Fear Factors
In my continuing efforts to present all points of view, I recently had three of my “liberal blogger” friends on the morning show. The guys from The Bilerico Project and Chris Warden of iPOPA. It was a fun discussion over state and local issues. We obviously disagreed, but it was a lively, spirited and respectful conversation.
What’s funny about all that is that after appearing on my show Chris received grief from some of his fellow Democrats for coming on my show and advocating their point of view! Here’s some of what he had to say…
… I’ve caught some grief from my own party for appearing on Abdul’s show. I’ve been called a turncoat, a sucker, and a few other unpleasant things. You see, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is a Republican in name and Libertarian in spirit, which means we disagree on almost everything. Also, he’s run some stories on his blog and radio show that have been inaccurate and/or caused headaches for local Democrats. In fairness to Abdul’s Republican detractors, he’s irritated them almost as often.
The thought process among my kinsmen seems to be that Democrats should boycott Abdul because he doesn’t play nice and appearing on his show gives him legitimacy.
Luckily, Chris is a Democrat with a pair who will fight for what he believes in…
Sorry, but Worden genes don’t permit punking out for any reason, and the last time I checked, politics is a rhetorical contact sport.
Tuesday night at Congressman Andre Carson’s volunteer appreciation rally, he said, “Don’t let anyone silence you.” He was telling Democrats to not only speak out among the general public, but also within our party ranks. The Congressman knows that the courageous will say what needs to be said without regard to their own standing. That’s why I will follow his lead and shake off the haters.
But I would be lying if I didn’t say that the criticism for doing nothing but defending Democratic values walloped me psychologically because it made me question both the spines and abilities of some people in my own party.
You see, I’m a Democrat because I believe steadfastly that we get it right more times than not. And if you’re afraid to defend a position or go toe-to-toe with your political opponents just because you don’t have home field advantage, maybe it’s because you can’t. Sorry, but I’ll travel any distance, walk into any lion’s den, and suffer whatever arrows are slung my way for the chance to tell somebody why I’m proud to be a Democrat.
To my critics I ask, “Why won’t you?”
Because somebody hurt your feelings?
Maybe its time for my party to quit cowering when we don’t own the mic. That cowardice and “I’ll take my ball and go home” mentality is embarrassing. Amos Brown has burned many a Republican, and yet they still go on his show, don’t they?
Sorry, but you won’t find yellow here at iPOPA, only blue. If my party has the courage to live up to its ideals, every time I come off Abdul’s mic, people will know that on election nights 2010 and 2011, G.O.P. will mean “go out peacefully” in Marion County.
There are plenty of Democrats in Indiana at the local and state level that I like and have great relationships with. They represent their constituents well and are really sharp. We have philosophical differences but they wet their pants and cry like babies when challenged. But like I always say, if I were afraid to debate me on the issues, I’d try to boycott me too.
And Chris, thanks and you’re always welcome on my airwaves!
January 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Abdul,
You and I disagree on almost everything and we've traded shots on our respective blogs before, but I find it more fun than anything. In the grand old political tradition, when we aren't talking politics, I find you to be a great guy. I appreciate good friends, and I don't check their political affiliations when I decide to strike up a good friendship.
Same goes for iPOPA and Chris Worden. Chris and I disagree on almost everything when it comes to education policy, but he's still an awesome guy and a good friend.
Anyway, nice post by you and iPOPA. Dems should get off Chris' back. I honestly didn't think anything of Chris' appearance other than to think…atta boy Chris.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I have always found Bil Browning, Chris Worden and even the good Mr. Easter (commenting above), despite philosophical differences, to be good folks willing to educate others and engage in reasonable, intelligent discussion without making things angry or personal.
It always serves as a reminder that just because people have differing perspectives or opinions doesn't mean they aren't good folks. Typically, everybody wants the same things …
equal rights, good schools, reasonably priced health care and insurance, low crime, healthy economy, good jobs, etc.
… we just approach those goals from different philosophies, differing degrees of logic and reason, historical perspectives and internal biases .
January 8th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Amen to all above.
Life goes on, huh?
January 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Anyone else suspect that possibly a “Hit” was put out on Chris Warden by the democrat leadership?
I've read Chris and though I seldom agree with him, he has to have a bigger set of balls than those he defends/quotes and he obviously isn't afraid of the knuckle draggers in democrat leadership.
I find it odd that he quotes the same Congressman who could have issued the “hit”.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
If it's “truth”, it theoretically should stand up anywhere, shouldn't it? My only disagreement is whomever that morning degenerated to accusations of racism on the part of Tea Party protestors in D.C. Are we to pursue this exchange further by accusations of racism on the part of the roughly 90% of black America that chose to vote for President Obama? As your guests were quite adept in quoting statistics to defend their stances on the issues, I suggest that's how our differences should be aired.
If facts, data, and information can't make the case, then are we to always be swayed by pleas of compassion and emotion, or assurances that it's a “long-term investment” and is better for the country as a whole? Like the t-shirt says, “Ask an Indian what they think about government promises.”
