Liberal culture watch: Sanders drops R-bomb on rival's head!

FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2016

Regas lectures the world:
In last night's debate, it finally happened.

One of our tribe's most treasured bombs was dropped within our own tents.

We've always loved to drop our bombs on The Others. Inevitably, we're now dropping our bombs on ourselves. This is the official transcript, including audience reaction:
LOUIS (4/14/16): Senator Sanders, earlier this week at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, you called out President Clinton for defending Secretary Clinton's use of the term "super-predator" back in the '90s when she supported the crime bill. Why did you call him out?

SANDERS: Because it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term.

For the record, Hillary Clinton used the term in question exactly once, back in 1996.

Twenty years later, it finally happened. Candidate Sanders dropped a bomb in response to that troubling act. "Everybody knew it was a racist term," the all-knowing bomb-dropper said.

Did everyone know, or even think, that it was "a racist term?" Not to judge by the evidence!

As we noted yesterday, the term was in fairly widespread use in the mid-1990s. It was used by an array of players arguing an array of viewpoints. There was no sign that these various players thought or knew that they were using a racist term.

Luckily, we now have Sanders to let us know that they did!

How should we evaluate this first dropping of an internal bomb? Let's start with our tribe's sheer stupidity. It's really hard to get dumber than this—to be trashing people over a single use of a widely-used term twenty years in the past.

That said, it's what we've been telling you for the past several years. Increasingly, this seems to be the only play our pitiful tribe seems to know.

We know how to drop our bombs. We seem to know nothing else.

Last night, the all-knowing Sanders decided to drop that first bomb within our own tents. And just like that, Paul Krugman's new column almost comes close to dropping a bomb on him!

Krugman doesn't drop an actual bomb on Candidate Sanders today. He does note a bit of oddness in some of the Sanders campaign's recent statements, including statements by Sanders himself, in which the importance of Southern Democrats' votes has seemed to be denigrated.

What Krugman said, we've often thought—obviously, those denigrations are being aimed at the votes of Southern black Democrats. Krugman made that point explicit today, provoking outraged squeals.

Inevitably, "first responder" Rima Regas was the first to respond. In her first post, she rejected the notion that Sanders' remarks about Southern voters carried a racial intent.

We have no problem with that.

Our first responder was indignant about that suggestion by Krugman. But in her rapid response to her own first response, she quickly played these cards:
REGAS (4/15/16): It is rather cynical of Professor Krugman to play the race card right on the heels of more than a dozen racial faux-pas between both Clintons over the past two years leading up to the Democratic primary. After their 2008 3:00 am phone call fiasco, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson and quit using racial dog-whistling as a campaign strategy... Oh, and Clinton threw her friend Mayor de Blasio under the bus when she blamed the skit idea she fully participated in, on him.

But that is only one instance of bad judgment and bad behavior. Senator Sanders is right about "superpredator" and its meaning: everyone involved indeed knew it was racist then, as they do now. It is interesting to note that Clinton didn't try to defend herself and merely said Bill Clinton apologized to Black Lives Matter. He didn't. He used the words "I almost have to apologize." As the old saying goes, almost doesn't count.
It's been proven. People like Regas always know what everyone else "knew" at various times in the past. They also know what everyone else "knows" today!

It doesn't seem to enter their heads that their stiff-necked assumptions could in some way be limited, uncomprehending or wrong. They themselves are moral and pure. Everyone else is wrong and impure. Most amazingly, everyone else knows it about themselves!

Increasingly, our tribe seems to know only one play—we know how to drop our bombs. We know how to say and do nothing else. We seem to have nothing else on our extremely small minds.

That said, cultural movements of this type tend to go this way. These movements start by bombing The Others—the bigoted racist xenophobe nativists we can skillfully spot Over There.

Eventually, though, that isn't enough. Inevitably, these purists start dropping their fistfuls of bombs upon their own tribe's heads.

Last night, the first such bomb was dropped. This morning, our tribe's first responder squealed.

