Sex Scandal? Where?, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #301 | @MDWorld
Synchronicity is as close to an outside spiritual force as I get. I don’t buy into the ridiculous übermacho cliché that there’s no such thing as coincidences; of course there are. For example, the very week the brand new James Bond movie opens, we are hit with a “scandal” about America’s spymaster having an extracurricular sex life.
Synchronicity. You gotta love it.
Everybody – in this case, the fame-stream media, the Republican opportunists and the judgmentally superior – acts upset that David Petraeus, the head of the CIA, screwed around on his wife. Holy crap, that never happens… except in the majority of marriages in America. And Europe. And Africa. And most of Asia. Some scientists believe Antarctic penguins mate for life, but we know that some female penguins are prostitutes who exchange their favors for nice rocks. There’s a reason why those dude penguins are kicking those stones towards the red light district.
The headline in The Daily Beast reads “Petraeus Fever Paralyzes Washington as the Media Pounce on Sex Scandal.” Putting aside the fact that The Daily Beast is part of the media and ignoring those members of the media who cheat on their spouses, they really made no attempt to explain to us why this is a scandal.
His paramour, we are told, was in possession of classified information. But if you dig a little deeper you’d discover the General’s inamorata, Paula Broadwell, had top secret level security clearance . Before you start rooting for another scandal, please be aware that Ms. Broadwell is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, a West Point graduate and a former military intelligence officer.
So where’s the scandal? Lots of sex and steam, but none of that is anybody else’s business. I’m amazed Fox News hasn’t hired Monica Lewinsky as a special commentator. And, please, don’t start babbling about dishonoring the uniform. Egregious sexual activity has been part and parcel of military service since our ancestors started heaving rocks at each other. If you want a sex scandal and you want to be taken seriously, you’ve got to start with all the raping going on in our now sexually integrated armed forces.
As it turns out, the four-star general had made a lot of enemies during his climb to the top. I asked a few friends of mine who are or were heavily involved in military affairs as well as the spy racket (yes, lunatic radicals can have friends in the CIA and I’ve got three) and I discovered David Petraeus has been one of the most hated military leaders of this century. Evidently, he’s such an arrogant megalomaniac that his attitude would make Julius Caesar say “Woof, dude, lighten up!” So, perhaps, all this starts with the chickens coming home to roost.
This isn’t about sex. It’s about a bunch of spoiled monkeys desperate to throw their feces at the Obama Administration after their pathetic and conclusive losses in the election that immediately predated the story.
Or, in John McCain’s case, his pathetic and conclusive losses for the past four years and one week.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place. That same venue offers us the weekly Great American Popcast, co-hosted with Mike Raub. Gold also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
November 19th, 2012 at 8:58 am
Right, or wrong, the General broke a rule that has applied to him his entire career; Army and CIA. He got caught, he resigned, we have an investigation just to confirm that national security wasn’t compromised. He was caught after he left the Army, so his benefits shouldn’t be touched; even though the rules say they can be. This should have been the end of the entire story. Unfortunately, a few members of the GOP seem to think that this is a good distraction (especially for donors) from their poor showings in the election; and the so called liberal media, as always more concerned with billable numbers than ideology, has been more than happy to help. Big money to be made selling a sex scandal to the American public
November 19th, 2012 at 9:15 am
I thought the FBI was investigating because the woman in Florida, Jill something, was getting anonymous, threatening e-mails, which turned out to come from Paula Broadwell. That’s a valid reason to investigate.
The rest of this, of course, is just ridiculous. I don’t want to think about any of these people having sex, ever.
November 19th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Yeah, the investigation is valid but the minute the FBI discovers it’s not about national security, they should go away and deal with the fact that Hoover is long dead.
And I doubt either woman will be invited to pose nekked for Playboy. But, who knows. If Murdoch buys ‘em out…
Wait! What? You think of Petraeus having sex? Really?
November 19th, 2012 at 9:49 am
“You think of Petraeus having sex? Really?” Only when they talk about it non-stop on my television before I can get to the remote and change the channel.
November 19th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Hmmm. You might want to pull back on watching The Military Channel a bit.
November 19th, 2012 at 11:59 am
The Republicans will use this as fodder to discredit whatever Petraeus has to say about Benghazi if it doesn’t jive with their accusations that the Obama re-election team suppressed the terrorist angle because they didn’t want to look bad during the election. In the worst case scenario, it still boils down to “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
November 19th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I’ve read an article, I’m not sure if it’s the Guardian or NYT, saying that the reporters are getting tired of faking indignation and treating sex scandals as anything of importance, but it still fills pages and they’re waiting for a public man to take the first step of saying “fuck you, it’s nobody’s business whom I sleep with.” And then about 80% of the media will side with said guy. Everybody except Fox and the church-influenced media.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
This whole thing makes me feel old.
This is because I’m old enough to remember when Petraeus was “their” boy. Anti-war types who said anything nasty about the guy were committing treason. The Republicans were up in arms against anybody who voiced a negative opinion about Petraeus. Now that he’s taken an Obama appointment, he becomes the traitor and thus becomes fodder for the party of hypocrisy and lies.
Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why McCain is getting so much airtime.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
This just in: FDR had a mistress! Republicans use this as grounds to repeal Social Security!
