The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board rejected an independent Wisconsin Assembly candidate’s request to label herself on the ballot as “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’”:
Unlike candidates from the established Democratic and Republican parties, independents are allowed a five-word statement of purpose on the ballot to explain to voters what their candidacy is about. Shane Falk, a staff attorney for the Accountability Board, said that the board had the ability to restrict obscene or derogatory candidate statements from the ballot.With one member absent, the board voted 3-2 in favor of reversing that ruling and allowing the wording. Under board rules, however, four votes are needed to overturn a staff decision.
As best I can tell, the relevant statute provides simply that, “Along with the names of the independent candidates shall appear the party or principle of the candidates, if any, in 5 words or less, as shown on their nomination papers”; I don’t know what statute or regulation gives the board authority to restrict the contents of those 5 words, and under what standards. I would be inclined to say that a viewpoint-neutral rule prohibiting vulgarities or epithets might well be constitutional, since the ballot is a state-created limited public forum. But I’m not sure exactly what rule is involved; please let me know if you know.
The candidate, Ieshuh Griffin, says this violates her First Amendment rights, and “says she will seek an injunction in federal court.” For a related example, check out the post about the Rent is 2 Damn High party.
cboldt says:
Just wow.
July 21, 2010, 5:37 pmTDR says:
Awesome post on so many levels. :)
July 21, 2010, 5:42 pmruufflees says:
Wait, isn’t this a First Amendment violation? Why can’t a major party candidate also get five-words?
July 21, 2010, 5:48 pmDave N. says:
Maybe “bitch” is considered offensive. While it is a word I might discourage a small child from using (even if describing a female dog), I am sure most Wisconsin voters would get over seeing the word on their ballots.
I can certainly see banning vulgarities and profanities (much like state DMVs do with personalized license plates) but this seems more than a little ridiculous to me.
July 21, 2010, 6:12 pmOwen H. says:
All else aside, “bitch” is barely vulgar. It is in fact the proper term for a female canine. Based on this ruling, a candidate could not use, “I’m not a Dick”, regardless of whether or not any of their opponents were named Richard.
July 21, 2010, 6:13 pmJoe says:
Interesting video in the article.
Per the Doe v. Reed case, this also seems noteworthy:
The board said Baldwin could continue to list her office address because, as an openly lesbian member of Congress, she said she had received threats.
Doe v. Reed:
“That petition, which by law must include the names and addresses of the signers, is then submitted to the government for verification and canvassing, to ensure that only lawful signatures are counted.”
Is a similar rule in place in Washington? Are people there allowed in such a situation to supply an office address? I guess it might be examined when the matter is remanded.
July 21, 2010, 6:22 pmrace to the bottom says:
Whoa, there, people. Is “bitch” the offending term or “whiteman?”
I’d think vulgarities would be more constitutionally protected than the injection of race on a public ballot, but IANAL.
July 21, 2010, 6:28 pmcboldt says:
I would guess the issue is “derogatory,” not obscenity. Must be a close call, 3-2 said it was acceptable.
July 21, 2010, 6:29 pmanomdebus says:
Owen,
You know very well that neither female dogs nor Richards are being referenced.
As with interesting cases, it is not clearly right or wrong.
I wonder what would happen if someone were to try to take advantage of how the brain reads words (a fan of French Connection UK* might put “fcuk fan”, which the brain might read differently if done quickly) or is obscene with whitespace removed (sorry, I am not clever enough to come up with two examples :( )
* initially attributed to Frank Cusack, shows what I know
July 21, 2010, 6:30 pmBama 1L says:
You either get your party name or a five-word description.
July 21, 2010, 6:32 pmSusan says:
Sigh… are the old-fashioned decency laws unconstitutional?
July 21, 2010, 6:32 pmTRJ (WI GAB Staffer) says:
The issue was indeed focused on the derogatory nature of the statement, not its vulgarity.
The five-word statement is meant to allow independent candidates to identify what party or principles they represent. Major party affiliation is presumed to identify the party or principles of major party candidates.
July 21, 2010, 6:39 pmOwen H. says:
Of course I know what is being referenced. I am pointing out the absurdity of banning a word that is acceptable in one sentence, but not another.
July 21, 2010, 6:49 pmRob Berra says:
One would fervently hope so.
But either way, “bitch” hardly rises to the level of “obscenity.”
July 21, 2010, 6:49 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Are they offended, or are they afraid that with that slogan she’d win?
People do weird things in the voting booth. Shelby County, TN almost had a certified lunatic (Prince Mongo of the planet Zambodia) as a mayor. I knew some people who voted for him. They didn’t understand why I was not amused.
July 21, 2010, 6:49 pmanomdebus says:
Owen,
July 21, 2010, 6:59 pmIt is not absurd for the reason you gave. One could posit a word that used in a different sentence, in a different language for example, that is unambiguously inappropriate by community standards in another sentence.
race to the bottom says:
Terrence Washington “not a Negro lover”,
Arian Boot “not the Jews’ pawn”
on a public ballot?
July 21, 2010, 7:03 pmKamal says:
Oh no! Not a curse word!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152651
Seriously though, people need to stfu with imposing their antiquated mores on society.
July 21, 2010, 7:06 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Kamal,
Seriously though, people need to stfu with imposing their antiquated mores on society.
