You should have stayed in the race, you're a natural politician.

These cheap, blunt and unfounded racial charges only generate disrepute for you, Brian. You're showing yourself in a bad light here. This racism tactic from Davis and from you rates several orders of magnitude worse than any complaint you might ever have had about the old Willie Horton ads. I would like to think that you were more honest or more decent than this. Then again, you ARE a Democrat.

With cheap, vicious demagoguery like this, it's a wonder you're not in congress.

Al,

I don't know which charge you feel is unfounded.

1. Slate.com columnist Timothy Noah's charge that Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to distance himself from Kurt Waldheim?

2. Washington Post columnist Terry Neal's charge that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a member of and donated money to an anti-immigration group founded by John Tanton?

The foundation for these charges is well-documented in both articles. Calling the claims "cheap, blunt and unfounded" does not make the documentary foundation for them disappear. Nor does citing the Slate and Post articles render me less than "honest" or "decent," I don't think. How exactly does that work, pray tell?

This messenger refuses to be shot.

But this messenger will consider challenges to the evidence and arguments in the above articles. Of course, Al, to provide these challenges I'm afraid that you might actually have to read the articles in question.

come on... he gave like what? 8 MILLION dollars away last year?

He's prolly been gearing up to run for quite some time now, he's prolly begging to get on any advisory board just to get the press.

What's a shame is that the terminator is getting more press than the frontman for T.S.O.L.

I'm sure that he would veto a bill and announce "You're terminated!"

Yep, a regular rogue's gallery. Between this and the wiener pics, I don't know, Brian. What do the polls say?

I've written about Tanton and his group on Mac-a-ro-nies, but was not aware of the connection to Schwarzenegger.

What do the polls say? The polls say Arnold could never survive the scrutiny that would come with a primary election followed by a general election, so he's taking advantage of Darrell Issa's abuse of the recall process to sneak into the governor's mansion.

I say, you don't bring a feather to a gunfight. The Republican attack on democracy deserves nothing less than a full-scale counter-attack. If they can impeach a president over a blowjob, disenfranchise black voters in Florida, re-district Texas seven years ahead of schedule, and pay $1.7M to provoke a recall so they can get a candidate in with 20% of the vote...well, I think it's okay if our side calls a spade a spade.

I also got this idea today.

You are charging that Arnold is a "racist." I find it difficult to imagine that you could truly believe that. In modern American society, that's the deadliest accusation you can make. Murdering someone would not be considered as bad in some quarters as having a bad attitude toward black folk.

For starters, you know that being critical of illegal immigration does not make you a "racist." You're trying to make an intellectual package deal with the implication that if you favor enforcing US immigration laws, then you're about the same thing as George Wallace and Lester Maddox. You know better.

Your phrase "You don't bring a feather to a gunfight" seems to be used to defend a kind of shameless political demagoguery- that it's ok to say ANYTHING, even if it's not true or relevant if it will help you win. Telling the truth and fighting straight would constitute bringing a feather to a gunfight.

In truth, everyone knows that Arnold has gone way out of his way over a period of years to blend in with Jews in particular. He's spent a lot of time and donated a lot of money to the Simon Wiesenthal center, and purposely sought sensitivity training and asked them to investigate his own dad. What do you want him to do?

You know all this. You know that Arnold has no history of abusing people based on race. You don't care though, if you can use it push people's hot buttons.

To put it directly, you're saying and implying things that you know are not true in an attempt to inflame the rabble by hitting emotional hot buttons. This is the very textbook definition of being a "demagogue."

Al,

As usual, you claim that I make claims that I don't make, and your refusal to use quotations to support your accusations is typical. What is it that you have against quotation, Al?

I think from now on I will refuse to respond to any accusations you make without using quotes from me to back them up. We probably won't be talking much.

But for old time's sake...

I claim that this statement is racist:

As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?

...you're saying and implying things that you know are not true...

