Never interrupt the enemy when is causing misfortune to himself.

Harry Reid isn’t intentionally racist — true comedy gold is unintentional:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man…” — Joe Biden

Dingy Harry is just echoing Julian Bond:

Garrett Morris: [ interrupting ] Well, I think I understand the problem with the tests. But the fact is that people have been saying that white people are smarter than black for hundreds of years. We’ve only had I.Q. tests for 20 or 30 years. How did the idea of white intellectual superiority originate?

Julian Bond: That’s an interesting point. My theory is that it’s based on the fact that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

Garrett Morris: [ not sure he heard that right ] Say what?

Patterico wrote: It was not personal, it was strictly business.

In the uncut version of The Godfather films, The Godfather Epic, in one of the restored scenes, Michael says, I believe to Tom Hagen, after the lawyer reminds him of that phrase, ‘Tom, everything is personal’.

NO. We are not dumping on Reid for “racism.” We are dumping on Democrats for their insufferable zero-tolerance, as demonstrated via the ‘maccaca’ massacre. hammer them on the standards issues, not on what Reid said. Bob B, in doing that we avoid being hypocrites.

There are more important, substantive tactical reasons for piling-on the vulnerable Reid, not the least of which is distraction from the agenda.

Trent Lott was an avid supporter of racial segregation. In fact, he said that of Thurmond that we would be a lot better off now had his segregation platform prevailed. That is more inexcusable than even Bill Bennetts black abortion comment; Reid’s comment doesn’t even fall under the same category. It’s not a double standard because Trent Lott has been a life-long supporter of white supremacy over African Americans. Reid was just getting excited that he’d found a worthy candidate for president, and that he could even get elected to boot, DESPITE many Americans’ racism.

Does this mean all Spanish speaking people are racist, I mean they call African Americans, “Negros” of course you have to say this with an accent. As far as I know it is not meant to be derogatory. This is ridiculous, my ancestors are Italian the last generation to call themselves Italian Americans are my great grand parents born in Italy.

No surprise that 60 Minutes is slamming Hillary and Sarah. Barack gets a pass. 60 Minutes just hates women.

I love women.

Sarah, if you ever need a big old shoulder to cry on. Let me know.

For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that. Stacy knows that. Ha Ha.

I am sure he will get me back some day.

“For the record, everyone knows my dispute with Stacy McCain was just a joke. Smitty knows that.

Is that supposed to be serious? Humor is humor, and trying to dodge an ill-considered non-funny put down as “deadpan” is pretty low.

The beauty of “teachable” moments like these is that inevitably Cons will come out of the woodworks and offer up some unfortunate remark and opinions which serves us better than not.
In your own ass-backwards wisdom, Stacy, you have asked the most important question you could ask those Cons who are feigning “racial” disgust regarding Reid’s comments: do you think he is right?
It’s a lose-lose for you guys.
On the one hand, if you agree with the guy you do fall in line with the antiquated thinking that informs racist tendencies( after all Reid IS a Mormon and we all know about their unfortunate–ahem–beliefs concerning African-Americans).
On the other hand, if you decry Reid’s comments as racist, you are on the record when most of you defended George Allen’s disgusting remarks, making you a hypocrite one way or the other.
Tough titties, eh?
There is so much that is wrong with your post, Stacy, that I can’t begin to get into it. From your less than sophisticated defense of the term” negro” to your assertions about electability via the way one speaks, you are right in suggesting that Reid is no more a racist than you are. I’m sure Reid doesn’t think he is one either….

Americaneocon,

I did not leave the previous comments on this thread that purport to be made by me.

They were almost certainly left by a commenter named Joe, who has used my name on other threads here and on other blogs (and has attempted to sock-puppet on my blog, which is part of the reason I suspect Joe is the culprit here).

Stacy McCain is aware of this (I e-mailed him about it), but has not chosen to ban Joe or prevent him from sock-puppeting my name.

I’m sorry for any confusion, but I can’t control how other people run their blogs. All I can do is tell them about it. If they choose to ignore it, there’s nothing more I can do about it.

Patterico: Sorry about Joe’s bogus sock-puppetry, sir. I don’t spend much time policing the comments, since to do so would require the kind of paranoid self-obsession that appears to have gripped Charles Johnson. Also, as I have frequently ackowledged, I am way behind on my e-mail.

Shit therefore happens, and it’s all I can do to deal with my own problems. Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as “Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.” Or right kidney, I forget which. The reputation of Chuck’s testicles and/or kidneys managed to withstand that prank.

Just sayin’ . . .

“Also, in true-confession mode, I once commented at AOSHQ as ‘Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.’”

I don’t know Americaneocon, but I doubt that he would have been misled by such a comment into thinking that he was actually reading a comment from Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle.

Which makes your sock-puppeting a bit different from Joe’s, I think.

Did Chuck Norris’s Left Testicle tell people to hit your tip jar?

That’s usually the giveaway.

I ban people who disagree with me. It is the best way to deal with dissent.

I also have a great sense of humor, love walks on the beach, and love spirited discussions on politics and race, if anyone is interested. Call me!

Well all good games have to end. Patterico only really commented on some of these comments. Now Hit the Tip Jar!

Ruth Marcus would have a point if she were to call on all of Harry Reid’s defenders (Obama and the rest) to clearly state their agreement with her position – now and forever.

As it is she is willing to criticize Republicans for engaging in criticism of Reid, but will not call out her home team for all the times past when they have done just the same.

This issue isn’t about Harry Reid. Harry Reid is just an idiot who managed to bring the issue forward.

This is about hypocrisy and the Democrat Party’s double standard on racial code speak.

A Patterico reader wrote:

Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

Patterico responded back to his reader in Fisking style:

“I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

This is obvious.

“But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

No.

But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

“But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

No.

But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

Now hit my tip jar.

Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

I’m not Patterico either.

Ran [comment #23]: You prompted me to clarify my posting over at my site: The Camp Of The Saints.

Patterico’s own words say it all. One of his readers (not me, although he seems to know him well) posts:

Careful, Patterico, your insufferable arrogance is showing…

Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

Comment by highcotton — 1/10/2010 @ 3:45 pm

Patterico replied:

“I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites.”

This is obvious.

“But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct?”

No.

But Heaven forbid you should actually read what I said, rather than mischaracterizations on other sites.

“But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct?”

No.

But why listen to what I say? You prefer to have your opinions spoon-fed to you by others, it seems.

People make jokes about others whether they’re on good terms with them or not. For those lacking a sense of humor, I have now added a hyperlink to make it clear I was joking.

Now hit my tip jar.

Comment by Patterico — 1/10/2010 @ 3:59 pm

Yes, and the parallel word, “Caucasian,” is also beyond the pale. Heh, heh.