Claire McCaskill—"Not One of Those Crazy Democrats"

What seems to be a real radio ad put out by the McCaskill campaign.


See this CNN story (Rebecca Berg); you can hear the audio at Legal Insurrection (Kemberlee Kaye). I leave it to savvier people than I to opine on whether this is effective advertising to her fellow Missourians.

NEXT: Injunction Against "Harassing" Online Speech Struck Down on First Amendment Grounds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If true, it puts her into a mighty small subset of Democrats. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. McCaskill voted with the thundering herd of loonies on most issues, including on the Kavanaugh confirmation. So, if she is sane, why does she consistently follow the herd of crazies?

    1. “Why does she consistently follow the herd of crazies”

      Follow the money.

      1. Follow the love! #loverevolution

    2. I don’t think you and your definition of crazy is her audience, DjDD. That being said, I tend to agree with AL’s 1:35 below (if not his 1:36 reply to you) – such unsubtle apostasy isn’t a good look regardless, even in generally rural reddish Missouri.

      I have no doubt Dem leadership signed off on this, but I also think Dem leadership is pretty out of touch both electorally and policy-wise these days.

      1. It also reifies the GOP’s ‘Dems are a violent mob’ meme.

        Just stupid, in my outsiders’ opinion.

        1. I take it that you didn’t watch any of the Kavanaugh hearings – you know, when violent protesters had to be arrested and removed from the Senate Committee Room, when Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee kept interrupting Senator Grassley as he tried to call the hearings to order, when angry mobs gathered outside both the Capitol building and the Supreme Court, when Republican Senators were assaulted for voting yes on Kavanaugh, when Kavanaugh and his family received death threats. And I guess you missed the many times that Maxine Waters encouraged her followers to assault Republicans, or anyone associated with Trump. Or the time Sarah Huckabee Sanders was chased out of a restaurant, or the time the same was attempted against Mitch McConnell. But no, you think it is unfair to characterize Dems as a violent mob. Allow me to disagree.

          1. You are allowed to disagree, just as you are allowed to disagree with diminution of voter suppression; contraception and abortion; America’s increasing embrace of diversity; the removal of creationism and prayer from classrooms; America’s tradition of welcoming and benefiting from immigrants; reason- and reality-based education; decent treatment of gays; and more than a half-century of American progress in general.

            1. Diversity sucks, and no, we don’t benefit from third-world immigrants.

              1. Was permitting women to vote a mistake?

                1. Of course it was.


      2. Follow the love! #loverevolution

    3. Her opinion on Kavanaugh was shared by a majority of Americans. As are most of Democrats’ policy positions.

  2. Never a great idea to be calling your own party crazy. Even less of a good idea when you always seem to vote with the crazies. (IE, McCaskill was a no on both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.)

    Manchin is the only real moderate democrat. McCaskill can be counted on voting with the Democrats whenever its important. Missouri voters should realize this.

    1. >Never a great idea to be calling your own party crazy.

      Ironic comment on a Never-Trump leaning blog site.

      That said, you’re point is undoubtedly correct.

      1. You’re under the impression that this is a Republican website?

        1. Libertarians mostly vote Republican. No?

    2. Well, O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch” ad worked wonders, right?

  3. McCaskill – “I’m not one of those crazy Democrats”.

    State Senator who previously posted the hope that Trump would be assassinated on her FB page – “She better not be talking about us!”

    Sometimes the comedy just writes itself…??.

    1. I know you need a Democrat for the joke, but this really underscores how that’s not the most salient recent violence in politics concern in either recency or magnitude.

      Maybe not the best comedy to write about at the moment.

      1. Follow the love! #loverevolution

      2. Hmmm…it seems that State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal *did* say on Facebook that she hoped the President would be assassinated. For which she was censured. And there’s this:

        “The vote to (censure) was bipartisan, with all Republicans present, along with most Democrats, voting to censure Chappelle-Nadal.”

        Seems relevant to me.