Please refer to “race to the bottom”‘s comment immediately above yours. Are we talking “antiquated mores”? Or would you maybe have some sort of tiny problem with those hypotheticals?
July 21, 2010, 7:11 pmMac says:
It seems to me that beyond the vulgarity present here, you also have a racist sentiment. I don’t think it seems appropriate for the taxpayers to have to pay to be subjected to either the term or sentiment. Not everyone just got out of junior high school or acts like it and many would who are a bit more mature, will be seriously offended. Unlike so much else which is vulgar or offensive, we can do our best to avoid it or try to, if we so desire. A ballot, on the other hand, cannot be avoided if we choose to exercise our constitutional right to vote.
Where oh where is the “I am offended (fill in the blank) _____________________ crowd, when you need them?
July 21, 2010, 7:17 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The Constitutional standard is “no law,” is it not? And “bitch” as shocking profanity went out with blue laws, whites-only fountains and skirts-and-dresses-only dress codes for female lawyers.
“Bitch,” in fact, was a popular and commercially successful song — 40 years ago. It was released on a single from a top-selling album of the world’s foremost rock band. Those credentials appeared to resolve any “community standards” concerns — again, 40 years ago.
I doubt this badge would be helpful in a voting booth but — in a world in which familial trainwrecks such as the Kardashians, Palins and Osbournes are offering self-help advice (which, apparently, finds an audience) — who knows? It seems to me this candidate is entitled to test her theory of electoral attractiveness.
July 21, 2010, 7:19 pmMac says:
Owen H. says:
Of course I know what is being referenced. I am pointing out the absurdity of banning a word that is acceptable in one sentence, but not another.
Owen, just wanted to let you know that I would completely support your use of the term “bitch” on a ballot if the individual running was a female dog choosing to identify either her personality or her fertility/spay status.
July 21, 2010, 7:23 pmLaura Victoria says:
Shouldn’t “White Man’ be two words? She’d still fit within the five-word restriction.
Bitch is used routinely on regular network TV. And if the “white man” part is offensive, then that appears a content-based restriction. Personally, I think it’s hilarious. Would be even funnier if the candidate were male.
July 21, 2010, 7:24 pmPerseus says:
Based on our devolving standards of decency, it would appear so.
July 21, 2010, 7:26 pmPetep says:
What if someone ran and choose the phrase ‘All blacks are ghetto garbage’ ? Five words, no vulgarities.
Does ‘Ieshuh’ think THAT should be ‘protected speech on a ballot’ ?
July 21, 2010, 7:27 pmKamal says:
Those are offensive, of course, but I wouldn’t deny someone the right to put that on the ballot. In fact, allowing those statements on the ballot gives me essential information I need to not vote for them.
July 21, 2010, 7:29 pmrace to the bottom says:
Southpark standards mean candidates can slam Spics, Chinks, queers and fags and so many more. Anatomical parts, why not?
Or, is it that we’re all OK with bitch and whiteman being thrown at us on a ballot, but not so much the other, like mud people, redskins, slant-eyes, etc.?
July 21, 2010, 7:31 pmfirst history says:
I think its because “white man” is not a compound word.
July 21, 2010, 7:31 pmAJK says:
Perhaps she should be kept off the ballot altogether. After all, if she wins, the taxpayers will have to pay (through her salary) to be subjected to the term, the sentiment, and policies derived therefrom.
July 21, 2010, 7:32 pmGuest12345 says:
“Yes she is. Got pictures.”
July 21, 2010, 7:33 pmKamal says:
Or evolving standards of tolerance
July 21, 2010, 7:34 pmfirst history says:
“Bitch,” in fact, was a popular and commercially successful song — 40 years ago. It was released on a single from a top-selling album of the world’s foremost rock band. Those credentials appeared to resolve any “community standards” concerns — again, 40 years ago.
There is also the book: Stitch ‘N Bitch: The Knitter’s Handbook as well as Bitch Magazine.
July 21, 2010, 7:36 pmKamal says:
I’m guessing your one of the fox fanboys who slurped down the Shirley Sherrod story without question, aren’t you? I have no problem with any of those terms being used. I would, of course, think poorly of the people saying it, but we should not ban their use in public discourse as it allows us to identify people of poor character.
July 21, 2010, 7:36 pmrace to the bottom says:
Don’t some people say or write “Whiteman” as a compound, usually spat out for emphasis?
Kamal, you’re grossly wrong and I didn’t impugn your character or your politics. Shall I presume?
July 21, 2010, 7:38 pmPetep says:
Kamal – “I’m guessing your one of the fox fanboys who slurped down the Shirley Sherrod story without question, ”
Umm…. hard to know how to put this to you, buddy ….
The NAACP condemned her, and the USDA fired her under Obama’s orders.
Who’s slurping now ???
July 21, 2010, 7:39 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
It’s my impression that “whiteman” is a political statement that “white man” is not.
July 21, 2010, 7:40 pmOwen H. says:
We aren’t speaking of other languages. We are speaking of English. So, is the sentence, “Do you want to see my cock?”, inappropriate, or not?
Naturally, I am speaking about my prize male chicken.
Of course, if context actually makes it inappropriate, “sausage fest” has to go too.
