Is it really a dogwhistle if you scream it?
Fortunately, the fine dumbass rednecks of Louisiana won’t believe a word of it.
(Dog)whistle while you work…
Would calling the ad (obviously) racist matter to the majority of the Louisiana electorate? This is the place where David Duke nearly became governor, after all. David freakin’ Duke.
Because like all limp-dicked leftist media types Marshall doesn’t want to make the right wing mad at him for some reason?
1 Like
The reflexive verbal defensive crouch is a hard habit to break after a few years in or with the MSM.
1 Like
I have wondered for some time why they call it “dog whistling” when everyone can hear it, not just those to whom it’s directed. That’s when I realized it’s really more like a “cat whistle.” It’s a whistle that excites the dogs, enrages the humans but makes a noise you know will be ignored by the MSM even though it hears it loud and clear.
1 Like
But remember, this is a self-described “left-leaning” website.
The cable networks pretend that they are 100% unbiased, which is why they need to cower whenever accused of being otherwise.
What’s the excuse here?
1 Like
I don’t want to get personal, but Catherine seems to fall into the MSM weasel word defensive crouch reflexively, which is not a thing that would be totally unexpected given her background.
I mean, it’s more like a verbal tic, as opposed to some of the things that used to drive people batshit crazy about some of her predecessors who are best left unmentioned.
He ought to reply by saying, Au contrarie. I want to put dangerous thugs in jail. Starting with you, Mr. Vitter. One of us has a record, and it ain’t me.
1 Like
Vitter is desperate. There are no limits to the number of lies the Vitter campaign will spread against John Bel Edwards in TV ads and robocalls. Edwards will not lie about Vitter, but there is enough that is true that he and his supporters can point to about Vitter. If, by unlucky chance, Vitter is elected, he will spend much of his time attempting to refute scandalous stories from the past that will continue to haunt him.
I see “dangerous” people.
To be fair, a guy who is used to being around prostitutes and pimps thinks everyone is “dangerous.”
Whoremonger Vitter plays the “diversion and racial card.” What a hose bag!!
It would certainly wake up the Democratic electorate when the time came to vote to get off their asses and head to the polls with this dog-whistle shit.
Vitter is going after a Democratic rival, not a Republican, though a Republican is still who he has to beat first in a primary by 50% I thought, in order to be the nominee of his party in a general election. Right? Or does that just apply for LA Senators?
**Never mind what I just wrote. The Jungle Primary, as they call it, that LA just had, advanced the two top vote-getters to the next election which is Nov. 21st. So it’s between these two candidates…one Republican, one Democrat. They sure do things different down there.
Willie Horton always works on Old White Voters.
You stick with what got you there…so Vitter does.
What did you expect? It’s Louisiana.
a) you run these kind of ads because they work…even in post-racial 2015
b) one would hope that the response from a Democrat (the party that enjoys 90% of the Black vote) would be: Mass incarceration is a serious issue that has been harmful to the black community, we don’t need to lock up non-violent offenders, and then pivot the conversation towards restoring the rights of those who have paid their debt to society
I swear some white liberals are simply polite conservatives
I prefer pacifist thugs over dangerous thugs.
Yeah? Well, Vitter Wants To Release ‘Dangerous Things’ From his Pants!
Irrational fear, that’s what all aspects of the republican platform run around.
Precisely. And this makes a great example to use to highlight it because of what’s really going on in these two sentences:
"One expert told the Times-Picayune that he thought the ad may have been racially motivated.
“It’s an ad to scare white people with black people,” Pearson Cross, a political science professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, told the newspaper."
I can almost…ALMOST (but not really)…accept the ridiculous non-objective forced hedging language if it was the reporter expressing an opinion or writing her own characterization of the ad, but that’s not even what we’re talking about here. This was NOT the reporter providing a description or characterization of the ad, but rather the reporter providing a description of someone else’s description.
That someone else did not hedge in any way, shape or form, and yet we see the reporter so cowed by the right wing assault on reality and objectivity in the 4th Estate, and so entrenched in the knee-jerk belief that “forced neutrality, false equivalence and total wishy-washiness equates to being balanced and fair” (as opposed to actually constituting its own form of bias), that she added hedging language into a description of something that was demonstrably unequivocal. This dude had no doubt in his fucking mind and expressed no doubt in his language that this shit was racist, racially motivated and a giant racist dogfart.
When the forced neutrality/false equivalence crap extends THAT far, you know you’ve got an objectivity problem.
But don’t forget to subscribe for TPM Prime!