Debate:Is Andy Schlafly Racist?

Andy recently made the comment that "No one is criticizing Obama based on his race. But he's not immune from criticism based on his race either. Surely you agree with that"  

'''Does this make him a Racist? '''

June 9, 2008

 * The way he said that sounds bad, but I think what he meant was something along the lines of "his race does not give him immunity from criticism" --CPAdmin1 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Probably. I don't think that quote's as condemning as it looks on first glance, but this whole Obama thing has the undeniable taste of a smear campaign.  23:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point. The first sentence is still a lie, of course. "Affirmative action president", anyone?  ħ uman  23:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The Obama page is biased, I just don't think it's racist. --CPAdmin1 00:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * While I wouldn't say Andy's is racist, he definitely is using racist remarks (i.e. dismissing his accomplishments on the basis of affirmative action, in other words, his skin colour) as cheap shots in order to smear him. NightFlareStill doesn't have a RWW article. 01:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think that Andy is extremely anti-liberal. He looks for any way possible to minimize accomplishments by liberals.  I also think that he sincerely believes that his accomplishments are due to affirmative action. (how else could he have accomplished anything?)  I don't think it is a "cheap shot" in that sense, because I think Andy actually believes it. --CPAdmin1 01:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * A little ways back someone on this site put up a nice comparison between Andy and Obama. Obama is everything Andy wishes he could be, their life history is fairly similar up until around the time that Andy fails miserable in his bid for congress. After that it is down hill for him and now he is a glorified babysitter in a basement running a mid-level blog site. Obama is going to be the President of the United States. It's personal. 01:17, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's personal. Andy has about the same opinion of all liberals.  (see the liberal -insert any word that works out to a put-down here- pages)  It just comes out more against Obama because he is in a prominent position.  I think that your "glorified babysitter" remark is very unfair.  His classes are actually pretty good.  I took a some in past years.  And I know that students who have taken his classes have done quite well on standardized tests on those topics.  --CPAdmin1 01:25, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between the speech and thought ... If you say racist remarks, you are racist... That does mean that you're going to buy sheets and join the Klan, there are varying levels of racism... Andy, however, hides his own incredible racism behind the sheild of religion and old fashioned values. Everyone knows that Affirmative Action President is Andy-speak for Nigger President and his other spewings are just as bad.... I understand that, being black, I have a slight bias on this one... but that's how I see it SirChuckB  01:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I know Andy personally, and I know that he is not racist.  I don't know what racist remarks you are talking about, but I haven't seen any that were clearly racist. --CPAdmin1 01:25, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Does the claim that someone got to where they are (candidate for president in this case) only through affirmative action have any racist tones to it? If it doesn't, why does "affirmative action" need to be mentioned in the article? Is there any evidence at all that he got to where he was through affirmative action? --Shagie 01:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think the claim is racist. I think it is an example of grab-any-excuse-possible-to-downplay-any-accomplishments-he-might-have.--CPAdmin1 01:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Racist remarks for the sake of politics is just as bad, if not worse, than racism for the sake of racism, but they aren't really the same; one stems from irrational hatred against your ideological opponents (in this case liberals), the other stems from irrational hatred against those different than you. For example, if the elections were instead Clinton vs. Condolezza Rice (first person that came to mind), would Andy throw rants in support of the master race or would he start calling the Hillary supporters racists? NightFlareStill doesn't have a RWW article. 01:31, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm with ChuckB on that.  Claiming that anything Obama accomplishes is due to AA is racism.  End of story. Yes, it's "nice white folk who don't say the N word" racism, but is racism, just the same. (I haven't read NF's edit conflict with me yet ;))  ħ uman  01:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The claim is flat out wrong, but that doesn't make it racist. you have yet to explain what makes it racist.--CPAdmin1 01:36, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I thought it was obvious to within 98 Aschlafies. I will try to clarify.  AA is about race.  Andy claims Obama would not be where he is today without AA.  Andy, by gluing those two ideas together (sorry, I forget the logical term) is claiming that Obama is only where he is today because of the color of his skin.  That's racism, of the genteel, Northern variety.  Maybe it's just jealousy, but I don't think it's all jealousy. And if it is, Andy is using racism to buttress his jealous argument.  ħ uman  01:44, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * WHat is the definition of racism? As far as I understand it, racism is the belief that one race (any race it can work in any direction) is better than another, or that on person is better than another because of their race.  I do not believe that this claim (however ridiculous it is) fits that definition.  Andy is just trying to make an excuse why Obama is in the position he is in.  If Andy said that Bush only git elected because he got special treatment for being white would that be racist?  I think that people are hyper-sensitive to anything negative said about african americans, and too quick to call it racist.  If you have a different definition of racism, [please tell me. --CPAdmin1 01:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually I think Andy believes he would be where Obama is today if he was black and hence is viewing the situation through a racial lens. Lets compare the two. Andy editor of the Harvard review, Obama president of the Harvard Review, Andy's response claims they had a racial quota. Andy lectured a few semesters of Law, Obama lectured about 12 years of law, Andy's response tries to paint him a liar by calling "Professor". Andy failed in bid for congress, Obama elected senetor and now presidential nominee, Andy's response say he has done nothing that can't be attributed to affermative action. Andy opinons might not be racist as such, but he has a racist attitude towards Obama as he is everything Andy could not succeed in being. - 3.14159 (not signed in)