July 21, 2010, 7:42 pmOwen H. says:
I’d certainly want to know if a candidate thought that way.
July 21, 2010, 7:44 pmKamal says:
This proves you are a fox fanboy. NAACP retracted their condemnation, and the white house has apologized for the way she was treated. They, stupidly and despite their knowing better, assumed “fox news” was a news organization. As with the case of ACORN, fox news lied. Im guessing you don’t know about the ACORN lie either. Fox doesn’t correct their stories.
July 21, 2010, 7:46 pmwhit says:
yes. it’s like “damnyankee”
July 21, 2010, 7:47 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Good analogy. I’ve only heard “damyankee” applied to people who are rude and condescending, in addition to not being from here. So every white man probably isn’t a whiteman.
July 21, 2010, 7:49 pmanomdebus says:
Owen,
My point was indeed that context matters and unless you are holding your chicken or a picture thereof, you should expect some abuse trying out that sentence. There is context in which language you speak as well as the subject. So, yes, I would say that absent the context that we are talking about chickens (and in the context that you are apparently male), it is inappropriate.
I hope you are not trying to say that context is optional at best.
July 21, 2010, 7:52 pmJK says:
I bet I have a better understanding of the nature of a candidate’s platform form “not the whiteman’s bitch” than I would from most five word explanations given on ballots.
July 21, 2010, 7:54 pmPetep says:
Kamal – “NAACP retracted their condemnation, and the white house has apologized for the way she was treated.”
Yeh, AFTER she was fired.
Nice try at re-writing history, but no points. Epic fail.
BTW – as soon as the NAACP, who’s video it was to begin with, released the REST of their video, FOX featured it in full repeatedly, and Breitbart headlined it on his site.
Even though neither of them fired anyone.
So ‘slurp’ that. And find yourself a new note to play, the old one is worn out.
July 21, 2010, 7:54 pmKamal says:
Exactly.
July 21, 2010, 7:55 pmrace to the bottom says:
This ballot is funny and harmless to most of us because we’re not applying the goose-gander principle. Sure, many here would say it’s a free country to say whatever, even on a public ballot, but were other racist, anti-religion, homophobic or intolerant verbiage not contra the Whiteman to occur, I bet we’d see angry denunciations and protests by the usual race gatekeepers.
If we all accept our particular oxes oxen? being gored, well OK, but that rarely is how it happens.
July 21, 2010, 7:55 pmwhit says:
many years ago, i was having a conversation with one of my coworkers in the squad room. we were talking about our weight training. i said “things are going pretty well, but i’m having some issues with my snatch”. as the word “snatch” leaves my lips, i notice the head of the internal affairs walking by the open doorway… she looks at me and rolls her eyes and i yell out ” WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING I SWEAR” (note: the Snatch is one of the two lifts that make up the sport of Weightlifting, commonly referred to as Olympic Style Weightlifting)…
July 21, 2010, 7:58 pmKamal says:
What’s your point? Just as you seem to have something up your butt about white people being treated poorly, if something like this were said about another group, they would take offense. None of that is a reason why these statements should be restricted, nor is it evidence of a double standard, as you demonstrate. If someone’s 5 words included “God hates fags. Vote 4Me.” I would find that person of bad character and infuriatingly anachronistic but I would still defend their right to say it.
July 21, 2010, 8:11 pmPetep says:
Whit – “word “snatch” leaves my lips, i notice the head of the internal affairs walking by the open doorway… she looks at me and rolls her eyes and i yell out ” WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WEIGHTLIFTING I SWEAR””
How exactly do you explain the ‘Clean and Jerk’ to her ????
July 21, 2010, 8:21 pmrace to the bottom says:
Charming, Kamal. Thanks for the smear characterizing me as a grand wizard or something, but I’m disgusted by gratuitous racism or slander on anybody’s part.
If offensive ballots don’t get changed sometimes because of special interest protests (to include the Whiteman’s), then let’s have them- available and unchangeable for all.
July 21, 2010, 8:23 pmfishbane says:
Wait, are you really asserting that you find ‘whiteman’ at least equally as offensive as ‘mud people’ and ‘slant-eyes’?
I can see wishing to not have racial appeals of any sort in official communications (and I think that would be a very different case than the one we have here, where people seem to be trying to pretend that they’re getting the vapors over the word ‘bitch’), but I don’t see how anyone claiming U.S. sensibilities and cultural norms can say with a straight face that they’re somehow equivalently offensive.
And if that’s offensive for base appeals in politics, is this?
July 21, 2010, 8:24 pmKamal says:
I don’t mean to characterize you as a racist, or grand wizard. I am trying to point out that there has been a big movement, led by fox news, to try to point out racism in *others* as some sort of justification or balancing act. Such things are besides the point, and highlighting them just incites more problems than it solves.
July 21, 2010, 8:26 pmMac says:
Would just love to see if any jurisdiction in this country would put “Mohammed is a fag” on any ballot at anytime. Any guesses? So, if you assume, as I do, that those words would never be allowed to appear, and I don’t think they should, then the rest of it should not appear either. Equal treatment under the law and so forth.
July 21, 2010, 8:27 pmJust Dropping By says:
I’m a little curious as to how some of the posters above figure that “whiteman” is racist. “Honkey,” sure, but “whiteman” can’t possibly be a racial slur.
