As a representative of the left, I hereby renounce the picture.

Left by Dan on January 31st, 2006 at 10:59 am

Sad, but true.

Left by The Horrors of an Easily Distracted Mind on January 31st, 2006 at 4:43 pm

See, this whole story I find very enlightening. It is true that if the roles were reversed and it was a Republican who photoshopped the Nazi uniform onto a Democratic opponent, all holy hell would have been raised. Which is what makes the whole thing so hypocritical. It would be Abu Ghraib, USA-Style, 24/7 non-stop coverage. But the silence deafens when it comes to the coverage of this story. Just as the Demonrats got away with the ‘house nigger’ comments. The more they seek the limelight with their tirades, like during the Alito hearing, the more the average American runs from them, which is a good thing. Now it’s time for the Democratic Party to join the Whigs, the Know-Nothings, and the other American political parties in the dust-bin of history. A new party of moderate Democrats and RINO’s should form a left-of-center opposition party, but a party with a little intelligence. That the current Democrats have Howard ‘the Screamer’ Dean as Chairman shows what happens when a party becomes overrun with uber-radical tripe based upon no known principle worth talking about. Our country needs a solid two-party system to function properly. But these current Demonrats deserve their ignomy and miserable, self-destructive, failures. And the more the quicker, the better.

Left by RickZ on January 31st, 2006 at 6:47 pm

Dream on, RickZ. The average American is calling for a democratic congress. The average American wants Roe to stay put.

You may well be seeing a democratic congress in 2006. (Perhaps that’s my “dream on, Dan” - time will tell.)

Did someone say “house nigger”? I hadn’t heard about that. I had heard that Senator Clinton used a plantation analogy, but you couldn’t be making a big deal out of that, because that would be hypocritical, in that republicans have used the same analogy. So, please, give me a citation to the term house nigger. Because I think you’re making it up.

Left by Dan on January 31st, 2006 at 10:12 pm

The racist remarks about Condi were made by Liberal cartoonist Ted Rall, which was printed at the Washington Post.

If you can bear it, the strip is here.

One of the Left’s most unhinged but dearly beloved voices, Harry Belafonte called Collin Powell and Condi Rice “slaves”.

Maryland Democratic Leaders have sanctioned racial slandering of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate in Maryland. They have endorsed pelting him with Oreo cookies in public and calling him “less than black”.

An editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel argues that Justice Clarence Thomas is a “black man,” who “deserves an asterisk next to African American”.

When Bill Cosby gave his famous Pound Cake Speech, he was castigated as a race traitor.

The sad fact is that anytime a black person dares to rise above “being black”—getting an education, thinking for themselves, getting out of the ghetto, etc.—they are attacked by their own and the “tolerant” Left as being “not black enough”, an oreo (black on the outside, white on the inside), or depicted as a Sambo.

Or would you like a few more examples? These are just from the last two years and off the top of my head.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2006 at 10:59 pm

Hey, thanks for enlightening me on the house nigger thing. That was quite a while ago, so I wonder if that’s what your commenter was talking about. The other stuff you cite is mostly malarkey.

Left by Dan on January 31st, 2006 at 11:20 pm

The Democratic Senatorial Committee’s official Web page linked to a Web page that depicted Lt. Gov Steele (a black man) as a Sambo. What’s “malarky” about that?

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2006 at 11:26 pm

It’s malarkey that they “sanctioned” the doctored photo. Do you “sanction” everything that shows up on every page on your blogroll?

Ultimately, this is a pretty stupid argument, and one which reflects no credit on either side, though both sides engage in it. Some idiot somewhere says or posts something offensive, and the other side acts like it is an official statement of every opponent unless they expresssly repudiate it, giving the original trouble-makeer the double satisfaction of upsetting the opponent and attracting more attention.

(Note, please, I’m not calling your original post, focusing on a candidate’s webpage, an example of this “guilt by tenuous association” argument. If there’s truth to your allegation, it does warrant express repudiation to the people connected to her.)

Left by Dan on February 1st, 2006 at 7:52 am

“It’s malarkey that they “sanctioned” the doctored photo. Do you “sanction” everything that shows up on every page on your blogroll?”

