The New Mexico Independent - Latest Comments in Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:40:19 -0000

ProudRepublican you probably could have found a better "cover" name for yourself, it wasn't hard to figure out who you were and though you are not concerned about being outed, the fact still remains that it should not have happened. Trip while I appreciate that you answered, your answer sounded like it was made by a politician. This is very serious concern, Tracy went way over the line.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

proudrepublican — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:38:01 -0000

Let me begin by saying I am not worried about being "outed" I tried to sign up as someone other then a columnist so my remarks would be read hopefully without the same "distain" for me that has been expressed by a few folks who have commented on my column. Tracy I am shocked you would go through the process to "find out" who I am since you presented yourself as a "savy" blogger when you wrote the column to answer, I believe it was my first column, when I took on bloggers and the media. By the way I still can not figure out how to find out who the people are responding and can assure all of you I never will.

Tracy I encourage you to look at the definition of the word "bigot" in case you can't find it I am enclosing it here:

big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Now I am going to take a few comments from your column and lets see if they fit that definition:

"I’m afraid the temperature metaphor is an apt one for describing how I feel about attending both conventions."

"What chills me most as I sit here at Republican Central is the lack of diversity I see as I simply sit and watch the people

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

trip — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:01:14 -0000

Thomas we will have to take this up at NMI. Many of us on staff did not come from the blogosphere but from newspapers and as such are just beginning to come to grips with issues like this in the comment threads. Thanks for pointing out the issue.

I know this may not be a satisfactory answer but hopefully we'll be able to respond shortly.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:32:30 -0000

Ok the column is still back up, but what about this anonymity issue. Trip, is there any guidance from you on this subject.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:41:25 -0000

Wait is that why Dan's column is now gone. It was there a minute ago. So basically you guys are driving opposing view points off. I am disappointed. I don't really like Neo-con rhetoric or attacking, but I don't really like liberal attacking like Tracy's "Fight Back" story either, I do however, appreciate that battlefield where people champion there veiwpoints. It hearkens to the marketplace of ideas. It would be a real shame to lose that.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:34:01 -0000

Umm does this mean that we can expect to be outed by the staff of the NMI, when they don't like the comments. Both Majorie and Tracy have now outed Foley, not that it was much of a stretch to figure out, but if a people post something anonymously is that what we face? I think this might just have a chilling effect on discussions around here, but if that's the goal of outing people, how about a fair warning from the staff of the NMI.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

tracydingmanauthor — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:52:02 -0000

You know, "proudrepublican," something's been bothering me since the first time you commented. It must be some kind of software glitch, but as an NMI columnist, when I click on your screen name, it comes up as Dan Foley, NMI columnist.
Now why would a (former?) Republican state legislator and current NMI columnist feel the need to spew venomous, vicious slurs against another columnist under an ANONYMOUS name?
That doesn't seem very proud, "proudrepublican!"
I write under my own name and and I am proud to defend myself from your hateful attacks on my commentaries (which are different from my news stories, Dan).
Also, I don't have to "try" to be a reporter. I was one, a good one, for exactly 20 years, until I chose to leave the profession I loved just this May.
If that is you, Dan - and I'm quite sure it is, please accept a few tips from a fellow columnist: Please learn to spell, and to use punctuation properly. It may make your message more credible. Or not.
Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding my reporting on the Bernalillo County Convention. Does that even exist?

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

trip — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:18:43 -0000

Proud Republican, I just wanted to respond to one of your concerns.

You may not know this but the New Mexico Independent tried to win credentials to the Republican National Convention. We were rejected. I don't know why. A person in the New Mexico Republican Party kindly offered to try to help us win credentials. For that we owe our gratitude. But by the time the offer came it was too late. Because we had coverage from the DNC, we wanted to be fair and at least have a presence in Minnesota. Therefore someone who was up there got reaction for us to the major speeches. Feel free to point out the bias in those stories. My belief is that it will be very hard for you to find a particular slant.

As for the observations found in the column that generated this string of comments, I have to reiterate that many of the observations of the writer were also mine in 2004 when I covered both political conventions. Don't read anything into that. I am not ascribing anything sinister to individual Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are TOTALLY COMFORTABLE AROUND ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. But the differences in the types of people who attended the two conventions, at least in a couple of demographic categories, gave me pause too four years ago. (I say this as a white man originally from the South.) I readily admit I do not know what is in the heart of each individual person, so cannot ascribe motives to those I saw at either convention. But what I saw DID raise questions in my mind, my friend. Like why is it that that are many more white people at the RNC than at the DNC? It was a question. And I am not supplying an answer. And neither did the writer of this column. She merely posed questions.

