Shapiro Laments the Persecution of Conservatives »« Limbaugh Not Happy About Colbert Replacing Letterman

Today’s Dumbass Politician

It may surprise you to hear that today’s dumbass politician is not a Republican, he’s a Democrat. Rep. Alvin Holmes (D) of Alabama said during a debate on abortion that if the Republicans’ white daughters got pregnant by a black man, they’d support abortion. And then he said this:

State representative Alvin Holmes (D) Montgomery, said republican lawmakers would support abortion if their daughters became pregnant by black men. Holmes later said he would offer $100,000 cash to anyone who could show “a whole bunch of whites” have adopted black children in Alabama.

Today at the state house, white parents who adopted mixed race or minority children said it’s time for Holmes to ‘pay up.’

Beverly Owings is an adoptive mother of a 13-year-old bi-racial daughter. “I would like for him to ‘man up.’ He’s made the statement. He needs to put his money where is mouth is.”

Owings, a supporter of trans racial adoptions in Alabama, is part of a movement called Faces of Families in Alabama.

Supporters of trans racial adoptions rallied this afternoon to show that families shouldn’t be defined by race.

Holmes isn’t backing down:

Holmes believes he’s not in the wrong.

“The majority of the white people in the state of Alabama are against adopting black children. The majority of people in the state of Alabama, in my opinion, do not want their daughters having black babies. They know it’s true and I know it’s true. They aren’t going to say ‘yes, Alvin Holmes is right,” said Holmes.

But that isn’t really relevant to what you said. “A whole bunch” doesn’t mean a majority. You said something stupid. Own up to it.

Comments

  1. abb3w says

    Cheap shot: Maybe Holmes was basing his assessment of the abortion probabilities based on his personal experience with former girlfriends and their Republican parents?

  2. Sastra says

    There are two stupid things done here. One was offering “$100,000 cash to anyone who could show “a whole bunch of whites” have adopted black children in Alabama.”

    The other one was offering $100,000 cash to anyone for anything which is relatively important and conceivably testable in a public forum — and doing so as a rich white guy. That’s just dumb.

    You can say “I’d give a hundred grand for a beer right now” and you’re okay. It’s obvious hyperbole. You can say “I’d give $100,000 to anyone who could show me a square circle” and you’d be logically permitted and inviolable. You could say “I’d give a jillion gazillion big ones to anyone who could show that a whole bunch of whites have adopted black children in Alabama” and you’re wrong … but financially safe. But making it a relatively do-able figure for someone in your tax bracket and then adding the word “cash” for emphasis?

    Dumber than a box of doorknobs.

  3. anbheal says

    Yeah, stupid. But his baseline point has some merit. Some of you may be old enough to remember when Pope Paul gave dispensations for abortions to nuns in the horn of Africa who became pregnant during the MauMau uprising. Raped by a Nazi in WWII, it’s God’s will. Raped by a N*****? Well Jesus Fucking Nailholes, we’ve gotta DO SOMETHING!

  4. Michael Heath says

    One way the Democrats could distinguish themselves from Republicans is to put this guy out to pasture, pronto.

    There are times when the Republicans do dump or least ostracize a really bad one. But from a normative rate the GOP propensity to do the right thing is very low. That’s because nearly all Republicans now state some really stupid shit, e.g., their defense on not doing anything about global warming. Where we’ve become so used to their stupidity that it’s not news, which is amplified by a cowardly ignorant media that fails to misinform their audience when stupid and dishonest shit is stated by Republicans.

  5. Trebuchet says

    @5: That may be because he’s black.

    It saddens me considerably that I expected that would be the case.

  6. scienceavenger says

    So he slipped and said “a whole bunch” when he meant “most”. Big deal. We ought to be more off-put by the general merit of what he said, which sadly for Alabama and most of its inbred neighbors (which spawned most of my kin for generations) is true. Push an abortion exception for mixed race kids and watch the support climb. Take a poll on outlawing mixed race adoption and watch what you get.

    In Alabama, its still 1959.

  7. ianeymeaney says

    @7: I live and work in the librul paradise that is NYC, and I have several coworkers, blacks and whites, who think that blacks and whites should stick to their own kind and not interbreed. In one of the most progressive places in ‘Murika, there are places where it’s still 1959.

  8. naturalcynic says

    How many was that, again?
    A whole bunch of things are used in manufacturing movable goal posts.

