failed to do.

    Call us hacks all you want, but you’re showing your own narrow-mindedness, believing accusations made against a political foe merely because he is a political foe. It’s sad that you — and so many others — are so eager to believe the absolute worst about certain Republicans even when you have nothing to go on but the accusations of their ideological adversaries.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - November 10, 2006

  37. The man used a racist term in public on camera – macaca. He’s a racist. There was no need to use that term at all to poke fun of his opponent. Stop making excuses.

    As for Sabato, he was ASKED if he thought Allen had used the word. He said yes, he had no doubt. He didn’t campaign on tv shows saying Allen was a racist. He answered a question. He isn’t responsible for making Virginia aware of this. Since when is that his responsibility? He isn’t a politician. And frankly, you can’t prove someone said something unless you have it taped. And while there is no proof, there seem to be a lot of people, some who are respected in the world of politics who seem to think they know he has used the word.

    Your argument isn’t that we can’t prove he said those things so you have no reason to believe he is racist, you claim he DIDN’T say those things and ISN’T racist – that is what makes you a hack. But we all do know he said macaca. And if you are silly enough to think that wasn’t him poking fun of someone using a term based on race then you’re a hack. Period.

    The one thing I never argued was whether him having racist tendencies matters in regards to his politics. What I did say was that it meant he had racist tendencies. If that matters to people, then good because it probably should. I will argue though that the majority of the ads that I saw that were run against Allen were in regards to his unwavering support for Bush and the war in Iraq and not these racist tendencies. And you can blame his loss solely on unfounded notions that he is a racist if you want, but his politics didn’t help him either. Blame him for making race an issue. If he hadn’t said macaca, his racism might not have even been a topic in the first place.

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - November 10, 2006

  38. Oh and Larry Sabato is hardly an ideological adversary of Republicans. Having taken several classes he taught at Virginia, I can assure you of that.

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - November 10, 2006

  39. No one has any clue what Allen meant by macaca. And let me repeat about Sabato, he failed to substantiate his allegation. He said he had no doubt, but didn’t offer a source. Yes, it’s his job as a pundit to offer his opinion, but it’s also his job to substantiate. And that he failed to do.

    Given Allen’s narrow loss, it’s pretty clear it was his inept campaign which did him in.

    Perhaps, “ideological adversary” is not the best term to describe Sabato vis à vis Allen, but he has shown an animus to the Commonwealth’s outgoing Senator.

    Rant all you want about “macaca;” the Senator made a stupid statement, to be sure. But, I don’t think it was racist. Once again, it’s a shame, you’re so eager to believe the worst about a Republican’s obvious flaws.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - November 10, 2006

  40. “His critics trot out articles from the Nation magazine, hardly a credible source . . . .”

    I think the definition of a hack is someone who makes statements such as the one above without any substantiation. The Nation article lays out in great detail Allen’s sordid connections with racists as well as his own peculiar habits of hanging a noose in his office and a fondness for the confederate flag. That combined with Allen’s own comments and reports by others would be enough to give any one concern about Allen’s views about race.

    But instead of addressing any of the particulars in the Nation article (and there are many) you state without any evidence that the source is not credible. (Coming from a website that frequently links to the loons at NRO The Corner and even Powerline!) The Nation is one of the few weekly periodical that is unapolgetically on the left, and although I can certainly understand that you would disagree with its political perspective to claim it lacks credibility is simply nonsense.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 10, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - November 10, 2006

  41. Actually, Brendan, I did read the article. And I need not address the particulars because it’s their reporter describing an event which he did not attend, relying instead on the words of members of racist organization, eager to burnish their group’s credentials. That’s why i don’t trust the reporting.

    I have been to such events where the picture was taken and know how a variety of groups and individuals press politicians and celebrities to get their picture taken. Most politicians are eager to get the picture taken so they can move on and get to the next event.

    So, this article is just an extreme leftist publication relying on the words of an extreme rightist. Hardly credible reporting. And it’s not nonsense to claim the Nation lacks credibility, especially when it relies on racists as sources.

