Hoekstra's Ad: Racism, Xenophobia, Ignorance & Mendacity

But the message is a lie wrapped in an overt appeal to bigotry and ignorance. Little to nothing in the commercial speaks to any policy issue in which Stabenow is intimately involved. I don't deny, katlin, that you have some heartfelt reasons for not supporting her, but I doubt that any of those reasons actually made it into Hoekstra's commercial which seems to say less about what he thinks of Stabenow and more about what he thinks of voters like you. That strikes me as highly relevant.

Perhaps you should help him out and provide him with a narrative that doesn't rely so heavily on bigotry, nescience and prevarication.

@ Mac

I don't recall stating or implying that the republican party is all about racism. Besides, that is a conversation that the party rank and file needs to have with its leadership as clearly they believe that its voters respond favorably to negative racial appeals. Perhaps such nonsense would stop if it actually cost them losses at the ballot box. But the Hoekstras, Gingrichs and Santorums have no reason to stop as long as republican voters reward them for it.

I concur with the view that Nixon's initial overtures to China were specifically diplomatic. As I mentioned in the article, commercial collaboration efforts began in earnest a few years later. I specifically remember A. Robert Abboud, Chairman of the First National Bank of Chicago, specifically touting efforts to open up China to American companies. The point is that the loss of jobs to China and to other places has been long in coming. When my parents moved us into the South Shore neighborhood of Chicago in 1969, a head of household could clothe, feed, house and educate a family of four and retire to Florida with health care and a pension. One decade after the steel mills closed, South Shore was a poverty-strickenwar zone.

katlin, the "message" is a lie. The simple fact that non-defense discretionary spending takes up only 18% of the federal budget makes the message a lie. The fact that we federal tax receipts have not been this low since the 1950s makes the message a lie. The fact that the corporate effective tax rate is below 15% makes the message a lie. If you can tell us where Ms. Stabenow had a hand in any of these items occurring, then you might have an argument. If you can point out what votes she cast that opened up our markets at the sacrifice of American workers then you might have an argument.

Your vitriol is not an effective replacement for evidence and reason, katlin.

If I am to respond to what I think you mean by your question (it is not very well-formed), the answer is no. The last republican president whose perspectives and policies I found tolerable was Dwight Eisenhower and he died when I was two years old (I favor him in retrospect upon a read of his positions). I might have considered Goldwater (he would be roundly rejected by today's republican party) if he hadn't embraced southern racists with his states rights positions. Every president after that embraced the Southern Strategy in one form or another and until republicans forcefully and decisively turn away from cynical, race-baiting campaign tactics, I will always view them with at best healthy suspicion.

From policy perspectives, I hold great disdain for what the republican message has become. They've proven that they're rhetoric of fiscal responsibility as total and complete bullcrap and they prove their arguments of government fecklessness by screwing up everything whenever we are foolish enough to put them into office. Tax cuts as a path to sustainable economic growth has been a proven failure (Reagan had to raise taxes significantly after his initial cuts) and their continued embrace of such cuts only guarantees that we won't see eye to eye.

I don't wholeheartedly embrace the democratic side either, but they tend to come closer to my perspective on various matters.

I don't plan to humor this particular discussion any longer as it is tangential. Do you have anything else to say about the commercial?

Our own greed, short term memory, and lack of foresight is the real reason that China is surpassing the United States as a global leader and super power.

I agree. But Senator Stebanow is far from the embodiment of that greed, short-term decisionmaking and lack of foresight. The bottom line is that as long as labor costs are higher here than somewhere else - particularly when we no longer invest in having a well-educated workforce - labor intensive jobs will leave.

