It’s just typical conservatives trying to think they have a gotcha on liberals. It doesn’t make sense, because they fundamentally refuse to understand our side, but it looks good to the choir.

The conundrum here is that religion occupies a unique space somewhere between philosophy and ethnicity. Technically it’s just like any other system of thought; but in reality its race-in-drag. Most people inherit it, for all practical purposes. So attacking it becomes a form of racism.

In contrast, secular philosophies enjoy no such protection. We generally hold them responsible for bad stuff committed under their name. Meanwhile positioning OBL as a not representative of Islam, or even as a clear corruption of the doctrines, is generally approved off and is indeed a long standing platitude deployed by people of good will after every Islamic terrorist event in order to keep the peace.

That’s because If religious people start being held responsible for what’s in their texts then all hell will break loose. The arraignment we have is to let it go. That’s why no one calls Romney a racist for praising the founder of Mormonism but Trent Lott can’t catch a break after complimenting the leader of the states-rights party.

Did this happen in a specific instance? If so, where and when? Or is it a general problem that I missed? Thanks.

The question was asked at last night’s debate and the questioner was boo-ed by the audience.

Indeed, the question went to the precise concern that many voters might have—“if you really believe in this submission stuff, does this mean your husband gets to overrule your presidential decisions?”.

Wow, someone managed to ask that question? I guess I should bother to watch the debate.

By the way, I suspect the reality of this is that Bachmann was lying when she said her husband ordered her to get a law degree and she submitted. Bachmann may be many kinds of crazy, but someone who blindly obeys her husband’s orders (or anyone’s orders) does not strike me as consistent with anything we know about her. She just said that because she was catering to people who she knows thinks that Jeebus commanded in Teh Bible that wives submit to their husbands.

Just like Phyllis Schlafley, a lifelong career woman, didn’t actually think that women had to stay home and be housewives.

But having made that bed, Bachmann has no ground to claim sexism when reporters make her lie in it.

But remember - pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, or of the White House with a watermelon patch on the front lawn are IN NO WAY an indication of racism…

Damn, now I’m not only female, but too short?!

The GOP doesn’t understand what sexist means.  They truly believe women are less than.  Remember John McCain’s confusion when asked why he didn’t pick a more qualified woman as a running mate?  No woman is as qualified as the least qualified man.  Hillary was just a placeholder for Bill to have a third term.

Liberals are always trying to hoodwink people by claiming “discrimination”.  Of COURSE Bachmann’s husband will be advising her.  He’s a man and therefore more qualified.

Women and minorities are simply shields for their handlers.  If you criticize them, well, that’s sexist (or racist) and that’s considered BAD nowadays.  You can’t ask Bachmann or Palin hard questions because it’s sexist!  Nyah!  Take that liberals!  How do you like them apples!  If you disagree with her, then YOU’RE a hypocrit! 

How could a *woman* be sexist?  That doesn’t make sense!  The only reason to nominate a woman or minority is because liberals have made it impossible to attack them on the merits.

Worked with the Clarence Thomas nomination.

Incidentally, I just read this piece of Bachmann apologetics:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/12/martin.bachmann.submission/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Here’s a key paragraph:
“But the most important thing that folks must accept is that submission is a personal part of someone’s faith. If York was trying to get at whether Bachmann would follow the advice of her husband on all matters, he needs to understand that if she was president, that role is her job.”

Big fail.  What if JFK were to say that his Catholic faith commands him to take orders from the Pope? What if he didn’t say that “he believe[s] in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act…where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope”? If Bachmann says that her faith compels her to delegate (heaven forfend) presidential decision making to her svengali, be it her beloved gay-curing shaman of a husband or Dick Cheney or Skeletor, we as a sociery have every right to ask probing questions.

Martin concludes with this:
“What York and others must understand that if you’re unwilling to question a man about tenets of his faith, then don’t have a different standard for a female candidate.”

Or maybe we do scrutinize the beliefs of people, men and women, when those beliefs relate to their specific duties in office.

Oh, conservatives. They’re so convinced that liberals who point out sexism or racism are just playing some mud-flinging game, and they desperately want in on it. But they don’t understand that there are rules, and you can’t just shout “Sexist!” at anyone who asks a woman a question.

