Same here and I'm glad we've found some common ground vis a vis immigration.

In my opinion if Willie had not been black they would have chosen another target for the ad, I could be wrong but it was the way the ad sounds to me(watched it just last year along with the Lee Atwater documentary so it is still a bit fresh in my memory). I also think a similar though non-race based attack will be used against Huck if he gets the nod after letting out some person that attacked a Clinton friend or family member that went on to commit more crimes(cant remember the guys name right now but it is very similar to Horton but the attacker was white). I just think they could have shied away from portraying it racially and chose not to which just causes further stereo typing of people that look similar in regions where they are uncommon and when it is done to win votes yes I find that offensive. Though I suspect I will feel the same way about the other side in a few elections. Not meaning to keep this going so long I just enjoyed the conversation.

My sense is that Atwater saw that the line of attack on Dukakis had a racial angle and considered that an added bonus, but that still doesn't change the fact that the attack itself was legitimate and was based on law and order, not race.

And the only reason I address that (not wanting to get off on a tangent, IOW) is that this is what happens with a lot of issues- including the one you bring up here, immigration. One doesn't have to be racist or bigoted at all to want meaningful immigration reform and enforcement. The problem is that if you have that view, you also end up in the company of racists for whom it's all about keeping America white by denying influx of another race.

I was for the comprehensive immigration reform that Bush and McCain attempted, and was really sorry to see it blow up on them. And at the same time, I felt that some of the opposition was principled in that people don't trust the govt to handle the enforcement part well enough before granting them the control over flow of immigrants. I felt that McCain nailed it when he said he'd heard the message loud and clear to 'fix the damn fence first'. One of the reasons I'd hoped McCain would win is that I wanted to see if he'd continue to fight for reform by taking a two step approach- perhaps we'd have gotten to a policy that didn't kick the can down the road but addressed people's real concerns. And if he'd been able to finesse it without having Latino voters feel that the border enforcement was racially motivated, then all the better.

My voting habits are a bit easier though since Repubs have not actually offered up anything I have cared for since roughly H.W. Bush so I think it may be a long while before they begin to look attractive to me policy wise.

I did just realize something though, this is why immigration reform is waiting until 2010. Obama's political strategy is rope a dope mixed with expecting people to continue doing what they already do. Therefore as we are headed into the 2010 election if Repubs are talking like they did pre-2006 on reform that may very well incite the Dem base as well as further push away the immigrant community from the Repubs. If Repubs do not change their rhetoric and style on immigrants in the next two elections I think they are pretty much toast. The southern strategy and its reverse will work differently. Meaning the southern strategy was ramped up quickly and slowly toned down as the country integrated further. The reverse will have to ramp up quietly and over time become more vocal. I think the first shots will come in the next two elections when Repubs are fighting immigration reform, they are expected to speak just as coarsely as they did in the past. If they do their own words will be used against them in video and audio clips, possibly for a decade. If they do not though I think they could just begin to pick themselves back up politically. They do not have to agree but instead just be very careful how they speak about it and the people it effects. They could rope a dope Obama and become immigrant advocates but where as the business community would love them they would lose voters at the polls and likely be primaried heavily but it could fix their image for 2012-2016 in a big way. My guess is that the rhetoric may be even worse though judging from the current atmosphere and this will hurt them and the lawmakers that join in.

I would also not say that my stance is all that principled since I also think in that same amount of election cycles the dems will have gone as extreme as the Repubs did under W. Meaning I think Obama is our left turn from Reagan that I would have voted for but W. had taken it to a comic extreme just like Carter did with FDR. Within that amount of election I would guess the Repubs will be much more “sane” from my point of view and the Dems will have gone extremist building on Obamas legacy. I will vote against a reverse southern strategy just like I have against the original but I think a few things will tip my balance not just that single one.

As for 'southern strategy', I just don't get the continued harping on it and I think that your view of it somewhat enables the Dem reverse southern strategy even though that's obviously the opposite of your intent. I think if you concede that there have been all of these dog whistles to Southern racists (which I think is way overstated- I don't even agree with the general consensus that the Willie Horton ad was racist,) then you hand the strategy to the Dems of campaigning this way.