        1. CNN also considered it relevant, according to the link in the post:

          “State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democrat whose district includes Ferguson, told CNN she believes the ad could refer to African-American voters in the state’s cities, among other subsets of the Democratic base.

          “McCaskill “is calling her base in the urban areas crazy Democrats,” Chappelle-Nadal said, “and she’s relying on those so-called crazy Democrats to make sure she wins.”

          “McCaskill last year called on Chappelle-Nadal to resign after she expressed hope that Trump would be assassinated. Chappelle-Nadal later removed the post and apologized but refused to step down.”

          I don’t know if McCaskill was making a racist appeal or not – it would hardly be a first for a Democrat.

          But I would imagine the polemical (non-clinical) term “crazy” would suit a politician who was reprimanded by members her own party for advocating murder.

          1. I mean, OK, but some yahoo is sending bombs through the mail at notable folks on the left at the moment. And the Admin is blaming CNN for it.
            This ain’t nothing, but it kinda pales in comparison, so bringing it up just looks like you’ve got partisan blinders on.

            1. Hold on, we can’t do the partisan lining-up on this incident until we know the identity of the perp(s).

              Talk about bad timing, we need to at least wait until a suspect gets arrested and we can go over their Facebook posts.

              1. Which side doesn’t matter; regardless it makes some state senator popping off look like a fart in the wind. Especially given Trump (whose side we do know) and his continued rhetoric about the press and Democrats.

                1. You mean, like most news stories, this is not very significant in the grand scheme of things and we’re wasting time commenting on it? True enough, so what?

                  1. I mean, if you want to highlight some Dem state senator talking about assassinating the President (and getting punished by her party for it) on a day someone absolutely tried to assassinate top Dem politicians, go ahead. But I think it says more about those working that angle than it does about Dems.

                    1. Sarcastr0, I’m afraid that the topic of the post tends to lend itself to discussion of…the topic of the post.

                    2. Absolutely tried? I don’t think so. While the bombs did have explosives, and thus were dangerous, according to reports they didn’t have detonators and weren’t a serious attempt to kill any of the targets.

                      I hope they catch whoever is responsible and send them to jail for a long time, whatever their political affiliation, but its stretching things to call this a serious attempt at political assassinations, like say on the order of the Scalise shooting. Either that or this perp is even more incompetent than Hodgekinson was.

                    3. “on a day someone absolutely tried to assassinate top Dem politicians,”

                      With fake bombs? That’s not what I call absolutely trying to assassinate somebody.

                    4. When I see Dems shot up at a baseball field, I’ll buy it as an assassination attempt. Bombs that required recipients to figure out how to detonate them aren’t serious.

                      …nor likely much more than a false flag…

                    5. Yup. In fact, those blaming Trump and other republics for some nutjob who may or may not have tried to assassinate some leftists are engaging in exactly the exaggerated rhetoric they are condemning.

                    6. on a day someone absolutely tried to assassinate top Dem politicians

                      Well, that statement didn’t age very well, did it?

                      “some of which investigators say were so flawed [they] were incapable of detonating”, and “It also remains unclear if their builder intended for them to actually explode or were part of some politically motivated hoax.”

                      So, yeah, a little less than “absolutely”, I’d say, if we trust the NBC flagship station in New York City.

                    7. That’s the narrative you want to push on the rest of us, sure go for it.
                      The facts speak otherwise.
                      The subjects of what you call assassination attempts, didn’t treat them as an assassination attempt. They went about their regularly scheduled public appearances. The Secret Service saw no threat at all. Ignored the bombs, knowing instantly that it was a hoax. Something the media knows and refuses to report.

                      I’ll believe it’s an assassination attempt when the people threatened, act like it was an assassination attempt.

                2. Or the press and Democrats continued rhetoric about Trump, Republicans, and Conservatives? Blaming them for every act of violence before we even know the suspect?

            2. “And the Admin is blaming CNN for it.”

              And CNN is blaming Trump.