This reminds me of the Phyllis Schaflys of the world, they make careers and gain power by telling women that they were made by god to have neither

“My husband said, now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. Tax law, I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, ‘Be submissive.’ Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands,” Bachmann told the crowd at the Living Word Christian Center. “Never had a tax course in my background, never had a desire for it, but by faith, I was going to be faithful to what I thought God was calling me to do through my husband, and I finished that course of that study.”

I think that warranted a follow-up question.  However it is because of sexism that it’s possible to ask her and only her about the implications of her faith.  Christian fundamentalist men do not get asked if they think women are inferior.  Women’s inferiority is a pillar of US culture, no way you could get away with questioning it and pointing out the sexism in the dominant religion.  However, you can ask a question that demands a woman either admit out loud the nasty reality that according to fundamentalist Christianity she’s inferior, or deny her religion.  The Republican party has made religious beliefs about women’s inferiority a plank of their platform, but only the woman is asked about whether she thinks women are inferior.  Obviously the way to fix the imbalance is to ask the male candidates the same types of questions, not to allow it to pass without comment.

In a general sense, it’s a huge conservative faux pas to call conservatives on the batshit insanity of some of their views.  So that might be a big part of it—most conservatives don’t believe much of anything, they just signal for their tribe.  Indeed, taking most of this stuff seriously is a sign of Not Being A Conservative.  You’re supposed to make a huge show of taking it seriously, not actually do so.

Please allow me to pimp a diary I wrote for dKos:

http://dailykos.com/story/2011/04/10/965409/-The-tribal-model-of-conservatism?via=blog_680457

This is why I’m irritated by Villagers talking about how having visible Republican women means we’ve made some sort of progress as a society. It doesn’t count if they’re all Serena Joy retreads.

“You can’t ask Bachmann or Palin hard questions because it’s sexist!”

You can’t ask Palin hard questions because it overloads all the short circuits in her brain and her vocabulary explodes into a mess even Dubya can’t match. Sure, it’s a goldmine for Colbert and Stewart, but otherwise not really worth the time.

Trying to understand how this woman can be such a staunchly sexist and homophobic politician while simultaneously being a beard for her seemingly self-loathing closeted gay husband makes my head hurt. I can’t even begin to imagine the massive amount of cognitive dissonance going on between her ears. I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for her.

It’s all gonna be moot tomorrow anyway, because all of her Bible-thumping supporters are gonna jump ship to get on the bandwagon of the socially conservative candidate from Texas who has the one thing that she lacks which prevents her from having any legitimate shot with the crowd she panders to the most - a penis. Watch her poll numbers plummet once Governor Goodhair hits the trail.

I know very little about Rick Perry other than that he’s not particularly well-liked within his own state, and that many consider him to be a clone of George W. Bush, except dumber and meaner.

Discoball help us all if the “dumb and mean” version of Dubya gets elected president next year.

#13:

It’s true that it is unequal that only women candidates are asked this. But at the same time, it is actually more relevant for them.

If Rick Santorum, for instance, believes his wife must submit to him, that DOES make him a sexist pig, but it doesn’t mean that he won’t be making the decisions as President himself.

If Michele Bachman truly believes that she must submit to Marcus, that not only makes her a sexist, but ALSO calls into question whether she will be making decisions as President.

So there is a justification for asking female candidates who espouse this BS about it.

The funny thing about this is - no, in this instance asking her if it would be her husband running things was not sexist, because her own words have very strongly indicated that that’s how she thinks it should be.

But it reminded me of the same assumptions being made in a situation when it *was* sexist - when people (mostly on the right) insinuated that were Hillary Clinton to become President, it would basically be four (or eight) more years of Bill, because they believed he’d be running things behind the scenes. The difference of course is that Hillary never, to my knowledge, has said anything at all along the lines of women being submissive to their husbands, and clearly is not the kind of woman who believes in that sort of thing. So to ask her a question like that or to make that assertion was sexist because it was based not on her own professed beliefs but on the right’s beliefs about her, and they had no problem at all flinging that crap around. With Bachmann, the question comes from her own clear statements, not from bullshit people made up because they don;t like her.

