« The Huge Obstacles To Mideast Peace | Main | Ahmadinejad's Coup »

GOP Racist Attacks Michelle Obama

South Carolina GOP operative Rusty DePass let's his guard down and his racism leak out. See the video:


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)


Comments (40)

GianiD:

He didnt specifically say it was Michelle Obama did he? That excuse works for Letterman right?

Mac Lorry:

Lee - I could tell you were back from your short hiatus just from the headline.

Was the comment DePass made racists, yes. Is DePass a racists; I can't tell from just one incident for which he apologized. I would have to see a pattern to make that determination. Remember, even Obama puts his foot in his mouth from time to time and has to apologize (special Olympics).

BPG:

The comment was indefensible & stupid, regardless.

Jay Tea:

Sheesh. He shoulda just said that Michelle is rocking that slutty fitness instructor look...

J.

Lee Ward:

At least that wouldn't have been racist.

Racism has its own peculiar stink, and it permeates the comment made by DePass. He's apologized, but that doesn't explain why he said it in the first place - or excuse the underlying racism behind the statement.

If you believe in evolution, there is no resason to be offended.

Jay Tea:

The guy has to remember that just because we just finished eight years of calling Bush a chimp, it's STILL not right to compare certain people to monkeys. All animals are equal; it's just some animals are more equal than others.

J.

GianiD:

If its OK to say W looks like a chimp, I see no hard in it.

Besides, wasnt it Fred Sanford who said he was gonna stick Aunt Esther's face in some dough, and make gorilla cookies? That _____ looks a lot like Aunt Esther.

Lee Ward:

Are you saying you disagree that the "Gorilla" remark was racist? That would make you among a select few, J.

Or are you suggesting that calling Bush a chimp was a racist remark - again - select few (as in none).

Irony only works when it actually fits into the context. The mere similarity between the words "Chimp" and "Gorilla" aren't enough - one is a racist remark and the other is a factual assessment of an ex-President's intelligence.

Jay Tea:

Funny, Mr. Ward, I remember a lot of people commenting about Bush's reputed "chimpiness" highlighted the physical resemblance and not the IQ. The cartoons, the photoshops, the photo comparisons... it was endless.

Just so it's clear: calling some people monkeys is OK, calling others isn't?

Orwell really did nail it with the "some animals are more equal than others..."

J.

Lee Ward:

Repeating the same bad analogy doesn't make it any better, J.

Was calling Bush a chimp racist remark?

Was calling Michelle Obama a gorilla a racist remark?

Two pretty simple questions with pretty simple answers.

Mac Lorry:
Was calling Bush a chimp racist remark?

Would it be a racist remark to call Obama a chimp, or is it just political payback?

What made DePass's remark racist was saying the escaped gorilla was one of Michelle's ancestors, which clearly invokes the historical racist idea that blacks are less evolved. If DePass had just called Michelle a gorilla there would be some wiggle room as that description is sometimes used to imply brute strength or clumsiness, which while insulting, might not be racist depending on the context.

I haven't seen any claim that DePass displays a pattern of racist remarks, and for someone his age, if there's no pattern and if the person apologizes it indicates an isolated use of poor judgment. If the standard is that one racist remark makes a person a racist then congress is full of racists in both parties.

Jay Tea:

Just making a point here... Person A calls Person B a simian of some sort. It's acceptable when Person B is white, unacceptable when Person B is black. And Person A is a racist if Person B is black, not necessarily a racist if Person B is not black.

Got it.

So, is it less offensive if someone is called a "motherfucker" if their mother died when they were very young, and therefore the insult is meaningless in a literal sense?

Back to the original point... yes, the person in question is using a racist term. But the hypersensitivity to the term is very convenient, coming on the tail of literally almost a decade of the previous president being called very similar terms.

Much like how nooses metamorphosed into some grand racist symbol practically overnight. I'd always associated them with the Old West and rustlers and horse thieves and whatnot. Clint Eastwood in "Hang 'Em High," the early scene in "Blazing Saddles," the magical floating noose in Star Trek's "The Squire of Gothos." That and pirates -- "to be hanged from the neck until dead," "hung from the highest yardarm," and so on.