November 19th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Just curious. If the Obama election team DID suppress the terrorist angle because it violated the “bin Laden’s dead and GM is alive” narrative, why is that not significant?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
George: Because bin Laden IS dead, and GM IS alive. And it all hinges on statements made by one person on a couple of talking heads shows. This hardly represents some grand conspiracy to suppress the truth. And it would be nice if the whole thing would go away now that the head of the CIA at the time said that the intelligence agencies specifically requested that any links to terrorist groups not be included in the talking points. But McCain and Graham aren’t the kind of guys to let facts get in the way.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Mike — Although it may apparently sound trite to you, but in the military, adultery is a court-martial offense — a violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ.
Now, if he was a civilan when he committed the offense, then he’s not punishable by the UCMJ, but the Lieutenant colonel he was fooling around with certainly is.
I’m sure the CIA has its own set of behavior rules, so Petraeus may have broken one of those.
But even if you think all rules are stupid and embrace anarchy, Petraeus was an idiot for doing what he did, and he knew it — which is why he resigned.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Russ, it doesn’t seem trite, it seems inane. Another stupid law. A waste of taxpayers’ money.
Oral sex is illegal in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C. In Florida, Massachussetts, Montana and Virginia, it is illegal to have sex in any position other than man-on-top, woman-on-bottom. Animals are banned from having public sex within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship in California (of all places!). It’s illegal in Iowa for a mustachioed man to kiss a woman in public; however, it’s legal in Iowa for a mustachioed man to kiss a woman in pubic. Pre-marital sex is illegal in Oklahoma. Sex toys are illegal in Georgia.
And now for my favorite. It’s a felony to possess MORE than six dildos in Texas. Five dildos, no problem. Seven, you go to prison. Personally, I believe it should be legal to own as many dildos as you have guns.
I’d love to say I copped all that from a 1957 “Strange Laws” feature in Batman Comics, but that was in the Wertham days when the medium was victim to a witch hunt.
If I’m not mistaken, anal sex remains illegal under the UCMJ. So if you’re a gay career soldier and you practice consensual anal sex with another, you’d be an idiot.
Petraeus was an idiot. Does this mean that because he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants he actually was a rotten general and/or a lousy CIA director but we simply didn’t know it at the time? Because, if so, then the General did us a favor by screwing around.
It wouldn’t be the first time we discovered truth through sex.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“And it all hinges on statements made by one person on a couple of talking heads shows. This hardly represents some grand conspiracy to suppress the truth. ”
It was five talking heads shows as I recall and I watched 3 of them. And that person was our ambassador to the UN. I suppose because the administration has said, “Move along. Nothing to see here.” that there can’t possibly be some grand conspiracy to suppress the truth.
“And it would be nice if the whole thing would go away now that the head of the CIA at the time said that the intelligence agencies specifically requested that any links to terrorist groups not be included in the talking points.”
Even if the intelligence agency requested no mention of terrorist activity. it would be nice to know why, when the attack was actually happening and our ambassador requested help, none was sent. And when a contract employee with a special forces background asked to provide aid he was told to stand down. He disobeyed that order, He was 41 years old so he was no rookie full of youthful confidence. He disobeyed the order, knowing he was jeopardizing his career. Of course he was killed after about 6 hours so his career really doesn’t matter.
I don’t think his family thinks “it would be nice if the whole think would go away.” The press was certainly concerned about Watergate but I can’t remember how many people died there.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Mike wrote:
“Hmmm. You might want to pull back on watching The Military Channel a bit.”
Premature evacuation.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
I’m so proud that I live in a state where oral sex is not illegal. Not sure about the farm animal part though. Those long cold nights in the UP…
November 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Yeah, well, Pennie, they got lots of wood up there in the UP.
November 19th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“it would be nice to know why, when the attack was actually happening and our ambassador requested help, none was sent.”
Yes, it would certainly be nice if help had arrived instantaneously…via the Star Trek transporter or the Tardis or something. Unfortunately, we don’t have that technology yet. To claim that help wasn’t sent is simply false:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83713.html
And the U.N. ambassador used the talking points that had been vetted by the intelligence agencies. The only wording change was substituting “mission” for “consulate”. So, by all means, let the witch hunt continue.
November 19th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Rick — If you’re going to just lap up the excuses without exerting one iota of critical thinking simply because your guys are running the show, then you deserve what you get. No one will be found at fault, no procedures will change, and the next crisis will end as badly or worse.
I find it chilling that those who tell us we will KNOW through our intelligence sources when the Iranians go nuclear are the same people who cite “murky intelligence,” lack of resources, and other excuses for the Benghazi debacle. Keep in mind that the same intelligence sources that said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a “slam dunk” are the ones who fed national command authorities intelligence during the Benghazi incident.
I wish I could be as candid as I’d like about response options, but unfortunately, I can’t. Suffice to say that a 19-hour response time for the incident on the anniversary of 9-11 is absolutely shocking to this career military person.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:07 am
MIke wrote: “Russ, it doesn’t seem trite, it seems inane.”
I disagree. Anything that undermines good order and discipline in the military SHOULD be discouraged. Adultery is a willful breach of a contract, can severely hurt morale, and shows poor judgement. Ditto for things like fraternization, sexual relations between supervisors and subordinates, etc.
Keep in mind that when military discipline gets lax, planes fall from the sky, nukes get misplaced, accidents in dangerous environments increase, more people die, and military effectiveness drops dramatically.
Petraeus certainly knows this better than most.
November 20th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Russ sez: “Anything that undermines good order and discipline in the military SHOULD be discouraged. Adultery is a willful breach of a contract, can severely hurt morale, and shows poor judgement. Ditto for things like fraternization, sexual relations between supervisors and subordinates, etc.”
They said the same thing about gays in the military. And women.