To put your tripe into perspective, Dan, do you remember something about a republican Mississippi Senator being booted from his Senate position for saying something at a birthday party? This is far, far worse. This democratic candidate with the shortsightedness of Mr. Magoo should have been castigated by her own party, and FORCED to quit the campaign for the good of the party and the country. I know, I know, that’s asking way too much of current democrats. To put it bluntly, it is inexcusable for someone running for elective Federal office to have had this photoshopped crap on her website and still be a candidate for said office. She is, simply, a typical member of the traitorous Left, and a disgrace. But demonrats seem to like disgraces in their ranks. Just look at The Swimmer. Or the Kleagle. Or Murtha. Or Reid. Or the War Hero they had run for president as their candidate in 2004. For the local democartic party to not condemn this woman is disgusting. For her to still be in the running for office is an abomination. And no amount of apologizing from her or her staff can ever be enough. It was not a simple mistake but a deliberate smear the likes of which the democratic party seems to have in abundance. The democrats do not hold themselves accountable, and feel no one else has the right to, either. But they are wrong — dead wrong.

Left by RickZ on February 1st, 2006 at 6:34 pm

RickZ - She’s drawn a challenger in the primary, and she’s going to lose. I appreciate your totalitarian impulses, but, in this country (where are you from?) the party cannot force a candidate to withdraw. It was a stupid thing to do, and she’ll pay the price for it.

I also think you’ve missed a step in the discussion. Robbie and I were discussing a case where the offense was in linking to a page that included something objectionable. I agree that situation is different than one where, as in the Rowley case, the offense is actually on the candidate’s site.

Left by Dan on February 2nd, 2006 at 8:51 am

Dan,

The Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele situation is worse than you’re making it out to be.

My orignial comment:

Maryland Democratic Leaders have sanctioned racial slandering of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate in Maryland. They have endorsed pelting him with Oreo cookies in public and calling him “less than black”.

It was more than an official site being linked to an offending Web site. Lt. Gov. Steele was pelted with Oreo cookies during a public speech (from the “tolerant” left).

The Washington Times reported that Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

That sounds like sanctioning to me.

Further, two staffers for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee were responsible for illegally obtaining Lt. Gov. Steele’s credit report by using his Social Security number, which they got from public documents. Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Sen. Schumer has yet to apologize for this dirty act that origninated from his own office.

Left by Robbie on February 2nd, 2006 at 9:13 am

The oreo cookie thing is made up, apparently (I wasn’t there, so I have to rely on reports and logic, but he didn’t mention it until long afterward, and reporters there didn’t report on it . . .). The Schumer credit report thing is bad - he turned the staffers in immediately, but I agree that an apology is in order.

Left by Dan on February 2nd, 2006 at 10:02 am

BTW, one good thing about continuing this thread is that it gives an excuse to scroll down to that picture of Brandi Carlile . . .

Left by Dan on February 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 am

Robbie- you mischaracterize the Steele situation. The criticism of him began when he refused to criticize Governor Erlich for having a fundraiser at an all-white country club.

It seems like an indication of Steele’s fealty to power when he is willing to act against his own interests (and those of a whole class of people) in an attempt to win office.

Left by Preston on February 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 am

Sigh. And now we have the head of the NAACP calling Condi Rice and Colin Powell “tokens”.

So, since Steele didn’t criticize the gov. for where he had a party, he deserves racial attacks on his self?

Left by Robbie on February 2nd, 2006 at 11:25 pm

Sigh, indeed. That’s something he should not have said.

The silver lining to this cloud is that you are able to catalog every slight by everyone with ties to the left. If I tried to monitor similar nonsense from a single afternoon of right-wing talk show hosts, I’d have to quit my day job.

Back to the original topic - what did you think of Godwin Rumsfeld claiming that Chavez was legally elected just like Hitler?

Left by Dan on February 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 am

The photoshopped picture of Kline placed his face on a promotional shot for the TV show “Hogan’s Heroes.” Col. Klink was not a real Nazi, he was a bumbling television character who happened to wear a German uniform. Kline’s face was not placed on the body of an actual Nazi. It was quite clear to anyone with any intelligence that Kline was not being called a evil Nazi, but a moronic sycophant, which he is. This molehill is not the mountain the conservative blog world seems to want to make it.

This whole episode was minor and has already been forgotten by most of the blogosphere, as it should be. It was never denounced by any prominent Democrats because it was a paraody, and Kline’s over-reaction was embarassing and actually put money in Rowley’s war chest.

Left by Mike on February 21st, 2006 at 8:53 am

Oh…since Klink was an imaginary Nazi the comparison is valid?

So, if I photoshopped a picture of Marueen Dowd’s face over an image of Charlize Theron’s character in Monster, implying that Dowd was a serial killing, man-hating dyke — that would be OK, since Charlize Theron isn’t a real, serial killing, man-hating dyke?

Left by Robbie on February 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm