1. - Learning the Ropes - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:29 am:

   Inelegant? Possibly. Tactless due to frustration with the situation? eh, maybe. If it was a slip, own up to it as such and apologize for any offense. You would have though he would have been more mindful considering the circumstances.




2. - Fundy - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:29 am:

   How does a writer get away with concluding a piece with “…but whatever”?




3. - Reddbyrd - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:30 am:

   This does help the Green Party maintain their “magnet for nutballs” monopoly.

   Everyone ought to exercise the 1A rights by ignoring Sherman for awhile and see if the earth remains in orbit.




4. - connie - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:31 am:

   Rich,
   With the Green Party being on the ballot and the atmosphere in Springfield, I would have thought there would be more viable Green candidates. With what is surely to be a crowded Democratic primary for Governor, if a quality candidate runs on the Green slate for Governor, what would be their chances in the general.




5. - Ghost - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:41 am:

   seems like you have two human beings both with a case of foot and mouth disease.

   neither should be defended, lauded or crucified. But discussion of their frailities and convictions is fair game.




6. - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:45 am:

   Rich,

   Every bigot is a jag-off, but every jag-off is not a bigot.

   I suspect Mr. Sherman is just a jag-off.

   – SCAM
   so-called “Austin Mayor”
   http://austinmayor.blogspot.com




7. - phocion - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:45 am:

   Inelegant, certainly. But a point should be made. African American legislators have been out front and unified on the issue of imposing prayer in public schools. The issue of forced prayer (or the euphemism “moment of silence”) is one that should give every American great pause, as it does trample the rights of those in the “minority” who may not wish to worship a deity. That African Americans, through their elected representives, would be so callous about the rights of minorities is ironic, to say the least. This is a worthy point of discussion that should not be brushed aside by embarassed liberals.




8. - Anonymous - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:50 am:

   Sherman strikes me as someone who is “too clever by half”. He probably thought the use of the term “negroe” in the context in which he used it was ironic in some super clever way and he is too clueless to recognize that it is just dumb/offensive.




9. - Ken - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:51 am:

   I dont think he used the word to demean blacks, but instead to imply the connection between the days of open discrimination against blacks as it is now acceptable to demean athiests in chamber. Make no mistake, her comments were as unamerican and bigoted as any ever were that derided someone because of who they were or the beliefs they held. Representative Davis, perhaps you should take a look at the Constitution of the United States before you tell anyone, what the state of Illinois was founded on years later.




10. - anon - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:58 am:

    The sensationalist attention this blog brings to this issue only fans the flame of prurient interest. Name-calling among public officials or candidates for public office, or both, is certainly nothing new, nor particularly revealing, other than yet another cliche on how public discourse is conducted.




11. - Wumpus - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:08 am:

    I demand that all green party members denounce this man’s remarks! He should step down immediately and bow out of the race! While we are at it, Kevin and Rich should issue a staement denouncing his comments too? Or are you all too unpatriotic to do so?




12. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:12 am:

    ===The sensationalist attention this blog brings to this issue ===

    Let’s see… I waited almost a week to give it a full airing after Zorn, Kos and Olbermann all made a big deal out of it. If anything, I was derelict in not bringing it up sooner. I write about state politics and the General Assembly. This directly impacts both.




13. - Johnny USA - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:13 am:

    Eric Zorn is hardly objective when it comes to Rob Sherman and his cause.




14. - Johnny USA - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:14 am:

    ..and if Hillary Clinton, Blago, or Todd Stroger had said something similar to Sherman, Zorn would be making his daily demand for their head on a pike based on it.




15. - the Other Anonymous - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:14 am:

    I think SCAM is right about Sherman just being a jag-off.

    But, if you put aside the phrasing, there is a nugget of truth in Sherman’s observation. Monique Davis is a reactionary on a number of social issues, and she is not the only African-American politician with these views.

    It’s curious that African-Americans are generally considered “dangerously” liberal, yet on social issues ranging from abortion to gay rights to prayer in school one finds extremely reactionary (conservative) points of view.




16. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:19 am:

    If Sherman had used the more PC phrase “people of color” rather than the 1950esque word “negroes” (which has nearly fallen into modern disuse), I think his statement would be seen as slightly less “inelegant”. Still, not something you’d expect from a representative of the GP platform.




17. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:25 am:

    TOA-

    If the Republican Party could shed its white frat boy image and reality, it would be a good fit for the high percentage of minorities in this country who generally harbor more conservative social views than those who promote and run the Democratic Party. But old habits are hard to break.




18. - Kevin Fanning - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:33 am:

    Too bad the social views are a mirage for fiscal and programmatic policies that aren’t a good fit…




19. - anon - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:39 am:

    I suppose “jag-off” is not a gratuitous insult or an inappropriate comment. It seems bloggers, Rep. Davis, and Mr. Sherman have much in common.




20. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:43 am:

    It’s not gratuitous if it’s true. lol




21. - Levois - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:53 am:

    I saw that yesterday I wasn’t exactly offended by that. I’m not so sure why it’s offensive. I was taken aback by it in some respects, but it isn’t offensive to me.




22. - Moderate Repub - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 9:55 am:

    Fundy - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 8:29 am:

    How does a writer get away with concluding a piece with “…but whatever”?

    Because it is a Blog, and it’s his blog, and why would you care? The real story here is that someone would use the word “negro” on a political canidates website for ANY reason at all, but whatever.




23. - Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:01 am:

    I tried to point out that this guy is a real moron yesterday and got all kinds of crap about the first amendment. Monique was right to tell him off and try to throw him out of committee. If nothing else, he should be excoriated for wasting everybody’s time.




24. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:07 am:

    I guess “JO” is not one of the Seven Dirty Words that will get your post removed here. LOL




25. - Pat Collins - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:16 am:

    at a time when we are in the midst of a decades-long pervasive epidemic of Roman Catholic priests raping America’s children

    And no one thinks this is a bit, shall we say, over the top?




26. - VanillaMan - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:17 am:

    What I am seeing is a bunch of people backing Sherman on this because they don’t know where to draw the line. We have too many supposedly smart people willing to embrace their ideological purity beyond common sense, don’t we?

    It is one thing to be open minded, but another to tolerate intolerant people. It is strange to read comments from people so quick to denounce “hate speech”, yet unable to denounce it when it conflicts with their political tenents. These people seem to be unable to discriminate at all, in fear that the act of discrimination is, in itself, wrong. So they deliberately err in these situations, in order to maintain their self-annointed ideological virginity.

    Don’t make arguments that atheism should be respected as though it was a religion. Don’t tolerate self-righteous individuals such as Sherman whose personal crusade demands that everyone tow his corrupted line of argument.

    Davis was being human, while Sherman denies the existense of humanity. She became intolerant of an intolerant man. Those who are criticizing her are doing so because she displayed intolerance, and because of the honesty of her emotions.

    Koz, Zorn, Olbernutt and many others don’t want to question the limits of their flawed arguments. They prefer unquestioning obedience of their new level of moral righteousness; tolerating the intolerant. It is a new step beyond not just being open minded. It is refusing to be discriminatory for any reason at all. It is a belief that there is no truth to be comprehended, and that everything is relative. It is a belief that all arguments should be shown respect, even those that have no respect for you.

    Why has Koz, Olbermann, Zorn and so many others lost their moral compass? Because they are willing to sell it when it conflicts with their political beliefs.




27. - Learning the Ropes - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:20 am:

    @Six Degrees

    You know, it struck me as odd as well… for like a second. But what the heck, its not like friggin’ swear substitution hasn’t been common practice for years.

    Besides, I assume that if anyone has a serious problem with it they can darn well go complain to Rich’s boss.

    - Lil’ Jag Horner -




28. - the Other Anonymous - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:22 am:

    Six Degrees –

    The GOP and its conservative friends have tried to make the argument that they are a better fit for African-Americans because of their stand on social issues for years now.

    It won’t work — and not just because the party needs to shed its “white frat-boy” image. The fact is that on bread and butter (i.e., economic) issues the Republican Party’s agenda is thoroughly rejected by African-American voters.

    Until the GOP changes its position on income inequality — i.e., engages in what they call “class warfare” — it will not make significant inroads with blacks.




29. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 10:57 am:

    TOA-

    Perhaps we will witness another trend…if minorities stay with and increase their influence within the Democratic Party, it will become more socially conservative, and some of its “secular cows” will start to be threatened. I think we are seeing some of that now. I don’t think the “Moment of Silence” is a priority of the MoveOn or DailyKos constituencies.




30. - downhereforyears - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:53 am:

    I’ve known Rob Sherman for the past 20 years and these comments today e just what he’s looking for. He feeds on the attention….not the issue. And oh by the way he knew exactly what button he was pushing when he used the term negro. Finally for Sherman to say that Dr. Martin Luther King was his childhood hero is about as believeable as Obama choosing McCain as a running mate.




31. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 11:56 am:

    Where’s Squid today?

    For that matter, I’m curious why Zorn hasn’t weighed in yet.




32. - TaxMeMore - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:28 pm:

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess we’re lucky that only one of those two are getting paid (double-dipping too with an enormous government pension coming her way) by us and have power.




33. - Bill - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 12:40 pm:

    Taxme,
    Monique Davis has earned every cent she has ever been paid. Do you criticize all the lawyers who are also members of the GA or do you save your vitriol for educators?




34. - Squideshi - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:42 pm:

    “Where’s Squid today?”

    Checking the blog late today. Sorry!

    In regard to this matter, no, Sherman did not intend to be racist in any way. Yes, it was a poor choice of wording, which is why he removed it from the website–it gave the wrong impression and only confused the point he was trying to make.

    I think Sherman’s biggest mistake here was the word that he chose to use, which he quickly corrected after realizing that himself. (It’s not like he had to be receive thousands of negative comments and Keith Olbermann’s worst person in the world award in order to motivate him.)

    One thing that Sherman did NOT do was stereotype all blacks. The key words here were “LIKE Davis.” In other words, for a person who belongs to a group that currently and historically faces such a great deal of oppression, she should have better sense to be more delicate when in a position of power.

    Again, I admit that Sherman’s choice of words didn’t best portray this sentiment; but I do know that was his sentiment, which is why I am happy his chose to remove that statement from his website before being externally forced to do so.




35. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:47 pm:

    LOL. Nice try.




36. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:49 pm:

    Perhaps you can reach out to your candidate and ask him to return my call and e-mail. Also, Zorn is trying to reach him as well.




37. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 1:51 pm:

    ===chose to remove that statement from his website before being externally forced to do so.===

    He erased it after the column appeared in the Daily Illini. That would be an external influence.




38. - Squideshi - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:19 pm:

    Rich, I will contact Sherman and ask him to contact you. I didn’t know that anything had appeared in the Daily Illini (I’m not working on his campaign.)

    Let’s also remember that Sherman can not afford, and does not have a filter in the form of professional public relations staff, or a handler, as Democratic and Republican candidates often do; so his statements are not always going to be as polished (and I would argue less genuine) than those candidates. At least to me, it is INTENTION that is important; and as I have already said, I am convinced that Sherman had no intention of being racist in any way. In fact, I have already explained the ACTUAL point which I believe he was trying to make; and, as you have already pointed out, the fact that Sherman had indicated only a few lines down that Dr. King was his boyhood hero only supports those claims.

    Bad wording? Definately. Bad intentions. No.




39. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:30 pm:

    Oh Squid, you can’t actually expect anyone to believe any of that. C’mon.
    Rob Sherman is a 24-hour publicity stunt. He puts himself in the media every chance he gets. Now he’s a babe in the evil media world?
    Which Bill Black quote fits best here?
    How ’bout: “I may have been born at night, but not last night.”
    And I find it hard to believe that the state’s self-annointed top atheist grew up idolizing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Let me guess. He likes the Pope as well.

    Oh, wait. You’re the legalize drugs party. Now I get it. You’d have to be high to believe any of the above arguments.

    But keep trying. My guess is Sherman will say and do many, many more things before November.

    Maybe we could arrange a Sherman vs. Oberweis debate. Not for any office, but for some kind of foot-in-mouth award.

    Make it a fundraiser with the proceeds going to MALDEF and the NAACP.




40. - Kevin Fanning - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 2:41 pm:

    LOL




41. - Squideshi - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 3:21 pm:

    “Rob Sherman is a 24-hour publicity stunt. He puts himself in the media every chance he gets. Now he’s a babe in the evil media world?”

    Are you suggesting that this was an intentional publicity stunt? Granted, while this may be generating publicity; are are you actually admitting that Sherman rivals his Democratic and Republican opponents in this type of tactic?

    “And I find it hard to believe that the state’s self-annointed top atheist grew up idolizing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”

    Boy. That’s narrow minded. You can idolize someone for great things they’ve done, without agreeing with everything they’ve done or believe. Yes, Dr. King was a religious figure; but that doesn’t mean that an atheist can’t idolize him. In fact, go into any Unitarian Universalist congregation around the state and you will happily find many atheists doing exactly just that.

    “Oh, wait. You’re the legalize drugs party.”

    We are? I wasn’t aware of that. I knew that we were for the legalization of marijuana and an end to the so-called war on drugs (which has been a miserable failure, costing the taxpayers untold fortunes, while filling up our prisons with nonviolent minor drug offenders.)

    Let’s see what the national platform has to say about this:

    “Law enforcement is placing too much emphasis on drug-related and petty street crimes, and not enough on prosecution of corporate, white collar, and environmental crimes. Defrauding someone of their life savings is the same as robbery. Spraying pesticides while workers are in the fields, negligently maintaining dangerous workplaces that result in death or maiming, or dumping toxic substances should be treated the same as other crimes.”

    “At the same time, we must develop a firm approach to law enforcement that directly addresses violent crime, including trafficking in hard drugs. Violence that creates a climate of further violence must be stopped.”

    “We call for decriminalization of victimless crimes. For example, the possession of small amounts of marijuana.”

    “We call for legalization of industrial hemp and all its many uses.”

    “We call for an end to the “war on drugs.” We support expanded drug counseling and treatment.”

    The legalize drugs party? Hardly.




