Rigell: Bartholomew Was a Victim of Some Sort of Deep, Dark Conspiracy

Where does he say Bartholomew was a victim? (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:28:25 PM UTC

Reading is fundamental. (0.00 / 0)

Now, why it came out the way it came out and when it came out? You understand that. And you know what, the full fabric of our community understands that as well, because I've been in touch with our friends in all parts of our community...they're not fooled by this.

There is none so blind and he who WILL not see!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:30:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read it; I still don't see anything about anyone being a victim. (0.00 / 0)

There's a difference between what you call "dog whistle" politics and just making stuff up.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:52:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, VA Blogger ... (0.00 / 0)

What do you think he is saying?

He does seem to be suggesting that something nefarious happened "that the full fabric of our community understands."

Does he mean the Virginia Beach community? Republicans? Just which community understands what, because while I think Lowell's take is a bit hyperbolic for my taste (understandable given the unjustified attacks against him), I can;t for the life of me figure out what he is trying to say if it isn't that Bartholomew is the wronged party here. He is not -- or, perhaps, more accurately, to the extent that he has been wronged, it is far outweighed by his own transgression.  

I'll add that Rigell handles the first part of it well, both defending his friend and colleague, but not excusing him, then he veers off into the land of victimhood that, honestly, is not appropriate, in my view, given the circumstances.

Whatever the ulterior motives of the people who leaked this stuff, it DID have the beneficial result of exposing racism in the party's leadership, did it not?  

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:43:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing hyperbolic about it. (4.00 / 1)

It's glaringly, 100% obvious what Rigell's getting at, and note that the woman at the end sneaks in "good answer" amid the applause.  It's like "dog whistle," they all know EXACTLY what he's saying, but he and his supporters can play dumb and claim, "What? It's totally innocent!  What are you talking about?!?"  This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, don't fall for it!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:55:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More interestingly... (0.00 / 0)

is how Republicans like VA Blogger feel the need to defend every crazy thing a Republican does, whether it's Rand Paul kidnapping a woman and making her pray to "Aqua Buddha," or the Virginia Beach Republican Party being exposed as a cesspool of racism, etc., etc.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 19:57:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Back the #*&! up here (0.00 / 0)

Where have I EVER defended the racism exhibited in those emails?

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:58:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you prefer the word "downplay"? (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you prefer the word "downplay"?

The Richmonder

---

by: The Richmonder @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:02:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where have I ever downplayed it, either? (0.00 / 0)

Bartholomew's email was disgusting. Beauchamp's email was even more disgusting. Bartholomew did the right thing in resigning his position, and Rigell did the right thing in denouncing him. That's been my position from the very start when I first learned about it when Lowell first posted about it.

The fact that the timing of the release raised political questions doesn't downplay, defend, excuse, or ignore any of that.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:06:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, you've admitted (4.00 / 1)

that the Virginia Beach Republican Party is as a cesspool of racism?  Good, I'm glad to hear it! :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think I fell for anything (0.00 / 0)

But I don't speak Republican.

I was hoping VA Blogger could translate for us.

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:01:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's part of the deal. (0.00 / 0)

They don't want anyone to understand, outside their "dog whistle" world.  For more, I strongly recommend the film, "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story." The guy was a master at "dog whistle politics," and many other Republicans have followed Atwater's lead over the years...

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:07:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's Nonverbal Communication Too (0.00 / 0)

Context is everything. Verbal code, physical code, and delivery code.  

---

by: Dan Sullivan @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, and that removes any shade of doubt (0.00 / 0)

except for those who WILL not see.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:08:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again (0.00 / 0)

it's an example of how shitty they hide the dog whistle/secret code shit that racists have been famous for for decades.  

I really just wish that one of them would just come out and admit what they really, truly want to say:  "we don't think a black should be President".  We've had over 2 years of this - since the time during the general campaign when it became apparent that Obama was going to win.  "He's a marxist, he's a communist, he's a muslim, he's not an American, he hates whites".....   All code for "a $%&#$ (insert your favorite racial epithet) shouldn't be President".

If Hillary, or any white candidate, male or female, had won the nomination, it would have been interesting to see, but I'm sure they would not call her all the crap they've called Obama.  

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:08:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love the line (0.00 / 0)

"the full fabric of our community understands that as well"

Including African Americans?  Oh, really?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:14:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I think he was saying (0.00 / 0)

I don't think any sort of conspiracy was in place, but it is as plain as day that the intended target of the email's release was not Bartholomew, it was Rigell himself. That's the only reason to sit on it for seven months and then release it two weeks before the Election.

