I was just reading that article. I think that article is missing something important.

Just because the song is about the old guard being angry at Obama doesn't make it less racist. It's still making fun of Al Sharpton's "black" accent and "black" speech patterns. It still uses offensive language. It's still white people laughing at the black people not getting along with each other.

Comparing one person's racism with Al Sharpton's racism doesn't justify either. It just demonstrates how both people are racists.

Not that I'm calling anyone racist, I'm just following proper logic through the author's points. I think this is all just a stupid mess and Republicans should get together and publicly denounce this stuff and point the spotlight at those who are racists. Attempting to prove to the public that the GOP isn't this stupid or racist; which I don't believe they are.

It was boneheaded AND racist, but one bad decision doesn't define a person or a political party.

Pointing out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about on a particular point isn't an attack when they don't, it's just stating a fact.  You illustrated this point with this comment:

This isn't the RNC making or distributing or commissioning the production of, the CD...it never was, hence the "you should know what your talking about" bit.  You're spreading FUD, plain and simple.  This is a songwriter who makes songs for RL who is not a part of the RNC in any official capacity, and a single elected official who bought the CDs and gave them as gifts.  By that logic every time a politician gets caught sleeping around we should label his entire party a group of philanderers and womanizers.

We do mostly agree here, this guy isn't very bright, what we seem to disagree on is whether the RNC has culpability for the songs of a songwriter, which as I said is farcical to even suggest that they do.  It would be like saying the Dixie Chicks reflected poorly on the DNC for bashing Bush..its a non sequitur.

I definitely agree that this is not appropriate politically, but this is pretty tame for the comedy scene in general.  Thats not an excuse for the guy though, he should know the difference between the two and acted accordingly.

I do agree that it's damaging the RNC, but the reason is because of people erroneously attaching the CD to the party, or the actions of one person to the entire group.  I can understand the later to a certain extent as that sort of deal goes with the territory but as I said the former is simply spreading FUD.

Hate to be the contrarian but you've got this exactly wrong, and objectively so.  Steve has his facts wrong, and by agreeing with him you suggest that so do you.  It doesn't get much more plain than that. This is why I stopped participating in the political discussions, people just run away with their position and plug their ears while someone is trying to show them they've got it wrong. He doesn't deserve a pat on the back but probably a thwap on the head, and yourself along with him now.

You guys know better than this, and its kind of disheartening that people who I've debated with in the past and seen as reasonable and logical people would be this far off base and unwilling to correct course.

That interpretation aspect is absolutely something they have to deal with as well.  But the intellectual dishonesty you perpetrate by suggesting the RNC was involved in producing or distributing the CD directly isn't helping.  Liberal or not (given this effects a conservative, not that liberals are dishonest by nature) you should hold the truth of the matter above the political gain that is avialable and neither you or Steve are doing that in this case, or at least that's the only conclusion I'm left with when I've stated plainly several times the facts and you've continued to state it without rebuttal.  If I'm off base then explain how and why, don't just continue stating the same contested point.

First line in the article: "A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas"

Your right, I said it was the RNC, I meant a member of the RNC. Sorry for the confusion.

It doesn't change anything else.

If you're saying the RNC has no direct involvement and has given no approval of the action and rightfully doesn't deserve blame than yes we agree now.

If you're also saying that the perception is going to hurt them regardless then we agree on that point as well (although stating that the RNC is distributing the CD or endorsing it was an undo part of that).

I'm not trying to be overly harsh but fairly early on I was making that point exactly and when two of the most vocal people in the thread continue to state otherwise and pat each other on the back while doing it, I can only conclude that they aren't interested in having it right or are unwilling to explain how I have it wrong.  If that was a misscommunication and nothing more than I apologize but both of you have historically been very good about reading and rebutting every point so I think I was fairly justified all things considered.

There's a difference between the Dixie Chicks and the RNC higher ups and elected Republicans.

There's also a difference between criticizing a war, the presidents ability to lead, or his intelligence and playing a song that plays off of the racial tension between whites, blacks and the president-elect who is mixed race but looks black.

Edit: Sqrl, sorry if my political positions make my tone towards republicans harsher than towards democrats.  I don't do it intentionally; most of the time, I'm trying to do the opposite.  Honestly, this wouldn't be that big of a deal if the RNC had taken a solid stance against it.

Difference in the acts yes, but who it reflects on no.  The point isn't the severity of what they did, its who it reflects on.

I don't know, while I think "the public" is pretty stupid, I think they are smart enough to distinguish between celebrities and politicians.

Well to be a liberal you kind of have to think the public is stupid don't you?  But thats an entirely different debate I suppose.

In any case you're mixing up analogies now, which is sort of crucial to understanding the application of the analogy to begin with and might explain the issue.  The Dixie Chick's were used for an anlogy to the songwriter not the politician.  The analogy I used for the politician was with <pick a politician who was caught cheating on their spouse> and whether it meant all people in their party were philanderers and womanizers as a result.

I thought Morgan Freeman was a better magic negro in The Dark Knight than in any of his other roles, even Bruce Almighty. I sure hope that magic negro is going to be back for the next Batman movie. Batman needs his magic negro.

P.S. - Sqrl, to be a liberal you might have to kind of think the public is stupid. To be a conservative you might have to kind of believe the public is stupid. To be a politician you have to be certain the public is stupid.