Keeping A Straight Face - Part II

Steve Hart claims he’s confused by our linkage of his blog comment about the “right-wing’ stance on illegal immigration and an ad the Democratic Party was forced to take down because of its reference to illegal immigrants. He writes an “analysis” in an addendum to his post Nope, no bigots here:

Some winger twit connected my post on the outpourings of racism coming from every level of the conservative asylum to a WaPo story about the Democrats puling an ad…

Here’s the original quote we posted from Hart:

We hear time and again from right-wingers that their stance on immigration is truly color-blind: it's sheer coincidence that the people they're most angry about happen to have dark skin. It's always been tough to hear that argument and keep a straight face...

And here’s the quote we used from the Washington Post:

Democrats dropped an ad that Hispanics had criticized as unfairly depicting illegal immigrants as terrorists.

The Democrat ad “showed footage of a person climbing over a corrugated metal border fence and another preparing to climb it as the words "millions more illegal immigrants" form on-screen”.

Hart regularly equates a stance against illegal immigration with racism, as he did in the highlighted post. We paired the quote from Hart and the one about the DSCC ad with three points in mind. One, to show Democrats were apparently trying to convey a strong stance against illegal immigration. Two, Democrats obviously didn’t buy into his opposition to illegal immigration equals racism equation or they wouldn’t have created the ad and three, the Democrats’ Bush bashing ad backfired.

Hart’s “analysis" continues:

Since the baby winger provided no context beyond the two links, it's hard to tell what he's on about. Is he saying the Democrats are racist because they took down a picture that might have offended Latinos? (The Republicans wouldn't have taken it down -- scare stories about al-Qaeda possibly smuggling operatives across the Rio Grande are holy writ for the likes of Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt.) Just what point is the poor thing trying to make?

Under Hart’s theory, one would assume creating and posting an ad decrying “millions more illegal immigrants” would be the racist transgression, not taking the ad down. But admitting that would place Hart in a bind wouldn’t it? If Hart stuck by his assertion that being against illegal immigration is racist, he would be snaring Democrats in his trap. If he acknowledged a legitimate case can be made against illegal immigration with no underlying racist motive, there goes one of his favorite insults to the right-wing.

So, Hart pleads confusion, muddies the waters and goes on the attack. To counter the fact the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee put up the ad, Hart claims the unknowable - “Republicans wouldn't have taken it down”. Democrats took down a video, not a “picture” as Hart states. There’s no “might have offended Latinos” as Hart equivocates, articles on the ad brouhaha make that quite clear. Latino groups objected to the ad for “depicting illegal immigrants as terrorists”, not for the conservative pundits’ concern he cites of “al-Qaeda possibly smuggling operatives across the Rio Grande”.

Hart concludes his “analysis” with:

That's the trouble with wingers -- they so often operate from private obsessions that are difficult for outsiders to understand. Conservatism has always been a matter of emotion rather than analysis, but the Bush years have exacerbated the problem.

On this we can agree – “the Bush years have exacerbated the problem”. Go over and check out the posts on Hart’s Opinion Mill. We think most people will get our point without further explanation.