However - I will not waste my breath trying to explain this to the RWers whining about poor Michele being the victim here. Sexism is only sexism when the purported victim is a Republican, OBVIOUSLY. Just like “reverse racism” is totally a way bigger problem than regular old racism. Yup.

Dilan- Pardon, why is it not relevant that the candidate is a sexist pig, completely regardless of whether they are the one making the decisions?  That’s my point actually.  It’s not enough to be a sexist pig- that part’s not even worth mentioning.  Why is it worthy to question whether the candidate will be making their own decisions, but not whether they think half of the population shouldn’t be allowed to make their own decisions?

@Alison

And that assumption that Hilary would be Bill 2.0 is funny because during Bill’s reign I can clearly remember umpteen-bajillion jokes about how “Hilary’s the REAL president, haw haw haw.”  MAKE UP YOUR MIIIIIND, PEOPLE!

@BonAppetit: I know, right? But it’s part and parcel of being a Republican these days. I mean, how many instances of this have we had:

Republican Politician (a month ago/six months ago/two years ago/whenever): I support X.

Barack Obama (today): I support X.

Republican Politician (three seconds after Obama): OMG X IS SOCIALISM AND WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY AND MAKES BABY JESUS CRY

God, these people suck.

Alison,

This.  Cap & Trade, a Republican idea from the Bush I era, is now demonized as economy-destroying over-regulation.  Bachmann used it to needle Pawlenty during the debate.

“Obamacare,” that communist scourge, is awfully similar to 20-year-old Republican health care reform proposals, and practically identical to the mandated health insurance passed in Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts.

I’d bet money that if/when Romney is the Party nominee, he’ll bash ACA as un-American and our idiot media won’t bat an eye.  Questions about his hypocrisy will get vigorously booed, and he’ll act affronted that someone would dare question his patriotism.

Again, conservatives don’t have “positions.”  They have “signals.”  Tribal membership is all.  The idea of a policy position is an inherently liberal idea.  It implies that there exists an objective reality which is not determined by tribal elders.  American conservatism is a reaction against the Enlightenment—it is, in all seriousness, a rejection of the idea that there is a universe which can be observed, described, and affected, and that said universe can affect us.

American conservatism hates America so much that it hates reality, because it has America in it.

I think McCain was confused about ‘qualified’ because he had to choose a Republican.  No Republican is more or less qualified to shoot from the hip.

Also, I think there’s something different between being against fundamentalism and against, say, Islam.  Because I don’t think Manju knows this.  Osama bin Laden isn’t special because he’s islamic, he’s special because he’s a fundamentalist terrorist.

Crissa: I mentioned Romney as well. He’s not a fundamentalist Mormon but yet he enjoys the special treatment of which we speak. If Mormonism were not a religion, then he would be treated like Trent Lott.

Indeed, Bachmann’s sexism is rather ubiquitous to Religion in general. If Christianity were a secular philosophy, it would be fair game to ask every Christian politician about it’s sexism…just like its fair to ask Allen Greenspan about controversial aspects of Rand’s system.

I understand Bachmann opened her mouth about it b/f being asked, wheras fellow Christian Barack Obama has the decency to keep it in the closet…but the point is Greenspan doesn’t have to open his mouth about a specific Randian belief in order to make a question about it socially permissible.

Manju, I don’t think it is fair to imply that Obama’s beliefs about women are similar to Bachman’s, just because they both identify as Christians.  Christianity is an incredibly diverse religion.  Obama is UCC, by far the most liberal Christian denomination.  Yes, sexism and misogyny are rampant in the Bible but many liberal Christians are able to disavow those portions of the Bible as relics of an ancient civilization. 

Now Obama, as a man in a patriarchal society, undoubtedly harbors some sexist attitudes, even if unconsciously, but I don’t think that has much to do with his religion.  And he and Bachman—an open, unequivocal sexist—are not in the same category. 

(I should mention that I am not an apologist for Christianity, nor am I Christian myself.  I just think it is important to distinguish among various stripes of Christianity.)

And you’re a libertarian? These people would take away your right to smoke pot and watch porn! Aah, the stupid: it burns!

lmao! oh trolly troll troll. i’m so very glad i’m not either one of those locas. what a miserable life it must be.

I missed the part of my Women’s Studies course where they told us that we should get married to hunky guys, have loads of kids, have a successful career based on stomping on other women, and be hot.  I am a bad feminist.  :(:(:(:(:(

I missed the part of my Women’s Studies course where they told us that we should get married to hunky guys, have loads of kids, have a successful career based on stomping on other women, and be hot.

That part came right after Libertarian put the bong down and began wanking. Again.

How hilarious that two of the benefits Libertarian pointed out, the ones having to do with success, are the ones Palin and Bachmann would take away from other women. Even the mouthbreathers understand what women really want and why they want it, no matter how hard they pretend not to.

??? Libertarian, is that snark? Are you seriously looking at that dance video and seeing the American Dream? And somehow saying that in comparison the Obamas are, what, miserable and without affection for one another? Really? Really?????

There aren’t enough L’s and O’ on my keyboard to express how funny this is to me.

Back when JFK was running for president and was asked whether he would take orders from the pope because he was Catholic, that was an improper and discriminatory question because it was based solely on an assumption that all Catholics are alike and all of them take orders from the pope.

The submission question to Bachmann was different because she has publicly stated that she does follow orders from her husband.  No improper or discriminatory assumptions there, just requests to clarify what she actually said about her own life.

And of course she claimed something different from what she said before so we have to make a judgement about which one was the lie:  When she told the Christian group that she does submit to her husband’s orders, or when she said at the debate that they merely respect each other’s opinions.

I prefer this video of a gorgeous woman with a successful career in business and public policy—that was built while raising beautiful children—dancing with her hunk of a husband.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pzlZPRvx8

Damn, that video still makes me cry. 

Bachmann doesn’t have the capacity or depth of self to evoke this level of pure, positive emotion in people.  Her politics are based on hatred and violence, and her legacy will bring tears to people’s eyes for an entirely different reason.

Great marriages with hunky guys.

Don’t have much to say about Marcus Bachmann’s “hunkiness”, but I assure you that Michele Bachmann’s role as the beard wife for her closeted gay husband is probably far from being a “great marriage”.

Manju, I don’t think it is fair to imply that Obama’s beliefs about women are similar to Bachman’s, just because they both identify as Christians.  Christianity is an incredibly diverse religion.

I’m not implying that. I think the assumption is always that the leadership class is faking it. To paraphrase Machiavelli, while the Prince must never be too religious he must always appear to be religious. This way he’ll have the goodwill of the people, which Machiavelli identified as a Ruler’s most powerful asset.

Bachmann’s got everyone frazzled because we think she really means it. You can always come up with a pretext to ask Obama a similar question. I mean, how many female pastors have there been in the churches he’s attended?  But we don’t ask because we know he’s read Machiavelli.

But we don’t know if Bachmann did. Upon closer inspection, she does appear to be just another populist demagogue, as opposed to the scarier true believer, as her reply to that very question indicates. She seems like the most polished person on the stage frankly. Her anti-gay stuff is probably just a way for Marcus to make some money (off the government) and have an outlet for his own gayness.  In the tradition of Machiavelli, let’s be blunt.

The last time we had a lunatic in the oval office was Lyndon Johnson. And he delivered on the very issue that he was a lunatic on. (Yes its true, for those of you unaware. We had this convo before so don’t bother to protest. Just google or read Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent”). This doesn’t mean you should vote for Bachmann of course. I certainly would not have voted for JFK/LBJ. But it puts things in perspective. 

What a nice change they’ll be in the White House

Are you insane?

Conservative people spend a lot of time accusing liberals of sexism, racism, elitism, all sins they clearly indulge in. I’m sure they get a kick of the supposed cleverness of this pre-emptive strike. If you insult the other side enough you eventually become either immune to the charge yourself, since you can cast your opponent as petty - and eventually drag the debate down to your level.

By the way, I suspect the reality of this is that Bachmann was lying when she said her husband ordered her to get a law degree and she submitted. Bachmann may be many kinds of crazy, but someone who blindly obeys her husband’s orders (or anyone’s orders) does not strike me as consistent with anything we know about her. She just said that because she was catering to people who she knows thinks that Jeebus commanded in Teh Bible that wives submit to their husbands.

I halfway suspect that she’s got a system of managing and manipulating his orders so that they’re likely to suit her, and the complaint about tax law is just camoflage. My grandmother used to do that—-when she wanted to give my grandpa advice and have it actually taken seriously, she’d get one of his (male) hired assistants to suggest it to him. Michelle Bachmann might have chosen tax law herself, but presented the question to Marcus in such a way that he thought she would prefer something else, so that he got to exercise his authority fully by telling her to go into tax law—-she gets what she wants so long as she complains about it, and he gets the warm fuzzies every time it comes up in conversation about how he’s such the Dude In Charge that he got to make his wife study something she hated.

The last time we had a lunatic in the oval office was Lyndon Johnson. And he delivered on the very issue that he was a lunatic on. (Yes its true, for those of you unaware. We had this convo before so don’t bother to protest. Just google or read Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent”). This doesn’t mean you should vote for Bachmann of course. I certainly would not have voted for JFK/LBJ. But it puts things in perspective.

Manju, I’m getting that you have little love for LBJ. If Johnson was a lunatic, I say bring on the lunacy. What issue do you think that LBJ was a lunatic on? Civil Rights? The Great Society? Johnson did indeed deliver on these and was our last great liberal president. I wish Obama could commune with the spirit of LBJ every day. Johnson was an essential president in the history of our nation. No one else could have navigated the Civil Rights Era (I capitalize it like a war, because it was) with the right mix of nuance and force. Could JFK really have backed down Wallace? Johnson achieved these goals.and understood there would be a price. He predicted the Southern strategy and the Tea Party, which is really the same thing.

I have said before that the way to disarm post-Confederate Tea Party culture is to present some Southern whites as heroes of the civil rights movement . LBJ is such a hero, so are Ben West of Nashville, and Houston political fixer and Foley’s department store head Bob Dundas. They make me proud to be a white southern American

Oh, I get it. Vietnam. I don’t give a shit. The recently released archive tapes show how much Johnson was against it early on and you gotta remember that in spite of all the protests, the majority of Americans were for more involvement early on. I hate what happened to our soldiers and what happened to the people of Vietnam, but if Johnson had lost in ‘68 because he pulled out of Vietnam do you think things would have gone better there, and Civil Rights would have gone out the window as well. Welcome to a restored Jim Crow or race war.

BTW, getting back on topic. This was a perfectly legitimate question to ask Bachmann. If she said she follows orders from Marcus, the people need to know what exactly that might entail. To ask a woman who had never said such things whether her husband would exert great influence on the presumption that a husband has authority would be sexist. To ask Bachmann in light of what she has said is not sexist.

This may be a double post. Things got screw in preview:

The last time we had a lunatic in the oval office was Lyndon Johnson. And he delivered on the very issue that he was a lunatic on. (Yes its true, for those of you unaware. We had this convo before so don’t bother to protest. Just google or read Robert Caro’s “Means of Ascent”). This doesn’t mean you should vote for Bachmann of course. I certainly would not have voted for JFK/LBJ. But it puts things in perspective.

Manju, I’m getting that you have little love for LBJ. If Johnson was a lunatic, I say bring on the lunacy. What issue do you think that LBJ was a lunatic on? Civil Rights? The Great Society? Johnson did indeed deliver on these and was our last great liberal president. I wish Obama could commune with the spirit of LBJ every day. Johnson was an essential president in the history of our nation. No one else could have navigated the Civil Rights Era (I capitalize it like a war, because it was) with the right mix of nuance and force. Could JFK really have backed down Wallace? Johnson achieved these goals.and understood there would be a price. He predicted the Southern strategy and the Tea Party, which is really the same thing.

I have said before that the way to disarm post-Confederate Tea Party culture is to present some Southern whites as heroes of the civil rights movement . LBJ is such a hero, so are Ben West of Nashville, and Houston political fixer and Foley’s department store head Bob Dundas. They make me proud to be a white southern American

Oh, I get it. Vietnam. I don’t give a shit. The recently released archive tapes show how much Johnson was against it early on and you gotta remember that in spite of all the protests, the majority of Americans were for more involvement early on. I hate what happened to our soldiers and what happened to the people of Vietnam, but if Johnson had lost in ‘68 because he pulled out of Vietnam do you think things would have gone better there, and Civil Rights would have gone out the window as well. Welcome to a restored Jim Crow or race war.