July 21, 2010, 8:27 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Breitbart slimed someone with a phony video almost sure to have been discovered, because he couldn’t resist tossing red meat — even tainted red meat — to the even-less-intelligent and more-racist portion of the “we need to defend today’s afflicted class in America, the white Christian” audience. He also likely excused himself from involvement in sensible debate among all liberals and reasonable conservatives for at least a few years. But he didn’t fire anyone.
July 21, 2010, 8:27 pmrace to the bottom says:
fishbane, that wasn’t a public ballot you linked. Apparently most of you here believe that kind of thing should be allowed on a ballot in a less offensive racial way, such as “Joe Blow- the Muslims are terrorists candidate.” [I see Mac already more artfully addressed this.]
Redskin is how much more offensive than Whiteman or colored? Is there going to be a scale of derogatory? Many of you basically said anything goes or Southpark standards.
Gee, I know Caucasian males who’ve never called themselves “Whiteman,” but perhaps you do. And we’re all OK with “bitch.” So, that’s settled.
July 21, 2010, 8:30 pmRich Rostrom says:
Cook County Commissioner Jerry Butler appears on the ballot as Jerry (“Iceman”) Butler – a reference to his successful career as a soul and R&B musician. Should that be allowed?
Some years ago, a Republican candidate for Commissioner of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago appeared on the ballot as Carl “Clean Water” Klein. Should that have been allowed?
July 21, 2010, 8:31 pmKamal says:
The mosque issue.. I find it simply AMAZING that people wish to view 9/11 as a tragedy brought about by Muslims as opposed to a tragedy brought about by monotheists. Convenient.
July 21, 2010, 8:33 pmKamal says:
Your right that it, along with ‘whitemans bitch’ are probably not going to be allowed. The point is that both should.
July 21, 2010, 8:34 pmLaura Victoria says:
Arthur Kirkland: You should catch up on the news – the NAACP had sole possession of the entire video, and they called for her firing. They couldn’t bother to watch the whole thing. Then the white house (no pun intended) listened to their master benefactor without looking the facts either. Ag Sec. Vilsac took full responsibility and did not blame conservative media the way you are.
Sorry if the facts conflict with your narrative.
July 21, 2010, 8:34 pmKamal says:
Who the fuck is Breitbart? Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity, The Beck are who people watch. I tuned into Bill O’Reilly to see if he would correct his story, and he refused to because she wouldn’t come on to his show. The full tape is out there, and he didn’t air that, or the white farmers saying that this lady helped them and that they were friends. It doesn’t fit the pretty little narrative given by fox “news”, but the truth rarely does.
July 21, 2010, 8:38 pmMac says:
Uh, Kamal, you really, really need to take a look at the comments published in JournoList about accusing Fred Barnes, among others, of racism in order to change the subject and not have to talk about Rev. Wright’s racism and possibly hurt Obama’s election chances. You really should read these comments.
Also, if you are so very sure that there “is a big movement, led by fox news, to try to point out racism in *others* as some sort of justification or balancing act racism without foundation”, may I suggest that you find a video of any Tea Party person yelling the N word at the Congressmen as they walked into the Capitol to vote for the Health Care Bill? That charge continues to be made despite cameras everywhere and the entire “walk” being fully filmed and zero evidence. Andrew Breitbart will give you $100,000 if you or anyone provides the video proving that charge.
Don’t you think it is just a bit odd that no one has come up with that proof and no one else who was there heard the word? Yet, between just this and the JournoList, you say Fox is race baiting? Wow.
July 21, 2010, 8:39 pmKamal says:
Seriously, what are you Foxers on? I love how you are trying to change the story to be about the people who reacted to the intentionally misleading video as opposed to the network and people who intentionally misled you. Go back to bed America. Fox “News” in in control.
July 21, 2010, 8:41 pmBob Merritt says:
Kamal, when you stub your toe do you say “Fox it!”?
July 21, 2010, 8:47 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The NAACP acted rashly; it could have checked, because it had the source information, but it didn’t. The White House acted rashly; it can muster resources as well as any entity on our planet, yet it moved before it could understand that its conduct was being manipulated by liars.
The wingnuts at BigJournalism and FOX, on the other hand, acted deliberately, misleadingly, and maliciously. They intentionally doctored a woman’s words to convey a meaning nearly opposite the one she expressed, sliming her to make a phony political point. They did this because they know their target audience consists mostly of slackjaws with a mindless taste for this type of thing.
I hope this explanation clarifies the situation.
July 21, 2010, 8:47 pmKamal says:
No, I don’t think it’s odd. I could care less about the tea baggers. Their obliviousness to the fact that what they are advocating (less government) hurts them more than the people advocating for it (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html) makes me really not take them seriously.
Until the tea baggers make racism part of their platform, trying to label a group because of the actions of it’s members is not a valid thing to do. It’s a form of argument Ad Hominem, and has no logical relevance to the public discourse.
July 21, 2010, 8:51 pmwhit says:
verrrrry carefully. with 8 by 10 glossy photographs as support
July 21, 2010, 8:52 pmBob Merritt says:
slackjaws with a mindless taste Arthur Kirkland
teabaggers Kamal
Fucking Nascar retards… Eric Alterman
Nice.