              Someone sent powder filled envelopes to GOP figures earlier this month after someone sent powder to one of the Trump kids, whose wife opened it.

              A Bernie volunteer tried to murder multiple GOP senators and congressmen barely a year ago. Came a lot close than these pipe bombs which had zero chance of getting to Obama etc.

              The New York Times just published some Trump murder porn yesterday.

              1. And as long as we’re discussing foiled murder plots, a guy tried to go on a killing spree at the Family Research Council, finding them with an SPLC “hate map.” And so on.

                1. I guess the burning question is whether Islamist terrorists are “right-wing” or “left-wing.”

                  A correct answer to this question will help increase the other TEAM’s body count, much to their chagrin.

                  1. I can look into that for you. I’ll just google ‘Islamist terrorists’

                    Nope, nothing there. Seems the Obama Administration never used the term. Weird huh?

              2. CNN is blaming Trump for escalating the angry rhetoric (which is certainly true), and claiming that this increase in vitriol has *helped contribute* to the terror incidents over the past few days. It’s really hard for me to imagine people not agreeing with that…are you really arguing that Trump–over the past 3 years–has helped REDUCE anger and resentment towards the media, the Obamas, Biden, etc etc???? I don’t think you are…that would border on delusional.

                If you wanna say, “Hey, Trump is an asshole and he fans the flames of fear and anger whenever possible, but the media contribute to this when they X, Y, and Z.” . . . that more-nuanced argument seems much more plausible.

                1. I don’t know who did this or what motivated him/her/them. I would imagine, speaking of crazy, that they’re a bit on the abnormal side, but who knows, perhaps we’ll find that they listened to Trump and got crazier and more murderous as a result. I’d be happy to listen to anyone with ideas about making public discourse less toxic, though “vote for my party which is pure, not for the other party which emerged straight from the pits of Hell” wouldn’t count in my mind as a sensible contribution to such a discussion.

                  1. And keeping public discussion within bounds which don’t set off unhinged murderers may be a bit of a challenge. Do we stop Jodie Foster from making movies?

                2. And I suppose you don’t think that the left calling conservatives evil, cruel, hateful bigots doesn’t encourage unhinged leftists? But I guess that’s okay, because conservatives really ARE those things right? While liberals are all pure and good.

                  1. Says the person who writes that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or be federal judges, and all Hispanic people have low IQs. The comedy writes itself.

                3. Yes sm, it’s all trump. Not the constant calls for assault or calling him a racist nazi for the last 2 years. Do liberals realize how dumb they sound sometimes?

                4. “CNN is blaming Trump for escalating the angry rhetoric”

                  Even if Trump’s criticism of CNN is what motivated the bomber, it doesn’t make sense to blame Trump for this any more than it would to blame, say Maddow for the shooting of Scalise because she criticized Republicans.

                5. In a vacuum, sure.
                  But you refuse to realize that the left, and the media (I repeat myself) have refused to accept the results of the 2016 election. The Russia hoax, the Mueller scam investigation, taking everything President Trump literally, instead of seriously.
                  The Kavanaugh, literal, “Witch Hunt” (“let’s dunk him and see if he floats”) The people willing to invent lies about forced sexual assault, and running a summer long gang rape party circuit.
                  And since this is a law blog, throw in the Judges that have issued injunctions against Presidential orders that have no legal basis.
                  The left has gone insane. and President Trump does not attack people, he defends himself, always, and with everything he’s got.
                  If you want the President to act Presidential, started treating him Presidential.

                  You want the President to act

                  1. The left has been acting like traitors. We’re beyond the point of civility. Trump would be justified in ordering the military to deploy nuclear weapons in Democrat Party strongholds like San Francisco and New York City.

                  2. President Trump does not attack people, he defends himself,

                    This observation from our friend in Ohio indicates that backwater religious schooling, can’t-keep-up rural communities, and superstition-laced gullibility have consequences.

