It takes one to know one

This morning, little Moe Lane is as delighted as a school boy that Mark Halperin called President Obama "kind of a dick."

First of all, it takes one to know one, Moe. And secondly, the president was not being a dick; you're being a dick, Moe.

Moe Lane's approach to blogging involves a now-familiar combination of assholery and asshattery.

In "Obama’s class warfare… against Obama’s stimulus program," Lane attributes the following statement to President Obama: "I've said to Republican leaders, 'You go talk to your constituents and ask them, "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?"''' Obama uttered these words during his press conference yesterday. (But in what context? More on that later.) Lane's source, NationalJournal.com, argued that Obama is engaging in class warfare:

If President Obama's news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.

• Rich versus Poor.
• Us versus Them. 
• Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don't.

In Obama's world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets. 

As a sidenote, I should point out that if Obama is engaging in class warfare, it's not as if he fired the first shot. The class war has been in progress for decades now, and the plutocracy is unfortunately winning. Republicans accuse Democrats of engaging in class warfare in order to get public opinion on their side and thereby manipulate Democrats into laying down their arms. In general, Republican politicians think that sacrifices for the general welfare must be borne by the middle class. Do they really expect us to take this lying down?

In any event, if you want to know what Democratic and Republican politicians are for, just look at what they want to spend money on.

Anyway, Lane calls the president "shameless" and "clueless" for making the statement:

It’s shameless because President Obama has only one rhetorical trick, and that’s to demonize everybody who disagrees with whatever faux-Hegelian position he’s ended up taking on any given day.  It’s particularly clueless because what the President apparently doesn’t know is that the latest iteration of the tax break in question was put into place as part of Barack Obama’s own 2009 “stimulus.”

First of all, I actually read most of Hegel's The Phenomenlogy of Spirit, and I have no idea what Lane is talking about. What is a "faux-Hegelian position"? That sounds like pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me. Secondly, how does Lane express factual disagreements without demonizing the people with whom he disagrees? What advice would he give the president? Is Obama being too "uppity" for his taste? Republicans want to cut government programs and hand out tax breaks to wealthy people. That's a fact. Lane needs to learn the difference between challenging Republican positions and demonizing Republicans.

Lane accuses the president of hypocrisy. He cites a Fox News story from February 2009 as his source, though I quote it at greater length than he:

Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.

"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita. 

So, according to Lane, the president is a hypocrite for supporting tax breaks for businesses that buy aircraft in 2009 and condemning similar tax breaks in 2011.

Has Lane been living under a rock for the past two years? Though many Americans are still hurting badly, the recession is over, and the domestic political focus has shifted from stimulus spending to cutting the deficit. Lane assumes that the present political and economic climate is more or less the same as it was over two years ago. That's just stupid.

Further, Lane seems to assume that if a person supports a tax break at one time, that person must support that tax break at every time or else be a hypocrite. That's also just stupid. The fact that a tax break is appropriate at one time doesn't show that it's appropriate at every time.

For whatever reason, Lane is reasoning like a child or someone who is brain-damaged, not because he himself is a child or brain-damaged, but because it serves his political purposes to simplify this debate.

Lane points out that Republicans did not support the stimulus bill that contained tax breaks for aircraft purchases. So it seems odd to him that the president is scolding Republicans for supporting tax breaks for businesses now. But Republican politicians were against the stimulus then (even though one third of it was in the form of tax cuts) and in favor of tax cuts now because their default position is to be against whatever that black guy in the White House advocates.

Before I finish, I should provide you with the context of the quotation from the president's press conference that Lane is moaning about:

So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done. Or, we’re so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist — that’s the reason we’re not going to come to a deal.

I don’t think that’s a sustainable position. And the truth of the matter is, if you talk to Republicans who are not currently in office, like Alan Simpson who co-chaired my bipartisan commission, he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position.  Pete Domenici, Republican, co-chaired something with Alice Rivlin, the Democrat, says that’s — he doesn’t think that’s a sustainable position. You can’t reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix.

And the revenue we’re talking about isn’t coming out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling. It’s coming out of folks who are doing extraordinarily well and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born.

If you are a wealthy CEO or a . . . hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it.  You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet; you’re just going to have to pay a little more.

And if we — I just want to emphasize what I said earlier. If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships. If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service. It means that we would not be funding critical medical research. It means that food inspection might be compromised. And I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break. And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be.

Look, I'm not in love with this president. He hasn't been as liberal as I would have liked. But Lane is just being a dick. If you read the quotation in context, the president's position on deficit reduction is actually quite moderate: cut government spending, but tax those who are doing extremely well in this economy so that we don't need to cut programs that huge numbers of Americans rely on. The position is obviously more moderate than the Republican position, which appears to be to address the deficit merely by crippling and eliminating whole government programs.

