error that all of US get tarred with. Thank you again, Chip, for your thoughtfulness. (And what kind of grown man in such a public position retains the junior high name of “Chip”?)

There is probably nothing I hate more than people who argue about things they know nothing about.
I seldom lose an arguement, because unless I KNOW what I am talking about I have learned to keep my mouth shut. A valuable lesson lost on most Democrats.

And….I say Chip should send out about 500 more of these CDs. The political correctness must be fought. Being polite and tolerant is one thing….I mean take the Democrats and their open arms of tolerance for Pastor Warren? But, the uber-sensitivity of our country needs to stop. These songs are meant to be humorous (kind of like the “jokes” about our President’s last name?) and anyone who does not think they are funny can oh I don’t know, not listen to them.

We are defending Paul Shanklin and circling the wagons around a parody that most black people would probably find offensive.

This is one of the times that Republicans got caught doing stupid things, and this was a very, very stupid thing. This incident is an eminent example of why the K-Street Republican Party needs to be

a. Horsewhipped.
b. Tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

The fact that Saltsman could do something so galactically stupid and then put both hands in the air and say, “who, me?” is only matched by the idiocy of the Base in defending him.

Thankfully, this increases the odds of good movement conservatives like Blackwell or Steele to become the RNC Chair.

Thank God. That’s the only silver lining in this incident.

Sorry Eric, but this Talmudic defense of Paul Shanklin and the Republican Party in this incident is proof that the Dems have won both the conversation and the news cycle.

Let’s not do something this stupid again, okay?

The debut of this tune was on Rush’s show was seven months ago… back in late March of 2007.

I guess with all of their embarrassments, the liberals are getting a bit desperate to have something to complain about.

Don’t they realize that all of their griping has simply revived (and made even more popular) a song that had pretty much slipped off the radar?

par?o?dy

noun, plural -dies, verb, -died, -dy?ing.
–noun
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.
2. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

These definitions are very clear; what do people not understand?

I’ve met him and IMHO — while he occasionally has moments of clarity, and in person he’s a nice enough chap — he is a garden-variety, close-minded, open-mouthed leftist hack who has no grasp of facts.

Tommy, if you are reading this, I got a couple of things to say — first, the parody in question is OBVIOUSLY — OB VI OUS LY — using an Al Sharpton parody voice. So just STOP it. Shut your mouth when you don’t know what you are talking about. I would say in general that you do not want to start a debate, in written form, with pretty much ANYBODY at RedState, and especially not our leader. You will get mulched into little bitty parts.

Second, all you do on your radio show is spout leftist agitprop, then filibuster, not allowing anyone else to break down your wall of crap. BOOOOORING. That’s why I am gone. Well, partly. The other reason I’m gone is, it’s on freakin’ Friday nights. I am single. Do the math.

But generally they try to write with a basic understanding of the facts at hand …

No, Erick, they don’t. This Tommy Christopher guy is typical of the mouth-breather Outraged!™ Lefty.

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”

I usually like his stuff. In particular, I direct you to his seminal piece on the upcoming Presidential Balls.

On the other hand, it’s pretty lame to nitpick at for you saying that the columnist invented the term. He certainly popularized it.

And it’s also willfully stooopid not to hear Al Sharpton in the song. That is, even if you’ve never heard it before, the fact that the singer self-references as Sharpton is proof enough that the portrayal is intended to be Sharpton.

I hope this media dustup (not quite yet a kerfuffle) point out what a lousy article the original Ehrenstein thing was. He accepts circuendo the existence of a “Magic Negro” type in cinema, because there are a bunch of popular non-threatening black characters in movies, and then says that Obama is an example of that type.

The logic is:

Some popular characters are black and not threatening.
A Magic Negro would be black and not threatening.
Therefor, white people need a Magic Negro.

Barack Obama is black and not threatening.
Therefor, Obama is an example of the Magic Negro white people need.

Studios looking to fit a character into a script often chose not to portray blacks as having violent, shuck-jving, or other negative characteristics. Do you suppose they were trying not to be racist, or better, were trying to portray blacks in what they saw as a positive way? More probably, they were trying to have a believable script, and that precludes having characters who are unacceptable to the other characters.

But the reason this is an issue now is that it’s one thing for Rush to play the song before the election; it’s another for the Republican Party to do it after the election is over. Before the election, especially during the primaries, it was spot-on satire. After the election it’s just name-calling.