(undent) You are making no sense. What "racist attitude"? if you pay attention to CP at all, you know that he did (does) the "professor" thing to Dawkins too. There isn't a racist attitude. he is just attacking another liberal by any means possible. --CPAdmin1 02:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What is racism if not attacking a person based on race?  Saying that where they got they only got because of their race? --Shagie 02:12, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * He is not attacking his race or attacking him because of his race. If he was white, Andy would have a different excuse.  If you aren't claiming superiority (or someone else's inferiority) based on race, than I don't think it is racism.  Just because an attack relates to his race, does not mean that it is based on his race.  you are mistaking relation for causation. --CPAdmin1 02:19, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * This website makes claims like that all the time. SHahB 02:14, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * If he is only attacking him as a liberal and his claim he is not a professor then he should keep it to that. Say his political beliefs are wrong, say he fradulantly calls himself a professor, but by claiming he got were he is by AA alone is bringing his race into it which is not the same as attcking his beliefs it is attacking his race. SHahB where does this website make what claims?- 3.14159 (not signed in)
 * You still have not explained how it attacks his race. as I see it, it attacks what Andy sees as other people's preferential treatment of him based on his race. --CPAdmin1 02:21, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Exactly Andy has assumed because he is black, and based only on the fact he is black, that he has recieved special treatment over him. Andy has judged him on the colour of his skin, not on the integrity of his character. - 3.14159 (not signed in)
 * please explain how the claim in any way makes a claim of white superiority, or black inferiority. Andy is attacking one black man based on what andy sees as preferential treatment.  A racist claim would be that blacks cannot advance without affirmative action. --CPAdmin1 02:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Exactly Andy has assumed because he is black, and based only on the fact he is black, that he has recieved special treatment over him. Andy has judged him on the colour of his skin, not on the integrity of his character. - 3.14159 (not signed in)

(unindent) I'll tell you why it's racist. He claims that Obama is only the candidate because of affirmative action. He has said many times in the past that liberals only support him because they want a black man in office. That is racist plain and simple. If I said that Mccain is the Republican Nominee only because they wanted another White guy to be president, I'd not only be an idiot (The Republican party really doesn't appeal to minorities) I'd be a racist idiot. The fact that Andy constantly brings up Affirmative Action in relation to Obama smacks of racism. It isn't about being a liberal. He never said That Hillary was an Affirmative Action Candidate, even though AA programs worked for Women too. Whenever Andy brings up an Affirmative Action Whatever, it's in regards to black people... Furthermore, Andy has made or at least tacitly supported Racist remarks from his cronies with no reservations whatsoever. That, to me, is racism plain and simple SirChuckB  02:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