I’m not defending Petraeus’ behavior. I’m just saying the sex thing ain’t our business.
November 20th, 2012 at 10:27 am
“And the U.N. ambassador used the talking points that had been vetted by the intelligence agencies. The only wording change was substituting “mission” for “consulate”. So, by all means, let the witch hunt continue.”
That, and removing all references to al Qaeda, as this story from CBS news relates: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/
November 20th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Yep. Let’s scare the shit out of people before we know the facts. Why, next time somebody kills four Americans in Benghazi, we can just invade Iraq. That’s the Republicans’ style. And it worked so well the last time, too.
It even gave us General David Petraeus!
Listen, let’s all grow up. We KNOW who did the nasty deed.
It was Vince Foster.
And the mindless Republican rabble actually thought he was dead!!!! HA!
November 20th, 2012 at 11:10 am
George: You might want to read the links you post in defense of your accusations:
“Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.”
The White House didn’t make the changes. The State Department didn’t make the changes. The OFFICE OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE with the AGREEMENT of the CIA and the FBI made the changes.
Additional information from the link that you supplied:
“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” the official tells CBS News, adding that there were “legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”
November 20th, 2012 at 11:27 am
We can all agree that adultery is vile behaviour. What I don’t agree with is that said vile behaviour in one’s personal life should be basis for disqualifying one from one’s job.
Let’s see what other private behavior is also vile and shows one as lacking in judgment and common sense… Let’s imagine other headlines:
“Petraues forced to resign: he beats his kids a lot.”
“Petraues forced to resign: taught his 12-years old son to drink and smoke.”
“Petraues forced to resign: stole his best friend’s girlfriend when he was younger.”
“Petraues forced to resign: was bully in high school.”
Lots of behaviours that could show Petraeus as a poor human being with poor judgment, but none would result in his resignation. Only adultery. Why?
Because:
1) A lot of americans still are unbelieavable prudes.
2) Marriage, to a lot of people, is still a contract made under God. And if you mess with God, then it’s a severe crime.
Hogwash. Being a poor husband has nada, zero, zip, relation to being a good leader or administrator.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Rick,
Well you did say the only wording change was from “mission” to “consulate”. My link appears to deny that.
I read the entire article I linked to. In addition to the info you quote there is this:
“The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.”
It is obvious from all this that organized terrorism is what caused the death of 4 people and that that was known from the beginning. Yet 2 full weeks after the attack, President Obama said this at the United Nations:
“And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
Why did he need to maintain that fiction? You really believe the election had nothing to do with hiding the facts? Or that the question shouldn’t even be asked?
November 20th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
That’s not a fiction. The crude and disgusting video most certainly sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Lots of it. An enormous amount of it. And non-Muslims and Americans will be paying for that video for generations to come. Fundamentalists will whip it out every time they want to whip their followers into a frenzy. Those four Americans in Benghazi weren’t killed because of it, but I guarantee you plenty of people will be killed by people using that video to justify their anger.
You might want to stay inside on future 9/11s.
And, yes, the Democratic victories had nothing to do with any hiding the facts of this situation. Take your defeat with a bit of grace. You lost to the Abortion Party. You can try to find all the excuses you want, but it’s all bullshit. You lost. You lost fair and square. And now you have to suffer through another four years of that black Muslim Kenyan socialist babykiller, just like the rest of us had to suffer through another four years of that murderous nincompoop that preceded him.
Stop whining, stop making up excuses, and deal with it.
November 20th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I don’t believe Obama to be Kenyan or Muslim. Likewise, I don’t believe George Bush was a murderous nincompoop.
Obama’s voting record on the Born Alive Act when he was a senator in Illinois may not disqualify him from that last descriptor.
Yes, everyone should stay inside on future 9/11s. Blaming the video for Muslim atrocities absolves them from basic human reason. You’re admitting you do not feel they are capable of civilized restraint. The expected and accepted response when a Muslim is insulted is violence but it is a disservice to them to believe that. When Piss Christ was displayed and received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, Christians protested and wrote angry letters. No one died. The cartoonist behind “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” Molly Norris was advised be the FBI to go underground.
“Those four Americans in Benghazi weren’t killed because of it, but I guarantee you plenty of people will be killed by people using that video to justify their anger.”
Then why did the administration insist that was the reason until after the election?
Make no mistake. I have no expectation that Obama will suffer any repercussions from the Benghazi debacle. Someone may take a fall but it won’t be him. He is protected by a compliant media that must protect him to protect themselves.
“Stop whining, stop making up excuses, and deal with it.”
What are you thinking? This is dealing with it.
November 20th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
No. Dealing with it is providing actual evidence, not a series of coincidences.
You know, in 1983 during the administration of Saint Ronald Reagan, a U.S. Marine barracks was bombed in Beirut killing 220 United States Marines, 18 U.S. sailors and 3 U.S. soldiers as well as plenty of foreign nationals. That’s more Marine deaths at any one event in any one day since Iwo Jima. The Islamic Jihad bombed two separate buildings, using two separate truck bombs.
One event, two incidents, a massive fuck-up in security, a massive fuck-up in intelligence, a massive fuck-up in preparedness. A disaster that killed 55 times as many Americans and plenty of foreign nationals. Did the Republicans start espousing wacky conspiracy theories? Did they start babbling about how we needed all sorts of Congressional investigations so the “REAL” truth (as opposed to the actual truth) could come out? Were there serious congressional accusations of cover-up? Was it even referred to as a “debacle” the way you referred to Benghazi?
No.