As I just posted on another thread, Ehrenstein is a homosexual African American. He was obviously angered at Obama for his positions on Gay’s. The original article (where this song came from) he tried to discuss how white Liberals were projecting the famous “Magic Negro” sterotype on Obama. He was mad at his fellow liberals for supporting Obama because of his own homosexuality. He also made references since then that because Obama named Warren to do the invocation at the inaugurtion, Obama is not his president. It seems that the liberal media claimed a whole different meaning to the article, as they always do, and made it into a white Republican racist issue. Mr. Ehrenstein being a flaming liberal never tried to explain his original intent, as he also believes that the Republican Party is “racist to it’s core.” It’s amazing how a story can change so drastically since it’s beginning.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1342198/david_ehrenstein_responds_to_newbarack.html

That’s no moron, that’s a liberal.

You can tell by the predominate yellow belly on the liberal and the total lack of truth. A moron will, occasionally by accident, discover the truth, a fully developed liberal never will.

A liberal also generally smell worse than a moron… and one of them drools less… but without consulting my field book I don’t recall which.

Also, were I you, I would expect to be hearing later today from the National Association of Fools, Morons and Simpletons, as I am sure that they will not take too kindly to the comparison.

not John King, and the McCain press office misidentified me, on 3 different calls, I can’t say why they did that.

I stand by every syllable. In fact, I was taking it easy on you because we have a friend in common. I find it hilarious that you defend Shanklin’s minstrel act simply because he does it all the time. This is your turf, so I’ll say no more, but if you want to talk it over some more, check with our friend.

to a longtime Redstate member. LOL.

any names, or attack him or his craft in any way, only his argument. In fact, I sought his oppinion on this because he runs the biggest conservative site, and I was sure he’d be tearing Saltsman a new one.

I’m not the least bit thin-skinned, and welcome all the name-calling I can get, I just wasn’t expecting it from Eric. Lesson learned.

Tommy’s World

…they’ll attack your methodology.

It’s an old saw in the consulting game and I guess it holds true in the political commentary field as well. The only reason they’re (incorrectly) attacking you on such trivial details is because they can’t get you on anything else. It’s frustrating, but in a twisted way it’s a sort of compliment to your writing.

I have just the thing to get an open thread started today, courtesy of Tammy Bruce and LGF.

Shanklin has imitated everyone from Al Gore, to Hillary Clinton, to Ted Kennedy, Chinese guys, Italian guys, failed Presidents from Arkansas. I know I’ve missed a lot of others, but the guy is pretty much the satirist’s version of Officer Hightower (if any of you have watched Police Academy you’ll know what I’m talking about.)

But he dares to do a song with a vocal impression of Sharpton in it and the firmament is shaken?!

I mean, where were these guys during the “Justice Brothers” skits?

This sounds to me like its just another attempt to cast anything they find even remotely unflattering of the One as racist.

I wasn’t banned. Even under my old handle, I clearly identified myself as Tommy Christopher. Just changed emails and wanted a more literal name.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbravenewfilms.org%2Fblog%2F47504-mccain-campaign-still-screening-reporters-on-conference-calls&ei=PmJaScnwEY-ctweeu6DnBg&usg=AFQjCNFp9u2ysdp3Rul8GHR_3Ebs1Oq7kw&sig2=V06yYoem52Y-Kl94CdmpjA

and had the advantage of being consistent since day one.

The fact is that Saltsman did NOT show bad judgment, as Erick said, and having made that “admission” against interest, fatally disabled him from being a credible advocate for the truth going forward.

Gamecock filled the void tonight on Unusable Signal.

It wasn’t hard. Why?

Because Gamecock doesn’t fear the PC police.

This matters

defending Rush, the Shanklin Parody and Saltsman. And it hurt. So, it hurts even more that Erick gets attacked for defending same AFTER I did, unapologetically. In fact, I took on Erick and you all for NOT recognizing the bigger issue of the parody and Rush and the SUBSTANCE of same as bigger than Saltsman/Duncan.

I was attacked here at Redstate.

But tonight, it was Gamecock that defended Erick and Redstate.

Facts

Quite simply, Mike, you rock.

I was listening to the show. Tommy was completely flabbergasted that you dared to call him out on his own turf.

He started making up stories about how drunk you were to distract from your argument.

But you didn’t let it get to you. And now he wants you to co-host a special show him as the conservative voice.

Way to go, Mike. On behalf of everyone at Redstate, thank you sincerely for defending us.

GO GAMECOCK!