    And then the reporter trots out the same tired old leftist rhetoric attempting to link rhetoric of federalism to racism. Hardly even-handed journalism. Another reason to doubt its credibility.

    George Allen was involved in Virginia politics for close to two decades. And the best his critics can come up with is a picture taken at one event and unsubstantiated allegations that he used the “N” word. Had a conservative based his criticism of a liberal on similar evidence, you would accuse him of name-calling.

    As to the confederate flag issue, while I don’t like it when people display it, I have seen countless Southerners with no racist tendencies whatsoever display it. You guys are grasping at straws and accusing me of being a hack.

    And again, I state the obvious, if Allen’s racist attitudes were so apparent, why were the only brought up in this his third campaign for statewide office?

    You call me a hack while engaged in your own brand of name-calling, referring to respected conservative blogs as “loons.” But, I guess that’s the way you treat all conservatives, calling me a hack, George Allen a racist and anyone else on the right loons.

    If your party governs this way, the GOP’s return to the majority is assured.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - November 10, 2006

  42. #31:

    Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.

    it makes obvious that Allen is pointing out where Webb isn’t.

    Hardly. It’s clear to anyone with any degree of reading comprehension that his welcome is directed at Mr. Sidarth, whom he refers to as macaca. NDT, your defense of Allen is both desperate and pathetic.

    Comment by Ian — November 10, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - November 10, 2006

  43. “And I need not address the particulars because it’s their reporter describing an event which he did not attend, relying instead on the words of members of racist organization, eager to burnish their group’s credentials. That’s why i don’t trust the reporting.”

    That is rather selective reading on your part. The article discusses Allen’s attendance at the meeting in the first page and half of the article and then proceeds in great detail to report on why with Allen there are reasons to believe he shares the political outlook of a group that even you agree is “extreme rightist”. In addition to his fondness for flag and nooses, Allan has a penchant for using the coded language of state’s rights. I am sorry but you do not need an advanced degree in Southern History to understand that the langauge of state rights and federalism before an audience of neo-confederates is appealing to racists. If you were saying that you did not find the article persuasive for particular reasons, fair enough–I think it is an okay article, not great. But to declare that the source lacks credibility is not an argument–it is a way of avoiding reasoned argument.

    As for your friends at the Corner, please note the only solace they are taking in the recent election is the passage of anti-gay amendments.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 10, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - November 10, 2006

  44. But I do know what he meant by macaca based solely on the origin of the word. If someone said say hi to that “Nigger” or that “Jew” or even that “gringo” (my apologies for using those words but I feel its important for context purposes) who works for my opponent, would you have any doubt as to their intent? In this country you are quite right to question someone’s intent…it’s a large foundation of our legal system. I think his intent is clear and not in question to anyone who knows what that word means when referencing another person and not a little cute monkey. Which even if he had said that little cute monkey who works for my opponent, it’s still degrading. Would he have called a white person working for Webb a “macaca”? NO. Can you show me where the use of that word is not derogatory in nature, short of the Macaca Monkey. Clearly the word has racial implications. As a politician, its wise to stay clear of such references and Allen is not new to the game. That all said, it’s ridiculous to not assume that he was making a racist remark.

    Defend all you want, you only make yourself look more partisan and more like a hack when you do it.

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - November 10, 2006

  45. Perhaps they weren’t apparent until the 3rd time around, because they weren’t so public until the 3rd time around.

    What difference does it make? NONE. It is there now.

    By your reasoning it only matters because it was brought up during a campaign. Gee, could it be because he and his stupid macaca term weren’t mentioned ON VIDEO until the 3rd time around, the most likely reason. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racist before, it just wasn’t so obvious.

    Comment by fnln — November 10, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - November 10, 2006

  46. Or, like I mentioned, no one had proof. The proof is now on tape. The only defense possible is that he did not know what that word meant. But even if he didn’t, it’s clear he wouldn’t have used it except that the kid was not white. That alone shows that the word was used because of the person’s ethnic origins. Why even use a word like that? If he had said asshole, which isn’t based on race, it still was demeaning and immature on his part. The icing on the cake is simply that following this when people like you tried desperately to defend him and say he didn’t mean anything racist because he isn’t racist, people came out of the woodworks to say wait a minute, I know that this isn’t the first time he has used derogatory words that are racist in nature.