 * You are basically claiming, that any claim that someone is receiving preferential treatment based on race is racist in itself? Andy is not claiming that whites are better or that blacks are incapable of doing well.  I don't see how pointing out preferential treatment of someone based on race (even though such treatment is imagined)  is racist.  Just because it mentions race does not make it racist.  --CPAdmin1 02:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No, pointing out treatment is not... but when you use nonexistent data to attack someone based on their race... well... if Andy has some kind of proof, that's not racist, it's just an observation of the facts... However, when you constantly dismiss every accomplishment someone makes as Affirmative Action, that's when you hit the racist part. Let me pose it this way... Did Obama get extra delegates because of his race?  Did he have to somehow work less to receive his votes?  Did the state of Illinois change voting rules to be more favorable toward him?  No, he had just as much chance as everyone else did in the election.  By the way, speaking of Affirmative Action, shall we assume that Andy was accepted to Harvard on his merits alone?  Is did the fact that his last name was Schlafly and his mother was famous have something to do with it?  Is he an Affirmative Action Lawyer? SirChuckB  02:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * This debate is not over whether Andy's claim is correct. It is most definitely not correct.  What I am saying is that Andy believes the statement.  to him it is exactly the same as if he had proof.  In his mind, it is already proven.  If he did not actually believe it, but was just saying it to attack Obama, then it would be racist.  But because he actually believes it, it is not racist. --CPAdmin1 02:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That draws a conclusion that you can't back up. You assume that Andy really thinks it's true... but why should we go along with that?  D.L. Hughley said it best "Racist people know what to say in order to not appear Racist."  It we're going to trot off into the world of what we're assuming, I can say that Andy is only rationalizing his hatred of black people.  He doesn't like black people, is told by society that it's wrong and therefore, he hides his racism under the guise of disliking Affirmative Action... We can go back and forth on this all night SirChuckB  03:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Because I know Andy personally, and have for years. You don't have to accept it, but that does not take away from the truth of it. --CPAdmin1 03:04, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