So congratulations, another asshole has been exposed and is pretty much toast. Like I said at first -- they should have referred to Mrs. Obama's "slutty fitness instructor look" and talked about the Obama kids having crack babies. That's the kind of edgy humor that wins friends and influences people on the left side these days.

J.

Lee Ward:

Now you're practicing the same simple-minded logic you used when writing for Wizbang.

Person A make a racial comparison of a human and a gorilla -- yes, that's racism.

Person B makes an intelligence comparison between a human and a chimpanzee. Not racism.

Knowing the low IQ rubes that comprise the bulk of the Republicans who read right wing blogs are too stupid to know the difference, bloggers like Jay use stupid analogies like this to excuse blatant racism. Fox News does the same thing -- pulling the emotional strings and getting them all riled up over the injustice of it all...

It has recently lead to the murder of law-abiding citizens, but impotent wimps just can't resist pushing the buttons on racists and other extremists.

Jay Tea:

By the way, Mr. Ward, have you looked up at the posting immediately above this one? The one with the president of Iran's face Photoshopped on to a picture of a chimp? Is that a reference to Mr. Ahmedinejad's intelligence, too? I don't recall too many disparaging remarks about his intelligence. His sanity, yes. His intelligence, no.

J.

Jay Tea:

Oh, and Mr. Ward, should I dig up all those cartoons and caricatures and photoshops that make it abundantly clear that the "Chimperor" references to Bush were at least partially based on appearance. Hell, there's even a liberal blog called "The Smirking Chimp" -- I might be mistaken, but I think you have linked to it in the past.

Lee Ward:

You still can't admit that you know the difference between racism and the jokes made about Bush's intelligence, can you Jay?

Jay Tea:

Oh, I can, Mr. Ward. The guy was an obvious idiot. I'm curious if you can come up with an explanation why the picture your colleague posted of Mr. Ahmedinejad is not racist. It's obviously based on his appearance, after all...

I also find it entertaining to see you try to rationalize why it's bad for person A to say a certain thing about person B, but OK for person B to say the same thing about person A.

J.

Tangerene Fields:

I wonder if this person who did this ever read her Bible, the very Spirit you pray to could be BLACK, the nerve of you making racists remark about a man who is trying hard to fix the mess the United States has gotten itself into. You need to get on your knees and thank God that you have a man like President Obama.

Lee Ward:

So, Mr. Tea, you feel comparing Ahmedinejad to a onkey is racist -- but you defend and deflect criticism of someone who does the same thing to the First Lady of the United States?

I know you despise Ahmedinejad as much as I do -- I just can't figure out why you hate Michelle Obama just as much as you hate Ahmedinejad. It's not because of her race... oh, I'm reasonably sure of that... I think.

The white supremacist movement has been emboldened and encouraged by people who openly display their racism. South Carolinian DePass apologized deeply for his racist slam of Michelle Obama.

Jay Tea:

Who said I hate Michelle Obama? I'm just not totally enamored of her.

I am a bit envious of her. She had a great job at a hospital, and did such a bang-up job that she got a 100%+ raise in a single year. That it came through right after her husband netted a million-dollar earmark for the hospital is, I'm sure, a wild coincidence.

And I'm sure it's just that the hospital realized that no one could ever do the job she did that they abolished the position after she resigned.

As far as Ahmedinejad goes, I loathe him. I think he's nuts. I think he's a monster. But I don't think that he's stupid.

So, by the arguments you've presented, it's not fair to compare him to a monkey. It has to be racist. And yet you tolerate having that picture on this site.

It can't be deference to your colleague. You've never shown that in the past -- injecting yourself into his articles and banning commenters for what they said there. So I am left with the only possible conclusion: that anti-Iranian racism is acceptable.

J.

Lee Ward:

No, you're left with the usual vacuum between your ears, Jay.... and a set of conclusions fabricated from thinly-veiled racism and a serious case of Lee Ward Derangement Syndrome.

But it is so nice to have you back. You're a shining example of right wing blogger-mentality - namely, when you don't have facts to back up your assertions -- just make crap up and hope nobody notices.