BTW, getting back on topic. This was a perfectly legitimate question to ask Bachmann. If she said she follows orders from Marcus, the people need to know what exactly that might entail. To ask a woman who had never said such things whether her husband would exert great influence on the presumption that a husband has authority would be sexist. To ask Bachmann in light of what she has said is not sexist.

If Johnson was a lunatic, I say bring on the lunacy. What issue do you think that LBJ was a lunatic on?

He was a segregationist.

No one else could have navigated the Civil Rights Era (I capitalize it like a war, because it was) with the right mix of nuance and force.

I dispute this. Civil Rights was wildly popular. As early as the 30’s polls signaled a majority in favor, and bills always sailed thru the House. Then they hit the Senate where they would die, not because of a lack of support, but because of rules designed by Dems to exaggerate the power of segregationists…like Senate Majority Leader LBJ…who proceeded to kill civil rights.

LBJ as Prez got legislation thru because there was no LBJ in the Senate. (Mansfield was Majority Leader and Dirksen was Minority, both pro-civil rights)

Could JFK really have backed down Wallace?

JFK didn’t want to back down Wallace. That’s why he put a Segregationist in his VP slot. That’s why James Eastland endorsed him. Do you think Malcolm was telling us what he had for dinner when he said the chickens had come home to roost?

Johnson achieved these goals. And understood there would be a price. He predicted the Southern strategy and the Tea Party, which is really the same thing.

He was wrong. Dems did not lose the South for 30 years. They lost it in 30 years. Quite a difference.

Virtually no dixiecrat Senators or Reps migrated to the Rs (really) and the region was a Dem stronghold on the state, local, and congressional level up until 1994. And LBJ helped them maintain it. For instance, he had the audacity to use Goldwater’s pre-64 pro-civil rights history against him. He famously tried to label King a communist.

(You probably think this is some sort of RW propaganda but I assure you it is not. Pick out any point you dispute and I will substantiate it with academic non-RW sources.)

^hook, line, sinker.

Virtually no dixiecrat Senators or Reps migrated to the Rs (really)

Strom Thurmond, but you knew that already.

“I dispute this. Civil Rights was wildly popular. As early as the 30’s polls signaled a majority in favor, and bills always sailed thru the House. “

Oh, bullshit. Gallup surveys clearly demonstrate that most Americans didn’t have any problem at all with the treatment of blacks well into the 1970s.

^hook, line, sinker.

I never learn.

Oh, bullshit. Gallup surveys clearly demonstrate that most Americans didn’t have any problem at all with the treatment of blacks well into the 1970s.

Its not that simple. There are various aspects to civil rights. Gallup in ’37 showed large majorities, even in the south, favoring anti-lynching Legislation. The bill sailed thru the house, as I mentioned, and the NAACP had a filibuster-proof 70 senators in favor (verbally). But still FDR did not get it thru. Why? Look up “gentleman’s agreement”.

At the end of the day, whites had problems with some aspects of civil rights (interracial marriage) and few problems with others (voting rights). You can find the nuances here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674745698/thevolocons0d-20/

By 1964, 60-70% of Dems (House, Senate) voted for the cra. Repubs: 80%. 1965 vra is 82% / 94% (Senate D, R respectively). Those are pretty hefty margins.

This reflects what the National Opinion Research Center surveys found. 73% of whites in 1963 (in book above) supported the right of blacks to use the same parks, restaurants, and hotels, as white people. 79% of whites rejected segregation of public transportation. NORC data stretches back to 1942, where 54% of whites held similar positions.

With numbers like that, one wonders what the problem was. Well, the problem was the men like LBJ and their mastery in using senate rules to kill in committee what they were unwilling to kill in a final vote. The fact that LBJ did not have to face LBJ in 64, goes a long way in explaining how the bill passed.

46% of whites held similar positions in 1942, you copied the Volokh Conspiracy post wrong.

