Today’s Phrase for Latin Lovers

Rem ipsam dic, mitte male loqui.

Translation:
Speak out the whole truth boldly, but use no bad language. -- John Adams, 1775

------------------

Visit Prudy's Latin Lovers Store for textbooks, readers and fun Latin miscellany!

Support this site. Buy a book.*

@PruPaine Tweets

Ancient History

|Media | Prudence Potpourri

Dear Media: Yes, He's Black and GOP. Get Over It.

I just finally got around to reading a Politico story (“S.C.’s Scott: Tea Party Talent Scout”) about Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) and how he’s a bridge between the Tea Party and the establishment GOP—and how he has become a kingmaker as the South Carolina GOP presidential primary approaches. Halfway through the article, it mentions that Scott is black, and then for the rest of the article, that’s all it is about.

Hello, Politico. Tim Scott was elected nearly a year ago. It’s not “news” anymore. Can the media please stop marveling over the fact that South Carolina Republicans elected a black man? Their obsessing over it is little more than an attempt to keep antiquated stereotypes alive and to dig around and see if they can’t get someone to say something mildly racist. It’s offensive.

Granted, at times it’s appropriate to mention a certain Republican is black, and I wish black media would give more coverage to black Republicans to provide more examples that it is possible—and preferable—to be both. But liberals, refusing to see blacks as anything other than subpar victims in need of Democrat handouts and control, take it as an affront that any black could be a Republican. When the liberal media attempts to probe the topic, their disbelief and even racism seeps through their words.

Let’s take a look at a few of the prime examples from the Politico piece. Here’s the first mention that Scott is black:

Scott, who served 13 years on the Charleston County Council as the first black Republican elected anywhere in the state since Reconstruction, consistently downplays the historical importance of his popularity in the state’s political scene.

Of course Scott would “downplay the historical importance of his popularity.” For one, Scott is a rather modest man, not given to braggadocio, so he downplays much of his qualities and achievements, especially “popularity.” He prefers instead to praise others that have contributed to his success, such as his mother.

But what in the world is the writer, Marin Cogan, trying to say: “historical importance…of popularity”? How is it historically important to have a black man be popular? Important for what?

It subtly, insidiously implies: “Scott downplays that long-time racist whites now like him”? Forget the vast majority that ignored his color and liked his positions. We’re all slimed with the racist taint.

Perhaps that’s one reason Scott “downplays” her framing of his popularity. Maybe Scott knows that there’s a goodly more people in the room that care more about the content of his character than the color of his skin.

Scott won a primary in a massively large field of heavy-hitting establishment GOP names and hardcore Tea Party newcomers. This, in an election year in which the Republicans in this neck of the woods were practically foaming at the mouth to not just halt but reverse every bit of damage inflicted by Barack Obama and the Democrats. There was no way in hell anyone was going to do something so stupid as to turn our congressional seat over to someone because of the color of his skin.

But it is undeniable that a part of his success is rooted in his seemingly preternatural comfort operating in the most conservative of South Carolina’s political circles, ones that were until recently seen as largely exclusive to whites.

That quote angers me: “[conservative political circles] that were until recently seen as largely exclusive to whites.” As if the South Carolina GOP has had a sign on the door saying “No blacks allowed.” Anyone, regardless of their skin color, has been welcome to enter the door. No one has been excluded in many decades, from either party.

Scott’s skin color does make him visually stand out at GOP functions—but with about as much import as a redhead standing out. It’s not as if people are whispering, “oh look, a black man is here!” Cogan would not have been incorrect to say the conservative SC circles have been “largely white,” leaving out the “exclusive to.” The GOP still is significantly white, but not because whites want it to be. The only time I think about Scott’s race is when thinking of ways we conservatives can make inroads into the black community, fight against the abhorrent liberal taunts of “Uncle Tom.”

