I'm not surprised

The NY Times Square bombing suspect is a Tea Party protester. His motivation appears to be race-related; he's a pissed off white guy who wants to kill blacks and jews and women. Dylan Ratigan was right.

Share this

So the existence of one kind

So the existence of one kind of terrorist disproves the existence of a different kind of bigot? Huh?

Nothing to do with bigotry

Does anyone still believe that argument (that the TP protesters are racists)?

No, my post was an effort to mock statements made by Bloomberg and Contessa Brewer about the terrorist being a home grown white dude who's angry at the govt. Occams Razor seemed appropriate when I first heard the news and I'm not sure why anyone would conclude differently.

Does anyone still believe

Does anyone still believe that argument (that the TP protesters are racists)?

Does anyone not believe that a significant portion of the Tea Baggers are motivated by racism, and that Tea Baggers in general did not do much to distance themselves from the open racists?

The only significant policy change that has come out of the Tea Bagger movement so far has been Arizona's anti-Mexican papers-please fascism.

Arizonans supported the

Arizonans supported the papers-please law by a wide margin (I recall seeing a 70% figure - so Balko's statement, "PS: Hating immigrants [his tendentious term for support of papers-please]? Not a winning issue," is wrong - it's not only a winning issue, it's an issue that won). It's anybody's guess how much of that support was increased by the existence of the tea party, but my guess is, not by very much. If that's so, then the characterization of the the law as "coming out of" the tea party movement is false.

Americans generally support the paper-please law (I recall 60%).

Now, the reason you call the papers-please law "racist" is that you call any opposition to open borders "racist". Or so I recall, from previous discussions. I'm for open borders, but as I've mentioned in the past, I don't explain opposition to open borders as racism. Zogby's poll shows that a lot of minorities, including hispanics, also favor immigration control. How is it racist for Hispanics to want to shut the door on new Hispanics? Of course, you can always hypothesize that it's light-skinned Hispanics who are being racist about dark-skinned Hispanics, or some such thing. But if you want to go that route we'll be getting into religious territory, since it will start to look like no amount of evidence will shake your faith. For example:

- Hispanics: Just 20 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 61 percent said inadequate enforcement.

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement:

- Hispanics: 52 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 34 percent support conditional legalization,

- Asian-Americans: 57 percent support enforcement; 29 percent support conditional legalization,

- African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization.

(I recall seeing a 70% figure

(I recall seeing a 70% figure - so Balko's statement, "PS: Hating immigrants [his tendentious term for support of papers-please]? Not a winning issue," is wrong - it's not only a winning issue, it's an issue that won).

It's not my place to speak for Radley, and I don't recall the full context of this quote, but there are at least two reasonable ways of reading that statement in isolation: Hating immigrants may be a winning issue (1) for now, (2) in Arizona, but it is a losing issue (1) in the demographic future (after a bunch of border hoppers pop out a truckload worth of anchor babies - a fear for which immigration restrictionists constantly get sand in their vaginas), (2) outside of a few GOP strong points.

Conservatives are digging their own political grave by restricting immigration. This is the point I believe Radley was getting at.

Now, the reason you call the papers-please law "racist" is that you call any opposition to open borders "racist". Or so I recall, from previous discussions.

You recall incorrectly. The term I used was bigoted (though racism is a form of bigotry, and is often, but not always, the form taken by immigration restrictionists) - nationalist bigotry to be precise.

How is it racist for Hispanics to want to shut the door on new Hispanics?

It may not be racist, but it is definitely bigoted. Notice that the two groups are different in an important way: One group already successfully crossed the border; the other did not.

The term I used was bigoted

The term I used was bigoted (though racism is a form of bigotry, and is often, but not always, the form taken by immigration restrictionists) - nationalist bigotry to be precise.

Yet the term you used now regarding tea partiers, using a connection to immigration policy as your evidence, is racist, not bigoted. You are now at pains to split this hair, but it appears that you were just a moment ago happy to un-split the same hair in order to fit your reply to Wilde's comment.

There are other racist

There are other racist aspects of the Tea Baggers apart from just bigoted support for immigration restriction. Their selective criticism of Obama, combined with their favorable views of the Bush administration for doing precisely that which they criticize the current administration is one; their unwillingness to purge the Birthers from their movement is another; their explicit anti-black racism is a third.

I'm getting a bit tired of your attempts at "gotchas", especially when they continue to fail. I responded directly and honestly to your accusation, and you just change the subject to something else. Seriously, asking me to answer for something Radley Balko said, with no link, which even out of context is reasonable if given just a little interpretive charity, is downright silly.