    I guess when he used the “n” word back in the 70s he didn’t mean anything racist. Whatever. [Geez, let me repeat, there is no evidence that he used that word back in the 1970s. Most of those who knew him claimed they never heard him use it. You guys really are eager to believe the worst about Republicans. For the sake of our country, I do hope your party’s leadership sees Republicans as they are and not as their angry supporters would have them be. –GPW.]

    Comment by Inthemajoritynow — November 10, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - November 10, 2006

  47. Defend, inthemajoritytemporarily, no, all I’m doing is taking issue with your contention of his racism or racist tendencies. I’m not defending a Republican whose inept campaign cost our party the Senate.

    And Brendan, I read the article and it notes Allen attended a widely respected conservative confab which some racists also attended. I don’t trust such racists to offer an honest account of their meeting with the Senator. Nor should a leftist magazine.

    And give me a break about that coded language. The left has been using such rhetoric to attack federalism since Reagan. Yes, I know what states’ rights meant in the 1950s. But it means something entirely different today. It’s a shame you don’t take the time to understand the conservative ideas you so readily criticize.

    Back to inthemajoritytemporarily (#44), how do you know what the outgoing Senator meant by macaca, do you have a roadmap of his mind? To me, given the context and Siddarth’s appearance, it seemed a mispronunciation of mohawk. But, I don’t know. I don’t have this secret access to George Allen’s thoughts like you do. As to the word “macaca,” having never heard it before Allen’s unfortunate remark, I have no clue what it means, so I can’t say it’s not derogatory in nature, nor can i say it is. I’m not making the kind of assumptions you are — and when I do put forward a theory, I note that I remain skeptical.

    You can rant all you want about how ridiculous it is not to assume it’s racist, but I would respond it’s ridiculous to assume it is racist. You have shown a great gift at name-calling, suggesting you are eager to label conservatives with whom you disagree. So your credibility on these matters is quite limited.

    I say Allen ran an inept campaign, faulted him for attempting to placate anti-gay forces in the party and note how he made blunders and yet you accuse me of defending him. (Yes, I did acknowledge his past strengths.)

    Obviously, you’re more interested in labeling (and otherwise misrepresenting) conservatives than engaging us.

    Let me repeat, George Allen has many faults, most of which were made manifest in this campaign, racism is not one of them.

    It says so much about you guys in how quick you are to label Republicans racist.

    No, fnin, in #5, you have no clue what I’m talking about. The Democrats tried hard to defeat Allen in 1993 and 2000. If there were evidence of his racism, they would have used it then.

    It bears repeating that those accusing him of using the “N” word could not corroborate their accusations.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - November 10, 2006

  48. “And give me a break about that coded language. The left has been using such rhetoric to attack federalism since Reagan. Yes, I know what states’ rights meant in the 1950s. But it means something entirely different today. It’s a shame you don’t take the time to understand the conservative ideas you so readily criticize.”

    Once again you engage in a style of an argument that is devoid of content and reliant upon a sanctimonious tone. I raised a particular example and that was Allen talking to a group of neo-confederates about state rights and in particular a reference to the civil war without any mention of slavery. To say that rhetoric has no racial tones in that context is to ignore reality and history despite your nonsensical statement about the 50’s and how it all means something different now. Do you respond to that? No of course not , and here we have the famous GPW “Why don’t they understand us” whine and your accusation that is me, not you, who is engaging in rhetoric. I went to law school also GPW and your tone is annoyingly familiar to anyone who has been around pompous law students. It is the tone of the first year law student who huffs and puffs and does not really say anything, buts put out when everyone does not immediately recognize his nonsense as brilliance. Thankfully most students outgrow that–but some don’t.