Yet, that’s exactly what Cogan has subtly done. It is true that Scott has great comfort operating in conservative circles. Of course he does. He is a conservative. But it is offensive to say he’s “preternaturally comfortable” mingling with conservatives. That’s calling Scott an Uncle Tom. Translation: “That black man is unnaturally comfortable hanging out with whites, joining their exclusive club, acting like he’s one of them.”

It lingers on the tips of the tongues of most everyone who searches for an explanation for his popularity.

First Cogan says Scott downplays his being black in a predominantly white group. Now she says all the whites aren’t eager to mention it either, though “it lingers on the tips of the tongues,” as if we racists are just one second away from blurting some racist statement about Scott.

If she felt she detected any interviewee reservation to discuss Scott’s skin color, it was probably because color is not a foremost factor in our support of him. It surely crossed their minds that she might attempt to paint them as a racist no matter what they said.

It’s hard to know for sure what Cogan encountered, but I would be mightily disappointed in my fellow conservatives if “most” of them felt Scott’s race was the reason for his popularity.

Let’s see those “tip of the tongue” quotes:

“Obviously, having an African-American representative elected from the South, it’s unique, it’s an oddity, because the South is criticized for being so anti-black and anti-African American. It’s refreshing,” said Tommy Hartnett, who formerly held Scott’s seat.

I can see that response being given to a reporter who asks something along the lines of “how does Scott’s race affect his popularity.” However, I doubt that would be the answer to the question of “why is Scott so popular” without being prompted about race. If asked why Scott, Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Joe Wilson are popular, a conservative would not rave about the latter two’s conservative principles but attribute Scott’s to race.

Plus, Barack Obama’s election showed there are some people stupid or gullible or liberal-guilt-ridden enough to vote for someone because of their race. As a pure political calculation, therefore, race can play a factor in selecting a candidate. I’m sure some GOP politicos take that into consideration in putting together a slate. But in a place that’s supposedly such a hotbed of racism, wouldn’t you run the risk of losing just as many votes as you gain? Especially if it’s the Republicans that are supposed to be the racists? Isn’t that risky for them to run a black man?

No. It’s about character and principles and fortitude.

“We have a not-so-pretty history with regard to race. For conservative and Republican activists who unfairly get deemed with the stereotype of being racist, to have a guy who is incredibly conservative and just so happens to be black, it’s part of the appeal,” said a South Carolina Republican activist.

That quote just infuriates me. Quite interesting the “activist” was embarrassed enough by it that he or she didn’t even want to have his or her name attached. The second sentence of the quote is true enough if you clarify it. “[Scott's color] is part of the appeal” if you are looking for accolades and approval from liberals or the media. They’re the ones continually trying to hold us down and foist the rancid stereotype on us, even if it belongs in the era of black-and-white news footage.

But what’s outraging is the first part: the “we” have a “not-so-pretty” race history. I am sick and tired of being forced to wear the hair shirt of dead and dying generations. My peers and younger generations aren’t living in the past. We’ve long moved on and aren’t stuck living in the flickering images of 50 years ago. Our part of history may not be perfect, but it’s getting things done, without being consumed by race.

Leave me out of your smears about your ugly history. Talk to me about something I’m responsible for. Something I created or advanced. Don’t play the reporter’s game and wring your hands and affirm her stereotypes. If it’s all about race for you, say so, but put your name on it so we’ll know who to avoid.

The quote that most disappointed me, however, was from Rep. Trey Gowdy, a solid freshman GOP congressman from upstate SC:

“Although he doesn’t talk in those terms, he is historically significant,” said Gowdy, who noted that he dreams of taking his children to visit Scott in the governor’s mansion some day. “I’m proud of the fact that Tim Scott’s the face of our congressional delegation and, in many respects, the future of the conservative movement in South Carolina.”

There is indeed a historical fact of note about Scott: it’s not that he’s popular among conservative whites, but that he was the first GOP black elected since Reconstruction in SC.