In fairness, she knows what "everyone" knows and thinks. People like this always do!


  1. Birdie has had a free ride in terms of negative campaigning because the Clinton campaign doesn't want to alienate his supporters and the Republicans don't think he'll be the Democratic Party nominee. But... if by some miracle that happened, the conservative slander machine would kick in with a vengeance. Sanders would be labeled a communist, for starters -- someone who honeymooned in Moscow and palled around with Daniel Ortega, etc. The Kochs and the Republicans would make all this new again, and much more interesting than Bill Ayres and Rev. Wright ever were. Birdie is just a sitting duck, quacking away, just waiting to be swift-boated.

  2. Bernie is nothing to me now. He's not a candidate, he's not a senator. I don't want to know him or what he does. I don't want to see him on the TV, I don't want him in the government. When he's speaking, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. Understood?

  3. To some of us Bernie's bomb was a chance to clap righteously, but to many, many others it was dud, like many of these hastily assembled weapons, destined to fail to ignite.

  4. No, sorry, it was a racist term.

  5. Is Bob senile, or is he just avoiding Arianna's series on the benefits of a good nap?

    "As we noted yesterday, the term (super predator) waInstead s in fairly widespread use in the mid-1990s. It was used by an array of players arguing an array of viewpoints."

    Yesterday Bob demonstrated the term never even appeared before 1995 in a major paper, and if it was ever in major use he never provided any evidence of its use other than by Hillary Clinton in January of 1996. In short, the only way you can support Bob's argument that there is no sign of what users of the term thought is because he gave no sign of who those users were.

    Yesterday Bob could have informed his readers about the term. He could have shown the role of Bill Bennett in popularizing it with media elites before Clinton advocated its policy implication - Bring Them to Heel!- in a speech 7 months after the term first appeared at Bennett's think tank.

    Instead Bob simply mentioned which article he found first but provided no link. He simply made general statement of fact without any support then presented a column about a tragedy in 1994. Then he presented statistics on murders in one city, followed by an attack on the writers of the Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow, and Amy Chozick of the New York Times.

    Bob asserts: "For the record, Hillary Clinton used the term in question exactly once, back in 1996." Technically that is true. But that doesn't mean she did not use it more than once and Bob provided no evidence one way or the other.

    1. "But that doesn't mean she did not use it more than once "

      Well, to be fair, he can't verify the number of times she sang it in the shower.

      Listen, every word Hillary Clinton has spoken in her entire public life has been carefully entered into the mega data base of republican op-research, protected in a small data center, manned by dozens of young fascists. Anything she says in public can be instantly cross checked, correlated with prior statements and spit out if needed.

      Trust me, if there was another time she used it in public, we would already know about it.

    2. So how come we didn't hear about it in 2008?

    3. @ Anon 10:29 -- "superpredator" wasn't racist in 2008. It has magically become racist in 2016.

    4. So how come we don't know what she said to Goldman Sachs?

    5. impCaesarAvg

      I think everyone knew what it was when the word was first uttered.

    6. Bernie, too, at the time, reportedly described the black youth who were terrorizing their communities as "sociopaths"? Would it matter, if this were true?

    7. "So how come we don't know what she said to Goldman Sachs?"

      Because there's a limit to our tolerance of Phony GOP narratives that Sanders supporters ignorantly glom onto to feed their HCDS.

    8. "Because there's a limit to our tolerance of phony GOP narratives that Sanders supporters and GOP catfish trolls ignorantly glom onto to feed their HCDS."


    9. Sorry fellas. I forgot. She gave those speeches because she was broke and in debt.

  6. Rima Regas reminds me of Bob. But she has a bigger audience.

  7. I would just like to use this medium to give a quick advise to any one out there that is having difficulty in his or her relationship to contact Dr.Madu because he has been really helpful to my relationship and was able to bring back broken relationship within time limit of 48 hours Now i am happy once more. You can contact Dr. Madu by calling him on his mobile +2348107547068 or write him through his email at ( maduutemple @ gmail . com )