Of all these responses, I think saintzak hit the nail on the head. I mean, think about it. Why on earth would Republicans have anymore "spine" that Democrats? It's certainly not true with the voting populace, so why would it be true with the representatives?

This is all about the fact that, as saintzak pointed out, the Democrats and Republicans are all feeding from the same trough and asking for money from the same people.

I had a conversation recently with a guy who manages campaigns for rural candidates in Texas. The ratio of his clients is 80% Dem/20% Rep. He told me the thing they all have in common is that "it's all about business." About raising funds and doing what you have to do to keep raising funds. There are realitvely few willing big money donors out there.

So why isn't there comprehensive campaign finance reform? Because the big money donors want to maintain their influence. The candidates know it would take several laps around the track to get reform passed. And they can't go several laps around the track without money from those donors who don't want reform. Consequently, it doesn't happen.

Why don't we use the Republican frame for the George Allen issue?

"George Allen: You're either with him or against him."

You can be a racist apologist, like a some posters on here have been (that's awfully brave on an anonymous forum!), or you can call George Allen out for who he really is. Take your pick.

Does it matter to anyone that the original Swift Boaters were liars, and the evidence showing Allen's recist past and present is overwhelming AND true? Or are people arguing that personal attacks are always irrelevant, you know, like with Clinton in the '90s?

LeCastor is right.

I have a question for those who are coming to Allen's defense:

Can you tell me something good about the man?

All this back in forth has been about the relevance of the negative stories and accusations, but for me to "forget" about all that, I would need to hear something, anything that would lead me to believe the negative accounts are false, unfair, or irrelevant. Even from Allen, all we are getting is lame, sometimes changing denials and alibis.

It's obvious that the folks who are coming to Allen's defense aren't very bothered by his racists beliefs and behavior throughout his life. I just wonder what they like about him?

In your troll warning you forgot to mention the folks who think this is a "non-story." Oh how they wish! I've been hearing Salon credited for this story several different times today, and I rarely hear Salon credited for it's original stories. The people trying to paint George Allen as some sort of victim in all this should save their breath (and keyboards).

Your ignorance of history is showing. There has been quite a discussion in these letters regarding Robert Byrd. Maybe you should have taken the time to read a few before you posted and made yourself look even less informed.

Briefly, the difference between Byrd and Allen is that Allen is STILL a racist. Byrd has a despicable past, but has done much to make up for it. Maybe if you were better informed you would know that. And if Allen is such a great guy, where are the letters telling us about that? I put the challenge out there, so far nobody's taken me up on it.

"The thing I find funny is that people think the "macaca" comment was racist."

Are you really THAT ill-informed? You haven't heard what "macacca" means? That it's a real word? A word commonly used as a racial slur where his mother is from? People like you show why it's so important to keep harping on this story--because so many people STILL don't know the truth. Christ, you conservatives are thick!!!

These aren't the only allegations about Allen. There are many, many others. What about the macaca incident? What about the deer head? What about the confederate flag in his law office. His worship of the confederacy throughout his life? This isn't about Robert Byrd. I hate how you conservative always have some red herring ready to go off point with. Tell me something good about Allen? And that's fine that you are at work. So am I. You just shouldn't have accused us of ignoring something that hadn't been ignored. Even if it deserved to be ignored!

One month before Clinton left office, several conservatives praised him on his antiterrorism record. For example, Robert Oakley, ambassador for counterterrorism under President Reagan, said: “Overall, I give them very high marks… The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger.” But Paul Bremer, who had had the same post under Reagan, and later chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, disagreed with Oakley. He felt that Clinton had “correctly focused on bin Laden.”

-----------

joe, if you're going to re-write history, you need to be much, much smarter.

I posted a request for any of the Allen apologists to write some examples of anything positive on his behalf, since all they have claimed thus far is that the allegations are meaningless, unfair, hypocritical, etc. Basically painting Allen as some sort of victim, as it were.

So far, the best anyone has done is mention that he scored 100% on some conservative watchdog group's scorecard. Wow. That's it? I realize that means a lot of things, but one thing it means for sure is that he's never done anything in his political career to piss off his racist voting base. Bravo, Mr. Allen.