If anyone is the "victim" of this, it's Rigell. He had nothing to do with Bartholomew's email, didn't receive the email, didn't know about the email, and condemned it as soon as he did. Yet the release was designed to make him answer questions about it, rather than talk about what he wants to do in Congress or talk about Nye's record.

Rigell is suggesting is that the release of the email had political motives, and given the fact that we're talking about this right now, he's 100% absolutely right.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 20:57:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, perhaps, but ... (0.00 / 0)

I think everyone, Democratic and Republican, understands that there was a political motivation behind this.

So, when he starts talking about "our community," and "being in touch with our friends," he is clearly suggesting that there is some secret to all this known by "our community," and presumably not known by the rest of us. I'm not saying he is expressly saying that, but rather that his vague language suggests that. At  aminimum, it suggests something more than the innocent piece of political analysis you make it out to be.

And therein lies the problem.

Lastly, it is not even clear if the leak was directed at Rigell. According to Vivian Paige, for example, it may have been motivated not by a desire to hurt Rigell, but a personal vendetta against Bartholomew.

Indeed, the way this unfolded was that Rigell quickly came out and distanced himself from this stuff, and that was it. The story really was, and remains, the extent to which this is an isolated incident, or evidence of a larger problem among Republicans in Virginia Beach.

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:05:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It only suggests (0.00 / 0)

Rigell being coy about the topic only suggests that he doesn't want to come right out and say "the release of those emails was politically motivated". And for very, very good reason:

Look what happened when Brian Schoeneman raised that question on Bearing Drift, and when I've defended Schoeneman here on this blog? We've been accused of defending the trash that Bartholomew sent out, regardless of our strong denunciation of it. That's a minefield Rigell is very wise to avoid.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So.... (4.00 / 2)

you're saying Rigell saying one thing explicitly while trying to communicate a different idea that he doesn't want "to come right out and say" because doing so my cause him some flak.

That's the very definition of dog whistle politics.

Saying he is "being coy" is just a euphemism, but it is what it is.

Just because you think he has a "very good reason" for practicing politics like this does not change the nature of what he is doing, it merely seeks to justify it.

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:28:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (0.00 / 0)

Well said.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:31:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No. This is very simple. Please try to understand it. (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to tell you something, and I want you to hold it in your head for a second:

RACISM IS BAD.

There it is. Easy to read, easy to understand, should be simple to remember.

Now, I'm going to tell you something else, and it's a little bit more complex:

The release of these emails were politically motivated.

Were you able to get all of that in on the first take? You should have. I hope you didn't go too fast, though, and forget the first thing I told you.

Okay, now look at both statements I've made there. Look at the first one, then look at the second one. Are you still with me?

Yes? Good. Now, again, look at the first one, and look at the second one.

Okay, I'm now reasonably confident you have both statements down. Even if you don't, I've put them in really simple terms in text for you to easily access (in addition to repeating them just about in every single post, which seems sadly necessary).

Now that you have both statements, you should be able to easily see that they are not contradictory in any way. Believing one statement doesn't mean you cannot believe in the other statement. It is, indeed, possible to think that you can believe these emails were politically motivated AND (bear with me here) also believe that racism is bad.

I know that's asking you to hold two separate thoughts at the same time. I know you have to fight the tendency to think that the two must conflict with one another; they don't. Much as if I told you "apples are red" and "trees are tall", believing that trees are tall doesn't mean apples aren't red anymore.

Okay, now that we've established this, let's look at what you wrote:

So you're saying Rigell saying one thing explicitly while trying to communicate a different idea

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

That is not what I'm saying at all. Not in the least. Not in a million years. Not in any way, shape, or form. That is exactly what I am NOT saying.

I am saying that Scott Rigell believes that racism is bad. I am also saying that Scott Rigell believes that the emails were released with political motivations. This is not "saying one thing and communicating a different thing". These are two separate things he's saying.

The reason he can't come right out and say it is exactly what you did here. Do you see how hard it was for you to grasp the concept of understanding two thoughts at the same time? That's the reaction apparently many people, particularly on this site, have. He's trying very hard not to confuse you. Apparently, he needs to try harder.

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:53:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chill out (0.00 / 0)

I didn't for a second say that Rigell was communicating a racist message.

Here's something I said above:

I'll add that Rigell handles the first part of it well, both defending his friend and colleague, but not excusing him

Here is something else I wrote a few messages above:

Indeed, the way this unfolded was that Rigell quickly came out and distanced himself from this stuff, and that was it. The story really was, and remains, the extent to which this is an isolated incident, or evidence of a larger problem among Republicans in Virginia Beach.