42. - Zorn - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 3:35 pm:

    I wanted to talk to Sherman before posting on this — here’s my take:
    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news
    _columnists_ezorn/2008/04/davis-and-sherm.html




43. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 3:39 pm:

    Squid,
    Let’s get back to the point.
    Don’t try to pass off your newly annointed Green Party star as some kind of political neophyte when he says something stupid. You should know better. He’s the Green Party’s Jack Franks.

    Anytime anyone criticizes anyone affiliated with the Green Party, you immediately leap to their defense and suggest they are the victim in all of this, the good-hearted goo-goo being rundown by media conspiracies and political combines.

    From Rich Whitney’s history with the socialist party to Rob Sherman’s really poor choice of words.

    Face it, you’ve got some friggin nutcases in your party, and in that sense you’re exactly like every other party that’s ever been formed.

    But you would have been better off in this case just saying:
    “Wow, that was a stupid thing to say” and then let Sherman fight his own battles.

    Now, at least here, you’ve become the defacto defender of the comment. Is Sherman’s “Negro” comment what what you want to leap to everyone’s mind when they hear or read “Green Party”?

    Have you learned nothing from the Dems and Republicans? True, they’re entrenched and in need of a good challenge, but not everything they do is stupid. They know when to throw someone under the bus because there will be a tomorrow and they need to be part of it.

    If Rob Sherman is the Green Party’s future, well, you better enjoy today.




44. - TaxMeMore - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 4:18 pm:

    Right, Bill, and just how much is Monique Davis making off the taxpayers these days? Probably at least $80,000 for her St. Rep. seat and all the expenses paid with that, and what, another $90,000 from public schools? Free health care. Massive holiday, sick and vacation time. Pension pegged around $150,000 a year with that automatic COLA. Yeah, “educator” Davis has earned every penny.

    One child’s educator is another child’s brainwasher.

    “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” - Democrat State Representative Monique Davis on the floor of the Illinois House in 2008.

    I’d happily criticize double dipping lawyers in the GA that think philosophy is dangerous to kids and demand a citizen get out of their seat in the Illinois State Capitol every chance I get.




45. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 4:19 pm:

    TaxMeMore, she apologized, which shows more class than your rants today. Take a breath, please.




46. - Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 4:26 pm:

    Also, this is a citizens legislature. Plenty of people have jobs other than their House or Senate seats. We have farmers, bankers, lawyers, insurance guys, etc. Why not some government workers? As long as they’re doing their jobs, they have a right to be in Spfld.




47. - Squideshi - Friday, Apr 11, 08 @ 5:59 pm:

    “Don’t try to pass off your newly annointed Green Party star as some kind of political neophyte when he says something stupid.”

    I don’t remember doing this. What I DO remember doing is indicating that he does not have filters in the form of full-time professional “handlers” like Democratic and Republican candidates often do. Also, I wasn’t aware that Sherman was a “party star” as you suggest. As far as I knew, he was a candidate, and only a recent member of the Illinois Green Party at that. Do I think he’s perfect? No. (I particular don’t agree with his position on immigration.) Do I think he’s better than his opponents? Absolutely.

    “Anytime anyone criticizes anyone affiliated with the Green Party, you immediately leap to their defense and suggest they are the victim in all of this, the good-hearted goo-goo being rundown by media conspiracies and political combines.”

    Really? Media conspiracies? Obviously, there are biased journalists and outlets out there but, really, conspiracies? Now, political combines, that’s a different story–they definitely DO work to limit competition in our political marketplace of ideas and you need look no further than state statue and legislation in order to prove that.

    “Face it, you’ve got some friggin nutcases in your party, and in that sense you’re exactly like every other party that’s ever been formed.”

    I would say that’s a fair statement. Any organization of any significant size is bound to have some strange members; but I don’t believe that Sherman is a “nutcase” as you here suggest that he is, or that we have as MANY as you seem to think that we do.

    “But you would have been better off in this case just saying: ‘Wow, that was a stupid thing to say’ and then let Sherman fight his own battles.”

    Ummm… I didn’t use the word “stupid” but I did say that it was a poor choice of words. Isn’t that just about the same thing (but a nicer way of saying it?)

    “Is Sherman’s ‘Negro’ comment what what you want to leap to everyone’s mind when they hear or read ‘Green Party’?”

    I’m sure that will not be the case; although, I know that Democrats and Republicans would like it to be. Incidentally, who here things that the name “United NEGRO College Fund” is racist?

    “Have you learned nothing from the Dems and Republicans? True, they’re entrenched and in need of a good challenge, but not everything they do is stupid. They know when to throw someone under the bus because there will be a tomorrow and they need to be part of it.”

    I think this stems from part of the core philosophy behind those parties–victory at just about any cost–including the serious compromise of core values. That’s not a philosophy the Green Party shares. We tend to believe that it’s not just about what’s done, but also HOW it’s done.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.