 * By extension, individuals in the KKK (just picking a group that is racist) that believe that they are superior to other races are not racist? I'll grand that this is argument via reduction to the absurd... but are you claiming that "if you believe what you are saying you are not racist or sexist (pro male or female) or any other of the -ists that are prejudicial to how you view the world"? --Shagie 03:04, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Wrong analogy. Andy does not believe that he is racially superior.  He believes that Obama is receiving preferential treatment, and it is therefore not racist to make that claim. --CPAdmin1 03:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Andy is claiming that Obama got to where he was (and wouldn't have gotten there otherwise) because of affirmative action and racial quotas. Not because of any of the work that Obama has done.  He believes the only reason a black person could get to where he is now is because of programs designed to bring them up. Is this any way an incorrect statement of Andy's beliefs? --Shagie 03:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I would say that is an incorrect statement of Andy's beliefs. He is only attacking Obama, not any other black person in a prominent position.  He believes that Obama (and no other person to my knowledge) has received the benefit of what he terms affirmative action. --CPAdmin1 03:19, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Wait wait... Andy is not racist because he only shows racist traits while talking about Obama? How does that even begin to make sense? (This statement was added after the one below it for strange formatting purposes SirChuckB  03:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * He believes that Obama is receiving preferential treatment because he's black. Again, this issue hangs upon his statements.  He has said repeatedly that Obama would be an Affirmative Action President, but Obama is the only person he's said this about.  I would be more willing to give leeway(sp?) if he said it about Hillary or Guiliani or any of the other minority candidates, but he didn't.  he said it only about Obama.  and I have to say, "I know Andy, and he's not racist" is about as good as the dinner conversation reference about the Lemon Test SirChuckB  03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Wiktionary give 3 definitions of racism I think the 3rd and weakest form applies here. Whilst he has neved said he thinks whites are superior he obviouly views race as a barrier between people of different skin tone and so is in effect racisim. - 3.14159 (not signed in)
 * I do not see any "prejudice or discrimination". Where is the barrier you are claiming he believes?  He is claiming that some other (not Obama ) people (largely the media) have a strong desire for a black man to succeed, and are therefore helping Obama reach where he has, when he would otherwise not have.  Andy firmly believes this.  It is not racist for him to claim it.  In fairness, Obama is quite inexperienced.  someone with his low level of experience would not usually make it to where he has, so it is natural for Andy to look for an explanation.  He just came up with the wrong one.  I have to get off now.  I should have about 3 hours ago. --CPAdmin1 03:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent again) I am enjoying this debate and hope it continues, as to your last point, I think the fact that statment is dripping with racist undertones. To assume that someone succeeded only due to Affirmative Action, even if you sincerly beleive it, is still racist. It's not the intent that makes something or someone racist, it's the beleif. On a side note, while I will concede that Obama has had little experience, to state that his success is do to "help" from anyone is crazy. Tom Tancredo had little experience, and his campaign fizzled because he's completely insane. In fact, I would argue that Obama had much more in the way of media scrutiny surronding him because of the race factor, but that's a different subject. SirChuckB  03:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Andy's views are typical of the latent racism that feeds into political parties such Australia's One Nation. They use racial prejudice whenever a person who's skin is dark does well by saying they got there by affermative action and that there own failings are dismissed by "I would have done well if I was black because I would have got help this is reverse racism". I once heard One Nation aptly discribed as the pary of the ill-eduated and the hard-done-bys. Andy sounds a lot like them. 3.14159 03:44, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * CPAdmin1, if somebody came around and spouted the "his achievements can only be explained as the likely result of affirmative action etc." line, and didn't give even a half-assed reason for it, would you assume the comment itself (i.e. not necessarily the person behind it) is racist, that it an attack to the person's race? I do agree that Andy is not (at least with the information avalible to me) racist, but I really don't see how his critique of Obama can be seen as anything other than attacking a person based on his race, thus essentially attacking the race itself.
 * I'm heading to bed too, hope we can continue this interesting debate early. NightFlareStill doesn't have a RWW article. 04:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * CPAdmin says: "But because he actually believes it, it is not racist." and makes other similar comments. Why should sincerely believing something make it not racist?--Bobbing up 04:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Edit point
If it walks like a duck .... Andy's at least doing a good imitation of a racist if he's not one. Can he give any proof that any of Obama's accomplishments have been aided by affirmative action (apart from comparison with his own lack of accomplishment)? If not, then he's racist. If he can then he's not. 05:09, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Have to agree. The burden of proof is on Andy, as he has made the uncited claim that Obama is where he is due to (and I'm not going to mince words with the "AA" term) the fact he is black. And by saying so, he is trying to sow the seeds of an evil thought into what I assume is CP's predominantly white readership.
 * If I'm wrong, and he truly is against any form of Affirmative Action (whether it's because of colour or whatever), then perhaps we can see the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush articles changed to reflect that one became president due to being an actor, while the other got it due to looking like the missing link his dad. Bondurant 05:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Just chiming in
I agree with the statements above that Andy IS racist more in the jealousy-of-Obama's-achievements way rather than a deep-seeded belief in racial superiority/inferiority. I like to look at things from a historical perspective. I wonder what Andy's racial ideology would be if he was the man we know today in the 1860s, the turn of the 20th century, or the 1950s. Oddly, I picture 1860s Andy to be a abolitionist. However, I am disturbed by the image I get of 1950s Andy. 07:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm of a similar mindset, but I don't think Andy is trying to be overtly racist (if even at all). Andy is just so blinded by his hate/misunderstanding of logic and anyone who thinks differently than him.  If your political affiliation or whatever could be classified as a race, then he would be racist.  I think this is just an unfortunate situation where his policitcal nemesis happens to be black so any mudslinging Andy attempts appears to be racist.  Jr  ss  r5  09:44, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "I think this is just an unfortunate situation where his policitcal nemesis happens to be black so any mudslinging Andy attempts appears to be racist."
 * That hits the nail on the head. Andy hates Obama because he is a liberal.  He will therefore use any means possible to attack him.  In this instance, AA was the method that he used.  --CPAdmin1 13:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * But don't you see that this doesn't justify his actions? There are rules of civil discourse that Andy isn't following.  No matter how badly I disagree with someone, resorting to race-baiting to undercut his opponent isn't right.  Stile4aly 13:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Obviously not. His claims are ridiculous, and don't have a place in civil discourse.  I just do not think that they give evidence that Andy is racist.  I am in no way defending the claim.  I am just saying that the claim of racism is unfair.  --CPAdmin1 13:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I believe that my statement above might be taken somewhat incorrectly. I have altered it to emphasize it correctly.  13:23, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Me Too
In my opinion is Andy is racist, but I doubt he realises it. In fac t it is a human trait to be wary or suspicious of people different from your "set" in some way and I think to this extent it includes Andy. I don't think he has any special grips with people of other races except that they do not fit into the image or white, middle class, Christian, Conservative 1920s America that he seems to strive for. I doubt he thinks he is racist but I believe he has a fixed image of what the American president should look and act like. In many ways this image is not what is presented by Obama - one of the ways is the colour of his skin. The only way we can see this is be Freudian slip and implication because Andy isn't overtly racist. Which is another way of saying the only way we can see this is by making educated guesses. To what extent those guesses really are educated as against the extent to which we just pin every negative label on Andy (to suit our own prejudices) is something we need to look to ourselves to answer. Some of us will also doubtlessly be doing what Andy himself seems to suffer from terribly which is Freudian projection. It's only my opinion... RedDog 09:36, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Another Point
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Andy's antipathy towards the junior senator from Illinois stems from jealousy rather than bigotry (someone should ask Andy to give us some personal anecdotes of his time at Harvard with Obama). However...Sometimes when Andy uses an unusual phrase or idea, I'll Google it to try to determine whether Andy borrowed the notion from elsewhere, or if it sprung whole from his festering brain. A few times (and not necessarily connected to any discussion of Obama), I've found that the phrase or idea seems to exist largely or solely within the confines of white racist ideology. I reckon it's possible that Andy has run across these notions in a more or less innocent manner, but I find it disturbing that he's conversant in obscure racist terminology, and that he's happy to use same to make his arguments.--WJThomas 10:50, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

