If Malkin presenting facts and evidence is going "nuts", well, I'd hate to see her when she's just "reporting". Sheesh. I know you don't care for her political views, but by shading her commentary using that word, tell us how you really think. I don't buy it and think it's pretty crappy, Adam. Crediting Obama for everything, even things he hasn't done yet, is not a new phenomenon. Malkin pretty much shows the fallacy in the reporting pretty well.

On the RS McCain stuff, I see no link to McCain's comments from that site. I'll have to take your word that the author is in fact quoting accurately. Furthermore, if you want to talk about race rackets, using the $PLC to take down others like Signorile does is nuts. The $PLC uses the hammer of hate on every nail it sees - the better to scare liberals out of their money. Check out their budget sometime. They are...doing quite well.

BLUF: There are idiots out there who may hold racist beliefs who vote conservatives. There are idiots out there who hold racist beliefs who are liberal. Ho-hum.

Your citation repeats a common falsehood fostered by Signorile's erroneous 2003 column. For the record (a) I never contributed to the site "Reclaiming the South," which is operated by a white separatist named Dennis Wheeler with whom I quite strongly disagreed, and (b) I have neither any personal nor political interest in the marital preferences of others, have many friends of all races, some of whom are of mixed ancestry and some of whom are in mixed marriages. These are facts, to which there are witnesses.

Having long ago discovered that silence is often the best response to smears, it is nonetheless annoying to see people who have never met me claim to know my opinions on subjects about which they have never bothered to ask me themselves -- although my e-mail address is public knowledge and my personal phone number is known to hundreds of journalists in Washington.

To quote the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts, and I am damned tired of people stating as a fact that my opinion is such-and-such, based on secondary sources of dubious veracity and questionable motives.

I certainly know my own opinions, and can tell you that you are quite mistaken as to particular facts. Stop your lazy habit of repeating the mistakes of others, or it shall bring you grief someday.

Thank you, Chris, for pointing out that Serwer's use of "nuts" was derogatory. If not just insulting. In that sometimes snarky post of his the negative connotation would have simply slipped past my defenses unexamined if you hadn't pointed it out.

You've prompted me to follow the link to MM's site and see her facts and evidence. I'd say she's intellectually dishonest - and tedious - continually cherry picking comments and incidents from the wilds of the internet or the Midwest and using them to stereotype liberal thought.

Contrast that with using leading conservative "opinion makers" as representative of conservative thought.

That's still questionable, sure. Just because someone is a popular commentator among a certain group doesn't mean they actually represent the views of that group. Maybe people want to hear Rush L., for example, mainly because of his well-known wit.

Anyway... that's just me. I think MM's an insincere hack. Adam may do her the kindness of taking her at face value. If she really believes her conclusions then "nuts" is a perfectly reasonable stance. Either that or "stupid."

I love your "bottom line", btw: You use "may" when mentioning racist conservatives, but no qualifier for liberals. Freudian slip? Sincere belief? Transparently manipulative hackery?

Assuming "$" = "S" and we're talking about the same SPLC,
I strongly associate criticism such as yours with racists. But by both our standards you yourself only "may" be one.

I think he should have his license taken away and the couple should go elsewhere to get married instead of being in that bootleg town.

True enough -- clearly, for some people it's far worse to be known as a racist than to be one.

But while the kinds of attitudes and dispositions manifest by Bardwell and Lanzo are surely "racist" by about any definition but their own, my concern is that the attention they garner deflects much-needed attention away from less obviously racially inflected attitudes and behaviors that have much wider and more harmful consequences than these.

I'm thinking about the work showing that white Americans are more likely to think a neighborhood is safe if it has white residents than if it has a racially mixed residential population or a black population, even when in fact the neighborhood is the same. (Researchers show videos of the same neighborhoods, but with a white, black or mixed group of "residents" populating them.)

Or the fact that African American and Latino kids are much more likely to be taught by unqualified teachers in under-resourced schools than their white counterparts.

Or the fact that early evidence shows that stimulus and other recovery monies now being spread across our towns and cities go least to those communities who need it most.

And so on and so forth.

These examples aren't about "racists" -- certainly not in the sense this article uses the term. But they are very serious and consequential nonetheless.

We can argue about whether liberals or conservatives are more likely to be racist. But answering that question won't resolve the challenges faced by the under-educated kids in those poor schools or the opportunity-poor communities missing out on their fair share of stimulus dollars.