Growing up in the South as I did, it is not so easy for me to ignore questions of race and issues that are related to it, which often are economic in nature. Perhaps I do not reflect many people's opinions when I say that it's not helpful to pretend that race is not an issue in 21st century America. When I say that, please know I am not saying that to bolster one political party over the other. Comparing the history of both parties and how they have done on civil rights, race relations, etc, has convinced me that both Democrats and Republicans leave something to be desired over the past half century as far as I am concerned. People from both parties can point to heroes and they can also point to those who don't deserve that superlative. But the fact is there are many questions that still remain unanswered in 2008 as to the state of race relations in the US. This column, and the comments it generated, did a valuable service in that it provided an opportunity for some Americans to have a discussion, sometimes clumsy, sometimes very pointed, about these very important issues. More Americans should be having these kinds of conversations.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

marjorie — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:21:39 -0000

My comments here have been strictly about the diversity found within the Republican party, and the lack of continuity in Cindy McCain's comments re the history of that party.

The majority Anglo populations in the South and Texas did switch parties to the point of causing a shift from Democratic to Republican power in those states, largely due to disaffection with the gains made from the civil rights movement. Those gains ultimately were implemented by Democratic party elected officials.

When Cindy McCain claims the end of slavery as a Republican victory I think it would be only fair, not to mention correct, to mention that African American people by and large *today* aren't members of that party. And why is that? Please, I am all ears.

As to the sordid history found among leaders of the Democratic party historically, you'll get no argument from me.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

proudrepublican — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:55:04 -0000

Trip let me begin by saying I think a reporter should not be a commentator as well, it is clear that Tracy has an agenda and it will and has spilled over into her reporting remember her attack on the Bernalillo County Convention not to long ago? I am fine with columnists but when they can take off their "columnist" hat and put on their "reporter" hat and think their "opinions" are hinden is false, sounds alot like Dan Rather trying to do both and it didn't work.

Benito Aragon I never said anything about Obama being the candidate "just because he was black", you may be mistaking my writing earlier for comments made by both Hillary and Bill Clinton but not here nice try. You also talk about the divirsity or lack there of by Republicans and yet I watched BOTH conventions and yes there were more people of color at the DNC but I saw a cross section of all colors at the RNC, black, hispanic, native american, asian and others as well so I am not sure why they ask those questions other then they want to keep trying to draw a picture that really doesn't exist. Look you don't have to like George Bush but he has more people of color in "real" positions of power then any other President, including Clinton, in history but that fact is lost on you I am sure.

Tacey I guess you missed the speech by Michale Steel former LT. Gov. who Charles Schumar and your democrat friends stole his SSN and put it out for publication but since he is a conservative that happens to be black he doesn't count, just like Justice Thomas? You can write all you want as a columnist I am not complaining about that but when you try to be a "reporter" then I have a problem with that. You clearly dislike Republicans and openly write about it yet then you show up are welcomed at the convention by the NM Republicans and write an article like that, WOW!

Majorie Childress you are clearly trying to re-invent history, the KKK started as a militant wing of the democrat party. Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard of the KKK and Ted Kennedy called him the consiunce of the Senate. The Civil Rights Act was filabustered by none other then Al Gores Father for one. Then lets look at modern History and the positions of power that people like George Bush have given people of color? But I am sure the facts mean nothing to you, to include Kennedy's father being a Nazi sympathiser as well, this is only a few things that I mention to show your bias in your comments as well.

Now I will ask all of you do you think Obama would be "your" nominee if he was a "white guy" from Texas or New York?

Finally I will say I could care less about what any of you write as columnists you have a God given write to say what you want, I get a little upset when you then take off your columnist hat and try to portray yourself as a "fair and balanced" reporter which you guys are not! Trip they can say anything they want as an opinion columnist but when they try to be reporters that is crossing the line.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

bleve — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:00:13 -0000

Tracy, apparently you're not the only one who's taking note of the obvious. Bob Schieffer, not exactly a fringe voice, on Face The Nation this morning asks McCain:

"There were 36 African American delegates out of 2300 plus delegates there. How can you survive as a party if you become just the party of white people?"

After McCain agrees that the party can't survive without diversity, Scheiffer asks, "So what are you going to do about that?"

McCain then gets philosophical without ever answering the question.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/07/face-t...

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

joma — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:07:09 -0000

Could it be that the crowd at the RNC merely reflects the the fact that over 90% of blacks are Democrats? I believe that the vast majority of blacks supported Kerry as well, not to mention the "first black President, Bill Clinton" Obama's nomination is a significant historical event and even more reason for blacks to support the Dems. So why should it be odd that Dingmann didn't see a sea of black faces in St. Paul?

The real question to me is why bright young black professionals don't try to change things from the inside of the RNC and bring some balance to these warring parties instead continuing to overwhelmingly support one side. All that will do is create more anger and embitterment.

