Why are conservatives accepting the non-logic?

.. and falling into the left's trap of completely ignoring the facts at hand?

This time, it's Tigerhawk that seems to be letting himself agree with the argument (of sorts),unless I'm missing something..


First off, Tiger cites the Atlantic's argument as being the "Best lefty defense" out there.   Their defense?  The claim that because conservatives are comparing the statements of Lott and Reid are showing: 

 "this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease."

Their one argument to this conclusion is:   and I quote again from the Atlantic:

"Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling "Segregation Forever!" would have cured us of "all these problems."

Okay, first.. let's take a look at Harry Reid...   

Uhm.. this is the man who used the term... and he does not fit the qualifications for "black people still use".
So why is this part of the arguement being defended? 

Now as for the "reputable portion " part... i point you again to the quote from Fox D.C. (yep, leftover crumpets)

But younger generations are angered by the use of the term

"I find the word 'Negro' to be quite offensive when it comes to the census and separating and differentiating among races because of the history of the use of the word," said Taryn Anthony, a 25-year old graduate student. "I've yet to hear someone use it in a respectable manner, so placing it on a census seems as yet another way to set back African-Americans."

Added Patrick Riley, a New York television producer, "Well, if the census form authors are going to go so far as to include an the archaic term 'Negro,' why not put 'Colored' on there ... just in case someone hadn't graduated from that word usage."

So again, neither part of the Atlantic's argument apply in this case...

Next problem with the Atlantic argument:

Claiming that Harry Reid's comments are the same, is like claiming that referring to Jews as "Hebrews" is the same as endorsing Nazism

When was the term Hebrew considered a negative connotation?   Nobody that I know of (other than spanish speakers, where the word means "black"), would ever put the terms Negro and Hebrew on the same "insult scale".

In fact, I've heard the derogatory term "You dirty Jew".. I've never heard the term "You dirty Hebrew".  (Trust me growing up in what one might call "prime KKK recruitment territory" you heard a lot of "Jew" phrases and "N" phrases that you'd like to forget you ever heard.)

Sorry, but using this argument also fails to pass master.


But then Tiger throws in an entirely different argument that completely confuses me in its entirety.

The Republicans hurt themselves by comparing Reid's comments to Lott's, because it reminds everybody that Lott was seeming to cozy up to an ugly (if bipartisan) moment in American history. If we wish to make the point that the chattering classes hold Republicans to a different standard on these questions than Democrats, let's find better cases to compare.

Better cases?  

Maybe I'm missing something, but what better case could there be? Both individuals made what can be read as very disparaging remarks in "off the record" scenarios, and in fact, you could argue that Reid's case is worse...   why?  Because his was in a political gathering, Lott in a social gathering.

Does that excuse Lott?  Nope... but in the case of Lott, Democrats and Republicans both demanded (despite Bob Beckel's claim to the contrary, as there are numerous quotes that can be found on the net from Democratsm inlcuding our own current President) saying that the Republicans needed to "throw Lott out". that Lott be pushed out as Senate Majority leader...

In the case of Harry Reid... It's only the conservatives (and not even the Republican senators) of the general public who are asking for an equal result.    Reid said something and what do we get from the power brokers?    From the NAACP?   From the CBC?  

In fact, the argument has never truly been "Who said something worse, Lott or Reid".  It's been about the reaction to what both men said.    And because Reid has the "D" by his title, anyone and everyone can see that the demands of the 'power brokers' are completely different.   And that should scare anyone, black or white

Which goes back to the original argument

"this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease."

So because Harry Reid made a stupid comment (Just like Lott), "off the record" (just like Lott), at a political meeting (oops.. not like Lott), the GOP is infected with racism? 

Again, when did Harry Reid's name become attached to the Republican Party?  (or  Roddy Blagojevich, or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

A Democrat makes a stupid comment, and the Republicans are the ones that are still supporting white supremacy?  

Forget the argument of whether or not you think Reid should step down from his position... why are conservative blogs allowing these liberal opinions to change it so that the GOP is to blame for this?