I don't really care if you continue to nitpick and fail; it reflects poorly on you, not me. But at a certain point I'm not going to bother responding to your critiques if this is the best you have to offer. I've got more interesting things to do.

Needless to say, my

Needless to say, my assessment of this exchange, of who is making the substantial points and who is splitting hairs, and therefore who is arguing in good faith and who is being fundamentally dishonest, is different from what you have expressed. If anything, I give you too much credit for honesty. To give an example, for a while I looked at this post to see if you had updated it with a retraction. Foolish of me.

I'm not being dishonest, just

I'm not being dishonest, just lazy. I stopped following that story shortly after it began. I generally don't update my posts with retractions; I'm not a newspaper; I don't get paid to blog; I blog about what interests me, when I feel like it. If you'd like my current view of that story, feel free to ask me for it directly: I have not followed it closely after the initial report, but it does seem to lack sufficient evidence.

Poor minorities will not vote

Poor minorities will not vote GOP even if the GOP favors immigration. And if the Democrats opposed immigration, the poor minorities of the future will still vote for them. Immigration isn't even that big of a concern for Hispanic voters, bread'n'butter politics comes first. Just like for the rest of the population.

I would have never thought

I would have never thought Jews would vote GOP either, but at least in my circles, that is rapidly changing. Don't assume political demographics remain fixed over time.

Interesting. Why is it

Interesting. Why is it changing? Foreign policy?

Yup, many Orthodox Jews loved

Yup, many Orthodox Jews loved them some Bush, and dislike Obama, mostly because of Israel, with some latent racism thrown in.

To be fair, they also like school vouchers, since they see it as a way for the government to pay for their children's religious school education, which they would be paying for anyway.

Which, in turn, turns off secular progressives, who don't want their tax dollars used for religious indoctrination, and see value in forcing children of different backgrounds to all be socialized together. All while ignoring that this egalitarian socializing doesn't exist in the current public school system, since children of wealthy parents can go to private schools or public schools in wealthy districts.

Jews are one of the groups

Jews are one of the groups most prone to bloc-voting, and they do so for Democrats. I was involved in a discussion about the voting patterns of Orthodox (it might have been ulta-Orthodox) Jews before and the data I found (possibly out of date) indicated that the majority of them were also voted Dem. It is in comparison to non-Orthodox Jews that they seem right-leaning.

It is funny that you use Jews as an example of political demographics not remaining fixed over time (which I agree with, just look at how states have shifted columns) because Barack Obama received the same percentage of the Jewish vote (78%) as Al Smith in 1928. But being poor and minority has been associated with voting Dem since the Dems came into being. The only presidential election since 1928 in which Dems have gotten less than 50% of the Jewish vote was 1980, and even then that was still more than the Republicans got (some went to third party).

The only significant policy

The only significant policy change that has come out of the Tea Bagger movement so far has been Arizona's anti-Mexican papers-please fascism.

You can thank the voters of Arizona for that. The same fail-tards elected Janet Napolitano for governor. Blaming SB1070 on the tea baggers hardly seems appropriate.

Does anyone not believe that

Does anyone not believe that a significant portion of the Tea Baggers are motivated by racism, and that Tea Baggers in general did not do much to distance themselves from the open racists?

Most people don't. After their racism-bait walk to the Capitol that yielded nothing thus necessitating lies that were exposed by the modern day Transparent Society, even the Democrats no longer believe it. Heck, the uber-cosmotarians at Reason ran nearly daily articles for a while about how un-racist the Tea Party protesters are.

We'll recall that the claim

We'll recall that the claim that the Tea Party was racist was something cooked up by progressives virtually the moment the Tea Party hit the national scene. Since so little was known about it at that early date aside from its explicitly stated goals (which had been stated by Santelli), the claim was made in an evidentiary vacuum. It was made, not because it fit the evidence, because there was no evidence for it. It was made in order to discredit and defeat the Tea Party movement. It was wishful thinking on the part of progressives who were anxious to dismiss and discredit the Tea Party movement.

As for why the progressives are interested in discrediting the Tea Party movement, that's obvious. Just remember Santelli's speech and the progressive reaction to it. The progressives hated it. They didn't call Santelli a racist as far as I saw, but Santelli was a familiar TV talking head, and the charge was unlikely to stick. When Santelli's rant caught on, when it turned out to resonate with the American public and morphed into a national movement made up of a million nobodies, the progressives were free to say pretty much anything they liked. It takes a lot of work to discredit a statistical lie about a mass of people (it takes massive data collection, which takes money and time), and for this reason such lies work. Eventually the lie might be exposed, but if the movement could be killed before the lie was exposed then the desired outcome would still be achieved.