    [I just had to add this comment in as Brendan’s comment made me laugh so. He accuses me of ignoring reality and history where he fails to acknowledge the point I made distinguishing the 1950s fromt the 1980s. For Allen made the remark in the 1990s when federalism had become a key issue of the conservative movement and clearly lacked racial overtones — except to those who find racism in anything and everything that conservatives –GPW]

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 10, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - November 10, 2006

  49. Brendan, I’m not whining. I’m merely pointing out the difference between those pushing states’ rights in the 1950s and those advocating them in the 1980s. I’m not the one leveling unfounded accusations against someone.

    I’m more amused by your conviction of this man’s animus — and by your own animus — than upset by it. Your rants as empty as your accusations.

    If indeed, George Allen talked about the Civil War without mentioning slavery, he would not be the first person to do so. So, that’s not much of a commentary on your behalf.

    As to your lecturing me on what you presume is a juvenile style, I have no clue what you mean. I am making a simple point about distinguishing between two eras which you refuse to acknowledge. And you basically don’t acknowledge the point. That’s all I’m saying. You seem basically to be trying to divert your own argument from your failure to address my point. Bringing up states’ rights in the 1990s is not the same as bringing it up in the 1950s.

    We have seen an explosion of federal power in the intervening years, a growth which, alas, the outgoing Republican Congress did nothing to stop. And many conservatives have been concerned about the federal government usurping powers which, we believe, the constitution has allocated to the states. A simple study of the modern conservative movement would show that that has been one of the key aspects of modern conservatism, an aspect which liberals, at least, since Reagan, have attempted to twist as racism. And unfairly so. Such rhetoric is standard boilerplate for true conservatives. It’s why I don’t take it as a sign of Allen’s racism. And that has been my point.

    So, don’t tell me I’m engaging in some kind of law-school tone until you acknowledge the presence of federalism as a conservative issue. And acknowledge my points which, despite posting on my blog, you fail to do. Maybe I do go on a bit about people not responding to my points because, in many cases, our critics don’t bother to address our points, just the ones they wish we had made.

    You persist on making allegations that you cannot back up. And that’s been my point all along.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 10, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - November 10, 2006

  50. Well apparently the fundamentalists are blaming gay Republicans for George Allen’s loss.

    Any thoughts on that?

    Comment by Carl — November 10, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - November 10, 2006

  51. “If indeed, George Allen talked about the Civil War without mentioning slavery, he would not be the first person to do so.”

    Again, context, context, context. I was not referencing a generalized discussion of the Civil War, but an official state action of Allen while governor proclaiming a month to be Confederate History month for the state of Virginia. In that proclamation he refers to the Civil War as a struggle for independence and “sovereign rights”, without a word on slavery–in a state with a significant African American population. Your claim that state rights means something different since the 1950’s is disingenous especially here, where Allen is referencing the 1860’s. Or are you claiming that state rights had no racial overtones in the 1860’s either? To claim as you try to do that all of this is only a critique of the so called explosion of federal power since the 1960’s and devoid of racial content is at best wishful thinking and revisionist history. Also remember that the explosion of federal power was brought about by the demands of African Americans that their basic civil rights as American citizens be protected.

    All of this by a man who hanged a noose is office, opposed civil rights legislation, has a close relationship with groups even you characterize as “extreme rightist”, opposed the creation of a holiday in favor of MLK, etc. etc. and yet unless he is caught on video using the N word, you blithely deny any evidence suggesting racial animus or insensitivity.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 11, 2006 @ 7:25 am - November 11, 2006

  52. No one has any clue what Allen meant by macaca.

    I certainly don’t know what he meant by it, but it’s definitely a bit creepy for someone to point to someone — regardless of the circumstances — and say “Let’s give a welcome to Macaca here.” I mean, what? It may not be racist or mean-spirited, but it sure is weird, random behavior.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 11, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - November 11, 2006

  53. “Maybe I do go on a bit about people not responding to my points because, in many cases, our critics don’t bother to address our points, just the ones they wish we had made.”