July 21, 2010, 8:52 pmKamal says:
They called themselves the tea party/bag movement. Given that the tea party was about taxation without representation, it follows that they don’t feel they are represented now. Or they don’t know what the tea party was all about. Or they just like sticking balls in their mouth.
July 21, 2010, 8:57 pmSwede says:
Who is Mr. Whiteman and why does Ms.Griffin object to being his bitch?
July 21, 2010, 9:00 pmMac says:
Who is Breitbart? You are singularly uniformed.
Someone sent Breitbart a clip of the video. The NAACP refused to give him, or anyone else the entire video. He had not used it since it was a partial clip until the NAACP decided to call the Tea Party racist. That motivated him to release what he had.
Yesterday, Glenn Beck defended her and said that it was a terrible thing to rush to judgement about someone until the entire clip was available as it was imperative that her statement should be viewed in context and she should not be vilified based on what had been released. I know this does not fit your narrative, but sorry, these are the facts.
The only ones who rushed to judgement were the NAACP and the White House both of whom called her a racist. The NAACP had the entire tape and didn’t bother to watch it. Fox did not fire the lady, the White House did before they had the facts. Maybe they should hire Beck to handle their affairs as he has a lot more sense that the idiots at the NAACP and the White House who rushed to judgement. Now, they are trying to blame Fox for their screw up. However, at least they didn’t blame Bush. Maybe they are making a little progress in their never ending blame game to cover up their inadequacies.
Good heavens, as I type, Ann Coulter is defending the lady. Your narrative is rapidly falling apart.
July 21, 2010, 9:03 pmMac says:
“They” never called themselves the tea bag movement. “They” didn’t even know of the derogatory term, tea bagger. Nor did I. It was a charming termed coined by CNN or MSMBC, I forget which as these pretend adults and pretend journalists got positively giddy and giggly with their cleverness on national TV.
Also, go to “The Daily Caller” and you can learn who Breitbart is.
July 21, 2010, 9:09 pmsecond history says:
After Breitbart’s drive-by attack on Sherrod, abetted by Foxed News(editing the video, accusing Eloise Spooner (the farmer’s wife) being a plant; not checking the facts of her speech; there is no difference between BigJournalism and the faults they find in the mainstream media. At least the government has acknowledged their mistake and have offered her a new job.
Breitbart (and Fox News) lied, reputations and careers died.
July 21, 2010, 9:12 pmKamal says:
First of all, the white house denies that they were involved in this, though I am sure that doesn’t matter to you. Second, again, the fact that people are trying to make her being fired the issue is simply amazing. Did you see what O’reilly , Hannity , et all were saying about this lady? Cruel and completely baseless things. They are using a red herring about her being fired as the big story here. The big story is that anyone is taking Fox News seriously.
Bill O’Reilly was sitting there complaining that all the other media outlets were refusing to cover this, and thought it was a huge scandal. Do you get that? Fox New’s only semi-rational entertainer thinks that the rest of the media should have jumped on the bandwagon with Fox News, like they did with the Acorn Videos. The fact that they saw through it this time is why you are seeing all of these colorful personalities NOT APOLOGIZING for rushing to judgement, but for condemning the white house who, again, had no involvement in the firing. Your attempt to believe otherwise is revealing.
July 21, 2010, 9:14 pmMac says:
Kamal, there are no “members”, at least, not in the generally accepted use of the term. You do not go and sign up. It is an organic movement. It is a group of people who believe that the bigger the government, the smaller the person. That the government does some things well, but not most things and those most things are best left to the States and the individual. That individual liberty is under assault and is worth saving as the “Government” does not know best.
By the way, you do know that there is a group on the internet who’s sole purpose is to go to Tea Party events and carry racist signs, etc. just so the Tea Party will get a bad name? They are Democrats.
I can’t recall the web site. Does anyone have it?
July 21, 2010, 9:16 pmKamal says:
http://www.su-spectator.com/2.2661/tea-bag-tax-protests-don-t-make-much-sense-1.241881
From there:. “Tea bag Obama” is the title of a Facebook group encouraging people to mail tea bags to the White House.
And
July 21, 2010, 9:17 pm“Regardless of the questionable word choice using the phrase “tea bag,” ..
Kamal says:
Okay, your argument is this:
Some Democrats are people who attend Tea Party events and carry racist signs
….
No Tea Party Members are people who attend Tea Party events and carry racist signs
Can you explain how those follow? Your missing at least one proposition to even even approach logical validity. If that isn’t the point of your argument, and what you are trying to say is “These Democrats are assholes” then okay, point taken, but what does that have to do with the tea baggers?
July 21, 2010, 9:18 pmMac says:
How can you get facts so completely wrong?
July 21, 2010, 9:19 pmsecond history says:
Pray tell, which ones are wrong?
July 21, 2010, 9:21 pmKamal says:
Whatever he saw on fox news. You should see the cover job they are attempting to do there. Red Herrings are out in full colour. They seem oblivious to the fact that they made this non-story news, and got this woman fired in the process. Yes, the government should know better than to trust blog postings or the equally disreputable fox news, but they didn’t. That doesn’t excuse fox news for being completely negligent here.