Moe, stop being a dick.

Republicans sense that they now have an opportunity to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal America, and they're attempting to seize it. I think that they're actually making a huge mistake. Even Paul Ryan acknowledges that failing to raise the debt ceiling will result in cuts to "vital programs."  And consider the following diagram:

Everyone knows someone who has benefited from at least one of these programs. I've benefited from three of them. But as the diagram shows, many people don't know that they have benefited from government social programs. One way to inform them of that fact is to start hacking away at their budgets. Do Republican politicians really believe that their party won't pay dearly one day for the kinds of cuts they want to make? Have they forgotten those Tea Partiers who urged them not to touch their Medicare? While their ability to alter our perceptions of reality with political spin is impressive, it is not unlimited.

Update. Here's Andrew Sullivan's reaction to Halperin's (and Lane's) claim that the president was being a dick:

In the negotiations with the Republicans, Obama and the Dems have offered a couple of trillion in cuts. The Republicans have refused even to discuss increasing tax revenues in return. For the president to react with understated anger strikes me as perfectly natural and overdue. 

Could Lane's latest be the worst RedState post ever?

RedState's Moe Lane is moaning about a "contemptible" letter signed by leaders of police, firefighters, and teachers in Wisconsin and sent to the President of Marshall & Ilsley Corporation in Milwaukee. The part of the letter Lane quotes reads as follows:

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company.

Here is what Lane says about the letter:

Now, this would not be a contemptible letter if it were signed by members of private sector unions.  Private sector unions work in trades, and they have the right to make informed business choices (and even uninformed ones).  But public sector union members are supposedly public servants - and they are expected to avoid even the hint of impropriety in their labor disputes.  This is a barely-veiled threat from the cops and the firemen that organizations subject to the anti-labor reform boycott cannot expect a prompt and effective response from them in case of emergency.  Simply put, there are different standards of behavior for emergency responders.  Stricter ones, because being a repository of the public trust carries with it an expectation of behavior that is appropriate for that trust.  This letter harms that trust.

Stop.  Let me explicitly say that I do not believe any pious excuses along the lines of “That’s not what they meant!”  This is precisely the kind of let’s-imply-without-saying, sneak behavior that we’ve all come to expect from union ‘negotiators.’  Let me also explicitly say that the cops and firemen have nobody but themselves to blame for making anybody trust them less as a result of this letter: if they don’t want people to have legitimate concerns about public ’servants’ taking partisan sides, then public ’servants’ shouldn’t take partisan sides.  

I am inclined to interpret Lane's post as uncharitably as he has interpreted the letter he's moaning about. Rather than take the high road, I will emulate the behavior exemplified by those conservative bloggers who also happen to be assholes such as Lane and pay Lane back in his own coin.

According to Lane, the members of private sector unions have the right to make business choices. The implication is that members of public sector unions do not have the right to make business choices. Is Lane seriously suggesting that once a person joins a public sector union that that person surrenders her right to make business choices? Is Lane seriously suggesting that the members of public sector unions can be forced to do business with M&I Bank? Is Lane seriously suggesting that persons cannot collectively choose not to do business with this or that corporation? How free can a market be when persons cannot make free choices within that market? Conservatives claim that they are in favor of free markets, but many of them (including Lane, evidently) really aren't (which is something that I have known for some time).

The threat being made in the letter is a potential boycott of goods and services provided by M&I Bank, and that's it. It is clear to anyone who has a command of the English language that the people signing the letter and the members of the groups they represent are threatening to not do business with M&I Bank. That's what a boycott is. And it is abundantly clear that that is all that is being threatened in the letter. If Lane thinks that he can tell people who they can and cannot do business with, then he can go fuck himself.

Lane, however, claims that he has detected an implication in the letter that emergency responders will not respond as promptly and effectively to emergencies involving M&I Bank if M&I Bank does not express opposition to Scott Walker's union-killing bill. I detect no such implication whatsoever, either in the passage Lane quoted or in the rest of the letter. Lane insists that it's there: remember, he says, "I do not believe any pious excuses along the lines of 'That’s not what they meant!'  This is precisely the kind of let’s-imply-without-saying, sneak behavior that we’ve all come to expect from union 'negotiators.'" It doesn't matter, then, what the letter says: if the letter contains the threat, it's in there, and if the letter does not contain the threat, it's still in there. That is why, in the final analysis, Lane's post is a miserable, worthless piece of shit.