From the OP
I originally put the quote on the WIGO page because the way the quotation reads it sounds as if Andy intends to criticize Obama based on his race. I see that, in fact, it's simply worded clumsily and that he's saying while noone is criticizing Obama because he's black, his race doesn't give him immunity from criticism on other topics. So, I'll concede that point.

This being said, I do have grave concerns with Andy's attitude here. The notion of Obama as an "Affirmative Action President" is in and of itself a racist notion. It presupposes that Obama could not have succeeded without a leg up based on his race. Ultimately, this argument minimizes all successes by people of color. By saying "black people can't succeed without the benefit of AA" one might as well say "black people can't succeed" which does cast blacks as an inferior race.

Tim you're saying that you know Andy and you know he isn't racist. I'm not suggesting that he's a sheet-wearing cross-burner, but there are many levels of racism. This was one of the great things about Obama's speech on race is that he articulated this concept very well. Even his grandmother who raised him and accepted her daughter marrying two black men, she still admitted she felt uncomfortable when a black man crossed her path. I'm sure we've all caught ourselves thinking a racist thought (against any race, not just black people) but the question is how we act on that thought. There have been times when I've walked into a car park at night and passed a group of black men and felt nervous. And then I think "Would I be nervous if they were Asian, or White, or X" and if the answer is no then I decide not be nervous.

As an Arab American and a Muslim I've really seen first hand the flip side of the equation since 9/11. My mother is Caucasian and my dad of Turkish descent so he's very light olive skinned. I'm white as white gets so at first glance one wouldn't guess my race or religion. This racial anonymity has led to me overhearing a number of things that have really made me cringe and question whether some of the people I know are worth knowing.