The rest of the quote I’m hoping dearly is taken out of context. That Gowdy wants to have his kids visit a Gov. Scott not because he’s black, but because he is a politically principled conservative. Likewise about being the “face” and the future. I hope more blacks do join the GOP, do join the fight. I think the Tea Party movement has been a wonderful way to bring in more faces of color. The more diversity of color, the less insulting coverage of “oh, look there’s a black or brown person in that conservative [racist] group. why in the world are they there? do they need help?”

Out of everyone quoted in the racist fishing expedition, the one that most agrees with me—the one who knows better than anyone else exactly how Tim Scott feels about and experiences the race versus character issue—was Tim Scott himself:

“At the end of the day, it’s what you do that matters to my voters, not what you look like,” Scott said. “I’ve seen the ugliness that comes with a racially divisive world, but I’ve experienced very consistently that if you represent what you are more than what you look like, people respond to it.”

It is some small salve that the quote most able to be deemed racist came from the sleazy South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, Dick Harpootlian:

Of course, not everyone is enamored with Scott’s brand of post-racial politics. “He’s popular among Republicans, absolutely. He’s someone they can roll out who is a tea party African American. How rare are they?” said Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. “If you are willing to forgo any sense of conscience, or right or wrong, you can be a superstar in the Republican Party.”

Interesting how that quote brings us back to the original story, long since abandoned. What started as a story about a congressman rising in statewide power ends up interviewing all the white folk about what they think about him being black. Seems to me that Politico really wanted to do a story about “lookee here at all these southern white conservatives (i.e., racists) having a black man tell them who to vote for,” but they just didn’t have the courage to so blatantly frame it that way.

From the paragraph that mentions Scott is black to the ugly Harpootlian quote, the whole racial half of the story, the non sequitur into 2010 breaking news that SC elected a black GOP congressman, could be removed from the article without losing any context or information in the original story.

It would have addressed Scott respectfully as a principled man in his own right, capable of being powerful and successful solely because of his ideology, behavior and character. To inject the odd racial aspect revealed more about Politico and the writer than it did about South Carolina politics.

|Media | Prudence Potpourri

Chris Matthews: Black Communities Need Gay Marriage Because They're Unstable

To discuss whether gay marriage will be an issue in the 2012 election, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews had former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, now a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, and gay rights activist Ross Levi, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, on his show to debate. In the course of questioning them, Matthews had this rambling intro to a question:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Entire segment is available here.]

In case you missed it, Matthews said [with my emphasis]:

Ross, I’ve watched politicians, like in Ohio in the 2004 election, with the help of Don King, the fight promoter, get black clergymen up in Cleveland, the Cleveland area, to get their flocks to vote against the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, on that issue. They got the vote out. They create a lot of rumble and excitement about the evils of same-sex marriage in communities that you’re very much in need of more marriages, obviously, because they’re unstable in many ways, some of the families.

“Obviously”? Let’s assume his saying black communities need more marriages is not because he thinks too many blacks just live together in otherwise traditional family arrangements (what liberal would complain about that?), but because he believes too many black households are headed by single mothers. It’s still hard to understand how he makes the leap from that to how gay “married” households will have any effect on that. How will black communities will be made stable if instead of promoting traditional marriage for unwed mothers they promote gay marriage instead? That will stablize fatherless households? Gays are now going to have to set the proper example for them?

This is yet another accidental example of the convoluted, low opinion that the liberal elite holds of the people they claim to support.

|Media | The Left

Rick Sanchez Meet Petard...Updated

Rick Sanchez: Conventional Racist

Just spent 20 minutes of my life listening to the complete Pete Dominick interview with Rick Sanchez. You know, the one in which he says CNN and all media are run by people like Jon Stewart (i.e., Jewish), and that Jews have no right calling themselves oppressed minorities.

[If you haven't read all the coverage of it yet, I recommend:

Why would I give up such a large amount of precious time listening to someone I know to be a pompous, moronic, drunk-driving hit-and-run manslaughterer that I can’t bear to watch for five minutes on TV?

