Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Davis is lying.  Think about it:

1) What sort of “highly-classified, national security simulation” are Congressmen ever going to be involved in that involves decision-making?  I assume that they all learn the drill for getting into a safe place if the capitol is deemed under attack, but that doesn’t involve decision-making - they learn where to go and who to contact and that’s it.

1a) And why would Representatives and Senators being doing this together?  They meet in separate chambers and their offices are in separate buildings.

2) Davis serves on the House Armed Services Committee; Obama does not serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Obama serves on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committe; Davis does not serve on the House Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.  Any “highly-classified, national security simulation” that Davis is imagining here would not have been related to either of their legislative work.

3) Davis is from Kentucky, and he refers to a black Senator as “boy.” It is easy to imagine where he’s really coming from here.  The “highly classified” touch to his story was added simply to insulate himself from having to answer questions about his BS story.

I’m not a fan of Obama.  But I’m not a fan of politicians talking about things that happen in a “highly classified simulation” either.  I mean, doesn’t that mean he’s not supposed to spill the beans?

Yes, the important thing here isn’t that a US Congressman used a belittling, classically racist term to describe a presidential candidate. We really should focus instead on the larger point he’s raising.

Fair and balanced as always.

Why would Obama’s actions and statements disqualify him from being in charge of our nuclear weapons?  I guess I do not get the argument.  Is it because Obama is less likely to use them than Hillary or McCain?  Did Obama hestiate in come hypothetical simulation? 

I did not know U.S. Senators and Representatives even participated in such drills.  So I would like to hear more about what Obama did or did not do.  Beyond the offensiveness of the use of the term “boy” what is Davis talking about?

Blue Texan: As for being fair and balanced, considering what I’ve seen on your blog, may I respectfully offer some Biblical advice: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

Joe: I’d also “like to hear more about what Obama did or did not do,” but Davis’ moronic use of a highly offensive term will alllow folks like Blue Texan to shift the terms of the debate away from the merits, so that it’s unlikely we’ll get any details.

Amazing. You just did it again.

Obviously, the debate hasn’t been “shifted”—the story is Jefferson’s comments.  You kind of opt out of getting consideration on the “merits” of your argument when you engage in vicious racist smears.

If Obama said, “I think we shouldn’t give too much money to the [insert racist term here] in Israel”—would anyone with half a brain seriously argue that his question should be addressed on the “merits”?

Probably not.

Blue Texan: Well, there you go again. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Davis used “vicious racist smears,” as opposed to one stupid, offensive and poorly chosen word. Even giving you that assumption, there’s still no reason why that has to be the only storyline. The other storyline deserves at least a fraction of the one you want to make exclusive.

It’s like your buddy Obama. He recently learned a valuable lesson about using ill-chosen words. When I commented on Obama’s “bitter” speech, I chose to focus on the merits rather than the words so many found offensive. I asked in my post Obama’s Small Town Problem: “Let us ponder the possibility that Obama is right.” (To forestall the obvious retort, I’ll concede that the one word Davis used in off the cuff remarks is more offensive than the many words Obama used in a prepared speech. Although I’d say both were pretty revealing.)

In contrast, all you can do is try changing the subject and, over at your blog, calling me a tool.

Readers: In the interests of full disclosure, I revised this comment shortly after posting.

I’m speaking as a liberal former student who generally finds you quite insightful --

Is this a mystery in any way, shape or form? A Southern Congressman refers to an African-American using a term that’s loaded with racist connotations, while making vague and completely unsubstantiated remarks about a “simulation” that’s occurred nowhere else in a highly-covered campaign where national security has been a prominent issue?

If the initial post was idle curiosity (and hey, I’m moderately curious myself), that’s one thing—but to say that focusing on the pretty overt racist comment rather than the possibly-some-interesting-thing buried within is “shifting the terms of the debate” is to assume there’s a there there, rather than a good old boy talking out of his rear.

The other storyline deserves at least a fraction of the one you want to make exclusive.

It’s like your buddy Obama. He recently learned a valuable lesson about using ill-chosen words. When I commented on Obama’s “bitter” speech, I chose to focus on the merits rather than the words so many found offensive.

And you officially blow whatever shred of credibility you had by comparing Obama’s remarks to Davis’.

Nice going.

And if Obama had said, “Those whitetrash rednecks in PA...” no one in their right mind who’s not a blind partisan hack would consider Obama’s remarks on their “merits.”

Max, joe, Slightly Disappointed, and myself all agree on one thing:  Even if we ignore the obvious racism motivating Rep. Davis’ remarks, we still have to conclude that he’s full of sh**.