Did you know that Scott Walker's union-killing bill does not apply to police and firefighter unions? According to the New York Times,

The new law weakens unions representing public sector employees by limiting bargaining to wages, restricting raises to inflation, increasing the amount employees pay for health insurance and pensions, and giving union members the right not to pay dues. It also requires unions to hold annual votes to determine if workers still want to belong. The law exempts firefighters and law enforcement personnel. 

Why would it exempt firefighters and police officers? Because they tend to vote Republican, while teachers tend to vote Democratic. The bill targets teachers' unions because the bill is an attempt to weaken the Democratic Party in Wisconsin and make the Republican Party more powerful as a result. Funny, then, that Lane would claim that public servants should be politically neutral, when the political views of cops and firefighters were obviously a consideration in the design of Walker's union-killing bill.

Think about what Lane is alleging. Does he seriously mean to suggest that if there is a fire at a branch of M&I Bank, that firefighters won't respond as quickly as they otherwise would and subsequently endanger innocent human lives? Is Lane seriously suggesting that in the event of a bank robbery at a branch of M&I Bank, police officers will lollygag on their way to the scene and again put innocent human lives at risk? Seriously?

Lane's insane post tells us virtually nothing about labor relations in Wisconsin, but it speaks volumes about Lane himself, and this is what it tells us: even if you tend to be conservative and vote Republican, if you cross Lane on an issue like this, he will plunge the knife in and twist it. Lane's post ends with the following words:

If I lived in Wisconsin, I would be pounding the table right now and demanding that every signatory to that letter hand in their badges.  Since I don’t, it’s incumbent on Wisconsin citizens to make an answer to this.

 Indeed you would, Moe, indeed you would. Because you are a prick.

RedState's whopping adolescent non sequitur

You have no doubt heard about the threats and vandalism surrounding the vote on health care reform in the House March 21.  Talking Points memo prepared a catalog of the mayhem for your perusal should your memory need refreshing. 

RedState's approach to this phenomenon has been one whopping adolescent non sequitur. 

I know I'm a bit late with this, but I am lucky enough to be employed full time.  I do what I can.

Erick Erickson's general approach has been to avoid his own party's complicity and blame Democrats for the whole thing. This isn't surprising, as I have said before, given the Republican Party's refusal to take responsibility for anything. He and Moe Lane love to point out that Republicans are also targets of threats and vandalism. According to Erickson:

The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. . . . I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn’t a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now.

Erickson says that Democrats shouldn’t be surprised and that they were playing with fire by passing the health care reform bill.  In another post, Erickson writes, "We’re not the ones stirring the pot of socialism taking over the private sector. The Democrats are. We’ve just been pointing out the facts that . . . the Democrats find so inconvenient including, yes, the so called 'death panels.'" According to Erickson, "[H]ad the Democrats not done what they did none of this would be happening. . . . Oh, and let’s not forget Alan Grayson on the floor of the House saying the GOP wants people to die." (Erickson, of course, conveniently neglects to mention Republicans warning Americans that they would die if health care reform were passed.)  In that post, he repeats the claim that Democratic supporters are also guilty of violence. "[I]f we go back to the August townhalls," writes Erickson, "7 out of 10 violent acts were by Democrat supporters. And now? Police say the bullet that hit Eric Cantor’s office was most likely random, but it is not definitive. What about the threats his office has gotten in the past week? What about the threats Congresswoman Schmidt received or the other Republicans?"

Moe Lane's glee in pointing out violent behavior among Democratic supporters is apparent. In the post "DNC successful: Ablemarle County GOP HQ attacked," Lane quotes a report that "someone threw bricks through the headquarter’s [sic] windows, breaking three of them." He writes, "If I were the Albemarle County GOP, I’d send the bill for the windows to the Democratic National Committee. After all, they adamantly refused to take responsibility for their own rhetoric, so it only seems fair that they at least pay out some monetary compensation for their demagoguery." Lane also reports, "[T]he United States Attorney in Philadelphia filed 'a two-count complaint and warrant . . . charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family.'" You can probably guess what Lane's response is to uproar over Sarah Palin's "reload map." He directs us to a Verum Serum post blaming Democrats for the same fundraising tactics, i.e., using maps and language that "are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting."

To summarize, RedState's response to the vandalism and threats by Republican supporters and their incitement by Republican leaders is as follows:

1. Democratic supporters are guilty of vandalism and threats; 
2. Democratic leaders are guilty of inciting those acts. 
3. Democrats were asking for it.  