If I vote for Obama and he wins, it won't be because he "looks like me". So should I not vote for him?

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

trip — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:23:25 -0000

Ha! Loony is good sometimes.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:09:53 -0000

And luckily enough the rules, bounds, and the process by which to ensure Liberty are found in our Constitution...Bring back the Republic (bring back the checks and balances) Sorry I know that is kind of loony quick reply but its 5 on Friday.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

trip — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:04:18 -0000

While I agree with thomasjames on his critique of the rotting structure of organized parties, I feel the need to say that the pursuit of liberty as defined as whatever that means to each individual person invites thoughts of a process that leads in hyper-democratization, i.e., the crowding out of the bonds that compose the social contract -- and I'm not talking about a specific Roussean pact -- that hold us together as a common society. At its most extreme, can't an emphasis just on individual liberty without responsibilities lead to anarchy, no? (I need to go back and brush up on my Bakunin. I believe this very question may have factored in break between Marx and Bakunin. I am open to being corrected on this.)

There is much talk in some corners of pursuing liberty, but sometimes the accompanying idea of that with liberty comes a responsibility to a greater whole is given short shrift. The founding fathers -- by which I mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams etc. -- believed in the pursuit of liberty while at the same time they led lives that were focused on public service, i.e, service to something larger than themselves, in this case, society. In pop cultural terms, this plays out in the statement that 'With great power comes great responsibility.' (Spider-Man). :)

Also I don't necessarily find mutually exclusive a belief in the pursuit of liberty and recognizing that liberty may not be spread among everyone equally. Is liberty being able to do whatever one wants? If one wants to define it that way, know that it is not the definition conceived of by the founding fathers. In their minds, such a philosophy ceases to be liberty and becomes selfishness that borders on solipsism. Whether one wants to admit it or not, a main theme of American democracy has been the enfranchisement of various groups -- not just racial minorities, or of women, but also of white men who owned no property.

So to say that liberty does not somehow factor into itself the idea of everyone enjoying its fruits seems to me to be an inherent fallacy (I realize others would disagree with this premise). And if everyone enjoys its fruits there must be rules on how that works -- and rules equal certain limits.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:37:33 -0000

No of course not, duh. Its not about increasing diversity its about a return to ideals of Liberty and belief in the individual over the central government. That belief in ideals that span race, gender, orientation, or socio economic status. It is bigger than those petty difference that you feel the need to cling to. Who cares if you are woman, man, black, white, as long as freedom is the ultimate goal. Freedom from socialism, from govt. interference and a healthy respect for individuals rights is something that goes beyond those petty classification that you Tracy scanned the crowd for. Are you trying to tell me that the poor, the minorities, and the down trodden don't believe in Liberty? Get passed the diversity thing if there is one thing that we should all believe in and support its the Freedom to pursue the American dream. Whatever that means to each individual person. If you want true respect for diversity it is time to get passed the idea that a government is ever going to be able bring you diversity and start having a belief that individual rights are the truest and best way to ensure diversity.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

marjorie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:14:13 -0000

Thomas, I'm willing to keep an open mind about there being a movement for reform with the R's. But frankly, I don't think the "reform" you speak of is about increasing diversity within the party. But if that is the case, I look forward to seeing it. While I don't think the R's would call it "reform" I do think the strategists among that party recognize they need to become more diverse if they want to remain a viable party in the long run.

In the meantime, I see no reason to not point out the obvious. And to the point of bias, as Trip pointed out, this is the commentary column and we are not discussing anything I reported. But even if we were, I think my comments are pretty straightforward and verifiable by anyone who wants to take the time to do so. As New_Mexican has done already.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

new_mexican — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:58:07 -0000

Marjorie Childress, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Especially about the shift in the Republican party. Lyndon Johnson predicted that the south would be lost to the Democrats for generations when he signed the Civil Rights Law. No fan of LBJ here, but he was right. I watched both conventions and also saw the lack of diversity. To the point that they seemed to search for faces of minorities.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:48:09 -0000

So your critique is product of the limited environment in which you were raised? Sounds like a recipe for generalizations....Or just biased reporting maybe? We have already commented on the broken power structure of the Republican establishment.....Your further indictment that all Republicans are represent by a scan of the convention crowd, shows only an inability to look outside of what you want to believe. Did you pay any attention to tens of thousands of "Republicans" on the other side of town at the Rally for the Republic. The people of the Republican party know that the neo-cons have decimated the party, that is why they are so heartily embracing Palin. Its not a race gender socio economic thing its a reform thing.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

marjorie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:25:52 -0000

Thomas, I am simply pointing out what scans of the crowd emanating directly from the stage in both cases, Democrat and Republican, showed on every night of the convention. On multiple different stations. As to partisan rhetoric, what you've heard from me is not a defense of the Democrats so much as a critique of the Republicans...something that is well within my purview since I was raised within the environment I describe almost completely.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:14:55 -0000

Major premise flaw with that argument is that network coverage is not good for anything. I recently had very liberal Dem friend comment about how biased toward the Dem convention the network media has been. It is disgustingly partisan. I would not use that as a basis for supporting your arguments. For example there was a huge piece on the horrible support by corporations of the GOP convention. Yet not a peep (other than Heath's article) about the fact that the dems had the exact same corporate sponsorship....As person who subscribes to neither party this pandering by the media to one party is disheartening and I wonder what other lies they must constantly feed to the American public.