                    Carry on, clingers . . . as far into the past as you can manage. The rest of us will continue to craft American progress without you.

            3. Reports are now coming from the FBI that the bimbs were inert. Oooh scary. Let’s give this about 100x more media than the attempted ricin attacks last work and 1000x more than the attempted stabbing of a California republican.

              You really are a joke sarcastro. Way to be a grand example of the useful idiot.

              1. ‘They weren’t really bombs, and even if they were it was CNN’s fault.’

                How far does that rationalization go? You’ll be the death of us.

                1. I also didn’t say it was the right that did these bombings, just that they supersede some state senator talking out.

                  But a bunch on here are already afraid of being tarred as violent and have their talking points loaded and ready, I guess.

                  1. Well, we saw the Right blamed for a shooting due to crosshairs on a map of Congressional districts. Sorry if we notice trends and history.

                    1. Palins crosshairs map was poor taste. Going from that to false flag is just wishful thinking.

                      We have no idea who did this.

                      Though I am coming to realize that we are now in a period of American political history where one side will ignore bombings if they think it might make them look bad. Which, of course, encourages bombings by people on their side.

                      Both sides came together after Scalise’s shooting. And though there were attempts, those partisans failed who worked to blame it on the Democrats generally.

                      But the right doesn’t seem to think it wouldn’t stick this time, so they’re going directly to false flag, dismissing it as a non-story, or blaming the media.

                    2. President Trump does not attack people, he defends himself, always, and with everything he’s got.

                      Literally the very next comment:

                      The left has been acting like traitors. We’re beyond the point of civility. Trump would be justified in ordering the military to deploy nuclear weapons in Democrat Party strongholds

                      I love it when that guy helps!

                    3. “Palins crosshairs map was poor taste.”

                      Meh. We all remember the lectures about how Palin’s crosshair map was totally different than the bullseye map used by the DNC, and the “bullseye” metaphor used by Daily Kos with respect to Giffords’ district.

                    4. “My side’s bad behavior doesn’t matter, because your side acted badly also.” Every 5-year-old thinks this is a valid excuse for bad behavior also.

                    5. I don’t, but as I recall it was the timing of the thing that was the issue.

                    6. Both sides came together after Scalise’s shooting.

                      1) That is utter bullshit.
                      2) The media moved on past that within 2-3 days. I’ve never seen an attempted mass assassination ignored within a week before, but there ya go.

                      And though there were attempts, those partisans failed who worked to blame it on the Democrats generally.

                      Because everybody knows every shortcoming of Democrats is a shortcoming of AMERICA while every shortcoming of a Republican is a shortcoming of all Republicans.

                      It’s why people say “America was a racist country” when the reality is “The Democrats were an unbelievably racist party and the Republicans sought to stop them”

                    7. Utter BS, eh? I remember just about every Democratic elected official condemning the act, and a unanimous standing ovation when Scalise returned. What standard are you applying?

                      Do you not think the media will move past these bombings in a news cycle?

                      I don’t think your last two paragraphs are engaging with my thesis, but with your own guilt or something, because I didn’t blame the GOP for the bombings.

                      I’m reading Grant’s Chernow biography (it’s meh). Your silly talking point didn’t even apply by the 1880s, much less today when just about all the proud white supremacists are pretty excited about your side, not mine.

                    8. What bombings? You mean the fake bombs that are now being pumped up as containing “energetic material”? LOL Yes a very bad act but it is time to depoliticize. Seriously.

                      The bombing weren’t Trumps fault AT ALL!
                      The Pittsburgh shooter is not Trump’s AT ALL!
                      The Scalise shooting was not Bernie’s fault AT ALL!

      3. I didn’t need a democrat to make the joke. I simply needed a numbskull from one side or the other to fail to have the self awareness to recognize that they’re living in cuckoo land. The fact that in this case it was someone on the left is not my doing.

        1. Nihilistic quitting of both sides in an attempt to be above the fray is no less self-righteous wankery than any other partisan.