Al, I, a person of color who is very sensitive to racism, believe Brian Flemming is bringing needed exposure to this issue. I hope he will not be dissuaded from mentioning racism by your attack.

I believe Brian is saying that in his desire for popularity, Schwarzenegger has covered all the Right Wing bases, including those that cross into racism, such as Tanton's organization. (Which, BTW, is often touted at American Renaiisance, VDare, LOS and other explicitly racist sites.)

I also must take issue with this remark:

"For starters, you know that being critical of illegal immigration does not make you a "racist." You're trying to make an intellectual package deal with the implication that if you favor enforcing US immigration laws, then you're about the same thing as George Wallace and Lester Maddox. You know better."

The anti-immigration people are often racists. They use complaints about illegal immigration as a pretext. In reality, they are opposed to all immigration of non-whites. Their full argument is that people of color are inferior beings and not assimilatable. That is precisely the view expressed in the material Brian quoted.

Are you sure you are not just defending Schwarzenegger, an ill-suited candidate for governor, just because he is a fellow Right Winger?

Ya want quotes? How about your TITLE: "Another Schwarzenegger racist connection." The clear implication of the title, the only reason for having it, the only reason for this post is to argue that Schwarzenegger is a racist on the basis of guilt by association. That's a very weak basis for laying the most serious accusation you can lay on an American. If you're going to smear him with race, you'll have to come up with something much stronger.

Actually, you did say that he was a member of a white-supremacist group. Is that the same as personally calling him a racist? Additionally, you talk about context, but I'd assume there was more to the memo than was quoted. Given the tenor of the quote, you're certainly free to make assumptions, but whether or not they're correct remains to be seen. Lastly, was Waldheim ever convicted? Just a rhetorical question, I'm not saying he shouldn't have been, but as you seem to have a command of all the issues involved I suppose you could enlighten us as to why not?

Diva- Girl, if you think Schwarzenegger is somehow "right wing" then I'd scare you plum to death.

If Schwarzenegger has in fact had a history of showing hatred and unfairness toward non-Arnoldians, then sure it would be a great public service for Brian to bring them forth. However, insistently smearing him with the label in the absence of significant evidence to support it is a particularly wicked libel.

If he doesn't want to be associated with such views, I believe Schwarzenegger should distance himself from folks with a racist or anti-Semitic taint.

Yep. That's how it works for other pols.

According to their own website, U.S. English was actually founded by S.I. Hayakawa. Anybody know about this guy? Was he some big racist, anti-immigration activist?

From an online chat with Washington Post columnist Terry Neal:

Los Angeles, Calif.: As a member of US English, I was very disturbed by your column. You devote most of your space to a litany of "hate group" insinuations and one memo written by one person to tar the organization (and presumably, candidate Schwarzenegger) as hatemongers, before (finally) conceding the possibility that a lot of regular, decent people also support the organization and its goal: that English should be our common language.

Forcing local governments and health care providers to provide translations and printed materials in each of the 100+ languages used by immigrants is ridiculous, but if you DO insist on translating into Spanish, then why not Chinese? Then why not French, Swedish, and Urdu? It's one thing to take these stands but it's another to ignore to their (il)logical conclusions.

This is the same error used by those who attack anyone who questions the ability of this country to absorb unlimited immigration as "racists," without ever considering the inevitable consequence of their "open borders" position. There are literally billions of people living in poverty, and there's only one way to determine which of those get to immigrate to this country--legislation. We, of course, have legislation, but for some reason it's OK to ignore those laws.

Don't assume that all immigrants will vote in lockstep with LaRaza and the rest of the "minority" majority. Many immigrants, especially those with children, strongly prefer that their children learn English as quickly as possible.

