Medved calls Tancredo a racist. Yawn.
Jack J. writes:
Thanks for having one of the two best websites on the internet. Every morning I read you first and Vdare.com second.
I just heard Michael Medved accuse Tom Tancredo of racisim in last night’s debate. The reason being that Tancredo, in a somewhat mocking immitation of Martin Luther King, said that he dreamed that one day you would not have to press 2 for English when making a phone call.
I find Medved, despite his high intelligence, to be a classic neocon because of his adherence to two propositions: (1) We can remake the Middle East because everybody can be democratized, and (2) we can take in millions of Mexicans because everybody can be assimilated to our democracy. Because Tancredo questions the second proposition, he is a racist on Medved’s view. The one and only problem that I have with Tancredo, is that he does not question the first propostion. In that respect, Ron Paul is the better candidate. I would love to see either a Tancredo/Paul or a Paul/Tancredo Ticket.
Thanks again and keep up the great work.
- end of initial entry -
Jeff in England writes:
I heard the Medved accusation live on internet radio. I was shocked at Medved’s lunacy but I really should know better by now. Incredible: Tancredo questions the insanity of an immigration policy that is rapidly destroying America and Western Civilisation and is then accused of being a racist. How far America has fallen.
Sam B. writes:
I have listened to Michael Medved for many years, first when he was primarily a movie reviewer, in the mode of that other team, Ebert and Siskel. At noon, when he comes on, until three pm, the only alternative is Sean—“You’re a great American”-filled with cliches—Hannity. So I don’t have much of a choice, though to give Hannity his due, he is no pompous bien pensant “intellectual.”
Here is a man who, like many of us who left the left, became just as vain—as did I—to call himself a conservative. Nothing like a conversion later in life. But I checked out of the left in the 1930s, at a tender 21. Medved went into it at about that age. But then he ended up a neoconservative, as did I. The difference is that he wasn’t so much a neocon as a (Republican) party (Bush) man. He is what the fine talk show host Al Rantel on KABC-790 (LA) calls a “Koolaid Drinker.” GWB=Jim Jones. Of course, he’s supported the Bush “immigration initiative” through thick and thin.
But what explodes all of his brainware and (Yaley) brilliance is telling: he’s begun to get hysterical. Epithets like “nut-jobs,” and yes, “racist” as one of your other posters put it, where he has to resort to ad hominem. An INTELLECTUAL!!??
I know that you don’t have much more use for Dennis Prager’s positions on many issues, but he’s head and shoulders above “My-wife-Dr-Diane-Medved” Mike. This is an interesting psychological study, for Prager, to his credit, was never a leftist. Indeed, as an observant Torah Jew he couldn’t be. (As my father once sagely noted to me when I was a Young Commie—add the Yiddish accent—“Vun cannot be a communist and be a good Jew at the same time.”)
Medved seems to emulate—or tries to emulate—Prager in what he believes is Prager’s positions—on Israel, Judaism, etc. But he comes off a very poor second. They even got into it once when discussing the esoteric minutia of classical music. Prager always treats his callers with respect and dignity and, as equals. With Medved, there is a patronizing, an indulgence, a tired “patience” with the benighted caller whom he asks—if the idiot can’t get his message right away—“Focus like a laser beam.” Indeed he should rename his show with that—or maybe Radio Weekly Standard? I’ve e-mailed him these same thoughts, so not I’m talking behind his back.
Gary M. writes:
Have to agree with Sam B. about Michael Medved. He’s a condescending, self-righteous jerk.
I have remarked to you before about how Medved seems to despise the callers to his show who want to talk about immigration. Of course, maybe he’s got no choice except to take those calls, since he’s got to fill the air with something.
Lately he seems to have developed a particular dislike for people who want to express their concerns about the SPP, which is a real live entity, and the NAU, which so far is not. He denounces people who oppose such schemes (e.g. Jerome Corsi) in very nasty terms, actually resorting to name-calling that in my mind would be more suitable if he were going after, let’s say, Cardinal Mahony here in Los Angeles. Whether there is an actual plan to implement a North American Union or not, it seems to me that any conservative should be opposed to such a thing, instead of just dismissing it with a wave of a hand. Although some may be actually plotting to bring such a thing about deliberately, Medved and his ilk refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that our government could stumble, bumble, and fumble its way into such an arrangement. Example: If current levels of immigration from Mexico (legal and illegal) are not brought under control, and soon, we will no doubt hear from a Michael Chertoff-like figure 20 years from now that we must “bow to reality” and accept that a large part of our country is linguistically and culturally Mexican, and that Mexico City plays a decisive role in our politics, i.e. the “special relationship” that George Bush dreams of. There may still be a political entity called the United States of America, but it will have been merged with Mexico in all but the most narrow legal sense. As they say, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Jeff in England writes:
Tancredo was called a racist by Medved because he said (in the Republican debate) something very similar to: “I have a dream that I can pick up a telephone in America and not hear a recording say press one for English and two for Spanish.” (I’m not sure Medved said that Tancredo said the word “Spanish” or the phrase “any other language.”
In other words, Tancredo wants English as the official National Language. That hardly makes him racist. The caller on Medved’s show then said he agreed with Tancredo which seemed to throw Medved. Medved then asked the caller if he had heard Tancredo say that he is against ALL immigration. Oh my god! The caller got all defensive and after much hesitation said he couldn’t remember if Tancredo said that or not. It seems (according to Medved) anyone against ALL immigration is a devil worshipper.
Jeff continues:
Another calls up Medved on the same show and says that Tancredo is NOT a racist. The caller says just as we weren’t racist to fight the Germans and Japanese in WW2, we are not racist to fight the Mexicans as they invade our land via immigration. A very good point methinks.
But to Medved, it is a reflection of the caller’s racist attitude. Medved asks the caller if he is not being a “little racist.” The caller, as far as I remember says he is NOT a racist. I believe Medved then ended the call making some disparaging remark about the caller’s attitude.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 06, 2007 05:33 PM | Send