Gun-Toting Churchgoer’s Gaffe Welcomed
I actually have no idea if Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., is a guntoter or a churchgoer, but in the spirit of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, I’ll assume that to be the case. We’ll leave out bitter because he’s grinning in most of the pictures I saw, and as a sitting congressman, he’s probably getting by.
Not knowing Davis from a hole in the wall, I have no idea whether he meant “that boy” in the derogatory sense the word was historically used to refer to blacks, or if it was an exceedingly poorly chosen colloquialism meant to disparage an inexperienced candidate’s credentials or lack thereof, regardless of race.
The former would be reprehensible. The latter, if it is in fact equal opportunity disparagement, could arguably make it a triumph of American race relations. Judging by the Obama camp’s response, which avoids a racism charge, they seem to be going with the latter of the two interpretations, which is charitable of them.
“It’s hard to tell what is more outrageous – Rep. Davis’s condescending and personal attack, or his absurd and offensive claim that Barack Obama is not prepared to defend America,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Hang on. Since when is it absurd and offensive to question, doubt or even dispute a candidate’s credentials? I thought that was politics. Sounds like on that particular count, Davis may have struck a nerve.
On the racism issue, there’s the argument that this gaffe couldn’t have come at a better time for the Obama camp in the running gaffapalooza that is the Democratic campaign, given Obama’s own recent regrettable remarks re race/religion/creed and those of his spiritual counselor. But I suspect the Obamites know that they do better not to get racially exercised about this. Between gun-toting churchgoer remarks and “Goddamn America,” they’d probably rather not make an issue out of anyone else’s possible expressions of racism. Especially because Geoff Who? isn’t running for president. Which may explain why this isn’t resonating much beyond the nutroots. The congressman was also pretty rapidly contrite, in marked contrast with some people in the public arena who have been variously excusing and reparsing their racially/culturally insensitive remarks.
There’s plenty of squawking on the left half of the blogosphere, where the presumptive guntoting churchgoer’s gaffe is being welcomed as the long-awaited GOP outburst of racism. Though I think anyone who’s ever referred to Bush as a chimp or, given the Harvard and Yale degrees, a moron, or has made disparaging remarks about his socio-economic background, isn’t in much of a position to squawk. (That would include me, as I believe I’ve done all done all three at one time or another) Also, anyone who made excuses for Obama’s gaffe or failed to get exercised about it might be better advised to rank hypocrisy this time:
Ambinder: Davis is a racist no matter how he meant it or how fast he apologized.
Crooks and Liars expects the entire Republican Party to apologize for Davis. I think, given the way the entire Democratic Party has yet to apologize for Obama’s regrettable remarks and those of his pastor, C&L might be being facetious.
This guy at the Huffington Post appears to doubt a racist intent, but suggests Obama’s elitism has just been trumped. Expressing this required potty mouth.
John Cole wants more racism from Republicans. Given that the only person actually running for president who’s been voicing any is Obama, I can see why. Expressing this required Cole to toss out an N-bomb, though the communication instructor otherwise refrained from exercising the usual potty patois that he presents as political commentary.
(Uh oh. Surber just heartlessly revealed where the communications instructor instructs communications. This is unfortunate, because the communications instructor has instructed that no one must communicate where he instructs, because as much as he enjoys communicating, the last thing he wants to do is associate it with his instruction, which is a good thing, considering his propensity to communicate with n-words, f-words, p-words, a-words, etc. Out of respect for his Internet privacy, I do not intend to repeat his name in this paragraph.)
Some Kossack does more Republican bashing, impugning widespread disgused racism … then oddly goes on to argue that Obama is the perfect black man to be the first black president because he isn’t that black. Unfortunately, the Kossack doesn’t know his Obamology or his history that well. Obama’s ancestry does include a slave heritage and a wrenching century post-emancipation … his ancestors owned slaves. As for whether Obama is tied up in decisive, angry black liberation politics, the Kossack gives him a pass on Jeremiah Wright: Obama is not of the same generation as the guy he’s been taking spiritual guidance from for the last 20 years.
On the other side of the ledger, Macsmind defends a good old boy, and then defends all good old boys.
Meanwhile, Malkin notes Obama can’t shake his own gaffe: Cracker-quiddick fallout continues to haunt SNObama.
With thanks to Memeorandum on the roundup. RealClearPolitics has a good Obama roundup, by the way, all looking at the candidate himself and the impact of his own words and deeds:
George Will: On a High Horse
Judis at New Republic: Woe is he, Obama will be the bitter one when this is over
Herbert at NYT: Some perspective on bitter
Fund at WSJ: Obama’s Flaws Multiply
RCP’s Horserace likes the nag.
And Sowell at RCP, brutally, with cutting Marx and Shaw references, A Living Lie
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:54 am Comments (8) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008
8 Responses to “Gun-Toting Churchgoer’s Gaffe Welcomed”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
[...] here to read Jules Crittenden’s coverage of the Davis gaffe: On the racism issue, there’s the argument that this gaffe [...]
April 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
[...] Sadly yes. Of course, the instructor in question, John Cole, is a member of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy [...]
April 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Isn’t it funny how almost every time there is a racist incident – noose on a door, threatening letters, etc. – it turns out to be a liberal who did it? They always have the same excuses, too, about heightening awareness or some such BS.
These posts are pretty much the same thing. Here we have liberals fantasizing about how great it would be if only those damn dirty Republicans would start acting like the filthy racists they are! You can see that it’s only a short step from there to printing up a KKK flyer, or hanging a noose on somebody’s door, and blaming it on those dirty Rethuglicans.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
So many liberals, and especially blacks, insist that “we” are not “allowed” to use certain words because they are seen as “offensive” by liberals and blacks. I reject this completely. I certainly don’t believe in racial epithets, but the comment in question certainly contains no racial slur. “Boy” is not a racial slur. I don’t give a crap how “insensitive” it sounds. Personally, I’ve had it with being “sensitive”.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/15/2008
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Oh boy! If it’s that easy to become a vile evil racist…
Oops.
[Yes, I am a blond.]
April 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
As to Rick Moran at the Macsmind link, the boy needs to take his pack off.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Representative Davis almost certainly knew that using “boy” in reference to a black man is anathema, but perhaps he misspoke in the heat of the moment. Obama’s campaign certainly can understand this.
However, while I agree “boy” should not be considered a racial epithet (in keeping with my belief that English is being unfairly subverted by a political agenda), there is also the consideration that if you want to be taken seriously by your target demographic, there are certain words in certain contexts you will not use. Obama vowed that he wanted to “get past” this kind of thing, for which I commended him, until he went on to characterise gun ownership, anti-illegal migration, and religion as “bitterness”, that is.