And.. Mr. Tea - you were banned for using multiple false identities - and then you continued to use fake identities to get around the ban - along with your pal Paul the Putz. Both of you continued to circumvent the ban using fake IDS and cloaked IPs - right Jay - are you man enough to admit you did that? That you violated the commenting TOS that you yourself used to enforce at Wizbang?

And I'm sure it's just coincidence that both you and Paul were kicked off Wizbang.

Of course, those are just my conclusions... hey! making crap up is fun! Thanks for the suggestion, Jay...

Jay Tea:

Nice to see you haven't changed, either, Mr. Ward. When you start losing the argument, go on the offensive and shoot the messenger.

The "sock puppeting" you referred to was a JOKE, one where I made it blatantly, flagrantly obvious what I was doing -- mainly by using the pseudonyms of the blogger you were idolizing in your article that he used when he was sock puppeting.

So, calling Michelle Obama a monkey is bad and racist, but calling Bush a chimp and putting Ahmedinejad's face on a monkey is fine?

I know you'd rather discuss me than the topic at hand, because you're more comfortable with the politics of personal attacks than actual issues, but I won't play along.

J.

Jay Tea:

In other words, Mr. Ward, you only bring up those incidents halfway through a debate -- and one that, in my opinion, you are not winning. It's almost as if you fear losing the argument, so you feel the need to change the subject to something you feel you can win -- and enforce that subject change with a threat of banning.

Of course, you can readily prove me wrong by not doing so, and explaining why you didn't object to Ahmedinejad's face put on the monkey's head...

J.

Jay Tea:

Oh, I'll have to tell Paul you're saying that both of us were "kicked off" Wizbang. He retired, I resigned to accept a paying position... and Kevin told us both that we'd be welcome back at any time. Feel free to ask him.

Of course, that has nothing to do with Ahmedinejad's face on a monkey...

J.

Lee Ward:

I'm referring to your use of fake IDs after you were banned, Jay.

It speaks to your integrity, or the lack of same.

It would appear that you aren't denying that you've used fake IDs to get around the ban - circumventing the very same commenting policy you used to enforce on Wizbang.

You arent' denying that, are you Jay?

Jay Tea:

I already admitted it, Lee. But why is it you only bring that up after we begin debating, and only when you can't seem to win your argument any other way?

But if you want to speak about integrity, would you care to back up your assertion that Paul and I were "kicked off" Wizbang...

On second thought, please don't. That would be playing along with the "change the subject to Jay's moral failings" instead of why it's OK to put Ahmedinejad's face on a monkey...

J.

Lee Ward:

Why did I bring it up? Because I wanted your signed confession, Jay - your admission that you violated the very same policy you used to be entrusted with enforcing on the Wizbang site.

Thanks!

Lee Ward:

Now you're just looking childish, Jay. I already answered why I brought it up -- to goad you into a confession -- and you swallowed the bait whole.

Good boy.

As to you and Paul getting kicked off Wizbang -- you're now telling me that violating the commenting policy -- which you've confessed you did -- wasn't sufficient grounds to get you kicked off?

Seriously?

Paul disappeared suddenly. I really don't know if he was kicked off or not - and as I said above "making stuff up is fun" -- just like the right wing bloggers -- so I'll admit that I don't know if he was kicked off or coaxed off or left on his own.

Jay Tea:

Paul retired, of his own volition, but every now and then -- very irregularly -- has something to say. The last time was August 8, 2008.

As for myself... last November, I was approached by Commentary Magazine to write for their blog, and -- after discussing it with Kevin and giving him a bit over a week's notice -- I posted my farewell. I wasn't eager to depart, but part of my agreement with Commentary is exclusivity -- they like me that much. I still occasionally comment, and have even won the caption contest once, but my departure was entirely amicable. I even had some say in who Kevin recruited to come aboard after my departure.

As for a "confession," meh. Whatever. Sure, I did whatever you say I did. Say what you like -- you will anyway.