So, I was clearly not arguing that Rigell was at all attempting to dog whistle racism. What I was clearly arguing was that he was attempting to signal was the fact that the cause for this really lay in the political machinations, real or imagines, of Democrats. For example, I wrote:

[H]e is clearly suggesting that there is some secret to all this known by "our community," and presumably not known by the rest of us. I'm not saying he is expressly saying that, but rather that his vague language suggests that.

Or:

I can't for the life of me figure out what he is trying to say if it isn't that Bartholomew is the wronged party here [by the manner in which this was disclosed].

While the straw man you throw up here is easily swatted aside, in the future I would ask you to please feel free to save your time and mine and put the sarcasm on hold. I tried to deal seriously and honestly with your comments here, and its not my fault if you tripped yourself up rhetorically and undercut the very argument you were making, and I pointed out that out. That's no reason to lash out.

Whether you can see that or agree with that assessment of this little debate is up to you -- you are, of course, free to believe what you believe. But seriously, if you want to discuss issues, I'm willing to treat you respectfully, but if I get this juvenile garbage for my time and trouble, I'm also happy just to ignore your comments.

---

by: aznew @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 22:34:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you truly (0.00 / 0)

If you truly did not mean to imply that Rigell was using "dog whistle" racism, then I apologize. Lowell clearly was. Given his constant chiming in repeating the same nonsense, I simply thought you and him were on the same page. I'm glad you're not; that makes you a reasonable person to talk with.

Clearly, you have been the only worthwhile commenter in these threads, so I don't want you to ignore and leave me with the rest of them.

I don't know the reason why Rigell didn't come right out and say that it was politically motivated. I'm not him. I can come up with some good guesses, however. Given how frothy the mouths of some of the more unreasonable Democrats are about this issue, it's a good idea for him to give his opponents as little to work with as possible. If had simply said "This was politically motivated", he would have been called "defending racism" just as Brian and I were, as ridiculous as it was.

So maybe he thought by implying rather than saying it, he could avoid that. Unfortunately, he underestimated exactly how easily people like Lowell could turn a benign comment into The Worst Thing Ever.

I don't know if that was his thought process or not; I'm not in his head. But I think we both can agree that, at no point in his response, did he claim that Bartholomew was a "victim" or claim any type of conspiracy.  

---

by: VA Blogger @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 23:11:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

No harm done and apology accepted, insofar as your post and I am concerned. I look forward to future discussions.

But your gratuitous slam on Lowell and my fellow Democrats is unwarranted, and please don't mix me up in it.

FWIW, here is my view, which you can accept or reject as you please: If you come to a liberal blog with your Conservative way of thinking, you are going to catch Hell, and it is going to seem unreasonable to you. Accept it cheerfully, or move on. I understand that you might be frustrated that we liberals just don't seem to have common sense -- I feel the same away about Conservatives when I comment over at the Blog-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

Bottom line -- debate all you want and as hard as you want, as long as your arguments are based in fact, but there is no reason to insult your hosts.

Take it as face value that we all operate in good faith.

---

by: aznew @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 00:45:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem: (4.00 / 1)

Rigell appropriately calls out Bartholomew for the racist emails.  But then in practically the same breath, he implies that the timing of the release of the email was the bigger issue, to the relief and satisfaction of his audience.  It's as though the "conspiracy" of the timing somehow negates the original offense.

Although it is hard for some Republicans to understand something unless it is said explicitly, here is what essentially takes place during Rigell's speech (and the precise effect he intended on the audience):  he first places the blame on Bartholomew, but then flips it around to put the blame on the Democrats.  How does he do this?  By asserting that those in his "community" are "not fooled by this," as though the entire issue was some sort of trick to fool the Republicans into thinking that there is a problem with racism in their party.

follow me on Twitter.

---

by: frankoanderson @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 01:28:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nailed it. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 02:18:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I called you out last night on (0.00 / 1)

how many times you posted about Racism between 1 March 2010 and 14 october 2010. I noticed you do not have the intestinal fortitude to respond.. or my post last night was inadvertently deleted. Tells me everything!

---

by: chriswahler @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:23:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is this a joke? (0.00 / 0)

i responded multiple times, early this morning, to something that frankly didn't deserve a response.  Right now, you're just trolling and wasting everyone's time. If you have nothing positive to contribute to this blog, you will be banned. Fair warning.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:25:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pardon me, (0.00 / 0)

I was up till 3 am. Didn't see your response. Please show me your responses. A lot of threads here. I don't even see my question now. I was looking for a reply after" Nailed it" and I do not see anything after that.
Thanks
V/r

---

by: chriswahler @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:32:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I posted that several minutes ago. (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you should read first, think second, then consider posting your lies and slanders? Just a thought. By the way, if you represent the caliber of Rigell supporters, as much as I dislike Glenn Nye, I may actually start to care about the 2nd CD race.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:35:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your post was troll rated by the community (0.00 / 0)

which is why you can't see it (trusted users still can), but I responded three times.