Mac, please watch Rachael Madow to get another side of the story. It’s nice to be fanboys towards certain things, I certainly am in some respects, but news is not one of them. It’s dangerous.
July 21, 2010, 9:24 pmMac says:
Laura,
Having lived in the South for a brief period, I am curious as to whether you have to not be from there AND be rude and condescending to be a damnyankee or if just not being from there will qualify? I found it to be the latter, but did want to ask your opinion.
July 21, 2010, 9:26 pmMac says:
Sigh. Breitbart clearly stated he did not have the entire clip and that he had tried to get it from the NAACP who had refused to give it to him. Fox News did not edit the clip, nor did Breitbart. Fox news promptly aired the entire clip as soon as it was given to them.
No one said the farmer’s wife was a plant. Who do you think said that?
July 21, 2010, 9:30 pmOwen H. says:
QFT. I don’t have to agree with what she says or believes.
July 21, 2010, 9:30 pmMac says:
Oh, by the way, Sherrod, the lady in question, is the one who said that her firing was coming from the White House. Call her a liar, if you want. Fox was quoting her statement.
July 21, 2010, 9:31 pmOwen H. says:
I for one would certainly defend such words. After all, I’d know who to vote against.
July 21, 2010, 9:33 pmsecond history says:
No one said the farmer’s wife was a plant. Who do you think said that?
Mr. Breitbart did:
See here for the video.
July 21, 2010, 9:40 pmPetep says:
Kirkland – “Breitbart slimed someone with a phony video”
Oh, so now the video that the NAACP made was ‘phony’ ? Keep that part in mind – Breitbart didn’t make it, he didn’t change it, he didn’t photoshop it’ – the NAACP made it, and someone sent Breitbart part of it.
So, if it was ‘phony’, then I guess you’re accusing the NAACP of faking it up ?
kamal – “I find it simply AMAZING that people wish to view 9/11 as a tragedy brought about by Muslims as opposed to a tragedy brought about by monotheists. Convenient.”
Gee, maybe it’s because 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 MUSLIM men, financed by MUSLIMS. I dunno, maybe that actually makes it the Jew’s fault or something.
“Who the fuck is Breitbart? ” – with that, you put to rest any doubt anyone had about your cluelessness.
Goodby forever, little troll.
July 21, 2010, 9:56 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Mac, I never heard the term used except against people from “up north” who were jerks.
I don’t think it’s an exclusively southern thing to resent people who come from somewhere else and tell you how crappy your life is and how much better it was where they came from. I am not saying that I think you did that. But that’s the kind of person I am accustomed to hear being called a damyankee … and that was never to their face.
People are different, you know. People from the same region have differing views regarding outsiders. Some people who are not from here, hear me talking and think my accent is charming. (“What accent,” I say.) Others hear the lack of certain diphthongs and think I must be an idiot. I personally try to keep an open mind.
July 21, 2010, 10:27 pmSteve2 says:
Way I see it, any 5 words the candidate wants no matter how actually, potentially, possibly, or allegedly obscene/offensive/slanderous/derogatory/ungrammatical should be permitted. Mac’s hypothetical? Fine. Race to the bottom’s hypotheticals? Fine. “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’” is just as fine as those.
July 21, 2010, 11:45 pmA.W. says:
I think it would be hard to justify it on obsenity grounds.
I mean by definition, everyone who is voting is an adult, right? their voting age is 18, right? i guess maybe they can say a parent should be able to bring their kids into it, or that kids should be able to read about elections in school to learn to be good citizens.
But part of me says, okay let them do it. Yeah, you will get some seriously crazy stuff, but hey, then you will know they are crazy and I hope, not vote for them.
July 21, 2010, 11:46 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Your lack of familiarity with relevant points presents an opportunity for education. The NAACP recorded the event in its entirety. Someone — Breitbart says it wasn’t him, but that point has yet to be established — chopped it into bits and rearranged certain bits misleadingly to depict meanings far from those the speaker expressed at the event. In the version most favorable to Breitbart, he published doctored and misleading information without conducting the editorial checks expected of a high-school newspaper. The record (including doctored videos concerning ACORN) indicates less-flattering circumstances can’t be dismissed until the appropriate evidence is available. I hope we can agree these points refute — not rebut, refute — your description of events.
July 21, 2010, 11:59 pmAJK says:
I would agree that “whiteman” is probably not a racial slur by most definitions. At the same time, I would think it quite likely that Ms. Griffin harbors racial biases against whites, to an extant that might interfere with her ability to execute the office of a Wisconsin Government Accountability Board member.
July 22, 2010, 12:29 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Wow…
All this fuss over some jazz fan who wants to pay homage to a band leader!!
July 22, 2010, 9:03 amJust Dropping By says:
Probably true, but completely irrelevant as to whether Griffin should be allowed to put what she wants on the ballot line.
July 22, 2010, 9:32 ampst314 says:
Kamal’s comments are offensive, but I wouldn’t deny him the right to post here. After all, their very offensiveness gives us key insights into his (lack of) character.