          1. That’s some bullshit right there. I detest both sides – both are acting like petulant 5 year-olds and routinely insult my intelligence on a daily basis. The fact that I’m immune to their crap and you’re not doesn’t amount to “self-righteous wankery”, it means I’m rational and you’re not.

            Meanwhile, your side is having a fainting spell (with some justification) over some inoperative bombs that were sent apparently to send a message rather than injure, while re-electing a state senator who called for an assassination and accepting the antics of the Antifa, who has engaged in more political violence in the last 2 years than everybody else combined. Talk about self-righteous wankery. Remove the plank from your own eye before you criticize your neighbor for the splinter in theirs…??.

            1. Taking a moral stand that you are better than anyone who has allegiance to a party is very easy to do, and is also very lame for exactly that reason.

              It is no less tribal than D’s and R’s to decide you are too above anything to get into that whole solidarity thing. Judging everyone as equally bad is facile. It is as much quitting the moral field as judging one side as having a monopoly on badness.
              I raise my flag for the Dems, but I exercise at least some self control to be cleareyed about some of their many flaws. YMMV about which and how great, but I take solice that I do alot better than some on here and the right (not the GOP, the right).

              Personally, I’m not so concerned about the bombs themselves, but about the ideological momentum they and the continued rationalization on the right evince. Antifa is of a similar ilk, though I will point out Dems are a lot more active condemning them than the right is about this. Maybe that’s the momentum, maybe there’s a partisan asymmetry.

              1. Antifa is of a similar ilk, though I will point out Dems are a lot more active condemning them than the right is about this.

                Ehhh…. There seems to be a lot of confirmation bias in that one. I can’t think of a single democrat who has come out and taken a stand against Antifa (which, I recognize isn’t an organization that’s easy to define). But I did see a number of republican politicians or outlets come out against any form of violence after this latest event. Several others also cited the inappropriateness of the chants at Pelosi.

                Granted, there’s probably some confirmation bias on my end. My point is that I wouldn’t declare Dems to be more active in their condemnations as if it were an objective or obvious fact.

                1. This blog has taught me I am certainly not immune to some of dat sweet confirmation bias.

                  To specify, I see a lot of Congressmen and the like tweeting about how Antifa is bad; both sides are bad, etc. Notable politicians on the right have been pretty quiet on this in comparison. And then there is Dobbs and Trump kinda going the false flag rout – you don’t see that on the left.

                  We’ll see what the reaction is now that a suspect, and thus a narrative, is in play.

                2. “I can’t think of a single democrat who has come out and taken a stand against Antifa (which, I recognize isn’t an organization that’s easy to define).”

                  Nancy Pelosi has.

                  See the WaPo article by David Weigel (“Nancy Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ by antifa protesters,” Aug. 30, 2017)

                  1. I’ll give Nancy Pelosi some credit when she comes down on a member of her own caucus for calling for physical confrontations with Republican office holders.

                    Specifically Maxine Waters.

                    1. OK, but you’re moving the goalposts s a bit.

              2. bullshit.

                The left goes out of their way to condone (or at least ignore) antifa and when they are forced to act they act under the cover of “violence at right wing rallies”.

                The bombs were being reported as due to a climate of hate and division driven by Trump and his attacks on the media within seconds of initial reports. Against that a wait and see attitude is less useful than false flag/hoax accusations as a defense against the assignment of blame already going on. But we get it, it’s all a rationalization of violence by the right.

                1. bullshit.

                  The left goes out of their way to condone (or at least ignore) antifa and when they are forced to act they act under the cover of “violence at right wing rallies”.

                  Your feelings don’t make reality. If the left is condoning Antifa, by the same logic the right is more than condoning this.

              3. Antifa is of a similar ilk, though I will point out Dems are a lot more active condemning them than the right is about this.

                The media — Democrats with bylines — compared them to the troops landing at Normandy. Where, EXACTLY, is this condemnation? I’ve seen very, very little condemnation of antifa on the Left.