Was there some controversy about a religious question asked of LBJ that’s common knowledge?  I feel a little left out about what he has to do with Bachmann.

46% of whites held similar positions in 1942, you copied the Volokh Conspiracy post wrong

I stand corrected but going back to the original source now, it was actually 44 in ’42, 78% in 63, (and 60% in ’56 when LBJ killed such provisions one year later)

Was there some controversy about a religious question asked of LBJ that’s common knowledge?  I feel a little left out about what he has to do with Bachmann.

I characterized LBJ as a lunatic like Bachmann, because support for segregation is crazy and the Dixiecrats are the quintessential American demagogues.  Bachmann’s opposition to gay rights and religious jingoism parallels this. This was at the tail end of comment about Machiavelli’s dictum that the Prince must always appear to be religious while not actually being so.

Anyone who has read biographies of Orville Faubus or George Wallace knows that its almost certain they were faking it too. Clinton said so much about Byrd recently. Fritz Hollings (a minor segregationist) admitted to this as well. And then of course there is LBJ.

I suspect Bachmann is in this tradition. That’s what this has to do with her.

Look, you plagiarized Ilya Somin’s Volokh Conspiracy post and got it wrong.  And now you’re trying to correct me with wrong information?

Manju: going back to the original source now, it was actually 44 in ’42

Schuman, Bobo, and Steeh:

Segregated Transportation (NORC): “Generally speaking, do you think there should be separate sections for Negroes in streetcars and buses?” % No 1942: 46%

Does this person often come in and make walls of half made-up, half plagiarized text?  What I don’t understand is what weird kind of a kick anyone could get from doing that.

Wood ‘drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’  You got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea…? (quoted from Good Will Hunting, transcribed on the site American Rhetoric)

Look, you plagiarized Ilya Somin’s Volokh Conspiracy post and got it wrong.  And now you’re trying to correct me with wrong information?

If I had plagiarized the VC post, you would’ve linked to it in order to bust me. But you didn’t, did you? Here it is for everyone to see:

http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discrimination-law-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

I took the data from VC because google books no longer had that page up for “Racial Attitudes in America”.  I took data and facts from other sources too. The Gallup poll on Lynching and the fact that the “NAACP had a filibuster-proof 70 senators in favor (verbally)” comes from “The Politics of Federal Anti-lynching Legislation in the New Deal Era by Isabelle Whelan.” Here it is:

http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/1569/1/Whelan_Isabelle Dissertation complete.pdf

I got the tally of votes on the 64 and 65 cra from the NAACP’s “The Crises” magazine, which chronicles the inner workings of civil rights legislation in excruciating detail. I get it from the NY Public Library, which I’m right across from but I’m sure you can find it somewhere.  The stuff about LBJ’s segregationist days I already referenced Caro’s “Means of Ascent”.

The notion that legislation lagged the polls is not a unique one to the VC post. Whelan brings it up in her paper but more importantly it’s a very common complaint in civil rights circles. The consensus view in the movement was that the ‘64 bill was late. It could’ve easily happened much earlier and certainly in ’57. The huge majorities in the final vote illustrate that, as well as the NORC data. Somin didn’t originate the idea.

You are correct that these are not my own original ideas, but rather narratives I get from a host of academic to original sources. Also, most of what I write are facts, not ideas (like LBJ was a segregationist). But the point is I’m consolidating a whole wealth of scholarship for you in a blog comment. I’ve always offered to reveal sources upon request as I did earlier in the trend.

Also, the new data that doesn’t align with the book I got from the NORC website. You can see it here:

http://www.norc.org/nr/rdonlyres/5e417f5b-96c8-43c5-bf3d-6910a7106be0/0/norcrpt_119.pdf

Is anyone else here old enough to remember “Vote for Lurlene, let George do it”?

Nimravid @ 53: in a word, yes.

OK, thanks, helen.  I won’t waste my time after this then.  I’m wondering if Manju doesn’t know what plagiarism is?  Some people think that if they change a few words of someone else’s writing that it’s not plagiarism anymore.  But in fact, that’s usually the form of plagiarism you see at schools- a little change to keep google from busting you.