Many times on racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
Here are just a few, but there are many more comments and of course diaries by other "front pagers" which I fully support. I've also written many times on these subjects over the years, including voluminously about George Allen's racism during the "Macaca" days of August-November 2006, also voluminously on Corey Stewart's xenophobia and bigotry in 2007, etc., etc.  Now, what in bloody hell is your point (none, I'm sure), and why shouldn't we ban you as a total "troll" on this blog?
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...
http://bluevirginia.us/showDia...

Also, I strongly dispute that right wingers "all agree" (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
that racism is "morally reprehensible." See this poll, for instance, which finds that "People who approve of the Tea Party, more than those who don't approve, have more racist attitudes."  We also have this NAACP study which details "links between certain factions of the Tea Party and "acknowledged racist hate groups in the United States."   Let's just say, I don't see any reports like this about Democrats, liberals, or the left, the vast majority of whom - like myself - strongly oppose racism, xenophobia, and all other forms of discrimination and bigotry (e.g., homophobia, another right-wing staple).

Also, I wrote dozens of times at (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
the "old" version of Blue Virginia on racism and xenophobia (also see here. Basically, it's one of my favorite topics, which I've written about - diaries, comments, etc. - hundreds of times over the past 5 years. How about you? Where's your track record of writing about, and opposing, bigotry - racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, etc? Something tells me you don't have any, but please enlighten us. If not, find another blog to troll!

Almost forgot the dozens of times (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
I wrote about racism, including on the part of other Democratic campaign(s), during the 2008 presidential primaries. One of the many reasons I supported Barack Obama so strongly was that I was thrilled at the prospect of an African American becoming president of the United States. I remain so today.  

While you're at it, why don't you tell us... (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
...about how much money you've donated to Scott Rigell and how ardently you support his candidacy?

I can't believe (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]
That you expended that much effort responding to this idiotic and trollish question.
But it's an impressive response nonetheless.
by: aznew @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 08:27:24 AM EDT

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:28:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've donated (0.00 / 0)

The amounts you have access to on the quarterly reports. I am not a rich person by anyone's standards. I am a single parent trying to send a daughter through college that I have been saving for for 20 years. The "extra" money I have has been going to a person that I truly believe in, know personally and know his morals.

---

by: chriswahler @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:38:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You also owe me an apology. (0.00 / 0)

Big time. Unless these are the kind of "morals" you guys practice, going around slandering people.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 03:46:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trying to follow your logic (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't able to see your response because I was blocked. I was upset with the fact I could not and later you told me I was blocked from seeing it. Surely you would feel the same way if you didn't even see your question.  As far as reading first... if I had something to read I would have. You have made a fare case about your anti-racist beliefs/post. I appreciate that. Please don't vilify me for not knowing what I do not know when I do not have access to the responses you gave.

I apologize if I offended you. Not my way! Thanks for your consideration.

PS Don't worry about me ever posting on this site again. Way too much testosterone! :)

V/r

---

by: chriswahler @ Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 04:47:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of "defending the indefensible" (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:32:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typical Republican strategy (4.00 / 1)

It's not about the actual act, it's about the "cover-up!"  Remember when Dan Rather reported on an unverified document?  The Right was in an uproar, which concealed the fact that Bush actually did skip out on his service with the National Guard.

follow me on Twitter.

---

by: frankoanderson @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 21:02:38 PM UTC

Cartoon in today's Pilot (0.00 / 0)

http://vbdems.org/2010/10/icym...

---

by: Eileen Levandoski @ Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 22:02:37 PM UTC

Nutshell (4.00 / 1)

Here's the problem I think that many of us are having.  Yes, I think reputable Republicans have denounced the e-mails.  (Good.)  And I think reputable Democrats have at least wondered (if not assumed) that there was politics at work.

But where this discussion becomes deadlocked is the idea that these have some sort of moral equivalence.  They don't.  And if you want to insist that they do, how about a less immediate, more Dem-worthy example?  Which is worse -- leaving a woman to drown in Chappaquiddick or using that to bring down health care?  I may not like the latter tactic, but let's face it, if Kennedy hadn't left her, no one could have used it.

If the e-mails hadn't been sent, there would not have been a story.

Period.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 17:08:14 PM UTC

Nice one (0.00 / 0)

Maybe one of these examples will pierce the fog of self-denial in which our Republican friends seem enveloped on this issue, but I doubt it.

---

by: aznew @ Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 17:35:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]