Instead, the international peacekeeping force was recalled. Taken out of action. Or, as Republicans would say if this happened today under Obama (or Clinton), run out of Lebanon with their tails between their legs.
Why?
Well, maybe we had a better type of Republican back in 1983.
Or maybe they couldn’t find themselves a black Democrat to lynch.
November 20th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Word.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:45 am
Reagan was pre-9/11, Mike. Today, conservatives have nightmares about America losing its power and influence. Their foreign policy devolved into “What would Bush do”, but in cartoon form. Some crazies in Lybia killed the US ambassador, then let’s used it as excuse to invade Iran.
Yet, strangely, it was Obama that got us rid of Osama and Kaddafi, with little fuss. But the GOP likes it big, big wars, bravado, no UN approval (they’re proud of it), wasting a lot of money into it (somehow money spend in the military “doesn’t count” when they go into their small government nervous tic). Just doing the job and killing the bad guy is almost anti-climatic. They don’t want police action, they want empire building.
Did you see Dan Simmons’s latest novel? FLASHBACK. Check it out. It’s the perfect expression of Conservative fear. Dan Simmons got Frank Miller Disease, his mind was destroyed when the towers fell. And now he is afraid of a future with an all-powerful Muslim Caliphat, and Obama is the President whose actions now mean that in the future America isn’t a First World power any longer. It’s dominated by Chinamen or something. And Israel is a nuclear wasteland. All Obama’s fault, because he wasn’t tough on Islam.
This is the future Conservatives fear.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:10 am
MIke,
A couple of things are significantly different with the Beirut bombing. It did not occur two months before a presidential election. And more importantly, there was not an attempt to blame anything other than terrorism for the bombing.
Reagan’s removal of the Marine presence after the attack, which you seem to believe was the correct response, (“Well, maybe we had a better type of Republican back in 1983.”), has been criticized as emboldening terrorists. The retreat showed bin Laden that enough body bags would prompt Western withdrawal, not retaliation.
“Or maybe they couldn’t find themselves a black Democrat to lynch.”
There it is. The default position. Any criticism of Obama’s administration must be due to racism. This is only the most recent time, in a seeming unending series, that I’ve been called a racist for daring to question Obama’s policies. Thanks for keeping the streak alive.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:47 am
George, I’m not trying to speak for Mike here, but I think I can state with certainty that neither he or anyone else in this dialogue is calling you a racist for expressing opposition to elements of Obama’s policies and/or administration. Heck, I’ve got more than a few bones to pick myself and I know that my melanin content is a few degrees deeper than yours.
The operative word he used is “they”. Not ‘you’. But even with that point being clarified, I’m pretty confident that you would be willing to acknowledge that there are significant factions within the GOP whose rage fests are absolutely driven by that particular form of madness, yes?
November 21st, 2012 at 11:15 am
” I’m pretty confident that you would be willing to acknowledge that there are significant factions within the GOP whose rage fests are absolutely driven by that particular form of madness, yes?”
Well lets see. Who are the significant factions in the GOP? John McCain, longtime Republican senator and 2008 presidential nominee has been criticized in the current Straight No Chaser thread for promoting an investigation into the Benghazi incident. He seems pretty significant. Maybe he’s a racist. Let’s ask his adopted daughter from India whose melanin content is a few degrees deeper than McCain’s.
Seriously, you can’t criticize Obama without racism being brought up. If Obama’s supporters were absolutely confident in their position, they wouldn’t need to resort to such a desperate tactic. I don’t know anyone in the GOP establishment personally so I can’t speak to their motives, but I am loathe to ascribe racism, so no I can not acknowledge what you propose.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Yeah, I don’t like the accusations of racism either. I am of the opinion that things are not as clear cut as “they hate him because of his skin!” There is a lot one can criticize the Republicans for without resorting to that.
There is a minority of real racists in the Right, and we can argue about the actual size of that minority, but it remains a minority and I don’t think the bigwigs of the Party belong in that minority.
I’ve seen arguments that Obama is constantly “othered” in the criticism he suffers from the Right. Maybe so. But that is also more complicate than just racism. It involves questions about his religion, his family history, the culture he was raised in. There IS a element of xenophobia to that, but I don’t think the color of his skin plays a big part in that.
November 21st, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Actually, what the GOP wants more than anything is a black or latino guy that fits all their criteria (pro-market, devout Christian, hawkish, law & order type) to step forward as a big name to nominate for future Presidential elections. That is their wet dream to avoid changing their platform too much and still cater to the changes in demographics.
November 21st, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Wow. If both of you choose to just ignore the clearly racist over and undertones that are resonant within the GOP…then that’s just delusional. And saddening.
November 21st, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Just to be clear, I did not use the word ‘delusional’ as a point of insult or attack, but under the parameters of its definition: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.
November 21st, 2012 at 4:32 pm
George,
As the person that brought McCain up in the other thread, let me assure you that I don’t think that he is a racist. He’s a bitter, angry, old man with impulse control issues; but he’s not a racist. I can’t think of a Republican in a leadership position that is a racist. There are a lot of racists in the Republican Party, but they’re at the local level or minor talking heads. They’re a minority, but they’re a very loud and vocal minority.
November 21st, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Oh, and I wasn’t criticizing Senator Cranky Pants. I was ridiculing him. Big difference.
November 21st, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Doug,…the following GOPer was in significant power not that long ago. Do you really think that Lott was isolated in his views or had a transformative epiphany due to being called out? And I know you recognize the fact that leadership positions do not have to equate with elected roles.