I also disagree with the idea that real entrenched racism is primarily in the South or in the GOP. Not denying that there are elements of it there, but there was a good deal on display during the Dem primaries in certain states in the rust belt in particular. I think it's more rural vs. urban than in any one particular region of the country.

Here, I think you overlook the degree to which this is strategic. Some people surely do have those demons in their heads, and see racism everywhere because they live in fear of it or have excessive, overwrought guilt. However, at the levels where leaders are promoting this, I have little doubt that they do it as a strategy, not because of the internal battlings of their psyches.

I am happy Wright/Farakahn/Sharpton and the like have been marginalized I am just waiting for the other side to put down their sword.
But the way I see it, a lot of prominent people, mostly white, in the media and in political power structures, are now attempting to pick up that sword and carry on their mission. Obama is rightly distancing himself from this, but at this point sometimes it's hard to tell how committed he is to that vs. using the expedient strategy of letting others do the 'dirty work' while he stays above the fray. I'm fairly convinced that it's the former, but he hasn't exactly been that vocal in calling people out for it. Also, the obviously deliberate strategy of marginalizing Limbaugh and Fox News has elements of dog whistling toward the race baiters too- how much of it comes across to people who agree with the completely negative characterizations of those as 'We shouldn't listen to the bigots, they're not worthy of our respect?'

we seem to forget that Rush historically slashes and burns to create a strategy for the GOP and then hands it to them,
I think you give him way too much credit as a strategist, and I think that even from his perspective it's much more about strategizing for his own interests, not the GOP's.

However, I also completely accept that in our political rhetoric, other people take different approaches and have different opinions on the manner in which tone affects debate. Surely you've noted that some people believe that opponents can and should be persuaded, while other people are firmly convinced that opponents must strictly be 'defeated' (which in terms of political debate, generally means to marginalize the opinions of those who disagree.)

While I am firmly in the first camp, I recognize that even people who are not necessarily ideological extremists often use the second approach. You can see that even here at a blog whose mission is meant to encourage the former, at least among several of the bloggers. For people with strong ideological beliefs, it's even more common to take the second approach because (I think) such people tend to have a hard time understanding how any reasonable and intelligent person could disagree with their views.

So I guess you're misunderstanding a bit…I'm not a fan of Limbaugh's approach, so I fully understand that my own approach is not just the way I happen to be but also a conscious choice and preference. I think it is both the 'right' way to communicate (more respectful of other people) but I also believe it's more effective in the long run. I just happen to think that many people on all ends (and the middle) of the political spectrum don't see it that way, and I believe Limbaugh is one of the most prominent examples.

To some extent, too, it's a matter of different strokes for different folks- because there are a lot of people who wouldn't engage politically at all if there weren't the 'entertainment' factor of satire, spoof, humor, and the excitatory factor of fighting against a perceived 'enemy'. That doesn't appeal to me (well, satire and humor sometimes do, if done well) but I recognize some value in all of it in terms of getting people involved in the process (though in cases like talk radio, it goes too far and that diminishes the value greatly.)

You mentioned earlier that you don't use the sort of language that Limbaugh does. My question is why. Here's why I think you don't do so: You are a kind, intelligent person who tries to treat others with respect unless they deserve less, and you've shown no evidence of being racially prejudiced.

But if your critique of Limbaugh is correct, shouldn't you be talking more like him? If doing so is sort of a way to satirize society, then conservative criticism is stronger the more it uses the sort of racial language he does.

In my opinion then, the absence of you calling Obama “boy” and “magic Negro” is not because you lack Limbaugh's courage or cultural wit, but because you are a better person.

Have you thought though that maybe he is actively doing this to ensure that all criticism is tagged as racist since this would be the only way to paint Obama as the “black guy that stole your job because of his race?” It would also be the only way to dust off the southern strategy and continue using it. We assume that the Dems are trying to stifle decent but we seem to forget that Rush historically slashes and burns to create a strategy for the GOP and then hands it to them, that strategy is “he is the one that is racist so we can say what ever we like.” This will allow or force the media to ignore any racist signs since “they are a minority here and its not about race” and if it then becomes about race or largely about race it will be ignored at great cost to our nations race relations. The first step in this strategy in my opinion is main streaming classic bigot speech that fails to use the N word which is why I take such a strong stance on this one.