I hope for more facts and fewer accusations if immigration “reform” is pursued, but I'm not holding my breath.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Apparently it's only the “knuckle draggers” on the Republican side that you think should be untouchable.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
When I meet one I'll be sure to let you know my thoughts.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Ever since Grutter racial discrimination is perfectly legal. Brown was effectively repealed and Plessy is back in the saddle. The SC decision was by Sandra Day O'Conner-a Republican racist. As to why 97% of black registered voters voted for the black candidate, hey, America is a free country and how a person votes in the privacy of the voting booth is their busines and that of no one else. Both political parties in Indiana evidence thuggishness and limited real knowledge.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Taxpayer –
90% of blacks vote Democrat regardless the skin color of the candidate. That has and will be the same from here until the next foreseeable future.
Now if 90% of the black voters suddenly turned and voted for the black republican then maybe you might have arguement about Black and racism when it comes to voting but until then I don't think you do.
Plus the description of the Tea Party demonstrations wasn't to far from the thruth.
Even though spending has risen and government growth has been increasing for the last 8 years most of those people were not compelled to demonstrate against the White House until a Black man held the office. While that might not qualify as Racism to some people to me it is pretty clear.
While they might have some legitimate disagreements about how the country is being run to me their call to action was still race based.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Pascal, you really need to broaden your horizons. Madame Justice O'Connor, a modern-day racist? Wow.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
She wrote the Grutter opinion. Read it and come to some other conclusion.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I did. And I did.
As did most other folks. Grutter, as well as other opinions she wrote, often define very narrow points contained in the cert. It isn't always as broad as the media or headline may make us think. The chief often assigned those dificult cases ot her as lead writer, for or against the majority decision. History will be very kind to her interpretations over the broad spectrum.
Grutter bothers you so much, and Bush-v-Gore didn't? Selective indignation is never pretty. Try consistency, pascal.
I continually get the impression that you, and maybe one other poster, take wildly outrageous positions for sport. On the off chance that one of those positions may someday be proven even half-right. Then, you can say, with sweeping gestures toward ALL your posts and opinions, that you're a modern-Svengali, misunderstood among your own…etc. etc.
You're right about this, though: both parties have strong ecidence of thuggish behavior. The Indiana GOP seems to cetner its muscle around any change in voter laws. Because we're awash in voter fraud.
And the Dems…well, they play the game of broad coalitions. Their tent often expands to large, soas to include enough groups that the sum total is over 100% too often.
Which isn't real, of course.
But O'Connor a Republican racist? Laughable.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Mike, while you make a very good statistical point, I think we're both speculating on why, “…they REALLY did that.” It requires us to look into motivation for behavior when my point is instead of speculation, let's debate facts on issues.
I've railed about government overspending and poor parenting for years, and poor journalism more of late. With Bush still in office, I called Abdul on these topics, carried signs on Meridian St., and spoke as a citizen at City-Council. Thanks to the public figures that encouraged my participation.
It's with “legitimate disagreements” that I again protest today in Bloomington. I don't hate all women because of Nancy Pelosi, nor all white guys because of Ted Stevens, nor everybody of color because of President Obama. The conversation and signs of the people I've met on protests seem to be of a similar ilk. But, I can't look into all their hearts, nor those of voters on election day.
I wish the present administration were pursuing economics differently, and agree with the stances on enhanced EPA mileage, withdrawl from Iraq, and an emphasis on volunteerism and education. But, quadrupling the incredible deficit Bush handed over, while expanding government and still borrowing billions per day is NUTS to me: black, white, purple with three horns, whatever.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Any good library will provide you a copy of Getting Under the Skin of “Diversity” by Larry Purdy-a name you would recognize had you actually read the Grutter decision. I suspect that you haven't read it or Palin's book although you claim to be widely read and to have read both pieces. O'Conner was a ditz-still is. Grutter has no effect in Michigan since voters amended their laws to prevent the racist outcome desired by O'Conner. Her racist decision affects the rest of the country until over ruled by something like the firemen out East (which decision I have not read). Purdy, in passing, points out the near total judicial corruption of the US court system in the procedural matters of this case done with the assist of the unlamented Lyin of the Senate, your hero(who even the worms are rejecting).
I've not read Bush v Gore but am familiar with stolen elections. We have evidence of that in Indiana (Bloomington), Chicago, Washington State, St. Louis, Minnesota. R's are generally to stupid to steal anything less than a railroad.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Alas, pascal, again you're wrong. Reharding my reading. It's a boring reading stack, to be sure, but it's there. That's immaterial. I will allow that the firefighter case, and the Michigan university admissions case, provide us with a snapshot of current-court thinking on quotas, race, etc. It is a moving target, highly-dependent on the items properly contaiend in the cert, and not one paragraph more. So the cinema is necessarily narrow, due to the narrow facts in the cert.
But when you call O'Connor a ditz, you demonstrate huge ego and ignorance. For instance:
I rarely agree with the opinions, written or verbal, of Mr. Justice Scalia. But I pour over any opinion he writes, and I try to familiarize myself with the matters on cert in that case. Because he's one of the court's most-brilliant writers ever. I learn every time I read him.