Terry Neal: Thank you for your note. But I'll respectfully disagree. This is not a six degrees of separation thing here. The founder of your organization, as well as the current spokesman are either white supremacist or at least hold some views that could be considered such. The point of my column was not to say--and I clearly make this point--that Schwarzenegger should not be considered guilty by association. But he should--as member of the board of advisors of a group with very clear policy objectives--discuss his involvement with the organization and his association, if any with some of the controversial people in it. It could very well be that he has perfectly acceptable explanations. But given his refusal so far to talk about any substantive policy matters, we don't know the answer to these and many other questions.
Secondly, even if he has absolutely no association with the controversial people in your organization, there is still a valid question about his position on this issue. I don't say that either assuming that a majority of people disagree with it. But I am saying, many voters in California, on both sides of the fence, would like to know where he stands on the issue of English as the official language. Is that too much to ask?
Secondly, you present your side of the issue. But there is another side as well:
The issue is not whether immigrants SHOULD learn to speak English. Of course they should. No one disagrees with that. In fact, the vast majority of immigrants do, because they understand they cannot be successful in this country without learning English.
The other side of the argument is that people should speak English because the marketplace demands they do, not because the government requires them to, which is what U.S. English proposes.
If you disagree, that's fine. That's what America is all about.

You're Luggage!!!!!!

Wait, Arnold is involved with an organization whose mission statement is "English should be our common language." Stop the presses! It's Hitler all over again!!!!

JR, Hayakawa, a pol and academic, was a Right Wing nut case who did dumb things at the San Fran U. He's best known for his attacks on freedom of speech.

Hayakawa was an eugenicist, believing whites and Asians to be superior to other 'races.' (Ironically, he was also the father of an extremely retarded child.)

Here is a sympathetic description of the fellow.

You go, Brian! Responding with factual support for your position is the ticket.

Mad Diva, care to provide any documentation for the eugenicist claim? I didn't find anything with the cursory google search.

Holy smokes! Sorry I meant Mac Diva! Aren't I the Bustamante!

So, now I'm 'mad'?

The eugenicist connection was prominent when the old coot was alive. He liked saying stuff that insulted people of color. I suggest doing searches in Reader's Guide to Periodicals and other old-fashioned sources. I wouldn't make it up, 'pal.' You just need to search harder.

Nah, that's ok. Just sort of fits the same pattern of innuendo that Brian uses with such fervor.

So, now I am Brian?

It is called work, Joe. If you are not willing to do a little of it to learn about Hayakawa that speaks for itself.

That's right, Joe. If Mac Diva says that someone is an evil racist, then you should just assume that he is unless you can prove he's not. Now just shut up with this requesting evidence crap. Thank you.

Yes, well, I'm chastened. Actually, I was willing to do a little work and when I didn't find anything, I returned to the source. So, while Brian says he never called AS a racist but did call him a member of a white supremacist group and you called SH a a eugenicist but are unwilling to provide any background, I just have to wonder, why do you expect people to take you seriously when you make serious allegations but don't back them up?

Mac Diva,

A valiant effort. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to feed the trolls, does it?

Ouch! Namecalling? I don't think you could characterize my behavior as particularly vindictive or abusive. I'm just asking questions, which, of course, you've failed to address.

There may be plenty of reasons why Arnold is not qualified to be governor of the most populace state in the country, but I don't think racism is one of them. Obviously he should denounce Waldheim - I'm sure he will. And belonging to an organization that wants to tighten immigration laws does not make one a racist - the broader the brush, the more easily the paint washes off, or something.

Sits on the board of an anti-immigrant group.

and where was Arnold born again?

Hypocrisy, the American way

...the broader the brush, the more easily the paint washes off, or something.

Obviously he should denounce Waldheim - I'm sure he will.

Take some truth serum, Joe. You obviously need to. Despite its relative newness, Google is up on the connection between racism and Hayakawa. Your claim otherwise is completely without a basis.

I beg your pardon, I asked for info on a link to Hayakawa and eugenics which was in relation to your claim. You are providing a link for Hayakawa and racism. And while they're only different shades of ugly, don't really mean exactly the same thing.

