Sex Scandal? Where?, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #301 | @MDWorld
November 19, 2012 Mike Gold 9 Comments
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.
Doug Abramson
November 19, 2012 - 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
Martha Thomases
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 19, 2012 - 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?
Martha Thomases
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 19, 2012 - 11:13 am
Hmmm. You might want to pull back on watching The Military Channel a bit.
Rick Oliver
November 19, 2012 - 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.”
Rene
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Rick Oliver
November 19, 2012 - 12:59 pm
This just in: FDR had a mistress! Republicans use this as grounds to repeal Social Security!
George Haberberger
November 19, 2012 - 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?
Rick Oliver
November 19, 2012 - 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.
R. Maheras
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 19, 2012 - 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.
George Haberberger
November 19, 2012 - 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.
Pennie
November 19, 2012 - 4:06 pm
Mike wrote:
“Hmmm. You might want to pull back on watching The Military Channel a bit.”
Premature evacuation.
Pennie
November 19, 2012 - 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…
Mike Gold
November 19, 2012 - 4:30 pm
Yeah, well, Pennie, they got lots of wood up there in the UP.
Rick Oliver
November 19, 2012 - 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.
R. Maheras
November 19, 2012 - 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.
R. Maheras
November 20, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 20, 2012 - 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.
George Haberberger
November 20, 2012 - 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/
Mike Gold
November 20, 2012 - 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!
Rick Oliver
November 20, 2012 - 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.”
Rene
November 20, 2012 - 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.
George Haberberger
November 20, 2012 - 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?
Mike Gold
November 20, 2012 - 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.
George Haberberger
November 20, 2012 - 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.
Mike Gold
November 20, 2012 - 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.
Reg
November 20, 2012 - 5:08 pm
Word.
Rene
November 21, 2012 - 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.
George Haberberger
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Reg
November 21, 2012 - 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?
George Haberberger
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Rene
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Rene
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Reg
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Reg
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Doug Abramson
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Doug Abramson
November 21, 2012 - 4:33 pm
Oh, and I wasn’t criticizing Senator Cranky Pants. I was ridiculing him. Big difference.
Reg
November 21, 2012 - 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.
MOTU
November 21, 2012 - 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?
Doug Abramson
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Doug Abramson
November 21, 2012 - 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.
MOTU
November 21, 2012 - 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.
Rene
November 22, 2012 - 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.
R. Maheras
November 22, 2012 - 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.
Rene
November 23, 2012 - 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.
Neil C.
November 23, 2012 - 7:03 am
I still think a Chicago Democrat must’ve run off Russ’ dog, but that’s just me.
Neil C.
November 23, 2012 - 7:04 am
“run over”