Well, except for the part about "cloaked IPs." That's just plain unadulterated bullshit. I can produce dozens of affidavits from experts certifying that I am in no way capable of pulling that one off. I'm a hardward guy, not a software guy. I lost count of how many times I broke the front page of Wizbang, and Kevin and/or Paul had to fix it. My idea of a "cloaked IP" is a cape on a piece of intellectual property. My claim of ignorance on that one is utterly unassailable, and I resent you ascribing technical competence and know-how to me that I deeply and profoundly lack.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with that racist picture of Ahmedinejad's face on a monkey's body in the article right above this one, but I'm quite sure that you knew that already...

J.

Jay Tea:

On that note, I'm going to bed. In the immortal words of Lord John Whorfin, "Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy."

J.

Lee Ward:

"As for a "confession," meh. Whatever. Sure, I did whatever you say I did. Say what you like -- you will anyway."

Oh no, Jay - let's not muddy the water with "whatever"... you're not going to weasel out of your confession that easily.

Since you're now trying to worm out and make you confessions seem less so, I guess we'll have to get specific.

For example, on this post you commented using the ID "John Stark," did you not, Jay?

Your confession that you've posted comments on this blog using fake IDs to circumvent the fact that you were banned -- that includes an admission that you posted as John Stark on the post linked above.

Right, Jay?


Jay Tea:

I can see why you'd come to that conclusion, Lee. After all, "John Stark" is the name of one of New Hampshire's proudest sons, the Revolutionary War hero who coined our state's motto, "Live free or die."

I can also see why you'd be reminded of that discussion. In it, you couldn't win the argument based on points, so you started attacking Mr. Stark and accusing him of personal malfeasance, changing the subject from Obama's statements on coal into whether or not you'd previously banished Mr. Stark.

One significant difference, though, would be that this time, the discussion is on one of your threads, where you are refusing to exert any influence over another article by another author. In that case, you forced yourself into Mr. Hooson's discussion and appointed yourself the enforcer of the rules, usurping his right to govern his own article and comments.

Also worth noting is that that discussion took place several weeks after I resigned from Wizbang, and was therefore no longer bound by any agreements I had made as editor. Pledges such as "I'll stay out of Lee's tiny little sandbox as long as he stays out of my playground" became, in my mind, null and void once I gave up the playground.

So yeah, a couple of weeks after I left Wizbang, I thought I'd try and see if I could engage in civil discourse with your colleagues. (I was convinced that it was a lost cause with you, and you're reinforcing that perception all the more.) I figured that if I behaved myself, avoided your threads, and didn't wave any red flags, it might pass unnoticed.

That's when I discovered that you and I had differing attitudes when it came towards commenters. I was always concerned about CONDUCT, you were fixated on INDIVIDUALS.

If I banned someone and they came back, under a new name or an old one, I didn't care -- unless they started acting like they did when they were banned. I didn't keep a master list of those I had banned; I just kept hoping they'd behave themselves and only got ban-happy when I found the conduct especially egregious.

Your philosophy, on the other hand, seems to be about "winning." You seem to relish banning people. And should you come across someone you believe you've previously banned, you go positively apeshit.

And the quickest way to provoke your suspicions that you've got a return offender on your hands is for that person to start to get the better of you in an argument.

It was precisely that case in December, when "John Stark" kept repeating Obama's own words and providing links and documentation, and it's precisely that case above.

So there's your answer on that matter. Will you NOW address the picture of Ahmedinejad's face placed on the monkey in the article immediately above?

Or will you resort to type and announce that the "un-banning experiment" was a failure, and you're banishing me once more for... well, the true reason is obvious, but the stated reason will be for daring to violate your ban prior to your unbanning?

I can almost write your response for you:

I welcome an honest debate, but you can't have an honest debate with a dishonest person. You're a liar now, you've been a liar on repeated occasions, and your lying trolling won't be tolerated around here any more.

(I realize I don't have the frothing venom down quite right, but the repeated use of "lie" in its various forms is a trademark.)

Or you can surprise me and explain either how the picture of Ahmedinejad isn't racist, or how it's not your place to correct your colleagues.