July 22, 2010, 9:33 ampst314 says:
…as does his dishonesty
July 22, 2010, 9:34 amL says:
I think she was running for Assembly, and her label was denied by the Gov’t Accountability Board. Your point still stands though. The good news is, if they allow her to put it on the ballot, it should interfere with her ability to get elected to the Assembly. So the bad news is, by rejecting the label, the WGAB is increasing the chances of someone who is apparently anti-white getting elected to the Assembly. You hear sometimes about the principle of allowing free speech in order to know who the racists are – I don’t think I’ve ever seen as good an example.
Kamal said something similar further up.
Alternatively, this could just be a big misunderstanding. Frank and Edith Whiteman, prominent Madison bloodhound breeders, made headlines last year when one of their dogs whelped a record litter. Unfortunately, by a bizarre coincidence, the proud mama hound was named — you guessed it — Ieshuh Griffin (after Edith’s great-grandmother). When the very human Ms. Griffin decided to run for the Assembly, she anticipated the potential confusion, and chose a label that would help voters understand they weren’t voting for a canine candidate. The only problem is the apostrophe placement – it seems like the WGAB could have fixed that error without throwing the whole thing out.
July 22, 2010, 9:53 amAultimer says:
Back to the basic issue – wouldn’t “Not the old boys’ lapdog” (or substitute any other less profane words to get to the original meaning) be denied as derogatory? I don’t see how the locals can get around the 1A here.
July 22, 2010, 10:02 amDuffy Pratt says:
This far down, and no one has pointed out that maybe the board took this action to prove that, after all, yes, she is the whiteman’s bitch?
July 22, 2010, 10:19 amA. Criminal says:
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
That sounds like a fun bunch.
Whiteman’s bitch photo:
July 22, 2010, 12:27 pmK.C. Wolf, Kansas City Chiefs mascot strikes a pose at the block party in Whiteman’s youth center April 1.
JoeSixpack says:
The question left unanswered is whose bitch is she then?
July 22, 2010, 12:43 pmJoeSixpack says:
Is Al Gore running for office again?
July 22, 2010, 12:45 pmDaniel Chapman says:
ANOTHER thread ruined.
July 22, 2010, 12:45 pmMac says:
Thanks. I was certainly never rude or condescending, but I felt very much an outsider. The South has always fascinated me and mystified me. Even after living there, I don’t feel I understand it a whole lot better. Some things I do understand better. I had a few prejudices blown apart regarding race issues and Southerners. I felt just as much a damnyankee when around blacks as whites from the South and there was a sense that there were huge parts of their (black and white southerners) background and world view that I would most likely never”get” and they knew it. It was humbling in some ways, well, many ways. I expected a huge disconnect between Black and White and found that the disconnect was between damnyankee and Southerners and race had nothing to do with it.
I remain confused, fascinated and mystified by the South, but now know I don’t know very much, which is progress, I think. As I said, it was a humbling experience.
July 22, 2010, 12:53 pmBored Lawyer says:
Where I live, the Election Board routinely mails out a sample ballot about 2 weeks prior to each election to each registered voter, along with the address where the voter is supposed to vote. Kids can look through the mail. When I was a kid I was always interested in seeing what a ballot looked like and would find this in the mail.
July 22, 2010, 1:32 pmWalter Sobchak says:
European-American, please.
Dude, the whiteman is not the issue here!
July 22, 2010, 1:44 pmJK says:
So your position is that the NAACP was trying to smear they’re own speaker and Breitbart & FOX where innocent victims of this nefarious scheme? Even if that is, which I doubt, they still engaged in a pathetic smear job without contextual information that any grade-schooler would know was necessary to understand the situation.
July 22, 2010, 2:35 pmJK says:
Meh, nothing wrong with unrelated tangents after a thread has run it’s course, in fact I think it’s a sign of a healthy discussion forum. On a blog with as many daily posts as VC I say a thread has 16-24 hours of on-topic and then anything is fair game, particularly if it’s a natural tangent from an aspect of another comment and not an intentional threadjack.
July 22, 2010, 2:42 pmBleh says:
Thread winner.
Also, Dude, whiteman is not the preferred nomenclature…
July 22, 2010, 2:43 pmsolomon says:
The decision that this language is vulgar is not a “viewpoint-neutral” decision. Announcing that you are not someone else’s bitch is, in some communities, simply honest and straightforward speech. To declare that such speech is unacceptable in a public forum is to delegitimize those communities and their political perspectives.
July 22, 2010, 3:05 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Her parents’ decision to name a child “Ieshuh” probably delegitimized her more than any bureaucratic decision could.
July 22, 2010, 3:22 pmAlessandra says:
solomon says:
The decision that this language is vulgar is not a “viewpoint-neutral” decision. Announcing that you are not someone else’s bitch is, in some communities, simply honest and straightforward speech. To declare that such speech is unacceptable in a public forum is to delegitimize those communities and their political perspectives.
=======
It’s also a way to further legitimize demeaning words and behavior towards women (words which also encompasses a negative sexual aspect), all in the name of diversity or individual freedom. This is something liberals love to do, to be sexist and disrespectful to women and call it tolerance and freedom.
I wonder how many men on this forum who think there is nothing offensive or vulgar with the word “bitch,” call their own daughters the same way.
July 22, 2010, 3:37 pmMac says:
No, my position is that both the NAACP and the White House were too incompetent and stupid to get the facts, and the NAACP was the only one with the complete tape. Breitbart made that abundantly clear as well as the fact that he had asked the NAACP for a copy of the whole tape and they wouldn’t give it to him, so he went with what he had been sent. It was the NAACP who withheld the tape so context could not be judged and who apparently did not even watch their own tape before jumping to conclusions themselves.