In the 1990s, Lott spoke at five separate meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a hate group that routinely describes blacks as “genetically inferior”, calls gays and lesbians “perverted sodomites”, and complains that immigrants are making the US a “slimy brown mass of glop”. In 1998 he spoke at the Mississippi home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, saying “Sometimes I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.”
In 2002, Lott became suddenly controversial when he said at the 100th birthday party of Sen Strom Thurmond, “I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Lott was referring to Thurmond’s 1948 campaign for President on the Dixiecrat ticket’s platform of “racial integrity”, endorsing segregation and miscegenation statutes, and opposing “social equality” in voting rights, law enforcement, and “the misnamed civil rights program”. Thurmond’s campaign fliers warned that if Harry S. Truman were re-elected, “anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever.”
In the subsequent uproar, Lott apologized eloquently: “I grew up in an environment that condoned policies and views that we now know were wrong and immoral, and I repudiate them. Let me be clear: segregation and racism are immoral.” The apology was not enough to keep Lott from being forced to resign his Senate leadership post, but he remained in office, and after winning his fourth term in 2006 he was elected Minority Whip by his Republican colleagues in the Senate.
In November 2007, less than a year into his six-year term in the Senate, Lott resigned his office, just in time to slip past new ethical rules that require a two-year wait after leaving the Senate before becoming a lobbyist.
November 21st, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Doug,
You said.
” I can’t think of a Republican in a leadership position that is a racist. There are a lot of racists in the Republican Party, but they’re at the local level or minor talking heads. They’re a minority, but they’re a very loud and vocal minority.
Here’s my problem with that, Donald Trump is CLEARLY in my opinion a racist. Asking the first Black President to ‘show his papers’ and produce his ‘school records’ is SO fucking beyond FUCKED UP on SO many levels it’s a truly sickening scenario in 2012.
Yes, it’s 2012 in America not 1950 in Mississippi.
EVERY GOP candidate for President sort Trump’s endorsement. They all went and sat at the feet and kissed the ring of the Donald.
Now what does that say to African Americans when the GOP Presidential candidates seek out the endorsement of a man who continues to question the very citizenship and intelligence of the first Black President?
No matter how many times his bullshit theory is disproven he STILL insists, quite loudly, that Obama is some foreign nigger.
No one in the GOP leadership has denounced this blatant race baiting and for me that’s just as racist as endorsing it outright. Hell, Romney even questioned Obama’s birth certificate at an event.
The GOP leadership by staying silent has given African Americans plenty of reason to think they are in the very least, insensitive to Blacks and at most, racist.
Or to put it another way, how would Jews feel if Obama kissed the ass of, sort the endorsement and by doing so defended the clearly fucked up rants of Mel Gibson?
November 21st, 2012 at 8:35 pm
MOTU,
No argument that the GOP leadership is way too tolerant of the racist s.o.b.s in their party and it is disgusting the way they will toady to a rich racist, if they think that they can get money, votes or both. Trump, thank god, isn’t part of the GOP leadership. I was just trying to be nice to George and concede that not everyone that hates Obama is racist. With the holiday tomorrow, I thought that doing that was better than picking through his post and picking a fight with him because I could find something there to argue about. Happy Thanksgiving.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Reg,
My statement was about the current GOP Leadership only. There’s a special place in hell for all of the asshole’s you named and I’m glad that they no longer are people with power. The current leadership are major league bastards, but I don’t think that they are racists (well, there is one, but I don’t have proof); they curry favor from racists, but publicly they aren’t.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Doug,
When I rant about the GOP I always try and point out that I have some great friends that belong to the GOP who are salt of the earth kind of people.
What’s incredibly frustrating and ironic about the current GOP is how FAR they have drifted from the principals they were founded on. They started as an anti-slavery party, hence the term ‘Party of Lincoln.’
I’m pretty sure Lincoln wouldn’t ask Obama for his papers. John Wilkes Booth would have asked but Booth also thought he would be seen as a hero and the south would rise again.
Clearly Booth and Donald Trump have something in common-both wrong on what the country wants and assholes.
November 22nd, 2012 at 3:48 am
“The GOP leadership by staying silent has given African Americans plenty of reason to think they are in the very least, insensitive to Blacks and at most, racist.”
MOTU and Reg,
The curret GOP is willing to kiss the ring of the devil himself if that would help them win elections. Trump and Lott are garbage. And you will get no discussion from me that Republicans are insensitive to Blacks. Insensitive is their middle name.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here as I play devil’s advocate, but there is a difference between amorally accepting the suport of racists, disgusting as that may be, and being racist themselves. Maybe I am wrong. But I still prefer to be charitable and attribute it to a mix of amorality and cluelessness than outright evil.
They’ve been courting the weird, white, middle-aged, rural vote. It’s sort of the only demography that votes massively Republican anymore. There is a lot of stuff they’ve said that bother me, a lot. There is an undercurrent of racism in a lof of that demography. But to call the GOP out and out racists, I’m not sure about that.
I’d call them assholes with narrow views that worship a supposed 1950s “golden age” that was full of rotten things, including racism. I don’t want this “golden age” back, no sir. I don’t want the GOP in charge of anything. But I still don’t like calling them racists, seems too extreme.
November 22nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Rene — The Republicans weren’t the racist ones in the “Golden Age” you cite — the Democrats were.
How they’ve managed to spin their party’s historic racist sins into the sins of Republicans is a masterful work of public relations that I’m quite in awe of.