It's easy to succumb to prejudice. It seems to be human nature to push away that which is not like ourselves. But if we're going to claim moral superiority over chimpanzees then we need to use our intellect to overcome our nature. Andy doesn't seem to be making that effort. He's clearly an ideologue, but to claim that Obama (or any successful person of color) only became successful due to an (unfair, in his eyes) advantage is simply out of bounds. Stile4aly 12:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm caucasian. I freely admit that I have and do think and say things of a racial nature that I have been and am ashamed of.  In the many ways and the great degree to which I consider myself liberal, it seems as though I just can't get past certain things.  Am I any different than Andy?  I think so.  I find it hard to believe that Andy contemplates much over what he has said.  I think he feels justified in his racism (even if he doesn't think it as such), whereas I know that I am not.  13:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Too Rationally
I think we're looking at this too rationally/logically. Looking at his racist statements, e.g. "Affirmative Action President" and the the unfounded claim that affirmative action explain everything Obama has ever accomplished, and draw the logical conclusion that the person making these statements is a racist. But our logic has to become twisted when dealing with Andy, because his logic is twisted. I think Andy's racist notions are just an easy means to reach his desired end. Don't get me wrong, I think he's xenophobic and there is a lot of "hate" there, but I don't think it's specific enough to be racist. Had Obama been white, he'd still be snipey and attacking Obama, but he'd have to find other terms to do so. In other words, I think Andy is extremely xenophobic, hates anything not like himself (which does not consist entirely of nor excludes different races), and will use any term or tool available (that has at least some degree of subtlety) to break down, defame, and denigrate that "other." His appropriation of the racist terms is just a convenience; they're there and they will serve his purpose. --Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  12:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Agree with Arcan - Andy's racism has to be seen with his sexism, his classism, his hatred of people who do not share his faith, etc. etc. He has a strict religious/political view of the world, and anything that challenges that, from Barack to relativity is a target for scorn and derision. PFoster 12:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree with this generally, but I do find it a tad odd too. It seems to say to me that Andy isn't quite as bad as the real racists because he hates so many other people at the same time.  It's like his racism is on a sublevel of his general hatred of anyone outside of his strict worldview, so it is more forgivable.  13:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Arcan, that's a very good and subtle point. In the Schlafly-verse, there is a ready grab-bag of ten or twenty "issues" that are used as needed in any discussions (school prayer, 10 C's, abortion, etc.), and AA is certainly a conservative bete noir.  It became so due to GOP genuflecting towards American racism to build their "big tent" (haha) in the Nixon era (Johnson: "we just gave up the South for a generation..." by passing the Civil Rights acts), and Andy probably doesn't see using AA as a "race-based" criticism, it's AA he is "against", and any successes he thinks he sees that are due to it.  But being an ignorant second- or third-generation (in terms of ideas) racist is still being a racist - his lack of questioning the knee-jerk application of AA, "reverse discrimination", etc., perpetuates the racist undertones of that issue in American politics.  The main reason the GOP lashes out at AA is to maintain whatever small portion of their base really is racist.  I would be willing to drop my charge of "racism" in exchange for "willfully ignorant of American history and politics" - if Andy did not claim to be an expert at American history and politics. PS, Chuck, thanks for moving this discussion to this debate page!  ħ uman  13:50, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I was mainly arguing a semantic point, I guess. I don't find Andy's "xenomisia" excusable or any less vile than garden-variety racism (quite the opposite actually), but I do think it is somewhat of a different classification.  If Andy were to meet a black conservative, I think he would find a way to justify/hand-wave all the AA rationale, but only to the conclusion that this black person is different than the others.  But to the same degree, if Andy were to meet me (a white liberal), he'd demonize me for being a liberal.  I do believe he ranks these categories of "others," liberals obviously near the bottom, etc. and while I think "black" is a category in that continuum as well, I don't think it falls below the "unforgivable line."  In other words, if you're a liberal, you're irredeemable, but just being black doesn't lump you in with those who will obviously be cast into hell, it just increases your chances.  Is that racism?  Of course, but I think it's part of a much larger issue.  --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  14:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