I just had to hear the actual sound of him making such an anti-Semitic statement to truly believe it, and frankly, I thought it would come at the start of the interview. But even after he said it halfway through, I couldn’t believe he continued for the rest of the interview defending and repeating it.

It turns out that Dominick, the interviewer, was the first one to actually utter the word “Jew.” But Sanchez doesn’t seem to need that door held open for him. He was ready to plow through it.  This was no Freudian slip or a non-thinking use of a situationally inappropriate idiom, as when Sanchez called Obama the “cotton-picking President.

At the end of all 20 minutes, I was drenched in the bigotry and racism that Sanchez poured forth for whites, and Jews, and anyone else that isn’t like him. Oh, how he has suffered. He has nothing to back it up, but you can be sure that anytime anyone has ever looked at him, it was filled with racist intent. And anytime anyone did *not* look at him, that too was racist. Just writing this about him is racist.

This repulsive buffoonery has been going on for years. How has he stayed on the air? Because people like Rick Sanchez look for racism everywhere but never hear it when it is coming out of their own mouths.

My one take-away thought from his rambling interview: Thank goodness he finally said something about “the Jews.” That is a word that the liberal elite will not tolerate being slung around. Finally, the liberals will have the scales drop from their eyes and they too will see at least part of his racism, be rightfully offended by it and give him the racist boot he has so long deserved.

If you’re a masochist like me and would like to hear the full 20 minutes, here’s a link to it. (I tried and tried to get the video to embed here, but I must be too stoopid to figure it out. Sorry!)

Since it took me so long to fail at embedding the video, we have breaking news: Sanchez has been fired by CNN. Their statement says they “wish him well.” (The Hot Air link to the news makes the amusing point that Sanchez is currently hawking a book he wrote, titled: Conventional Idiocy. He has proven his expertise on the topic indeed.)

Update: Woo-hoo! Finally found a way to get Mediaite’s video to embed here. Not sure if I could repeat the feat, but here it is in all its glory:

Update II:
Clicking around, still entertained by the Sanchez news, I stumbled across an ancient 2003 scathing, hilarious review of his new MSNBC show by the Broward New Times. (h/t: an old Pat Dollard story)

This led me to look up the BNT-referenced Don Zacharias critique in his now-defunct Blue Mag.

The table of contents, however, piqued my interest. It turns out that one of the main writers for the Sanchez-ripping Blue Mag at the time was none other than a Peter Dominick. Given our man-of-the-day Pete Dominick’s own website bio and his Wikipedia bio, it seems unlikely the two are the same. I’ve sent Pete a tweet, but he wouldn’t have had a chance to reply yet—even if he would actually deign to do so while riding the wave of fame and adulation and preparing for his new show debut today. No matter, it’s just one of those weird coincidences I love.

By the way, when I said Mediaite had the original audio on their site, I was inaccurate. Dominick has the full original, original audio, along with a write-up by Pete’s “Big Brother” Brian Dominick transcribing and rehashing the interview from Pete’s point of view. Sorry, Pete.

Other Sanchez snippets on the Internet:

In Pat Dollard’s early reporting on Sanchez, he calls him out in CNN’S Rick Sanchez Leads The Charge Against Israel. I’m unsure if Sanchez was being anti-Israel here or just doing his typical bumbling around in waters too deep for his muddled head. Dollard himself is taking him on for bumbling, not anti-Semitism.

Newsbusters is the place to go for proof that Sanchez was an equal-opportunity offender. Their search engine offers an amusing trip down memory lane in their catalog of Sanchez’s goofs, gaffes and gee gollys–his greatest hits, so to speak.

The place everyone will be at 2:30 pm EDT today, though, will be in front of a TV tuned to CNN. Pete Dominick will be airing his new show. His latest tweet says: Watch me and my guests David Webb @thegrindershow, Stephanie Miller @smshow, @samseder… No word on whether he’ll discuss Sanchez, but it would be a let-down if he didn’t.