Now, what is wrong with this response?  Well, when one summarizes it as I have, the fog lifts and its problems come into view.  Let's just grant the truth of (1).  It wouldn't surprise me if some Democratic supporters resort to criminal acts.  And if (1) is true, then (2) probably has a kernel of truth in it.  Whether we hold a person A responsible for the actions of another person B, however, we have to ask: what did A do to incite B to act?  The more inflammatory A's behavior or language, the more responsible A is for inciting B.  And though I don't have the time now to do this research for you, there is no question that the behavior and language on the right has been far more inflammatory than behavior and language on the left.  One would have to be uninformed or in the grip of a partisan fantasy to claim otherwise.  The right has all of the "responsibility-free talkers on television and radio" as David Frum puts it.  The left has MSNBC, but their rhetoric simply doesn't compare to that of, say, Michael Savage.  While RedState is quick to blame Democratic leaders for inciting their supporters to criminal behavior, however, they say absolutely nothing about the culpability of Republican leaders for inciting the same behavior. 

But the more important question is this.  Let's suppose that (1) and (2) are both true.  What possible relevance does that have to this issue?  In the end, the correct answer is, I believe, "None."  The issues are these: Republican supporters have been threatening Democratic lawmakers and committing vandalism, and Republicans are responsible for inciting some of their behavior.  Erickson addresses the first issue by saying the behavior must be condemned.  But he does so in passing; he clearly seems interested in other matters.  By accusing Democratic leaders and supporters of doing the same things, they aren't really addressing the issue at all; they are shifting their (and our) attention to something else that only seems to be related simply because it is on the same topic, i.e., threats and vandalism. 

Why has RedState chosen to respond to the threats and vandalism in the way that they have?  Let's survey some possibilities.

1. Erickson and Lane are saying that the behavior of Republican leaders and supporters is permissible since Democratic leaders and supporters are guilty of the same behavior.  Everyone is familiar with this method, employed by children, of justifying objectionable behavior.  And anyone familiar with logic knows that this maneuver is a fallacy.  One cannot justify the behavior on the right merely by claiming that some people on the left engage in the same behavior.  Erickson asserts repeatedly that we ought not condone the threats and vandalism, however, and I would like to be charitable and take him at his word.  But if I do, then it would seem to follow that Erickson himself does not recognize the irrelevance of his own comments on this issue.  Therefore, either Erickson is resorting to the child's method of self-defense, or he is unaware of a basic point in rudimentary critical thinking texts. 
2. Erickson and Lane are saying that all such behavior is wrong, and consistency demands that anyone who condemns such behavior among Republican leaders and supporters condemn the same behavior among Democratic leaders and supporters.  Perhaps they are criticizing the media for failing to cover and condemn criminal acts by Democrats.  Anyone who has read RedState enough knows that their bloggers buy into the myth of the liberal media.  On the other hand, it is probably true that most of the behavior in question has been perpetrated by Republican leaders and supporters, so naturally it will receive the lion's share of the coverage.  But even if we interpret them as having this motivation, it is clear that they are attempting to divert attention away from the issues at hand and toward alleged objectionable behavior among Democrats.  
3. Erickson and Lane are worried that the threats and vandalism reflect badly on conservatives, so they are concerned with pointing out that liberals also engage in the same behavior in order to reestablish parity.  Sorry, RedState, but this isn't going to work.  There's a reason that stereotypical Republicans are portrayed as an intolerant, prejudiced, fearful, anti-intellectual, gun-toting regular folk having compassion only for corporations: because there is some truth in that stereotype, and Republicans have been nurturing that stereotype for decades by appealing to just that sort of person for support.  And for that reason, attempting to graft a similar stereotype onto liberals comes off as a bit desperate and absurd.  Of course, stereotypes can only be generally true, if they are true at all.  There are plenty of Republicans who do not fit the stereotype: I know a few.  But even if we suppose that this maneuver does work, how is it relevant to the matter at hand?  It is not. Again, they are diverting your attention away from the issues at hand and toward alleged objectionable behavior among Democrats. 

Finally, let us consider (3): Democrats were asking for it.  This is not the first time I have dealt with this kind of argument from the right.  Even The Onion has dealt with it.  If the threats and vandalism ought to be condemned as Erickson claims, then why claim that Democrats were asking for it?  If the behavior in question is wrong, then it doesn't matter what the Democrats were asking for.  The behavior ought to be condemned, and that's that.  All kinds of reprehensible behavior can be excused in this manner: had he not been so annoying, he wouldn't have been assaulted; had she not dressed so provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped, and so on.  It makes it sound as if the victim is to blame: he shouldn't have been so annoying; she shouldn't have been so attractive, and so on.  But is it true that the Democrats ought not to have passed health care reform?  They were lawfully elected and lawfully passed the legislation.  Democrats did nothing wrong.

