I do suppose Allen backed himself into the corner over one word. I wonder if it would have helped him to say yes he did say it up front. I doubt it.

Is it a killer for his political future? Probably not, he can become Dean of the Senate™ when Bobby Byrd (D-KKK) vacates the postion.

Posted by Agitator on 25 September 02006 @ 11pm

Also, check this out from Capitol Hill Blue. True, it’s not that credible a source, but probably deserves a little investigation.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/george_allens_r.html

Posted by Dannyboy on 25 September 02006 @ 11pm

Ha! There it is! Trying to turn it on Byrd!

We’re not calling Republicans racists. We’re calling ALLEN a racist. This isn’t between Allen and Byrd. It’s between Allen and Webb. Only one has been accussed of saying the N-word.

Posted by Dannyboy on 25 September 02006 @ 11pm

Dude, my point was to show that there is living proof that there is a place for for former racists in the Senate. This doesn’t mean that Allen’s career is dead, thats all. Allen can still win this election and maybe serve a long career as Senator. Now go unwad your panties in the corner.

Posted by Agitator on 25 September 02006 @ 11pm

Agitator, I disagree on this one.

It just seems incredibly hard to believe that George Allen with his history NEVER said the N-word. His damage control on this one is going to become the story once again. If he said “yes, I said those things, I regret doing so and no longer believe them”–then he gets out ahead of the story. Yes, he’d take a beating for a couple days, but now he’s opened up the floodgates for people from his past to come forward between now and November 7th. He’s going to look like a lying, racist, bully all over again. The perception is just as important as the reality on this. (Personally I think two of the three are probably true).

In Senator Byrd’s case–once again, a textbook example of damage control–he made a quick, unequivocal apology within 24 hours and the story was dead.

On a somewhat related note, I see that the Washington Times has an editorial up about this today. The Times has a readership of about 100,000–and it has a bit of a history itself on this issue http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/washington_times.

The Washington Times may motivate Allen’s base, but it will do nothing for him with independents. Some independent/undecided voters may simply be turned off by this whole mess, but on balance this has to hurt Allen more than Webb. The undecideds and independents will determine the outcome of this election.

Posted by JPTERP on 26 September 02006 @ 2am

I admit he really backed himself into a corner by making a definate statement about one word, a word that was regularly in use during his young adult hood, and still is in the lexicon today in Virginia (hell most other states as well). It makes for good press right now, will it hurt his long term political ambitions as a senator… probably not. President maybe.

Posted by Agitator on 26 September 02006 @ 8am

I’ve not really heard much talk of this killing his entire future in politics, just his chances at becoming president. That’s been my point anyway. So I’d have to agree with you on that part Agitator. However, running for president does seem to be his main political ambition.

Posted by Cory Capron on 26 September 02006 @ 9am

I agree, Cory, Allen’s made it pretty obvious that his only interest in the Senate is as a stepping-stone to running for president. Whether he wins reelection or not, it’ll be interesting to see what he does when it sinks in that it’s not happening.

Posted by Jim E-H on 26 September 02006 @ 11am

I personally know a half dozen people who have witnessed him using this language

Who?

Posted by Sam Reilly on 26 September 02006 @ 12pm

I came across this commentary which I think sums up the issues here quite nicely. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2006/09/who_are_george_allens_critics.html (Sorry, I don’t know how to make the URL look nice.)

Posted by Malena on 26 September 02006 @ 1pm

Who?

Having seen how Allen’s accusers are attacked by the Allen campaign, I’m not about to give up their names. Those were private conversations, anyhow. As Marc Fisher explains, in the link that Malena provides, these stories are a dime a dozen.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 September 02006 @ 1pm

“Those were private conversations, anyhow.”

Private, except for the parts they can use to hurt someone politically. How nice of them.

Posted by Agitator on 26 September 02006 @ 7pm

Or rather you.

Posted by Agitator on 26 September 02006 @ 8pm

Private, except for the parts they can use to hurt someone politically. How nice of them.

Nah, if I wanted to hurt Allen, I would have brought these up months ago, but I demurred. I only mention it now for the same reason that others mention it now — it’s relevant and it’s not totally out of the blue. Only, in my case, I’m adding nothing and I’m making no claims that others haven’t, so it’s not particularly interesting.

More important, I’ve left out all of the details. Some of these stories would make your hair curl. But I don’t relate them because I can’t authenticate them, and because I don’t think it’s my place. But pressing me to tell these stories is not nearly as bad as pressing Sabato to tell them; his soapbox is far larger than mine, and I’ll bet his stories are both juicier and truer. Details are being withheld to be polite. Allen is the only person who benefits from keeping such claims vague.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 September 02006 @ 9pm