Democracy in America

Barbour's a smart guy. Surely he knows he can't actually be elected. Too fat, and too southern. The nation will never elect someone who speaks like that; or looks like that. When was the last time the less physically attractive candidate won the presidential election? 1976?

I think he ought to lead Mississippi, the biggest parasite on the Federal fisc, right out of the Union.

That's it? That's on par with Harry Reid's "negro dialect" gaff.
My prediction: Barbour will say that the Citizens' Council comment was taken out of context. He will say that he doesn't recall making the watermelon comment and will issue a non-apology.

A Democrat who was that Southern would be OK (all other things being equal) -- see Clinton or Carter.

But as a Republican, Barbour is a member of a party that has largely been taken over (philosophically, at least) by those who, before 1970, were Southern Democrats (i.e. segregationists). Which means that the presumption that he is not a racist is less than automatic -- and a comment like this eliminates it. Note that I'm not saying that he necessarily is a racist; just that he gets no presumption of innocence.

That being the case, I suspect that Barbour is not going to run. Some mis-steps are, fairly or not, pretty much impossible to back away from.

If it comes to Barbour vs. the rather handsome Mitt Romney in the primaries, I think Barbour would easily win. The Republican Party is confined to the South and parts of the West, with increasing infiltration of the Midwest, so maybe Barbour could even beat Obama in Ohio.

The fascinating thing to me is that the Democrats are losing the racism card. I'm thinking in particular of the "wise Latina woman" being right more often thing. If they don't slap that down (and they didn't, by and large) with the same energy with which they pursue more "classical" racism, then to centrists and Independents like me, they have lost all credibility on that issue. What it would mean is that they're just in favor of whatever end results they like, and their "logic" merely so much intellectual veneer.

Whenever I think of Haley Barbour, I think of this example of,

"How not to run for President": Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a possible Presidential candidate in 2012, was profiled in The Weekly Standard this week, and he talked about growing up during the Civil Rights movement in the South. He mentions attending a rally by Martin Luther King Jr. (Good), but then says he actually didn't hear anything MLK had to say, so he and his friends just checked out the ladies the whole time (Not so good).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Barbour_in_the_civil_rights_...

The Boston Globe unearthed that same loathsome quote in 2003 - note second to last paragraph.

Barbour campaign shows GOP's racist side
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist, 10/29/2003

THE BIGGER the elephants, the more visible the underbelly of the Republican Party. Its stampede into Mississippi on behalf of gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour continued ...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10...

In my opinion, Haley Barbour is not a racist. He's just someone who thinks African-Americans are overly sensitive about their history of being enslaved, discriminated against, and used as cannon fodder in most of America's wars.

Personally, I view that attitude as "incorrect" or "wrongheaded," to put it mildly, but I'm wary of throwing around the term "racist" at everyone who disagrees with me on any issue related to race.

Folks such as Barbour define the norm for racial tolerance a bit differently than do most people. In his world, if you don't subscribe to lynchings and lawn burnings, then you are a model citizen without a racist bone in your body ... even though you can't stomach the idea of full racial equality and a totally desegregated society.

Honestly. I think Gov. Christie may have appreciated that "In midsummer he [Barbour] tossed a $12 million lifeline to the struggling campaigns of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia, buying each enough time to regain his financial footing and go on to an upset victory in November".

labman57,

I am appalled by your conjecture. Don't you think your quip is somewhat racist? Are you personally aware of lynching and lawn-burnings in which "folks such as Barbour" took part?

I guess my question would be: which is worse? To be racist or running?

If only cannibal were an option, I would advise Barbour to go for it.

Wow. Just read the quotation about the watermelons. Seriously? Are we all being serious? This quotation has so far been described in the media as "loathsome," "despicable," and "nauseating." Nauseating? It makes you physically ill to hear the slanderous and vicious comment that black people like watermelon?
Who the hell *doesn't* like watermelon? It's delicious!