So we see that RedState's response to the threats and vandalism is a non sequitur: it is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. But RedState isn't interested in sound thinking.  The fallacies they commit are convincing, especially to a readership that has been groomed to accept them.  For them, if Democrats enact legislation to which they are opposed, and Democratic supporters engage in criminal behavior, perhaps incited by a handful of Democratic leaders and pundits, then there is nothing wrong with spitting on congressmen, referring to congressmen with the n-word, threatening congressmen, and damaging private property.  They were asking for it, after all.  And this comes from the family values, law and order party.  Republicans truly have lost their souls.

I've had enough.

It appears that RedState has given Moe Lane the job of spinning reports of violent behavior by right-wing nutjobs immediately before and after the health care reform vote in the House on March 21.  Their entire approach to this phenomenon is one whopping non-sequitur.  More about that in a future post.

In his latest poorly argued piece of propaganda, Lane claims that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who is believed to have been spat upon by a protester March 21, made the whole thing up.  His evidence?  Cleaver doesn't want to talk about the incident.  In an obviously biased report produced by a Fox "News" affiliate, Cleaver said:

All I'm saying is that we all have to diffuse it and I think that it is not in my best interests or the best interests of this nation to stoke it, and I've avoided doing it, and I'll continue to do that. 

Cleaver's decision not to talk about it is motivated not by an unwillingness to face those who accuse him of lying, but rather by a desire to elevate the debate from the immature racist name-calling of the protesters to something more civil and productive. 

It is incredibly easy to point out just how truly awful Lane's inference is.  Here's Lane's argument:

1. If a person does not want to talk about an incident, then that incident did not in fact occur.  
2. Cleaver does not want to talk about the incident.  
3. Therefore, Cleaver made the whole thing up.  

The problem with this argument is obviously (1).  (1) is clearly false.  Human beings everywhere decline to talk about things that have happened to them, for all kinds of reasons.  Many people don't like to talk about traumatic events in their lives, and sometimes need therapy in order to bring themselves to the point at which they can talk about them.  For Lane, if a woman tells a loved one that she's been raped, but refuses to talk about it or go to the police, then she must be lying.  Well, isn't that convenient for the rapist? 

Moe, your argument is a pile of shit. 

And Moe, don't bother me with any stupid objections like, "I didn't say that Cleaver was a rapist!" or "What does my argument have to do with rape?"  Take a critical thinking course and then get back to me.

If Lane's argument is so bad, then, why did he present it?  If you watch the Fox "News" video, you'll notice that the reporter interviewed Chris Stigall, a morning radio talk show host, in order to get his opinion on the story.  And what did Stigall say?

It's incumbent upon [Cleaver] to downplay it.  If truly he's interested in diffusing the anger and the hostility out there, then acknowledge, this [protester] was just wanting to be heard.  To even allow the myth for a week now to be out there that he was spat upon purposely, that does nothing to diffuse anything.  It just makes things worse. 

Lane took Stigall's comments and ran with them.  Stigall has clearly decided that Cleaver is lying.  How he knows this is a mystery.  And the subtle racism in his advice to Cleaver is unsettling.  Allow me to decode: "Just admit that nothing happened, leave that nice man who was screaming at you alone, and know your place.  When you're uppity like that, it just makes things worse."  It sounds very much like what abusers tell their victims in order to keep them quiet. 

I have no problem with conservatives expressing their views.  What bothers me are writers who, in spite of their nauseating smugness, have the critical thinking skills of a gerbil and a propagandist's complete lack of interest in truth and evidence.  To quote Bill James, "What we really need is for the amateurs to clear the floor." 

Updates.

1. Lane has updated his post with a link to a post on something called Weasel Zippers.  The post is signed "ZIP."  ZIP asserts that some claim or other is "100% bullshit." ZIP also writes, "If Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spit on he would be milking it for everything it's worth," rather than refusing to comment on it. ZIP also writes, "I interpret this as Cleaver backing away from his initial claim he was spit on. Again, proving it NEVER happened."  That's ZIP, showing us all how to jump to conclusions. 
2. My spouse thinks I may be jumping to conclusions by seeing racism in Stigall's opinion.  Maybe I am.  But I doubt it, and this is why.  Conservatives are arguing that, among all of those protesters, no one used the n-word and no one spat on the congressmen.  Seriously?  Isn't it more plausible to believe that among all of those protesters, some of them used the n-word, and one of them actually spat on a congressman?  Their position on this matter is prima facie implausible and much more difficult to defend than mine.  So why would they argue for that position?  Well, they have a partisan axe to grind, of course.  But it wouldn't surprise me if some latent racism is a factor as well.