I apologize for being prickly about the question. I the makings of an argument my perspectives on the issues were pre-established. I do note those who offer perpetual criticism based on a pre-established partisan or personal disdain and attempt to bend the facts of any issue toward that pre-disposition. I do not consider myself as one who does that and your question got my "spidey-sense" tingling. My bad for any misread. I disagree with most republicans on (among other things):

1. What I perceive to be a reflexive predisposition toward military response to foreign policy challenges
2. The need to raise more tax revenues, particularly from those who have greatly benefited from irresponsibly favorable policies
3. A woman's right to chose
4. The appropriate level of business regulation
5. The need for and degree of infrastructure investment
6. The manner and degree to which we fund education
7. The need for public sector investment in alternative energy development
8. The degree that government should be involved in the protection of the environment
9. The government's approach to law enforcement, criminal justice and incarceration

Even if republicans were to embrace more appropriate (IMO) positions on the above issues, their half century-long adventure in race-baiting to win the votes of southern whites cannot be overlooked and my disdain for their cynical gambit will not subside until I see them put at least as much sustained effort into telling the all too visible minority of racists within their ranks that they are no longer welcome. As I don't see that as a possibility in the near term, I don't see my opinion of republican politics - embodied in Hoekstra's ad - changing.

The lie in the message, katlin is that Stabenow is somehow responsible for the flood of Chinese goods and though you obviously didn't take the time to read it, I specifically presented evidence that our trade relationship with China was one-sided long before Stabenow came into public office. I specifically pointed out how the vast majority of our federal spending is locked in. I specifically pointed out how our fiscal problems stem in large part from the loss of tax revenues. You, on the other hand, have presented ZERO evidence in support for the wholly nonsensical perspective you present. You've not pointed to one vote. You've not pointed to one statement. You've not pointed to one policy that Stabenow has publicly embraced that put us in this situation. I don't have a horse in this race other than a fealty toward facts and you, katlin, have provided NONE.

You have some damn nerve katlin claiming that I haven't provided evidence when I've presented MULTIPLE pieces of information and when you haven't presented a single item in support of your totally biased and intellectually bankrupt perspective. Even your intellectual property argument is off-base as it pertains to Stabenow and she specifically addresses it on her campaign website.

The only true embarrassment is the incredibly obtuse and unsubstantiated position you've taken. You have as much a right to your opinion as I do, katlin, but you haven't produced anything that would qualify as substantive justification for it. If you've missed the specifics in support of my perspective its because you haven't bothered to read them.

just who are you referring too ?

I'm referring to republicans, katlin, and none of your lame a$$ attempts at deflection and obfuscation changes the fact that since Goldwater, republicans have engaged in cynical and divisive efforts to attract the votes of racists. The Southern Strategy is well known and with the exception of Dole and McCain, every republican nominee for president since Goldwater has used some form of it. GOP Chair Lee Atwater put it succinctly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "@!$%#, @!$%#, @!$%#." By 1968 you can't say "@!$%#" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "@!$%#, @!$%#."[6][7]

The racial vitriol emanating from the conservative ranks has crescendoed over the last three years and that record is substantial as well. As I've already written about it, I won't bother repeating myself, but please feel free to take a look at the tip of the iceberg at the article linked below if you dare,

http://chiwillie.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/28/10258704-if-republicans-dont-want-the-race-card-played-they-should-stop-dealing-it

I couldn't give a damn how much the "R" word is used by democrats. As a black man it will always have meaning for me, particularly when republican politicians - including Hoekstra - simply cannot keep themselves from making overt appeals to racial animosity. It is the primary reason that the republican party is mostly a white party that falls woefully short of reflecting America's current and growing diversity.

Mac, I haven't seen anything in your post with which I disagree. Our federal debt is too high and must be brought down and China is a growing military and national security threat. I agree that this has been a long time in coming and the American people have behaved foolishly with respect to our individual and collective decision-making. What I take issue with in this particular vine is Hoekstra's idiotic assertion that Senator Stabenow is the embodiment of that, particularly since she's only been in office for 13 months. Everything about Hoekstra's commercial is rank prevarication and pettiness.

I know you are, however, posting about a significantly larger issue - an issue with which I agree.

Whoops.

I misread my reference. She got her currant committee chair in 2011 and indeed has been a Senator for 11 years now. My bad.

Your opinion of Stabenow is your business, katlin, but to be sure, Hoekstra's ad was a quadfecta of mendacity, xenophobia, racism and ignorance. If the facts regarding Stabenow's stewardship (not that you have provided any) match your opinion, there was no need for Hoekstra to run such a ridiculous ad as if he couldn't let the facts speak for themselves. It certainly shows what he thinks of you.