Of course, it is still highly questionable whether we *should* ignore his racism, but since that seems to be expected in this particular forum, we’re doing it for now.

wow, can you say obfuscation? i thought you could. yes, let us overlook the term “boy” and concentrate on the non-issue of his ability to lead the nation based on a “simulation” that most likely didn’t occur.

as i always say, “not all racist are republican, but all republicans are racist.”

as i always say, “not all racist are republican, but all republicans are racist.”

Wow Tufdaawg, quite a generalization.  Such drivel not only discounts everything you have said before, but also everything you could say after. 

As i always say, not all idiots post as tufdaawg, but all who post as tufdaawg are idiots

I have a feeling that the “boy” comment had more to do with Obama’s relative youth than his race.

Obama’s made several statements in the past about using nuclear weapons.  I wrote him off as a viable candidate a year ago when it was pretty obvious he was in over his head when it came to nuclear policy ( http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/08/audacity-of-idiocy.html ):  “‘I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’ Obama said, with a pause, ‘involving civilians’ Then he quickly added, ‘Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table’” sounds a lot like he’s thinking aloud—statement, pause, additional qualifier, pause, “scratch that” statement.  Really, I expected him to have at least thought through nuclear policy before becoming a candidate.

Even so, I will still say that no Congressman should be revealing what happened in a classified simulation.  Especially when it’s likely done for political points.

"I have a feeling that the “boy” comment had more to do with Obama’s relative youth than his race.”

You’ve never actually known any black people, have you?

Or like anyone in the South.

You’ve never actually known any black people, have you?

Actually I just moved from North Carolina (black population in the 15% neighborhood) to Nevada (black population in the 3 or 4% range), and attended school at NC A&T;(a “historically black university").  I don’t feel a strong need to pull out my “racially sensitive” business card all the time, because it sounds as lame to me as saying “some of my best friends are black.”

So, yes, after living in the South for five years, I know what “boy” means.  But I also have heard older white Southerners call twenty and thirty year old white men “boys” as well, because of the relative youth.

Davis is 49. Obama 46.

Think I should start calling all the guys I work with 3 years younger than me “boy”?

Steve

But I also have heard older white Southerners call twenty and thirty year old white men “boys” as well, because of the relative youth.

You’re right—no biggie. I suggest you ride on down to your local mall and the first black man you see (or better, a group of black men) that’s younger than you—and call him ‘boy’ to test that theory.

I’m sure they’ll just automatically assume you’re referring to their age.

For the record, let me say why I don’t think “boy” was intended as a racial insult in this case (although it could be an age-based or experienced-based insult):
* “Boy” is generally used as a racial insult in the second person.  That is, when the person being insulted is the person being addressed.  Last night I looked over my old Black History and Black Literature textbooks and I can’t find any examples of “boy” being used as an insult in the third person.  That is, in all the slave narratives, journal entries, letters, plays, poems, movies, and TV shows I can find, there may be statements like “Mr Jones bought himself three new XXX today” or “another XXX moved to town” or even “we lynched ourselves an XXX last night” and while several insulting words can finish those sentences I can’t find any case where the word “boy” is used.  If somebody can find a counterexample I would be glad to see it.
* While “boy” was used as an insult in 1950, Southerners don’t use it any more than New Yorkers throw out Irish, Italian or Jewish slurs when they think nobody’s looking.  It went out of style about the same time “colored folk” did.
* On the same note, Kentucky isn’t much of a Southern state.  It refused to join the Confederacy (in fact, it originally declared independence from both the Union and the Confederacy), and was never a big producer of cotton or tobacco.  Slavery wasn’t as important to its economy, and Reconstruction didn’t trample its alleged states rights as much as say Georgia or South Carolina.  An elected official from Kentucky hankering for the “old days” makes as much sense as a closet Confederate from Alaska.
* The South has been experiencing a population boom as union workers lose their jobs in other states and move to a more business-friendly climate in search of work.  A good percentage of these move-ins are African American, and if they found the area less than welcoming I’m sure they wouldn’t stay.
* Likewise, NC A&T;graduates more engineering degrees than any university in the nation, and a good portion of the students at NC A&T;are from out of state (mainly New York), and they have no problems with staying in the South long enough to finish a degree.  The people I know are capable of transferring to another state if they felt offended by the locals.
* While I can’t make a blanket statement for everybody in the black community, most of my friends are tired of racial hypersensitivity because when something truly offensive happens (say, Don Imus’s remarks) the community as a whole is treated like the boy who cried wolf.