For example, in the “Golden Age” of 1964, look at the Senate and House of Representatives votes for the Civil Rights Act of that same year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
As you can plainly see, Republicans strongly supported this monumental legislation roughly 80 percent to 20 percent, while the Democrats supported it with a more tepid 60 percent to 40 percent. The numbers don’t lie — Today’s liberal spin-meisters do.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: Every racist I knew in Chicago in my formative years — white, black or hispanic — was a Democrat. And, in many cases, these weren’t closet racists… these were “You’re not like me so I’m going to bash your f**kin’ head in with a baseball bat” racists.
November 23rd, 2012 at 3:38 am
I’m well aware of the Southern Dems from old, and also well aware that with Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy in the 1960s the GOP and the Dems virtually traded places in the South, and it has remained so ever since. The “spin” only worked so well because the Republicans themselves eagerly accepted, nay, embraced it.
From the GOP who invented it himself:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
Negrophobe whites = racist whites.
But it’s interesting that this GOP man, Kevin Phillips, who devised the Southern Strategy, was more than likely not racist himself. He just wanted the racist vote.
Reality is funny.
November 23rd, 2012 at 7:03 am
I still think a Chicago Democrat must’ve run off Russ’ dog, but that’s just me.
November 23rd, 2012 at 7:04 am
“run over”
November 23rd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Neil — Virtually everyone in Chicago is a Democrat, yet Chicago remains one of the most segregated cities in the nation to this very day. The problem with partisan Democrats is they talk a good game about racial equality, but in practice, it’s all hype.
Hollywood is no different than Chicago. It is top-heavy with rich Democrats, but how diverse is it really? Hell, it’s been nearly 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet the diversity of the Hollywood elite isn’t all that different than it was 50 years ago. By now, to reflect the nation’s demographics, half the executives, producers, directors and stars should be women, and about 12 percent should be black, and 16 percent should be latino/hispanic.
That sure isn’t the demographic breakdown I see when I mingle with the Hollywood folks. It isn’t even a tiny fraction of that.
But when someone states reality, partisan Democrats come up with all kinds of reasons why the person stating the facts is biased, scarred, irrational, racist, stupid, etc.
Republicans do it too, but then, most of the folks in the popular culture business or pop culture diehards are not Republicans — like the majority of folks who frequent this site.
But the truth is, if one looks objectively at Chicago — a Democratic-only petrie dish for more more than 75 years, one sees the Democrats not only don’t have all of the answers, they are guilty of most, if not all of the things they excoriate Republicans for.
The problem with many Democratic politicians as well as Republicans is that they get elected based entirely on their party affiliation and not their effectiveness. This will never change as long as politicians feel secure in their perennial re-elections.
No, Neil, it wasn’t my dog that was run over by Democrats, it was my idealistic belief that they would actually practice what they preach.
November 23rd, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Rene — Oh, so you’re using the tired old “Southern Democrat” argument.
Funny how for 100 years, the northern and western Democrats were perfectly happy having the southern Democrats in their fold — helping pass legislation, getting their party favorites elected, etc.
And now that most of the former southern Democrat states are in the Republican fold, Democrats have re-written not only their historical complicity partnering with those states when segregation was the norm, they also are attempting to make it seem as if those states today are somehow the same as they were in the dark days before 1960s desegregation.
That takes hubris of monumental proportions, but I guess if the lie eventually works, it’s all good for the Democratic Party.
November 23rd, 2012 at 1:06 pm
So, those things Kevin “Southern Strategy” Phillips wrote. What do you think of them? Are they lies somehow fabricated by the Democratic Party in some time travel conspiracy? Maybe they replaced the real Kevin with a robot?
And what do you think of Kevin Phillips’s modern-day books characterizing the Party he helped guide as an Unholy Trinity of Oil Barons, Christian Fundamentalists, and Financers? He was a man that surely knew the GOP, seeing as he was an important part of it.
What do you think of those crazy commies in East Germany that used to claim West Germany was still Nazi-Fascist, because before 1946 that is what they had been? Castigating the Dems for stuff they did before the 1960s, while giving a pass to GOPers for doing the same thing now, sounds remarkably like it.
November 23rd, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Russ – This is more in answer to your post to Neil. I wonder, you keep saying that Democrats are all hype when it comes to gender and race equality, that they have done nothing that is effective in helping fostering it, nothing at all.
Yet, women and non-whites keep voting Democrat. Why do you think that happens? Because Democrats are so wonderful at lying that they have them wrapped around their little finger? Or because women and non-whites are stupid, since they keep voting against their own best interests?
Which is it?
November 25th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I’ve been gone a couple of days so I have to play catch up.
Regarding the assumed position that Republicans are racists:
I make no excuses for Trent Lott. He is an idiot but he is not now a member of the Republican leadership and hasn’t been for 5 years. Trump is also not a member of the Republican leadership and he will be never be.
This thread started about the Petreaus sex scandal but turned into a discussion about the inherent racism in the Republican Party when Mike said:
“Well, maybe we had a better type of Republican back in 1983.
Or maybe they couldn’t find themselves a black Democrat to lynch.”
This was in reference to why there are calls for an investigation into the Benghazi killings.
The three Republicans at the forefront of the calls for a Benghazi investigation are John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte. Doug Abramson allowed that he did not believe John McCain was a racist. (“As the person that brought McCain up in the other thread, let me assure you that I don’t think that he is a racist.”) That leaves Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte who must be the ones who have racist motivations for calling for an investigation. If there is anyone who has evidence that these people are racists, I’d like to know what it is. And it should be something other than something like Doug who said, “The current leadership are major league bastards, but I don’t think that they are racists (well, there is one, but I don’t have proof);…” Please, if you have no proof then don’t ask me to buy into your preconceived biases. This thread veered into racism because of the call for Benghazi hearings and those are the people who called for them.