  9. brianwestley says

    “I’d give $100,000 to anyone who could show me a square circle” and you’d be logically permitted and inviolable

    I can give two examples of square circles, which I define as two figures that are entirely congruent while meeting the definition of each.

    A circle is the set of points equidistant from a given center point.
    A square is a four-sided figure of four (non-overlapping) line segments where each side is the same length and all interior angles are equal.

    The first is a circle of radius 0 is congruent to a square of four 0-length sides.

    The second uses non-Euclidean geometry — A circle and a square centered on the same point drawn on a sphere will be congruent if the circle and square are enlarged until they match the circumference of the sphere (the equator). “Straight” lines on a sphere are segments of great circles, and the interior angles of squares are equal but greater than 90 degrees, so when the square is big enough to cover half the sphere, the interior angles are 180 degrees and each side of the square is one-fourth of the diameter of the sphere.

  10. elephantasy says

    I live in Alabama. It bothers me that Holmes’ solid but uncomfortable points are being vastly overshadowed by a minor use of hyperbole.

    His original point, that an awful lot of the white male Republican legislators who were voting to impede women’s access to abortion would nonetheless obtain abortions for their white daughters were those daughters to be impregnated by black males, is a strong accusation, but one solidly based on experience and history. I’ve seen no evidence that what Holmes said is inaccurate.

    Later, when challenged about the abortion claim, others suggested that black children would be adopted by white parents, and Holmes again suggested that such an action was unlikely. He used a poor choice of words, but the basic point, that white parents in Alabama are highly unlikely to adopt black children, remains unchallenged; instead, anecdotal evidence that some white parents adopt black children was presented.

    What is reported in the press, what is emphasized, what is picked up in article after article? His poor choice of words, not the claims he made about attitudes toward mixed-race relationships, mixed-race children, mixed-race families. Typical “it doesn’t apply to everybody, therefore it’s not a problem, stop talking about it” nonsense.

  11. Jordan Genso says

    @11 elephantasy

    What bothers me about what he said is not just the words that he used, but that he is making a claim about those he opposes without any supporting evidence. Unsupported accusations that are nearly impossible to disprove don’t provide for a productive discussion of the issues, as there’s little the other side can come back with other than “nuh-uh”.

    That’s one additional reason it was a dumbass move to claim that Republicans would be pro-choice if their white daughters were impregnated by black men.

    I agree with Michael Heath that the other Democrats need to call him out on his statements. They should give him the opportunity to make a strong case in support of what he said (does he even have specific anecdotes of Republican legislators who were placed in that position, or did he just make it up as an assumption based on his prejudices against Republicans), but if he can’t do that, then they should make it clear they don’t support that type of politics.

  12. says

    He may have said something stupid, but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.

    He’s absolutely correct in that most southern Repubs — and a distressing number of northern Repubs — would absolutely be all for abortion if their white daughters were pregnant with black babies.

    It’s an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless.

    The existence of interracial and mixed-race families (including my own, up here in the hippy-dippy PNW) does not negate that.

    That said, if he really did “offer $100,000 cash to anyone who could show “a whole bunch of whites” have adopted black children in Alabama”, AND someone has done just that, he needs to put his money where his mouth is and pay up. You don’t make an offer like that without follow-through.

  13. Jordan Genso says

    It’s an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless.

    But it’s not necessarily a “truth”. That’s the problem. It’s an assumption. It’s based on prejudices. It’s possible that it is true, but it’s not appropriate to claim unless you have statements made by Republicans or examples of Republicans doing what you are claiming (and even then, it would be anecdotal and not necessarily support the “most” part of the claim).

    We’d be upset if the Republicans made a claim in the other direction that was impossible to disprove and had no basis other than assumptions. We should have the integrity to recognize when the Democrats have done the same.

  14. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    But it’s not necessarily a “truth”. That’s the problem. It’s an assumption. It’s based on prejudices. It’s possible that it is true, but it’s not appropriate to claim unless you have statements made by Republicans or examples of Republicans doing what you are claiming (and even then, it would be anecdotal and not necessarily support the “most” part of the claim).

    Just because you consider every claim “in a vacuum” *taps skull meaningfully* doesn’t mean we have to.

  15. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    But that isn’t really relevant to what you said. “A whole bunch” doesn’t mean a majority. You said something stupid. Own up to it.

    I think he literally – & I do mean *literally* – can’t afford to do so!

Leave a Reply