What? No mainstream media covering this? Shocking!

[kandrathe]

First, I was pretty angry at what you wrote, and I wrote a pretty scathing reply, and my computer over heated and I lost that version... Probably a good thing. Now, I'm a bit remorseful, since I thought you and I were actually coming closer to agreement. The bottom line is that in this post you appear to be only looking at this from the lens of a far left wing extremist. You don't even attempt to view your political opponents as human, or seem to believe other than the very worst about them. It would seem they are all ugly, hateful, racist, stupid, ignorant, bigots. I find that sad.

And, no one told him it was despicable either.

Just going on Tucker's reporting of it, at least two people told him he was wrong, that this was not the way forward, that they should stick to facts, that this undermined Obama's message about doing politics differently. (Do we have the full-emails?) To Tucker, I guess, this is just tactical talk. I read it differently: part of the appeal of Obama to many on the left is his tendency to talk reasonably about facts, rather than simply hurl insults. Ackerman obviously thinks that this means his allies must fill the attack dog role. Others clearly disagree.

I disagree on the opposition part. We're making no progress here, so I'll move on.

There is an avoided national conversation on race, and race baiting. I'd say there is a pretty clear strategy to use division as a political weapon, whether it be race, gender, class, or age. Political strategists on both sides pander and create incendiary dialog with the sole purpose of retaining power, and feigned concern about the actual well being of the electorate in general, or even that subsection.

True. Two notable examples in my mind include the Southern Strategy, and the Rothbard/Rockwell unholy alliance with the racist paleoconservative fringe (See: Report, Ron Paul.) I think both of those strategies have led quite directly to where we are now: an anti-tax, anti-government protest movement that is persistently unable to shake its racist components. This is not accidental. It's the inevitable result of decades of intentional alliance building and dog whistling.

Ok, so now you're going out to the right wing fringes. Well, the Progressive (government can make you better) movement and their muckrakers brought us Prohibition, Eugenics (with support by Marxist AF&L union leader Samuel Gompers), and Planned Parenthood (e.g. Margaret Sanger, the one that sought to limit the number of black babies born). The Klan, actually began as the underground organization affiliated with the southern Democrats that killed Republicans both black (freedmen) and white(scalawags). This was the mainstream in the late 1800's and earlier 1900's. If the Republicans erred then it was in compromising with the Democrats over reconstruction in the first place. Trent Lott, used to be a racist Democrat, when he made foolish statements at the University of Mississippi. Robert Bryd, an actual former Klansman until his mid 30's, was in fact a Democrat his entire life. Yes, it was a big mistake for the Republicans to allow these racist Dixiecrat, blue dogs into the Republican party. They should have held strong to their principles as the party of Lincoln, and equality of justice for everyone.

Who is on the fringes of the Democratic party now? ALF, ELF, Marxists/Communists, M19CO, Revolutionary Action Movement, United Freedom Front, FALN, LARGO, etc. And, then I left unlisted, the racist paleoliberal fringe...

Let's contrast that to what people like me want... That would be a small government (as small as is possible), which provides justice for all, and then gets out of our way and lets us thrive in peace.

The racism of the democratic party, and the beloved progressives has been to reinforce the class system. Yes, they make and keep people poor. In a democratic republic, with a level playing field, the most industrious will rise to the top, regardless of where their origins were, their gender, their race, their age. And, yes, I see a difference between a free market system, and a free for all, market system.

Yes, there is racism here built by both Democrats, and Republicans in reinforcing a system of unequal justice, which drives people onto government assistance in order to control them. This is not accidental. It's the inevitable result of decades of intentional alliance building and democratic dog whistling. Yeah, like a shell, and the ocean, I'm sure if you hollow out a Republican's skull you can hear the bigoted dog whistling. I hope they keep at it. Maybe the continual race baiting tactics will actually reveal them to be the overtly partisan hacks they really are.

In the past twenty years, the talk-radio right has increasingly created a politics of dumbness and low-IQ inanity. It’s striking to see how many “liberals” long to do the same thing.

I believe there is a role for government, for keeping the playing field level. That's not what they are doing. If libertarianism stands for anything... It's equality under the law. No privileges, and no unnecessary restrictions either. The tea party movement is a tax/deficit revolt, and every platform from every one I've seen drives that message home load and clear. What is racist about trying to stop out of control government spending? Nothing... Which is why the rabid left and their press lap dogs are race baiting. Look at the angry, mostly white crowd... They must be racists!

So, are you really trying to marginalize here? Your tactics are making my stomach turn. Do we need to go back to the 70's, or the 30's to retrace the origins of fringes of Democrats, and fringes of Republicans.

Are there alliances between the Dems and groups like the NAACP? Of course. But courting the civil rights movement, even with its occasional excesses, strikes me as a much nobler enterprise than courting racists and inciting racism.