    In all honesty, I think you have the phemomena reversed. I have seen many people offer reasonable criticisms of your posts and your tactical maneuver is always to misrepresent what the person is saying and then respond to a twisted version of the commentor’s position. If that does not work, or perhaps when you can’t even be bothered to respond, the alternative is for you accuse the person of lacking basic literacy skills as if anyone who disagrees with you must be by definition be illiterate. And yes, that does remind me of juvenile styles of argument that is reminiscent of too many over achieving and ambitous law students who think bluster and arrogance can replace careful thinking.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 11, 2006 @ 1:36 pm - November 11, 2006

  54. Brendan in #51, the explosion of federal power occurred in the 1960s as well as the 1970s and was not limited to protecting the civil rights of African-Americans. Check your history.

    As to your comment in #53, many people do offer reasonable criticism of my posts — and in most cases, I have acknowledged their valid points either in the thread itself or in private e-mails to those writers.

    You then go on to say things which have no basis in reality. I have never accused my critics of being illiterate.

    Please address my points, criticize what I have to say, but please do not put words into my mouth.

    As to my George Allen, my basic point is that he made a number of mistakes, showed some pretty serious errors of judgment, but I don’t think there’s evidence of his racist tendencies.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 12, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - November 12, 2006

  55. Dan, how after the “Democrat mandate of 2006” is it that you won’t get onboard and appreciate that Allen and all other GOPers are racists, anti-gay, and worship at the Christianist (sic) altar? No evidence exists of racist tendencies???

    The election proved it. What’s next? Are you going to start claiming that Kerry didn’t win in 2004?

    Geo Allen allowed –no, permitted.. no, sanctioned… no, condoned… no, instigated –the “raising” of a Confederate war flag in his dorm room at UV which he shared with 3 other roomies. Skip the fact that two of his roomies claimed they put up the flag to cover a hole left from tossing medicine balls at the wall. If he didn’t do that 35+ years ago, why is it so hard to find 10,000 witnesses to affirm his side of the story? That’s the threshhold for truth here. And remember, there would have been no controversy if they players had put up a poster of Liv Lindeland, the legendary playmate.

    Allen also repeatedly referred to black basketball players at UV as niggers while at college. Come on, we know that… we got it from the GayLeftBorg’s outgoing message #345023-J. Were you not listening again?

    And, worse of all for our gay community members circling the GayLeftBorg and knocking on the black walls for entrance, Allen referred to UV male cheerleaders as “fags”. What is with THAT? Have you ever seen a UV cheerleader? Ugh. Seriously now, get with the program, Dan. These are the facts that the mandate proved: all GOPers are racist pigs who usually like women (which makes them doubly bad to the GayLeftBorg and serious competition for the drag queens living inside the cube)… and if they don’t like women, they predate on str8 boys.

    And let’s recall that Allen is gay –at least he and everyone who sings the UVa “Good Old Song” admit they come from a place where “all” is “gay”.

    You have got to get with the program, Dan. The Borg is going to leave without you and stamp you “Assimilation Denied”.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 12, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - November 12, 2006

  56. “Brendan in #51, the explosion of federal power occurred in the 1960s as well as the 1970s and was not limited to protecting the civil rights of African-Americans”.

    Yes, so what? This does not in the least address the substance of my comment-but before you correct me I will say I should have been more precise and said brought about in part by demands of African Americans. Still that is hardly responsive to may major point — the one asked me to respond to and that is whether Allen has displayed any evidence of racial animus. I list a number of documented things Allen has said and done (in contrast to the fantasy straw arguments and rather pathetic attempt at irony put forth in comment #56) and I pointed that his tribute to “sovereign rights” was not, as you would like to claim boilerplate rhetoric of post Reagan conservatives, but made in the context of proclaiming a month Confederate history month. You still have not explained how that context does not give the remark racial overtones to put it mildly. If you really are claiming that you believe that Allen hanging a noose in his office and then saying it has nothing to do with lynching, you are no position to tell me to check my history. Quite frankly, I really do find it hard to believe that anyone of good faith and a minimum concern about the history of African Americans in this country can’t be disturbed by George Allen’s words and action.