I'm sorry, I know I'm supposed to think that any generalization of any kind is categorically wrong (except for that one), but how is it offensive to note a given cultural group's affinity for a food, whether its statistically true or not? Would there be this same outrage if he had said the aide would be reincarnated as pasta and put at the mercy of Italians?

Honestly, I would like to hear the intellectual acrobatics and contortions required to claim that anyone could be legitimately offended by the implication that they like watermelon. I think maybe we're all being a bit too sensitive, guys. If we use words like "despicable" and "loathsome" for the accusation of a fondness for watermelon, what adjectives are left when someone drags a man behind a truck because of his race? Because that still happens.

Did I read that right?

The guy is being called racist by the press because of how he told off somebody on his staff for using the word "coons"? His options were what exactly - punch the guy? start a shouting match? self righteous sermon? or highlighting the error with enough humour it might be listened to?

The American media has disappeared up its own bottom feeding...

Mind you they proved that with telling the whole world of the outrage of Korean burning by a tiny pack of rabid nutters this September.

I'm sure that all of our elected officials harbor some intrinsic biases that would offend our Franco-Canadian ethos of perfect egalitarianism and brotherly love toward all. Surely we can do better than measuring our leaders by their personal fallabilities and soundbites, though.

It's these sorts of issues that distract us from the actual policies these photogenic straw people bring into law.

One more thing: While I do feel that some people go a little overboard in trying to paint Barbour as racist based on the watermelon quip (I think he's just insensitive, not bigoted), I do think some people here are going a little overboard in trying to pretend there's *nothing* wrong with the quip.

Pretend I'm a politician. Imagine if someone on my staff complained about having Jewish people at an upcoming event in Boca Raton by referring them as "hook-nosers" (analogous to the "coon" reference made by a Barbour staffer). Imagine if in the course of me telling the idiot staffer off, I warned that if my aide persisted in anti-Semitic remarks, he "would be reincarnated as a pinata filled with money and placed at the mercy of Jews."

Would the people here arguing that the Barbour quip is *nothing* be comfortable with me as a candidate saying what I wrote above? After all, just as all people love watermelon, all people love money. I'm not Jewish, but if I saw a pinata filled with money, I'd grab the closest baseball bat and bust it up till the money came out.

Still, despite the universal love of money that transcends race and religion, what I wrote above is insensitive and inappropriate, just like Barbour's quip about watermelon. Barbour is making a racially insensitive remark. That doesn't make him a KKK-supporting racist (not even close), but it also doesn't mean he's above reproach for the remark.

Martin,

"Barbour is making a racially insensitive remark."

No, the remark was made 28 years ago. But you're right - he's not above reproach for it. I'll be interested to read J.F. Atlanta's upcoming profile in light of this new development (courtesy of the Weekly Standard.)

Martin Horn:

Here's my problem with your example. You assume that all stereotypes are necessarily bad stereotypes, and further, are equally bad.

Being greedy is a negative trait. Being seen to be money-grubbing is offensive. If Barbour had responded to the "coon" comment with something like "I hope you get reincarnated as a nice car left unattended in a black neighborhood, and they take you apart and sell you for parts" that would be something to get upset about.

In your own example, I think a far more analogous situation would be if Governor Martin Horn had responded to the "hook nose" comment with "I hope you get reincarnated as a plate of bagels and lox at a Jewish breakfast." I would have no problem with such a comment. As someone of Irish descent, I am not particularly offended when people claim the Irish love potatoes. As it so happens, I don't really eat that many potatoes, but I acknowledge that historically plenty of Irish did, and even though it may be a false generalization, I'm hardly offended. Claiming that the Irish are rather prone to violence, however, is a bit of a different statement.

Do you not recognize a distinction between stereotyping a group as greedy or thieving or violent, and stereotyping a group as having a predilection for a certain common food product?

Race baiting was once an American pasttime, now it's racist baiting. There are many reasons why I would support Barack Obama over Haley Barbour, but neither the candidates' skin colors nor their (alleged) views about skin colors will be among them.

The Dems have no credibility on this matter whatsoever after racist baiting Bill Clinton in the 2008 primary.