I'm sure the Democrats are friends with sewing circles, and local PTA's... While, their opponents choose cozy alliances with Stormfront, and the Klan. Very fair. How very objective of you. First, if Don Black says, "I'm a Democrat", or donates money to the Hillary campaign what would you make of Democrats, and Hillary? She'd refuse it, and so would Rand Paul. Are you really that blind? Ever hear of Andy Stern? Are their alliances between the Democrats and SEIU? Heard of SDS, the Weathermen, in Chicago? I don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing...

When the McCain campaign was in dire straits, and people kept coming to rallies calling Obama a traitor, questioning his birth, his religion, and so forth, McCain seemed very uncomfortable, and tried to take the high road. Sarah Palin didn't seem to mind, though, so it all worked out, in a sad kind of way.

Of course McCain took the high road. Obama deserved respect, if for no other reason than that he was then a fellow Senator. I remember that most people were in favor of Obama, because they were opposed to a variety of things done against the sensibilities of both mainstream Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Things like the Patriot Act, Iraq War, expanding government and run away deficit spending. The Democrat could have been 3 feet tall and green, and as long as they preached "Hope" and "Change", they'd have won. The weight of opinion was anti-Bush. Obama won before he even talked about his plans, and in fact, the more specific he got, the lower his poll ratings went. So they stopped getting specific, and left it vague and the people ate it up.

Why don't we agree to call it all bull crap? The flimsy allegations against the tea party resulting in comparisons to Stormfront and the Klan are equally incendiary and ridiculous.

Because, at the base of the Tea Party movement, way back buried, are Stormfront, David Duke, and the like. (The Klan itself, probably less. I think they've more or less descended into crime.) When Murray Rothbard decided it was not only okay, but strategically beneficial, to get chummy with David Duke; when Lew Rockwell, writing under Ron Paul's name, spewed forth overtly hateful invective against racial minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, and any other easy target he could find, they were forging a very, very hazardous alliance.

Are you intentionally attempting to make me angry? You know this is BS, so why do you try to peddle it here? Shame on you. I can dig up the first Tea Party protest... In fact it was in NY, by some youngsters protesting the proposition of adding a hefty tax to soda pop. Then, Mary Rakivich, and my she seems *real* dangerous... not. Did you find any organized by David Duke? Lew Rockwell? Even Rothbard? Even Ron Paul? (In fact... the term limit loving Tea Partiers are looking to unseat the elder Paul. Shocking.)

They made their bed, and now lie in it. The nutty fringe, including (but certainly not limited to) racists and bigots, is an integral part of the Tea Party movement. The racist fringe is no longer cleanly separable from the low-tax-and-constitution crowd.

No. You are tossing crap into their bed. Literally crap. In that Stormfront, or David "KKK" Duke are attempting to slip into the crowds, may or may not be true. But, it is wrongful repetition of false information, and why you are listening to the crap spewing from David Duke, or Frickin Don Black and repeating it as facts? Are they usual sources of information for the Left? I could produce a long list of Democrats who've said racially hateful things in the past ten years. I could produce a list of hateful people who've contributed money to democratic candidates. Does this taint the Democratic Party, of course not. Any reasonable person would see the same relationship here. I can only surmise that you are being intentionally blind on this.

Does that mean every Tea Partier is a racist? Of course not, especially since it has broadened into essentially a right-Republican umbrella term. But it does mean that the Tea Party has to be doubly vigilant, and so far, it's been a pretty shoddy job. Their apologists, yourself included, seem to have no defense except for No True Scotsman - whenever someone from the movement is revealed to be a racist or a bigot, ...

It does mean they will need to be doubly vigilant, not only from the *real* racists who try to side show, but also the democrat operatives who attempt to manufacture negative press, and the leftist propagandists, yourself included, who use *any* pretext to undermine, marginalize, and demonize an activist movement where 99.99% of them are expressing their rights to peacefully assemble and speak their grievances. Will wing nuts show up? I would guess, since they are public events, yes, they still will show up.

...whenever obviously racist signs or slogans (Obama-the-witchdoctor, "African lion and lyin' African," Bitherism, "Congress = Slave owner, Taxpayer = Niggar", Obama/Osama wordplay, etc...) are shown, the claim is that they don't really represent the movement, that they're exceptions - up to and including national leaders like Mark Williams. So far, it hasn't been very convincing.

This is totally low, even for you. Those people were booted from the protests, before they even started. Dale Robertson, Mark Williams, and the other four or five were chastised and booted. They are not welcome. But, you forget so quickly that at the RNC convention in the Twin Cities... Protesters were arrested before the event for plotting to toss bags of cement from overpasses onto buses. For filling balloons with urine, blood, and feces to hurl onto delegates. For making pipe bombs, smoke grenades, and other items of destruction. Police in riot gear dispersing crowds with tear gas, who tip over cars and set them on fire, throw rocks at the police, and through windows. Not to mention the hateful things on the signs they carry... But, that of course is A-OK with you, right?