New Mexico Central

Would you care to elaborate on the meaning of this image and how it relates to the political and/or socioeconomic issues that face the nation at this time? Would you also care to enlighten the readership with regard to how this image communicates the official position of the Sandia Tea Party?

At first glance, and several subsequent looks, this post would appear to suggest that the official position of the STP is that the President was elected (and remains so) because he is of African American descent (“white guilt”) and/or has received support from the electorate based on this premise. If this is the official position of the STP, please provide credible references to support the position.

After accusing your editor of attempting to paint him as a racist (and later accusing me an “attempt to steer any reader to your interpretation of the cartoon”), Mr. Ring responds to the initial question somewhat in the affirmative, suggesting that “some” voters likely supported Mr. Obama to expiate the “sins of their fathers.”  No real evidence is provided to support the claim – but to be fair, it would be wrong for us to dispute that “some” may have done so, because “some” probably did.  We do, however, question whether this was a significant influence on the results on the election, and welcome the Sandia Tea Party to provide any credible (that is, verifiable) evidence that this was a major factor. We will also say that, after kicking the idea around New Mexico Central headquarters, we did not settle upon “racist” as describing the cartoon, although “racially charged” and “racially insensitive” did gain a little traction before we gave up on the exercise altogether.

Mr. Ring then expresses offense at the question and engages in an attempt to put your editor in his place, whatever it is that he believes that place to be. This is not the first such attempt, and it is likely to be about as successful as previous efforts.  Despite the explicit statement that no criticism or judgmental language had been offered, Mr. Ring states that this must have been the case because “your IQ is probably in the stratosphere as to the number and I know you have common-sense.”  I have, in fact, been wondering what happened to my IQ, and I do appreciate the help in trying to find the darned thing and put it to use, but the fact that I apparently left it on a plane at some point hardly seems good reason to call me a liar.  An inference is made to the cleaning of diapers on the blog.  I now have my own scatological Sandia Tea Party web site reference – and that without expressing a single opinion!

Mr. Ring denies being the Sandia Tea Party’s spokesman, and I challenge that point.  Mr. Ring responds: “Since I have corrected your opinion, I believe we can lay it to rest.”

Let us address the latter point first – Mr. Ring has repeated his denial of our characterization of him as the Sandia Tea Party’s spokesman, but he has corrected nothing.  For the reasons given in the comments, we consider him the one of the organization’s spokespeople, and denying that until the cows come home will probably not change our position in that regard – the Sandia Tea Party site is not his personal blog (he also has one of those), and what he posts there reflects directly upon the organization.  With respect to the “offense” taken, we see this as an attempt to deflect attention away from the issue originally raised, and put it into the same category of the “I know you are but what am I” strategy to which we have declined to respond in the past.

We have a little insight for the would-be non-spokesman: These tactics do little to enhance the credibility of your positions or decrease that of those who question them.  They may play well to a limited audience – and if that’s all that’s intended, that’s fine – but the world at large likely assigns them very little weight in the debate.