                Remember, the evidence of Trump’s “Racism” was his comment that both sides in Charlottesville had some good people and some very bad people. A true statement, mind you.

                1. From your weird belief that Dems neither condemned Antifa nor the Scalise shooting, I think you’re deep in some kind of confirmation bias. A bit of Googling will show you’re misinformed, unless you pick and choose your search results very carefully.

                  The Charlottesville unite the right was a White Supremacist rally. One of those killed a protester. Trump was probably technically correct, but that doesn’t mean his statement wasn’t telling about his allegiance. Just like your reaching back complain Dems were too quiet in the past is telling about your feelings about the bomber (and now two shooters) right now.

  4. A lot of times, crazy people don’t know that they are crazy.

    1. I’m crazy in love. #loverevolution. Love until it hurts.

  5. Who knows what might work?

    We live in a world in which a candidate campaigns by obsequiously hugging the guy who repeatedly called that candidate’s wife a hideous pig.

    And a world featuring the ‘Ted Cruz libertarian.’

    And a world in which self-described ‘values voters’ enthusiastically embrace a man who raw-dogged a porn star while showing her a photograph of his newborn son and third trophy wife.

    We may have reached the ‘anything goes’ level.

    1. #loveTillItHurts

    2. Rev. you almost sound jealous of Trump’s capacity to pull all that off. Wait, not jealous, more like sour grapes.

      1. Turn that frown upside down! #LoveUntilItHurts

      2. I have contempt for the religious right — the can’t-keep-up goobers who fall for Trump’s Bible-thumping, vainglorious vulgarity, much as their gullibility draws them to faith healers, televangelists, and pyramid schemes.

        I blame my dislike of stale thinking, hypocrites, and bigoted rubes.

        1. It’s amusing how a self-identified progressive, open-minded individual such as yourself can nonetheless descend into the fetid troughs of otherism for those you and your disaffected little echo chamber tell each other it’s ok to attack.

          1. Quit whining, rube. Your whimpering makes it difficult to understand the right-wingers’ incessant rants about liberals, libertarians, moderates, and RINOS.

            1. Whining? Whimpering? Dear god, man — try buying some self-awareness the next time the ice cream truck comes through your neighborhood. Or maybe just buy some ice cream and see if that makes you hate the world around you (or, perhaps more likely, yourself) any less.

  6. As someone from a neighboring state with similar culture and party affiliation, it wouldn’t work here. Calling part of your own party crazy seems crude and for a Democrat alienates the fairly concentrated party organization and motivated canvassers, not to mention diehard Democrats.

  7. Central Missourian here, and at least in the ads that I see and here around here I don’t think this is too far out of the norm of what you typically hear from her campaign. I’d like to say they are so transparent as to be insulting, but she won her last two races so maybe I’m wrong.

    This reminds me of six years ago when she ran an “attack” ad on republican candidate Todd Akin before the primary to help him win because he would be an easy one to run against in the general election.

    1. Yeah, she ran against one of the weakest candidates in 2012,, who then proceeded to shoot his own foot and get other people in the party to help shoot it some more, so it’s not really an achievement that she won. This ad smells like desperation.

  8. All we need is to legalize another 50 million third worlders, especially mestizos, who are such hard working family men, and every state will become a blue state!

  9. Prof. Volok: Any thoughts about a New Jersey police department investigating someone for sending their mayor a bag of penis-shaped candies as a prank?

    1. This bothers me a lot more than when police “investigate” racist fliers, which chills protected speech. If there’s obviously no crime, police should not be investigating. Period.

      1. I always teach students in ethics classes that the police and prosecutors have two different goals. Law enforcement investigates potential crimes, not innocence. Prosecutors bring cases against the guilty, not the not guilty. The grey area between the two is very important.

        However in this case, sending candy is certainly not a crime; and it doesn’t deserve any attention the police can give it. (If I were the mayor’s staffers, my sweet tooth would have eaten the candy and not told the mayor.)

