LOL @ Tom Tancredo jokes

Also, I'd like to point out that the front sight post on that M16 was upside down.

I think they're idiots too, but that's the thing I'm more worried about -- Tancredo knew what he was doing, and people cheered him on without necessarily understanding the point, or the historical context of the idea.

I hate doing the Godwin thing, but people being whipped into a froth by scapegoating a racial minority for the troubles of the day has a lot of really uncomfortable historical parallels with that German guy with the distinctive mustache.

I'd hate for the liberal desire to take the high road doesn't chill people's ability to freely discuss their concerns about politicians playing with fire like that.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Maddow was going out of her way to demonize them. She wants people to see them as being intentionally evil... I just think they're incompetant idiots.

My remarks weren't in defense of those at the convention. Maddow is very intelligent, but at times she colors her coverage of things in a way that makes me a little uncomfortable. It's fairly subtle though, and it only bothers me because I generally like her.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

Mostly, I think you're trying too hard here to make this into a case of Maddow being unfair to poor little Tom Tancredo and the teabaggers for insinuating that they might have understood the racist undertones in a speech given by a racist at a convention of people who've been saying some somewhat famously racist things.

Then again, what would be more disturbing: that people applauded literacy tests knowing what they represent, or that people applauded it not knowing what they represent?

If anything, I think the latter bothers me more.

Maddow was going out of her way to demonize them. She wants people to see them as being intentionally evil... I just think they're incompetant idiots.

My remarks weren't in defense of those at the convention. Maddow is very intelligent, but at times she colors her coverage of things in a way that makes me a little uncomfortable. It's fairly subtle though, and it only bothers me because I generally like her.

>> ^Psychologic:
Yes, he was being anti-immigrant, but Maddow was trying to imply that the entire convention was supporting overt racism. Honestly, I think they were mostly applauding the Liberal-bashing aspect of it.

I agree that we can't be sure whether the audience was hearing the literacy test dog-whistle. She wants to make sure that the people in her audience who might not have heard it, hear it, and are concerned about how many people in the room got the message.

Mostly, I think you're trying too hard here to make this into a case of Maddow being unfair to poor little Tom Tancredo and the teabaggers for insinuating that they might have understood the racist undertones in a speech given by a racist at a convention of people who've been saying some somewhat famously racist things.

Then again, what would be more disturbing: that people applauded literacy tests knowing what they represent, or that people applauded it not knowing what they represent?

If anything, I think the latter bothers me more.

> ^NetRunner:
To people who think there isn't race baiting going on, look up who Tom Tancredo is, and sifted clips of other comments from him.


Yes, he was being anti-immigrant, but Maddow was trying to imply that the entire convention was supporting overt racism. Honestly, I think they were mostly applauding the Liberal-bashing aspect of it.

I might feel a little differently about the literacy test suggestion if it were a larger part of the convention, but Maddow spent far more time talking about it than they did. It was worth mentioning for the "wtf" effect of it, but an entire segment on it?

Maybe it was balanced out by the rest of her show... she just seemed to be trying really hard to inflate its importance as much as possible.

To people who think there isn't race baiting going on, look up who Tom Tancredo is, and sifted clips of other comments from him.

Really, you just have to understand dog whistle politics. The whole point of it is to say something that could sound innocuous and defensible to the majority of people who hear it, but hits a keyword that's understood by the people it's meant for who you normally would publicly disassociate yourself from (e.g. people who pine for the days when black people couldn't vote). Plausible deniability is essentially the name of the game.

That said, even if you ignore the "literacy test" dog whistle, the "in English" part is pretty transparent anti-immigrant language.

I would agree that the dog whistles themselves aren't really shocking, or even the worst part of what he's saying. What he's really saying is that Democrats don't have a legitimate claim to power, even if they win elections, because he doesn't think the kind of people who vote for Democrats are legitimate citizens in the first place.

There's some muddiness about whether that's because he thinks they're ignorant, or because of their skin color (personally, I think it's clear he means for listeners to hear both aspects), but the message that Democrats have seized power through illegitimate means is the real insidious core message.

I'm not convinced there was any racial motivation behind Tancredo's comment. Of course his suggestion is unconstitutional, and someone should slap him upside the head for that, but crying racism seems premature to me.

If we had a civics/literacy test in order to vote, almost nobody would be able to vote. Especially not many members of the Tea Party Movement, including Sarah Palin and possibly Tom Tancredo.

Wow. An entire segment about one stupid comment from Tancredo to an ignorant crowd that never knew we had literacy tests and didn't even have time to consider the consequences and are just clapping at anything anyways. Getting weak Maddow, it's starting to get shrill.

So unless Obama does a Sambo Shuffle, he hates white people? This argument is very similar to what I hear from Christians who claim that they are oppressed. Unless everything is tailored to Pat Robertson's liking, Christianity is "under attack".

I hope that Tancredo and others of his kind can get used to a modern america, where no one group has dominance over others. In this world, you can't expect the rest of the country to kiss your ass all of the time.

I upvoted this because of the political debate, but I agree that we need a better representative to debate the lack of scientific merits to "intelligent design." Tancredo spouted so many false claims that Matthews could have challenged, but he probably didn't even know they were falsehoods. I'm no biologist, but even I could have called out Tancredo on half his bullshit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hillarious, election08, romney, huckabee, giuliani, tancredo, hunter, ron paul' to 'romney, huckabee, giuliani, tancredo, hunter, ron paul, the young turks' - edited by Fedquip

I'm no fan of Tancredo qualm but I agree with the message he's imparting here. I realize that you welcome open borders and the NAU but there's no need to call me names. Grow up.

You're an ignoramus.

Tom Tancredo's ties to white supremacists: http://coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=C03C90E3491511BC32581FD04FB1E594?diaryId=917

49 Kucinich Disagreements: (3) No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks

46 Gravel Disagreements: (0)

21 Richardson Disagreements: (6) Death Penalty, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

21 Paul Disagreements: (9) Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

19 Clinton Disagreements: (9) Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

18 Dodd Disagreements: (8) Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

17 Obama Disagreements: (6) Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

16 Edwards Disagreements: (8) Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

13 Biden Disagreements: (8) Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

-18 T. Thompson 9/14
-21 McCain 16/1
-22 Brownback 15/3
-23 Cox 13/9
-28 Huckabee 15/5
-35 Giuliani 17/3
-42 Tancredo 18/2
-50 Hunter 20/2
-53 Romney 21/3

I got Kucinich, which I expected, and Paul as #4, which is an accurate reflection of my position. I happen to oppose Paul on his states rights stance on abortion, but if your position is more nuanced then mine I can see it being more difficult to express your preference to the test.

I don't think that the test is necessarily skewed, I would say the candidates are skewed and the test mostly points that out. If you really are on the left, Kucinich an Gravel are really the only two left candidates on the field, it's hardly a surprise that people would get them.