Blog powered by Typepad


    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from bbbustard. Make your own badge here.
My Photo


« Centrism | Main | Reagan and Race Redux. »

November 10, 2007



I will print this and hang it next to your essay on Carter’s anti-Semitism. And, the really neat thing about the Carter essay is that you did not have to go back many decades and quote anti Reaganites. You were just able to use his contemporaneous words and actions. Cool! And, you did not have to grasp at things such as conservatives believe in the 10th amendment and sheepishly mislabel it as racism. Nor, did you have to misrepresent opposition to bills for the folly attached to them as racism. Nor, did you have to label opposition to another foolish federal holiday as racism. Oh, and 82% of blacks consider all Republicans to be racist, so how do you explain Reagan’s popularity among minorities? No, you didn’t have to reach and stretch and misinterpret at all. And, I really liked the way you drew a straight line from the fall of eastern block communism as we know it to Reagan, and the straight line from the rise of Islamo Fascism to a whimpering figure in the oval office with elbows on desk and forehead in palms in 1979.

There is not a racist nor liar nor torturer behind every door and the misuse and overuse of these and other idly tossed about terms, provides cover for the real racists and liars and torturers of this planet.

Toss this about with your Sunday salad. (Just an attempt at dramatic emphasis) The left has decided to label this President as a liar. Though, when pressed for specifics, one discovers that they have simply decided to call disagreement lying. So, when Ahmajinadad is told that he must give up his pursuit of nuclear arms, (as did Ghadaffi) he foolishly misreads and misinterprets the threats as lies. Why? The American left has him convinced. So, when the birds fly, the fingerprints of the left will be unwittingly on all the buttons. If the extraordinarily foolish Kucinich were really interested in preventing war with Iran, he would be threatening to strike them instead of attempting to introduce legislation to impeach the Vice President which only fuels Ahmajinadad’s insanity and further convinces him that the left is on his side. But we both know that Kucinich is not interested in preventing war with Iran. He is interested in elevating his pathetic political image which is treachery of the worst kind.

But, alas, I live with the ever fading hope that the left is not really on the side of our enemies. It is really hard to come to terms with you know. Anti Americanism is far more pungent amongst the elite of Davis and Healdsburg and Provincetown than it is amongst the Wazirs and Beluchs.

How do I drift so far in only 3 or 4 paragraphs? No matter, I’ll just tack back to starboard for a spell.

A beautiful pot roast today surrounded by carrots and baby redskin potatoes. (Could Dan Quail be partially right after all these years?) Bring Mesdames by and I will open a Bordeaux.

Cheers to you both. Hope all goes well.


And, a very small point. Trent Lott did not tell Strom Thurmond that he wished he had won the Presidency back in 1948. I watched the whole thing. Wouldn't like to see you continue forward with misperceptions


"we wouldn't of had all these problems" if you had been elected was what Lott said to Thurmond. Color me crazy, but most people would understand avoidance of problems as a good thing, as something one would wish for. If you have information that Sen Lott has a long, secret history of masochism, I'll apologize.


More importantly and interestingly, I never called Reagan a racist in my post. Although most white men born when he was were racists, especially ones who left the Democratic Party in the very early '60s, I did not presume to look into his heart.
I did look at his behavior. He used race to gain power. What I don't understand is the hysterical need to rewrite history.There was a "Southern Strategy." FDR was either a cynical coward, or a political realist in his handling of race - but he sure wasn't admirable.
Why do you think that you are unable to see some nuance, that most Presidents, like most people, are not purely good or purely evil?
I guess it's too cold to grill outside today?


"we wouldn't of had all these problems" if you had been elected was what Lott said to Thurmond. Color me crazy, but most people would understand avoidance of problems as a good thing, as something one would wish for. If you have information that Sen Lott has a long, secret history of masochism, I'll apologize.


Yes, that is a correct version of Lott's words. Lott was struggling to say something kind and complimentary to an old man on his 100th birthday. And, all the silliness over the remarks were pure machinations and serve to make my point more precisely than I ever could. A racist is one who believes his race is superior to another's. If you look up the definition of the word today, you will read secondary and tertiary meanings that are recent additions and reflect the bastardization of the word that has occurred through misuse. Lott's remarks were not racist. Imus' remarks were not racist. Dog's remarks were not racist. Racism is in the heart and mind and misusing the term (and other terms) give cover to real racism which is profoundly evil. If you know of anyone who has taken the oath of the Ku Klux Klan, they have declared themselves to be racist. That oath is racist and evil and Lott's remarks were nothing of the kind.

All Presidents are flawed. If you are able to interpret Lott's words as a wish, I am able to interpret your Regan post as an inference. And, I'm guessing you probably won't be doing that Carter post, eh?

Far to cold to be cooking outside. I will fire it up though any time I have a nice day. I grilled a 27 pound turkey outside last year for Thanksgiving, although with the lid down and using indirect heat, that really isn't quite traditional grilling.


Rick you seem to be saying there's a difference between the insinuation of racism and the outright oath too it, yet its the former that does the most damage in the long run. It's the KKK and the Nazis that are easy to point out and avoid, but what you can't stop is the, oh he was just trying to be nice to a old man on his birthday. That and the apologist position that "all President's are flawed" doesn't mean that Reagan's use of racism should be just lumped into a general lump of bad behaviour by all the Presidents. It should be condemned for what it was, as racist. And condemning doesn't mean going nuts about it, it just means being aware of it and keeping yourself on guard against it.


Thanks to you both for the comments. I've got to say that Tod is making the better arguments, In My Humble Opinion,

Blake Emerson

For conservatives such as Brooks, who were won over to conservatism with the inspirational presidency of Ronald Reagan, the suggestion that his candidacy and presidency were deeply racist is impossible to accept. Unable to acknowledge their political savior as a peddler of racial slurs, Republican converts must claim he is the victim of interpretive dishonesty and liberal propaganda. Brooks' righteous indignation is striking for its similarity to the tone of left identity politics, which places the discussion certain sacred, aspects of cultural, racial, or gender identity off the table for discussion... read on at:

The comments to this entry are closed.