One thing from earlier though, why does Colbert avoid using these words he is a satirical comedian? Again because they are racist terms from another time being used to divide and conquer politically and the “satire” is just being used as a shield like when he made jokes about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was when she was a freaking child. The man has no honor and anyone that is a fan of his is in the same boat whether they like it or not, lay down with dogs wake up with fleas. Sorry for the Goodwin but I felt it was the best way to communicate my feelings on the difference but I am happy Wright/Farakahn/Sharpton and the like have been marginalized I am just waiting for the other side to put down their sword.

“The man has no idea what he's doing because he has no experience in executive management.”

“He seems to just want to sit back and let all his advisors do the thinking? How's that using the amazing intellect his supporters think he has?”

“I tell you the White House is ineptly run.”

“This policy that Obama is supporting is idiotic. It won't work, it'll bankrupt the nation, and it'll take away freedom from our citizens.”

from Limbaugh and others, as well as from “town hall” and other protestors of all kinds, and all have been branded “racist” by those who would prefer to attack the messenger because they cannot (or will not, for strange reasons) refute or dispel the messages.

<quote>What I'm trying to say about Limbaugh is that I agree to the extent that he uses provocative terms, deliberately. But you're larger point that this must mean he wants to insert racial bigotry (presumably you're saying this is because he is a bigot) is incorrect, IMO.</quote>

I am not really saying this latter thing. He might be doing it to some extent intentionally, because, as I think we agree, he likes to couch things in the most provocative way possible, even if it's essentially racist, to get ratings. That it works says interesting things about his audience.

More importantly, I believe he is using racially motivated terminology because he has a hard time not seeing Obama as black.

I should clarify what I mean by that sentence. I'm in a language-related field in Hawaii. This means that there are a majority women and majority Asian population in my program. Every once in a while, like twice a year, I will suddenly realize, “hey! I'm the only man in this room! or, hey, I'm the only white person in this room.” Then I forget again to think about our gender and ethnicity, because we are all just researchers in a meeting. Hey, I just remembered you are a woman, but until I thought of it this instant, I was just writing as two people on a political blog.

Rush has a lot more difficulty just seeing a President. He keeps seeing a black man. And so when he hears a story of a white kid getting beat up on a bus by some black kids, Obama comes to mind. There's no connection between the incident and the President of the United States, but, well, Obama's black, so it pops in there. And when he's making up qualities to describe Obama, he frequently draws on ones that have long racial histories.

Meanwhile, my point is not in what people will say but what is real. If Limbaugh were to say, “the U.S. government should not be involved in the health insurance industry,” and people called him racist because of that, then there's nothing you can do, because the comment was not in fact racist.

The motivation could be racist or not. Assuming the reason he opposes health care has to do with a view of the constitution, deficits, ideas of role of government, i.e., something un-related to race, then nothing about the comment is race-related. If the reason he hates government involvement in health care is because he doesn't want money going to those lazy colored people (a comment I've heard), then the comment wasn't racist, though the underlying motivation is. What I'm trying to say in this paragraph is that I'm not a relativist like conservatives (sorry, couldn't resist a good-natured jab) and believe in facts. One can't use “well, people will still call comments racist when it's not true” to argue that he didn't in fact make racist comments. People can say lots of things and be incorrect. His comments can be racist or not whatever people say about them. (There are limits to this idea since it's communication and I will be happy to discuss them if people want. I'm finishing a doctorate in linguistics and so have more to say on that than anyone wants to hear.)

I also don't buy the “I wish liberals wouldn't take the bait and waste time on this argument” when conservatives are taking the bait just as well in taking the time to criticize liberals for taking the time to criticize Limbaugh. I do agree that this is largely a waste of time to get upset here, since not even most of the conservatives here listen to the man. But what us moderates/liberal would hope is that one day conservatives who do listen to Limbaugh realize he's hurting conservatism and push him out, stop buying his books, and stop listening to the program, because they are so fed up with calling Presidents boys and magic Negros that they can't take it anymore just because the other parts are worthwhile to them.