IF
If John McCain suddenly keeled over with a fatal heart attack (gods forbid) and Clarence Thomas assumed the Republican nomination I'm sure Schlafly's "racism" would disappear like magic! I tend to agree with CPAdmin1's assertion that knowing Schlafly IRL, one gets a totally different view of the man. It is a very difficult thing to judge the content of a man's character based solely on his political ramblings, moreso in this case wherein Schlafly is more concerned with Obama losing rather than the white "right" candidate winning. Time will tell, then, if he keeps at it when Obama is sworn in as president. 13:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT) CЯacke ®
 * Nice timestamp.  ħ uman  14:09, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Jumping to conclusions
I think that you are jumping to a conclusion to easily based on 1 statement by a man who you have never met. The claim that Andy believes that "just being black doesn't lump you in with those who will obviously be cast into hell, it just increases your chances." Is totally wrong, and there is no way to back that up. I think that your view of Andy makes it easy for you to jump to negative conclusions where there is little or no evidence. --CPAdmin1 14:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I apologize, I should have been clearer. The "casting into hell" bit was meant to be exaggeration, and I'm sorry if that didn't come across.  I meant to say that being black doesn't automatically mean you will be the "other" that Andy fights against (mainly liberals), but I don't think it's extreme to conjecture that he views black people as a whole as more likely to fall into that category than to be like him.
 * Well, statistically, blacks tend to vote democrat, so why shouldn't he assume, that they are more likely to disagree with him? --CPAdmin1 15:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You are right that I don't know Andy in person, and I really can't say what he is like face-to-face. Then again, I've never met John McCain, Barack Obama, PZ Myers, Phil Plait, Rush Limbaugh, etc., but I have read the things they've put into the public sphere.  Perhaps they are completely different in person, but I still can (and have to in the case of the first two) make judgments about them base on what they've said.  ASchlafly (as I should perhaps be referring to him) is highly intolerant of people not like himself.  I suppose it could be possible that "Andy" is not xenophobic, but I don't think there is much doubt that "ASchlafly" is.  That said, I do apologize for the exaggeration in the above statement.  Obviously, I didn't communicate what I meant and for that, I am sorry.  --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  15:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think Arcan makes a good point. Does it matter what Andy is like?  Isn't it the perception cultivated by ASchlafly that is of any concern?  15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * True that. As I understand it, Limbaugh is two people as well - a guy who lives in Florida, and a crazy-ass persona on the radio he plays for a living.  The CP environment makes the Aschlafly character into an exaggeration of what may be minor aspects of who Andy really is.  And also probably hides other aspects. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The scary part is which persona is real and which is the alter-ego, Andy or ASchlafly? My fear is that the true persona is ASchlafly.  15:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * You are right I guess, we are talking about the online personality "Aschlafly." Here is my take on that.  Aschlafly runs CP like a dictatorship, silences (most) opposition, and treats anyone who disagrees with him politically as stupid and evil.  However, I believe that he does that without discrimination based on race, (or anything else that I can think of).  I think the whole Obama thing is an example of that.  Find any way possible to attack the liberal.  --CPAdmin1 15:55, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It is most unfortunate that what was originally intended to be an collaborative educational resource has now turned into a political bashing blog. Do you see any way to help it return to its original mission? or is now and forever to be an anti-liberal/atheist/homosexual blog?  Would Conservapedia be an embarrassment to the parents of Andy's students?  If they read what is written there, would any of the parents change their mind about allowing their children to be taught by and influenced by the sysops there? --Shagie 16:04, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It is unfortunate, and I don't know whether it can get better. --CPAdmin1 16:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * This is going to sound weird, but maybe this is as far as the discussion should go (iOr at least still ncluding CPAdmin1). Besides being off-topic, CPAdmin1, I really respect the reasonable and patient presence you are at CP.  Are you sure your comments won't be held against you?  I'd hate to see anything we discussed here causing a problem for you at CP, since I know it's a project you care about and I think they desperately need you.  If I'm being overly cautious or stepping on toes or whatever, just completely ignore this comment. :-)  --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  16:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I was beginning to think that this discussion was reaching the point where it isn't going anywhere fast. So maybe we should give it up, at least for the time being.  As for your other point, let them hold what they want against me.  If I get blocked for something I say, then I don't know if I would want to be there anymore. --CPAdmin1 16:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Testing - edit new section
Just testing this link: add new section <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:14, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

What could a Black guy possibly know?
This is my favorite example of Schlafly's racism (so far). How could Obama possibly have heard of Annie Oakley?! Nothing in his background suggests he would know about it!

I think I figured out what " his background" means. Coarb 07:25, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I read as much of the article on Obama as I could possibly stand, and what seemed to be the case to me was that Schlafly is so remarkably full of himself that he believes people with different political viewpoints are naive, unintelligent, and flat-out wrong about their ideas. This is the kind of remarkable egotism that presents the greatest threat to a representative democracy. To be honest, I do not see this as overt racism, although he may unwittingly house prejudices concerning African Americans due to their statistical liberality. One thing can be said for sure: Schlafly has no self-awareness whatsoever, and he truly believes his opinions are immune to scrutiny.--66.32.205.242 01:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
 * What it comes down to is that Andrew Schlafly, Esquire, BSE, JD, is not a "racist", per se, so much as an "Anyone But Meist". A/K/A, an idiot, but at least a funny one.  oops, he "teaches" children, back up the danger scale! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:09, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

No, but...
...he's still a racist. I don't think that comment necessarily suggests that, but conservatives (in our contemporary sense of the term) generally speaking are racist by nature. You don't have to "catch" them with a comment they've made. If someone says they're a conservative you can pretty much bet they're a racist. I could explain this in greater detail but isn't this really self evident?

Not really no. classist deffinatly. Conservative economic policy is deffinatly opressive to the lower classes but its pretty tough to call it outright racist, other wise we wouldn't see any minority conservatives like rice clarance thomoas