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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”. http://www.thesabre.com/traditions/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any thoughts on that?

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/658581483.html

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.

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]

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.

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.]

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.

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

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.

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.