Now, if you were to ascribe the word “ditz” to Mr. Justice Thomas, oath delivered 10-1991, then I, and most court watchers, would heartily agree. Not because of his philosophical views, which are, by the by, ancient. But because he has the intellectual cusiosity of a toad. Which insults frogs.
You should read Bush-v-Gore. It's amazing in its content and scope. The court ruled 5-4 that the Fla. Supreme Court could not continue their review of the election. That's it. No more, no less. The implications were severe…as we all know. Hanging chads and all.
The fact that the court even agreed to hear the case before recounts were complete was viewed as landmark.
Taxpayer, normally I'd agree with you re:spending. But the economists I read, from all stripes, indicate the following;
Our economy is hopelessly tied to consumption. Like it or loathe it, over 80% of its fuel is consumption-driven. Would that it were savings- or investment-driven, but, it's not.
Take that unpleasant fact and couple it with this:
For seven years, our government spent hundreds of billions on an improbable and unwinnable war. At the same time we cut taxes to the wealthiest among us.
Now, I'm all for tax cuts when appropriate. Mine and yours, to be exact. But these dopey actions were practically akin to your household budget increasing by 75% and your income descreaing by 40-50%.
What you or the feds SPEND that money on, that's open for argument. What's not open for argument is the math. You simply cannot spend that kind of money, and decrease your income, without huge deficits.
And when those deficits accumulate at this rate, the only entity that can thaw the economy is the printer of money, aka stimulus spending. I'd hoped we'd see more in that department, but for some reason, it's not being spent fast enough on worthwhile infrastructure projects.
I don't rail against the money, so much as I rail against the practice of hoarding the stimulus cash. If government is going shopping, why the hell keep the money in mama's pocketbook? Spend the damned money already, so more folks cna get to work, pay taxes (at whatever rate) and get this God-be-damned deficit tackled.
Before my kids reach retirement age.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Ah, at least your bs is consistent in quality. As to the thread, however, let's bring it closer to home. Under Grutter the IU Law School may recruit persons of color from states outside of Indiana and prefer them admission over students from Indiana who not only pay taxes in Indiana but have better grades, better LSATS, better recommendations. It matters not that admission of unqualified applicants leads to IU law school graduates unable to pass bar exams, all of this done at the expense of Indiana taxpayers. That is, for those who manage to endure and not drop out due to inability to compete. But, all this will go away in 25 years according to the ditz you defend? That is, judging a person strictly by skin color is all right now but won't be all right when the ditz's time period expires? Whatever happened to the thought expressed by the following “No state shall… deny to any person the equal protection of the laws”. Pertinant to the ditz was Thomas's rejoiner….”…I believe the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months”. If the University of Michigan Law School could take skin color into account for its genteel version of racism then other law schools (and people) can take skin color into account equally to discriminate for or against persons of color. Does this occur at IU Law School? Not a problem for you if it does since your bs is consistently “liberal”. As they are far left liberals down there I expect they are cheating Indiana taxpayers and the Legislature ought to look into it.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
On Bush v. Gore, the key vote (on the equal protection clause issue) on the Supreme Court was 7-2. Democrat-apointed judges voted with the majority saying it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to do the selective recount Gore wanted. It was hardly an extreme position taken by the Court.
The 5-4 opinon was on whether to remand with instructions to redo the count statewide instead of the selective count. Five justices voted to end it right there, while 4 wanted the recount to proceed.
People have forgotten this – they portray it as a 5-4 extreme decision which it wasn't.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Well you can start with Tom John and David Brooks.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Please don't confuse Think Again with reality, Paul. He (she,it) wants to hang the entire argument around the 5-4 opinion. It is also conveniently forgotten that each independent Florida vote count after the election went to Bush. This was despsite the fact that the national media called Florida for Gore before folks in the panhandle were even done voting.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
How about our new Affirmative Action Justice Sotomayor? She has a command of the English language that would make Archie Bunker proud. If there are any mental midgets on the Court, she would be the first to qualify.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Paul I haven't had any dealings with David. I've meet him and he seems to be a likeable guy.
Tom and I are well acquainted. He and I had a difference of opinion on an issue a year ago. We came to an understanding after talking the issue through and we worked out a compromise. The result worked for both of us. I can’t consider someone a knuckle dragger if they are willing to reverse a decision.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Maybe this doesn't go far under new rules of engagement. I agree re put the kibosh on stimulus hoarding, further Middle Eastern excursions, and cutting taxes at the same time spending is increasing wildly(?!?). However, the latest 'Economist' issue on global assest bubble(s) is contending less gov't spending is needed. If D.C. wants to spend genuine revenue to reduce debt or deficit we're leaving for our kids, or give it back to us to spend – fine. But, I don't think anybody, internationally or domestically, takes us fiscally “serious” again until we acknowledge it's past 3 AM, time to leave the last case of gin unopened, and bipartisanly start the detox program – beginning with the present administration. The conversation from people protesting in Bloomington Saturday was in the same ballpark.