Like if you change

http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discrimination-law-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

Ilya Somin • May 24, 2010 4:30 pm

Similarly, 73% of whites questioned in a 1963 NORC poll embraced the view that “Negroes should have the right to use the same parks, restaurants, and hotels, as white people.” The same 1963 study also showed that 79% of whites rejected the idea that transportation in streetcars and buses should be segregated, compared to 54% who had endorsed it in 1942

to this:

Manju: This reflects what the National Opinion Research Center surveys found. 73% of whites in 1963 (in book above) supported the right of blacks to use the same parks, restaurants, and hotels, as white people. 79% of whites rejected segregation of public transportation. NORC data stretches back to 1942, where 54% of whites held similar positions

That’s not only plagiarism, but it was altering Ilya’s words to make it look like you had independently arrived at his conclusions by reading his source for his comment.  It destroys credibility, because making a summary is one thing, altering someone’s analysis of a book slightly and passing them off as your own analysis straight from the book is very dishonest.  And if you can’t even copy someone else’s work accurately, it reflects very badly.

Manju, please don’t “consolidate a whole wealth of scholarship” for me.  To do that correctly would take citing your sources (not “on request,” but whenever you are directly using someone else’s work) and accurately representing them.  I work as a scientist, and this kind of theft of someone else’s work is completely inexcusable to me.  It is not a benefit you are providing other people.

Likewise, you didn’t take facts from Isabelle Whelan’s dissertation, you took sentences:

Whelan: Public opinion was also in the bill’s favour: a Gallup poll of January 1937 showed large majorities favouring anti-lynching legislation, even in the south.

Manju: Gallup in ’37 showed large majorities, even in the south, favoring anti-lynching Legislation.

Getting caught once at this at my university would have been an instant expulsion, no appeal- but inexplicably you have shamelessly linked to the sources you stole.

That’s not only plagiarism, but it was altering Ilya’s words to make it look like you had independently arrived at his conclusions by reading his source for his comment.  It destroys credibility, because making a summary is one thing, altering someone’s analysis of a book slightly and passing them off as your own analysis straight from the book is very dishonest.

I read the book independent of Solim. That’s how I was able to cite interracial marriage (which the book graphs) and voting rights (which are mentioned but not graphed b/c of one datapoint only) even though Solim does not mention them.  I didn’t have access to the book at the time I commented so I took the data in regards to public accommodations from Solim, and cited the book. I recall, from plagiarism accusations against Allen Dershowitz, that such practices (citing the original source) are acceptable.

What’s not acceptable is passing off Solim’s conclusions as one’s own when they in fact come from Solim. But if I were relying on Solim, how to explain not only the use of interracial marriage and voting rights, but other datapoints not even coming from the book?  There is the ’37 Gallup poll in regards to lynching. The fact that the anti-lynching bill sailed thru the house (the most representative body). The fact that the other civil rights legislations also sailed thru the Houye (57, 60, 64, 68).  And the percentage vote by party of the 64 and 65 cras in the Senate.

That leaves the similarity between Solim’s sentances and mine. I’m referencing the same data in the same order as Solim, which reflects the fact that I took the data from him.

Likewise, you didn’t take facts from Isabelle Whelan’s dissertation, you took sentences:

You are alleging one sentence is similar. If you want to use a plural, lets look at the paragraph in question. Fist me and then her:

Gallup in ’37 showed large majorities, even in the south, favoring anti-lynching Legislation. The bill sailed thru the house, as I mentioned, and the NAACP had a filibuster-proof 70 senators in favor (verbally). But still FDR did not get it thru. Why? Look up “gentleman’s agreement”.

The NAACP claimed support from almost 70 senators, easily enough to pass the measure if it came to a vote. Public opinion was also in the bill’s favour: a Gallup poll of January 1937 showed large majorities favouring anti-lynching legislation, even in the south.

I used Whelan to get make sure ’37 and 70 were the correct numbers. But I could’ve used any number of sources for that.

inexplicably you have shamelessly linked to the sources you stole.

I linked because I have nothing to hide.

Nimravid @ 53: in a word, yes.
OK, thanks, helen.  I won’t waste my time after this then

An assertion with no proof is enough for you. This doesn’t give me confidence in your fairness.