For bonus points, you can look at Michael LaPrairie's article (wizbangblog.com/content/2009/06/19/that-stupid-stupid-george-w-bush-1.php) and accompanying collage he pulled off some liberal site and explain how those comparisons of Bush to various monkeys is, indeed, not based on his appearance but his intelligence.

It really blows holes in your "it's about Bush's intelligence" theory.

J.

Jay Tea:

By the way, when Kevin held his open auditions, he allowed me to participate in his totally non-binding poll about who would make the cut for the last class of Wizbangers. Of the eight who auditioned, I am quite proud to say that I backed the three he picked -- Michael LaPrairie, Baron Von Ottomatic, and Shawn Mallow. I'd be damned proud to blog alongside any or all of them, and it's only Commentary's requirement of exclusivity that keeps me from asking Kevin to return.

J.

Lee Ward:

So... you're claiming that you did not post those comments under the name "John Stark?"

Well, then I'll have to call you a liar, Jay.

Oh, wait -- you've waffled again..

"Also worth noting is that that discussion took place several weeks after I resigned from Wizbang, and was therefore no longer bound by any agreements I had made as editor."

Oh wait - you finally admit it - you just don't have the integrity to use the word "yes" -- and then you claim...

"That's when I discovered that you and I had differing attitudes when it came towards commenters. I was always concerned about CONDUCT, you were fixated on INDIVIDUALS."

No Jay -- you're one of those people who think rules don't apply to you - and the fact that you were banned was just an annoyance you could circumvent.

Regardless of your conduct, you'd been banned. And you'd already asked that the ban be lifted and you were told no.

So your CONDUCT was to use a fake ID -- which was also the reason you were banned in the first place - for using fake IDs.

But this wasn't the only time you posted under other identities - and you did so while you were still writing for Wizbang, right? I'm not talking about the 'sock puppet' now Jay - I'm talking about other times.

You're not suggesting that you only did this after you left Wizbang, are you Jay?

Jay Tea:

Boy, the lengths you'll go to when you're losing the argument. Let me repeat myself:

So yeah, a couple of weeks after I left Wizbang, I thought I'd try and see if I could engage in civil discourse with your colleagues. (I was convinced that it was a lost cause with you, and you're reinforcing that perception all the more.) I figured that if I behaved myself, avoided your threads, and didn't wave any red flags, it might pass unnoticed.

And it's funny how you let me make several comments recently BEFORE you decided to get all Wrath Of God over those past "transgressions" against your commandments. It wasn't until I was winning an argument that it all suddenly became the most important thing.

And I'll repeat -- I wasn't even talking to you on that coal thread back in December. You decided to police Hooson's article.

Tell me this -- do you really feel a sense of triumph and vindication when you "win" an argument by finding some transgression on the other side and shutting them out, ignoring any points they might make?

No, if you're going to answer anything, please answer whether or not the picture of Ahmedinejad constitutes racism, and how the pictures in the collage Mr. LaPrairie found is based on comparing Bush's intelligence to a monkey's, and not his appearance.

Personally, I'd prefer to take your "un-banning" as a "fresh start" landmark and MoveOn from the past. That was the impression I got from your initial posting.

Here's a simple proposal: you tell me what you want from me. If I feel it's worth the occasional robust debate, I'll go along. If not, I'll say so.

In the morning, though. I'm calling it a night.

J.

Mymood Iminajihad:

Why are you all so cowardly, PC & naive when it comes to race? Anyway, the gorilla reference means squat because it refers to MO's comments on Darwinism and has nothing to do with her dark skin, large jowl, low brow, flat-wide nose nor her mannish physique (not counting that huge back-ca-booty trunk). It would better fit to call her a 'tranny' in a joking manner. At least, then, lib neo-coms MIGHT have something to gripe about but it wouldn't relate at all to her Darwinist faith.

Jay Tea:

Mymood, please feel free to go pound sand.

Where said sand should be pounded is left as an exercise to the reader... but if you're thinking "up Mymood's ass," give yourself ten points.

J.

Jay Tea:

(crickets)

J.

Lee Ward:

No retractions from Jay.

More to come...


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.