Majorie you partisan rhetoric does nobody any service at all. Certainly not the trade of journalism.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

marjorie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:58:17 -0000

The point is not that individual Republicans are "racist" or "sexist"...it's that the Republican party is not diverse in terms of race. And the next question becomes then, why is that? If the network coverage of the conventions is good for anything, it's for showing the stark difference between the two parties. You know, not everything is conveyed with words (although Tracy did a great job of describing it!).

Also, it's not good enough to say regarding the Republicans that, well...that's just the leadership, the base is a lot more diverse. Even if thats true, it would still point to the fact that the Republican party has a serious problem with diversity. It's a problem if you believe, as many do, that diversity is a political, social, and economic "good" in and of itself.

Finally, I hope others caught the irony of Cindy McCain proudly describing to a room full of primarily white people that they are the party of Abraham Lincoln. Too bad she couldn't round out her statement with the fact that the segregationists took over the party in the latter half of the 20th century. This is not an ad hominem attack either--it's a historically verifiable fact. By segregationists, I'm referring to a large percentage of southern Democrats who did not like the outcomes of the civil rights movement, and who consequently hopped parties--leading to the south and Texas going Red.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

thomasjames — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:39:54 -0000

Mr. Jennings and Mr. Aragon..... Thank you those are well reasoned and fair comments, both our political parties suffer from huge deficiencies of one sort or another and as long as the American public is content to allow these two entrenched establishment parties to continually air the dirty laundry lists of each other as grounds for voting then we will get nowhere. It is time for one of two things: 1. Complete and utter reform/housecleaning of both parties, or 2. A viable third party alternative that instead seeks to reach compromise of the values that are important to majority of Americans. As long as these parties continue to serve the special interests and continually sling mud unnecessarily no real change will happen in this Country. No real change from Obama or McCain unless you fix the deeper systemic problems.

Oh, first and foremost American need to stop relying on the government to fix their every problem. The message of both of these candidates is "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you" It needs to be the other way around. People should not only do it for themselves, but they should voluntarily help one another. We need a government that encourages that instead reliance or belief that a govt. should be helping you fellow man instead of you.

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

trip — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:26:05 -0000

ProudRepublican, please read Tracy's stories in the news columns to get a sense of what she did for us before you lambaste the Independent. The news stories, found in the center column, are straightforward and focus on New Mexican Republican delegates' reactions to Sarah Palin's and John McCain's speeches. They seem pretty innocuous. But perhaps you disagree.
The piece in the left column, which you obviously have read, is running as a commentary. As such, people are free to express their opinions, which is what the author did.
Also, surely there are other words and phrases beyond "bigot" that you can use to express your displeasure with the author's observations and opinions. We definitely want to encourage a free exchange of opinions, but name-calling does not foster that.
If for some reason you think the author is implying that Republicans are bigoted, let me remind you that she never uses the word. She shares her experience of attending both conventions and then she throws out questions.
Perhaps to push back on the point of the column you could cite various things the Republican party has done to attract people of color, as in President Bush's campaign to woo Hispanics. Or you could try to answer one of her questions: Do Republicans wonder why there aren't more people of color?
I'm sure some, if not many, do. Perhaps there is something you could say that would add to the discussion and educate all of us on the strategies Republicans are using to reach out to various constituencies. A political party, as you well know, is not monolithic and has many voices competing to be heard.
I know this is a touchy subject for many people. But please, let's try to keep name calling out of this thing. And that goes for everyone!

Re: Glaring differences between Denver and St. Paul

bleve — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:50:41 -0000

Proudrepublican, I don't think the Republican party needs any help in destroying itself. For that matter, the Democratic Party is pretty good at that also. Your response is akin to screaming and pointing in someones face. If you have something smart or witty to say, please say it without the written "SCREAMING" and personal attacking nature. And if you are unable to do that, please use your real name so that people get a sense of who is really communicating in this manner... and what particular affiliations and background you may have.

If I remember correctly from one of your earlier comments, that "Obama is merely a candidate because he's black." I'm sure he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review because he was black right? That statement is the definition of bigotry my friend.