        1. The difference is that investigating “hate” flyers is not grey at all.

          1. Only if you view it in complete isolation. But lots of things are perfectly innocent in isolation.

            Taking flying lessons is perfectly innocent. But if someone spent six weeks in Afghanistan, then came over and started taking flying lessons, I suspect you’d be fine if the police began investigating that.

  10. Massachusetts has had a series of Republican governors over the last few decades. All of them treated many national Repubs as if they were coughing up plague bacilli. Today, Charlie Baker stays far away from the Crooked Hillary mouth-breathers.

    1. >”Massachusetts has had a series of Republican governors over the last few decades.”
      That’s because Democrats don’t like the riff-raff living there.

  11. It feels like our democracy is getting an electro-shock treatment. /sarc

  12. Or at least it looks that way on its face…

  13. My impression is that she’d all but thrown in the towel already and was really running now for a cabinet post in a future Democratic administration. For that purpose, this won’t help.

    1. Really, this detachment from reality could mean that *she’s* the crazy one.

  14. It’s disingenuous for politicians of any political brand to deny the existence of extremes within their political party. For a politician or media personality or professor to state that there the adjective descriptor “far” can only be applied to the word “right” OR only to the word “left” is factually wrong and does not aid in civil discussion or actual cultural/political dialogue and discourse. Any person or media organization who only uses the description “far” or “extreme” for one side of the political spectrum is doing a disservice to themselves and society as a whole.

    (The same thing can be said for anyone who states that only specific races can be a racist. ie “only white people can be racist, blacks can never be racists” There are elected officials who have stated this directly to me). It’s not new. 30 years ago I had a professor start a class by saying ” if you believe “x” just leave the classroom and don’t come back. You aren’t worth talking to while others are talking.

    1. What is the rationale for saying “only white people can be racist”?

      1. Blah blah only white people actually have power, and without power there can be no true racism, just opinions by powerless people, blah blah.

        1. Under that definition, almost no white people can be racist, because almost no white people have power.

      2. Redefining racism to be part a system of systemic violence, in which racism is when people act upon their privilege. Since non-whites don’t have any privilege (here’s the really weak part) they can’t be racist. Pretty much what Eddy said, but gussied up to form a coherent and consistent, but false, argument.

        1. While he was not a member of Congress at the time he told me to my face to shut up and accept that only white people can be racist, he is a current member of Congress and a current member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He is the only Federal District Court Judge to have been impeached and removed from office in over 150+ years for identification.

          It was in the winter of 1987

      3. Just to smooth your butt-hurtiness, minorities can and are racist too.

        So now you can make the (childish) assertion that, “They do it so, so can we.”

        Does that make you feel better?

        1. “So now you can make the (childish) assertion that, “They do it so, so can we.””

          To whom are you attributing that position?

        2. “Just to smooth your butt-hurtiness…”

          Wow. First cast out the agony out of thine own butt; and then shalt thou sit calmly to cast out the ache out of thy brother’s butt.

  15. You’re looking at this from the wrong angle and instead should look closer at the intended audience.

    Missourians rank:

    Middle educated (ranked 25th of states’ overall education, 27th for higher education)
    Middle income (2016 median household income of $51,746 is slightly below the national average)
    High religious (ranked 15th of states’ % of adults who are “highly religious”)

    So maybe this ad will work on average, “highly religious” people.

    1. Dissolve the people and elect a new one?

    2. I doubt she’s getting the religious vote; her abortion positions will hold her back.

    3. Your arrogance, condescension and ignorant stereotyping of individuals is appalling.

      You must not have caught that Obam’a derision of religion (bitter people clinging to their guns and religion) and Clinton’s “basket of deplorable” comments and assertions did not help “crazy wing of the democrat party.

  16. “Not One of Those Crazy Democrats”

    So … a bitter clinger?

  17. Well, then what kind of Democrat is she?

Please to post comments