Reg announced that Rene and I are delusional, (but not as an insult of course), because apparently we do not acknowledge the “clearly racist over and undertones that are resonant within the GOP…” I have as much justification to say the same about the Democratic Party.
Maybe I should accuse the Democratic Party of being sexist. After all, President Obama said about the call for an investigation: “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. ” He conveniently did not mention Kelly Ayotte. And Eric Holder has been criticized and held in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious issue, yet Obama never rode to Holder’s rescue. Why? Does he think Susan Rice needs him to defend her but Holder doesn’t? Seems a bit patronizing.
November 25th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Rene wrote “Because Democrats are so wonderful at lying that they have them wrapped around their little finger?”
That sums it up pretty well for Chicago. People in Chicago have been conditioned to vote Democratic, regardless of how badly they are treated. In fact, it reminds me of the classic abusive spouse relationship. They stick with the party hoping change will really happen, hoping the promises will someday be kept, and finally, fear — although in this case, not fear of the Democratic Party, but fear of the Republican Party. And that fear is stoked at every turn by the Democratic folks in power.
The reality of the situation is that both parties have pros and cons, and in the long run, holding the Democrats accountable by voting for independents or Republicans may be the only way to break the ugly chain of non-action the party has helping minorities. The fact is, no Republican or independent candidate could possibly have neglected certain minority neighborhoods in Chicago as completely and for as long as the Democrats have.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:59 am
Hey George,
Sorry to interrupt your rant , but I never said that the Republican in a leadership position that I think was racist, called for an investigation into anything. I made a couple snarky asides, which you seem to use to take offense at my argument that most Republicans aren’t racists. Calling someone a racist, requires some proof; which I don’t have, so I don’t name the person I alluded to. Calling someone a bastard, is an opinion. It doesn’t require back up.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Russ –
You sound like a Liberal complaining about the white and poor that live in the South that supposedly vote against their own interests because they are “conditioned” by the evil Republicans, and made to fear the Liberals. If only they’d vote right… blah, blah, blah.
Perhaps both the poor blacks in Chicago and the poor whites in the South are savier than we give them credit for, perhaps they know better than to vote for parties that, quite frankly, have not made them their priority. Instead of demonizing the other party, perhaps the Republicans should get their game together and come up with a discourse that does not alienate the black, urban poor. Same with the Dems if they want to win over the white, rural poor.
I also have to say I don’t believe in utopias. I don’t believe it’s easy to revert injustices that are centuries old, in some casa millenia old, in a few generations. I say this to both you and Reg. You blame Liberal hypocrisy for Hollywood not having a perfect record of mirroring the general population, while Reg blames “racism” for the enduring economic inequality between blacks and whites. I blame neither. I just say again that I don’t expect big, planned, society-wide changes over a few years, and I’m even wary of such things. Call me a “conservative”. The only way to attain such changes is through mass violence. Real positive change is slow, gradual, and too disappointing considering an individual human lifespan.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
George, when I express an opinion, I pretty much (excepting grammatical issues) mean exactly what I say. I’m not emotionally invested in the dialogue to the extent that I’m going to intentionally insult or demean anyone else’s opinion. What’s the benefit of doing that? For me, there’s no value or wisdom in doing so as I fully recognize that people view the world and issues through their personal prisms. Plus, it makes for a poor witness.
So when I stated that my assessment of your and Rene’s responses to just a few snapshots of the current and near term examples of evidence that over/undertones of racism resonate within the GOP rank and file and leadership was delusional (based on the clinical definition of the word), that’s what I meant. I’m sorry if you felt insulted by that but that was not my intent as the facts speak for themselves.
I’ve voted for Republican, Democrat, and Independent candidates over the course of my life based on how closely I felt that they aligned with my personal views and/or interests. I’ve voted for White candidates over Black ones for exactly those reasons.
What I found troubling about both your and Rene’s responses was a seemingly total rejection that racism within the GOP was a major problem or not a supportive factor for the (as viewed through my prism) absolutely disrespectful, virulent and obstructive actions perpetrated by both GOP leadership and voters alike with respect to President Obama.
To my knowledge, there’s not been a lot of evidence reflecting Democrats calling Mia Love, Steele, Jindal or Haley, etc the n-word or any other words or imagery that specifically seeks to denigrate their ethnicity and/cultures as a part of the political process. But Ohhhh Boy, has there been a whole lotta shaking of that tree from the GOP’s camp prior to Obama’s first term and this one.
Does that mean that ALL GOPers oppose Obama and his administration’s policies because they are racists/bigots/prejudiced? Of course not. NO ONE has said that during the course of this conversation. But if anyone rejects or refuses to acknowledge that unfortunate truth in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting same, then…yeah…according to dear old Daniel…that’s being delusional.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Reg -
I repeat. I believe the shit Obama has gone through with the GOPers is more because of a) having a Muslim-sounding name, b) have lived and having family in countries with large Muslim populations, c) belonging to a Christian church that many redneck Americans find strange and alien.
In short, I don’t think Obama’s physical appearance is the crux of the prejudice he suffers from GOPers.
You could say racism is broader than discriminating against skin color, that discrimination over religion and culture is a sort of racism, but I don’t agree.
Has there been a history of GOPers saying nasty things over Herman Cain, Condy Rice, Colin Powell, etc. only because they’re black?