Breitbart released his portion of the tape (and most clearly said it was not the whole tape as he did not have it) only after the NAACP decided to call the Tea Party people racists. One could only wish that the same people on this thread criticizing Breitbart and Fox would require the same proof be provided by the NAACP before they go around calling other people racists, including the lady in question.
July 22, 2010, 4:02 pmMac says:
Excellent points. Sorry I didn’t think of it.
July 22, 2010, 4:04 pmSyd Henderson says:
Maybe she was trying to distinguish herself from another candidate who is the whiteman’s bitch.
July 22, 2010, 5:22 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I imagine it’s an alternate spelling for “Aisha”. Not that uncommon, at least around here.
I think it’s kind of disrespectful, in a convoluted way, for you all to brush off the “whiteman” term as you do, and refuse to be offended by it. (Let’s face it, in context it is very unflattering.) It’s like when a 3-yr-old calls you a poopyhead. Can’t a sister ever get taken seriously?
July 22, 2010, 8:22 pmFriday Fun – “NOT the whiteman’s bitch” | Jon Williford Law says:
[...] “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’ ” under her name on the ballot. (More here at the Volokh [...]
July 23, 2010, 10:56 amSteve2 says:
Not just alternate, phonetic!
And yeah, Aisha’s not at all uncommon in places I’ve lived (Atlanta, Tennessee, Virginia)
July 23, 2010, 11:59 amMartha says:
This is my least favorite argument strategy: imagine something that never happened, then use your fantasy to “prove” something about reality.
People on all sides do it; I just don’t find it convincing.
July 23, 2010, 1:03 pmJoeSixpack says:
I think some people refer to these as “hypotheticals”. My law school professors used to use these all the time. I also found them unconvincing.
July 23, 2010, 1:14 pmL says:
I think law school hypotheticals are supposed to be unconvincing. As in, “Are you convinced you understand this legal principle? Well, maybe this hypo will unconvince you!”
July 23, 2010, 1:50 pmMartha says:
A hypothetical is definitely useful for exploring a hypothesis. “Assuming your hypothesis is true, what are the implications for this hypothetical situation?” “How would this hypothetical situation fit your hypothesis?” etc.
Mac (and many others) uses the “hypothetical” in a different way. “Because of the hypothetical situation I just dreamed up, my claim is true.” Not useful. Convince me with real evidence, not imaginary evidence.
July 23, 2010, 1:58 pmPhil Smith says:
I’m reminded of the “Dangerous Brothers” comedy sketch where Richard Dangerous (Rik Mayall) announces a run for public office. During the announcement he says something along the lines of “Look at my cock!!” and reaches into his pants and pulls out . . . a rubber chicken.
Gets me every time.
July 23, 2010, 4:50 pmfalafalafocus says:
“Do you want to see my cock” is seven words long, well over the five word limit, and is therefore completely inappropriate. :)
July 23, 2010, 5:28 pmRelieved says:
If they won’t accept this, what in the world WILL they accept?
July 23, 2010, 9:06 pmMax Entropy says:
Buzzkills.
July 24, 2010, 8:47 pmWhy are they always sucking the fun out of political theater? If that’s her platform, for crying out loud, let her run on it and good luck.
Danny says:
Not a racist remark? Come on. What universe are you living in? If a white female ran with the slogan “Not the black man’s bi”ch”, Al Sharpton would be putting batteries in his bullhorn and screaming racism on national TV.
July 24, 2010, 9:33 pmMissouri leads the way says:
As Missouri voters know, Richard Thomas “Bullet Train” Pisani and Norma “Aunt Norma” Champion paved the way. The best, of course, is the candidate formerly known as Joseph Bickell. He legally changed his name to–and, until he withdrew, was set to be featured on the ballot for Governor as–”Chief Wana Dubie.”
Bullet Train: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19920403&id=rlogAAAAIBAJ&sjid=idgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3807,4246846
July 24, 2010, 10:36 pmAunt Norma: http://www.sos.mo.gov/candidates/DisplayCandidatesPlacement.asp?vOffice=3SE030&vElection=P106
The Chief: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008primary/2008candwithdrawalist.asp
Dan Smith says:
Some things permitted 40 years ago are not today. Some All In The Family episodes from 1971, shown then in prime time, would never pass muster today on broadcast TV
July 25, 2010, 6:16 pmSFC MAC says:
Kool-Aid boy. You ought to get your facts straight before you come on here spouting MSNBC talking points. Sherrod’s behavior and recorded statements are what got her fired. Now she’s just another poster child for race-baiting.
Go away and let the adults talk.
July 28, 2010, 8:52 amUbuntu2k7 says:
Clearly a Democrat.
August 1, 2010, 3:51 pmTeresa says:
To all of you who think there is nothing wrong with this “slogan” and that she should be allowed to put it on her ballot…. I’ve read all your responses and can’t find one that even comes close to convincing me that it should be allowed. One simple thought sums up my reason…”Just how trashy are we willing to get? How low are we willing to go?”
August 2, 2010, 3:52 pm