    As for your comment that you have never accused someone of being illiterate, you are taking my comment well too literally. You consistently accuse your critics of not reading what you said and not addressing your points(as you have said done to me on this post) and the implication of that is that they are not comprehending what you said as if it is a reading problem and not a substantive disagreement. I was not putting words in your mouth as I was not claiming a direct quote and I think what I said was a fair inference from your posts, but perhaps overstated and for that my apology.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 12, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - November 12, 2006

  57. “Obviously, you’re more interested in labeling (and otherwise misrepresenting) conservatives than engaging us.

    Let me repeat, George Allen has many faults, most of which were made manifest in this campaign, racism is not one of them.

    It says so much about you guys in how quick you are to label Republicans racist.”

    George Allen labeled a young American “Macaca”. If you can say that Kerry’s botched joke fits into a pattern that goes back several decades, it is quite fair to say that George Allen’s pattern is legitimate grounds for regarding him as a racist.

    How this became “Republicans are racist” is in your head.

    Comment by sean — November 12, 2006 @ 11:44 pm - November 12, 2006

  58. See, sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, if someone does something once, you can’t call it a pattern –unless you’re willing to make up more examples out of the ether… as you and your pals have done with Allen.

    Kerry, on the other hand, has repeatedly and over a long period of time, expressed his distain for the military and service personnel. He shamefully misrepresented his service record during various Senate campaigns and in 2004… and got called out for it by the Swift Boat Veterans who DID honorably serve their country, their men, their mission.

    You fail to understand the difference between a pattern well established –as with Kerry– and pattern of fiction like the anti-Allen folks used this year.

    Two very very very different aspects.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 9:51 am - November 13, 2006

  59. “See, sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, if someone does something once, you can’t call it a pattern –unless you’re willing to make up more examples out of the ether… as you and your pals have done with Allen.”

    This is utter nonsense. What examples have been made up? You simply that is the case but no provide no evidence whatsover for your assertion. In comment 51, I mentioned a number of uncontested facts about George Allen, independent of whether he used the N word, he has a very disturbing record on issues of race. But I suppose this is what one expects from someone who considers the Swift Veterans a reliable source. By the way as for Kerry’s disdain for service personell, he has repeatedly sought better funding for medical and other services for former veterans, an area of the budget the president & Dick “I had other priorities” Cheney have been quite willing to cut.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — November 13, 2006 @ 10:07 am - November 13, 2006

  60. Brendan, did Kerry vote for those approps before he voted against them?

    The truth is that Kerry has NOT done a moments worth of heavy lifting for our troops –or veterans. He jumped on board the effort to target added approps to the 2003 bill –which was already underway– when he was approached by Boston area vets looking to save special programs in eastern Massachusetts hospitals. Such a leader… but he did try to take credit for it. Such a politician.

    Contend away, Brendan. You can’t make up a reality for Kerry being pro-solider or pro-veteran; he never was, never will be. He slipped up and spoke his true sentiments when he demeaned the troops as being stupid or that military service is the last resort for anyone. Shame on him and you, for defending that kind of conduct.

    And the racism nonsense about Allen included the allegations of “several” unnamed UVa grads who say they heard him use nigger when he was a football player… and the Confederate flag/Allen dorm room picture was all over DailyKos, MyDD, and other Democrat Party sites… do your own homework, Brendan. It’s not my job you failed basic research.

    And for the point where you’d like to intrude… I was speaking to sean-of-the-lower-case-clan… I hadn’t even read your comment.

    But, from the looks of it now, I think you were having a pissing match with Dan… I’m not into water sports. Thanks.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 10:13 am - November 14, 2006

  61. […] his old boss’s party, never distanced himself form the man himself and, as I noted in a prior post, used that great man’s image in campaign ads. The use of Ronald Reagan certainly helped him […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » 2006 Elections — Ronald Reagan’s Vindication — November 25, 2008 @ 4:40 am - November 25, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.