Clueless Daze: Marilyn Davenport's mere "political satire"

Obama chimp email official meets the press (OC Reg)

John and Ken and Marilyn

The OC Weekly's R. Scott Moxley reports:

...Marilyn Davenport tells John and Ken on KFI in a live interview that she sent the racist email against President Obama "strictly as a joke type thing." She said she "does not think in racist terms." According to Davenport, she "doesn't look at Obama as a black person," she only looks at his policies. She went on to say that she doesn't think her own race is superior to any other race and that she has never discriminated against people of another race. With the aid of fellow conservative OC activist Tim Whitacre, she did say that she feels "betrayed" by OC GOP boss Scott Baugh and Mike Schroeder, both of whom have expressed a zero-tolerance stance against Davenport's actions....

Tom Fuentes

     STATING THE OBVIOUS. Davenport and Co. evidently do not recognize any racism beyond overt and conscious racism—call it “blatant” racism. This is a stunningly clueless perspective, although I do not doubt that Ms. Davenport has it, more or less. It is stunning but it is familiar.
     I am willing to take this lady at her word: OK, she’s not a blatant racist. She's probably a nice lady. But to suppose that one who has not acted from blatant racism ipso facto has not acted offensively (with regard to racism) is ABSURD. My grandfather (for whom I had the usual affection) was not a blatant racist. Had anyone challenged him, he would surely (and sincerely) deny harboring racist attitudes. But I have no doubt that, by the standards of our day (at least among decent society), he was a racist. I cringe to think of the things he would sometimes do or say that bespoke his profound albeit unconscious racism.
     It does not strike me as unreasonable to hold public persons to a higher standard than the average citizen. Ms. Davenport is clueless about race and about our society. This is tolerable in my Aunt Minnie but less so in Ms. Davenport.

     THE LESS OBVIOUS. I don’t know, but I strongly suspect, that Baugh and Schroeder decided early on to use Davenport’s blunder (and indeed to use Davenport, their comrade) to kill two birds with one stone—namely, to smack down the endlessly troublesome Tea Party (Davenport’s birtherism is Liptonian) and to “define” the party as staunchly anti-racism, which is helpful relative to the need to attract minorities to Republicanism.
     If I’m right, it was a cynical and ruthless move—ruthless because decent people don’t just throw their friends under the bus (they talk with ‘em; they at least give ‘em a heads up!); cynical because the Baugh/Schroeder crowd routinely exploit those very racist attitudes (exemplified by Davenport’s email—and worse) that they so noisily condemn. (I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility of some sincerity on Schroeder’s part, owing to his strong stance against Steve Frogue thirteen years ago.)
     I agree that there are times at which one must adopt a “zero tolerance” stance toward some error or misdeed, even if that means hurting comrades or friends. A painful thing, that. But one can suppose that that is occurring only among leadership that is sincere and decent. If the past is any indication, Baugh (and Schroeder and Fuentes, et al.) fall into a very different category.

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"