And no, it doesn’t mean I love the GOP. Just that I consider their schtick in the 21th century to be religious intolerance, not racism.
November 26th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Rene,
I hear what you say, and I respect that this is your belief framed out of your prism. But Bruh…I live here…and have a whole lot of shared life experiences with family, friends, co-workers, etc that probably provides me with a more accurate view of what’s behind the curtain.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Reg,
I live here too and I also have voted for Republicans Democrats and independents. (all in the most recent election actually). Rene cites some excellent examples of black conservatives that have not been scorned for their race. Mia Love however was called the n-word when she spoke at the Republican convention but not by the GOP which invited her to speak, And no, I don’t think it was mainline Democrats who called her names either, but this is an example of racism on the left.
“What I found troubling about both your and Rene’s responses was a seemingly total rejection that racism within the GOP was a major problem or not a supportive factor for the (as viewed through my prism) absolutely disrespectful, virulent and obstructive actions perpetrated by both GOP leadership and voters alike with respect to President Obama.”
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama and his race is not one of them. What I find troubling is the automatic assumption of racism as the reason for the opposition. It’s like:
Republicans = racists no question. That is offensive and simplistic. But then you did say it was through your prism so there’s that.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
When I was home this Thanksgiving, a Republican relative of mine told me she voted for Obama this past election. When I asked her why, she said that she promised herself she’d vote for whichever party bothered her the least with robocalls.
You can’t argue with logic like that!
At least she had SOME sort of measureable criteria — which is more than can be said for most voters.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
I’m with her. Voting for the least annoying candidate is more polite than voting for the lesser of two evils.
Every registered Republican at my family’s Thanksgiving dinner voted for Obama — this was in Detroit, not Chicago. But that’s because they felt the Republican Party to which they belong ceased to exist as such several elections back.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
George, I caught the dig. C’est la vie. For whatever reason you just refuse to see EVERY single statement that refutes your continued assertion that “…the automatic assumption of racism as the reason for the opposition.”
There doesn’t seem to be any way to get you to not scratch at that ‘phantom pain’ so have fun with that, man.
November 26th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
George, I caught the dig. It’s cool. For whatever reason you just refuse to see EVERY single statement that refutes your continued assertion that “…the automatic assumption of racism as the reason for the opposition.”
There doesn’t seem to be any way to get you to not scratch at that phantom pain to have fun with that, man.
November 26th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Jim Greer, the former chair (2006-2010)of the Florida Republican Party, has accused the GOP of engaging in voter suppression, in statements given under sworn testimony in a deposition surrounding a lawsuit he filed over an unpaid severance.
“In the year since I issued a prepared statement regarding President Obama speaking to the Nation’s school children, I have learned a great deal about the party I so deeply loved and served. Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views and I apologize to the President for my opposition to his speech last year and my efforts to placate the extremists who dominate our Party today. My children and I look forward to the President’s speech.”
Hmmm. Sworn deposed testimony from the former GOP State Chair proffered that the State of Florida engaged in voter suppression directed against minorities. And then there are the following statements “…MANY within the GOP have racist views…DOMINATE our Party today.”
Naaaw. Can’t be true.
November 27th, 2012 at 6:08 am
Sworn testimony in a deposition from a man who is suing the Republican Party. What possible reason could he have to lie?
“Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views…” Does he have any actual documentation or is this just his opinion?
Reg, I understand that you have repeatedly said that opposition to Obama is not necessarily based on his race. I get that and I appreciate it. But wedded to that claim is the automatic assertion that racism is common in the Republican Party and should be accepted as fact. I refute that and maintain that racism is no more prevalent ion the right than on the left.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13711/mia-love-wikipedia-page-allegedly-hacked-n-word-insult-is-insulting-to-everyone
November 27th, 2012 at 11:15 am
George. I’m going to stop beating the horse after this, but I totally agree…why would Jim Greer lie about this? I was fully aware of his being embroiled in fraud charges when I posted the info. What possible benefit would he gain by exposing the heartbeat of an environment to which he had unique and deep insight? “The GOP is racist so I couldn’t have committed fraud?” Really? Does that compute to you?
The wiki page smear against Mia Love is reprehensible. But if you think that incident in any way balances out against the innumerable examples of virulently racist emails, imagery, and actions from individuals with GOP leadership credentials(not to mention from within the base) then you’ve clearly chosen to see what you want to see irrespective of countervailing evidence. And that’s entirely your prerogative.
November 27th, 2012 at 11:23 am
What people with GOP leadership credentials have engaged in “virulently racist emails, imagery, and actions”? Really, if I have missed these individuals I need to know who they are.
November 27th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Mike — In the case of my relative, I’m not sure the current state of the Republican Party had much to do with her decision to vote for Obama. Of Romney, she basically said that she’d “never vote for that man.” I guess the poll stats that Romney was having trouble appealing to women voters was accurate.
November 28th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Dissidents and former insiders usually have the truest vision about what happens inside movements and parties. So yeah, I’m inclined to listen to what Jim Greer has to say. But I have read parts of his testimony in Daily Kos, and it reads less like “The GOP is full of racists” and more like “The GOP thinks it will never win the vote of minorities, so it just doesn’t care about them.” Just read it on Daily Kos, if I can only find the link…
Another thing I thought about while reading the Daily Kos is the similarities among the accusations that the GOP has a lot of racists, and the accusations that critics of Israel are largely anti-semitic. One accusation targets the Right, the other targets the Left, but they’re similar in that they reduce a complex situation to “those damned racists.”