Compare and Contrast:

Statement A: "I have not alleged that Schwarzenegger himself is a racist"

Statement B: "Isn't there something perverse about a member of a white-supremacist group (with a well-known Nazi problem) appealing for the votes of California Hispanics?"

Um, ok...

Oh, stop nitpicking, Little Joe. Anyone with common sense knows the eugenics movement is a form of racism. So, searching 'Hayakawa + racism' is an obvious thing to do. It is revealing that you did not do it.

Indeed it is, but the question I asked was pretty specific as was the statement you made. Forgive me for crediting you with the intellect to tell the difference.

Alright, you non-Arnoldians (that was pretty funny, Al), behave yourselves.

I saw a poll where Arnold is trailing a Democrat? How embarrassing for the Ripped One.

Let's see: Arnold favors abortion rights, gun control, (some) gay rights, and, according to his adviser, Warren Buffet, tax increases, including the repeal of Proposition 13 (yesterday's Wall Street Journal, front page). And the people defending him here are Republicans? What a great country. Maybe I won't move to Canada after all:)

I say let him win. What could possibly be the harm? His alleged racism notwithstanding (I think it's a bogus charge), he's a liberal's dream come true.

Mike, if Bustamante kicks Arnie's arse, I'm going to roll on the floor laughing. (And my floors are hardwood, not carpet.)

It would not be inaccurate to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger is to the left of Howard Dean.

However, he isn't this liberal's dream come true. I'll take a competent centrist like Dean over an inexperienced, arrogant liberal like Arnold any day.

And it isn't really Schwarzenegger's "alleged racism" so much as his insensitivity. He supported Proposition 187, doesn't mind being connected with an organization led by a white supremacist, and praised and supported Waldheim well after Waldheim's Nazi associations were clearly documented.

California can't afford a chief executive so blind to racial issues.

And, speaking of insensivity, there is evidence to suggest Arnold turns on the charm only when the cameras are rolling. If he truly treats women the way that every indication suggests so far--and not just rumor and innuendo, but documented and even videotaped incidents--he's not the kind of person I want running the state government.

I'm not talking about a little hanky panky here and there. I could give a shit. I'm talking about routine degradation and public humiliation of women (as well as male underlings), and I know from experience that movie stars do often develop these kinds of behaviors, because they can, to a far greater degree than any politician could dream of doing.

There are real questions about Schwarzenegger that need to be answered. And we have less than 50 days to get the answers.

And he's not talking much.

If it isn't the racism as much as the insensitivity than why isn't the post titled "Arnold Schwarzenegger insensitivity connection"? I personally view the CA recall as purely a source of entertainment, as I do the overheated responses to my comments. The reason I've posted here is because I felt you (and others) were getting a little sloppy with the facts or am curious for clarification, such as:

Is support for Proposition 187 directly correlated with racism?
Are you accusing the current or former leader of US English of racism, or both, or does it matter to you?
Did the UN ever formally repudiate Waldheim? If no, then why should it be required of anyone else? If yes, then what is the established standard for adequate repudiation?

Feel free to ignore my trying to engage you in actual civil discussion.

This Washington Post piece talks about Ah-nuld and his connection to US English.

1. When hispanics support repeal of bilingual education, are they committing racism against themselves?

2. If candidates should disavow racists, should Al Sharpton disassociate from himself?

3. If two people disagree about an immigration issue or a race issue, does the disagreement mean that by definition one of the people is anti-immigrant or racist?

4. When someone askes a specific question and the accusing parties fail to provide a specific answer, whether they change the subject or not, are the accusing parties conceding that they cannot answer?

As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night?

There's Brian Flemming, failing as always to answer my questions.

Here's an example of answering a question:

As for your question, assuming the premises are valid, I'd say, if whites see a decline in their power relative to other groups as demographics shift, yes, most will accept the changing times.