True enough -- clearly, for some people it's far worse to be known as a racist than to be one.

But the kinds of attitudes and dispositions manifest by Bardwell and Lanzo are surely "racist" by about any definition but theirs, my concern is that the attention they garner deflects much-needed attention away from less obviously racially inflected attitudes and behaviors that probably have far wider and more harmful consequences than these.

I'm thinking about the work showing that white Americans are more likely to think a neighborhood is safe. Or the fact that African American and Latino kids are much more likely to be taught by unqualified teachers in under-resourced schools than their white counterparts.

From the linked AP article:

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from [an interracial] marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

Yeah, right. Like unmarried persons' interracial sex doesn't produce children.

@ AOR

To paraphrase Heinlein, you have seen evil where there is only stupidity. No malice aforethought was intended, the entire last sentence needs to be proofread. BLUF: Both sides have idiots and both sides have racists. End of story. Happy now? You can cherry pick examples from all over like corn from your teeth. Ho-hum.

Millions of people echo Malkin's and Limbaugh's views. Are they all nuts or are you just that bitter that folks don't think the same way you do? Project intolerance much?

I notice that Mr. Robert Stacy McCain manages to accuse the author of assigning to McCain the views Mr. MCCain does not have without saying anything about the actual quote attributed to him.

If the quote is correct, whatever Adam has written about McCain in the post is entirey justified.

So racism is just thinking different and opposing racism is intolerance. Newspeak is alive and well.

This guy is a joke.

Chris commented: "Millions of people echo Malkin's and Limbaugh's views. Are they all nuts or are you just that bitter that folks don't think the same way you do? Project intolerance much?"

1) Yes, they are nuts (and racist and hateful and cowards afraid to face the real world without prejudice in their hearts).

2) No, not bitter, but extremely eternally grateful to not be cowardly racists like the above-mentioned nuts are.

3) Project intolerance? If you're talking about yourself, then, OBVIOUSLY YES!. Not so much the rest of us

Tangipahoa Parish has another claim to fame: It was the filming location for In the Heat of the Night, the TV show about race and the law.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/not-in-tangipahoa-parish/

Where exactly is it established the La. justice of the peace is a conservative? Fact check?

And you might remind all those neolib loving Dems you've had a self-confessed member of the KKK at the head of your Senate for more years than I can count. He is the longest serving Dem in the Senate and until recently, was top dog.

Sad they let anybody write nowadays.

The Michelle Malkin piece is more bizarre than anything else. First, she blames liberals for leading the opposition to marriages of mixed ethnic or racial backgrounds. Her evidence? She links to several sources, none of which support her point. One is a post by an obscure (to me, at least) blogger who criticizes Malkin for not opposing discrimination against Filipinos, and suggests that perhaps her marriage to a non-Filipino has led her away from concern for her own people. Not exactly an anti-mixed marriage argument, although not, perhaps, in the best of taste.

Two other links simply repeat some of the vile comments anonymous people sent in to her and Atrios' blogsite regarding her. Although racist and sexist, I didn't actually see any that commented on her mixed marriage. And, in any event, pretty clearly neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on crude, hate-filled posters; what does that prove? She also links to a column from Marie Claire magazine (is that a bastion of liberal political thought?) which discusses wealthy, older and powerful white business men who have taken younger, Asian wives. No mention of Malkin and certainly nothing that could really be described as any kind of opposition to mixed marriages. And finally, she links to a story about AFrican Americans who criticised Clarence Thomas for marrying outside his race. Yes, most African Americans are considered liberal and, therefore, it is likely (although neither Malkin nor we have any idea) that much of this sentiment among the African American community comes from liberals. However, let's bear in mind that the opposition within minority groups to members of that group marrying outside is common to nearly all minority groups; it's not a liberal or conservative feature and, frankly, my bet would be that, in any minority community, the percentage of "conservatives" who hold such a view would be much greater than the percentage of "liberals".

Finally, Malkin says--what has Obama done "to disavow the bigoted attacks by liberals against minority conservatives in public life who have endured vicious bile because they chose their partners based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin?" Wow. Basically, what has Obama done to protest the personal attacks on Michelle Malkin? She can't be serious.

Genetic variety is necessary for humans to evolve. People need to go read a high school biology book. The natural aversion is a learned behavior, and people are "naturally" attracted/curious about people with a different skin tone than their own.

this was a really quality post. In theory I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.

I heard about the priest who wouldn't marry the interracial couple, how is it that people like that still exist??