As far as the whole “is this guy xenophobic” debate, I think it’s a valid part of the argument, but I don’t think Rachel Maddow or Jim Burroway are basing their entire (or even most of their) argument on the racism of its proponents. Investigating links that point toward animus in a bill that is going to affect one minority group more than others is hardly an invalid ad-hominem point.

It’s an interesting point of information, but the fact remains even if someone like that weren’t leading the charge, Arizona would still end up with something like this law I would think..

My point is that regardless of whether they are some sort of supremacists, that does not mean their argument canno have merit. Their argument will certainly be suspect, but it NEEDS to be refuted logically and not by emotional appeal to society’s disapproval of racism and xenophobia.

In essence, it is lazy to use “He’s , so DISMISS HIS ARGUMENTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THEM AT ALL.” because the same tool has been used against gay people. It’s not proper; we need to dismantle their arguments with fact-checking and logic, not through populist methods.

And, Lucrece, he was claiming that Maddow used “guilt by association,” but I don’t buy it. She was making links between the leadership and the ideals they espouse to the organization they founded. Pretty clear to me, and pretty clear that he didn’t say “Tanton has changed his views and apologized.” That’s because those are the views of FAIR’s leadership–”the white folks are in danger!”

Guilt by association would be if she was trying to nail them for INCIDENTALLY being in contact with these people. As Jim’s research shows (along with Maddow’s), the ties went much deeper than having met once at a fundraiser for a charity or something.

These guys are the Klan with a good education, great diction, a $150 haircut and a nice suit. Same crap, different wrapper.

Nevertheless, while who we are associated with can be a point of worry and suspicion, even detracting from future arguments made from that party, Maddow did fail in some aspect as he said.

Largely, Maddow does not debate the legislation on its merits, but rather seeks to do character assassination (and while acceptable, since these supremacists need to be crucified on the media), it is a lazy way out of defeating arguments you don’t like.

If you can prove that the guy is xenophobic but don’t feel inclined to debate the legislation on its language and legality, it is easier to get people to dismiss him via negative emotions toward someone being a xenophobe, despite any merits his arguments may have.

That to me is worrisome. Yes, a xenophobe’s arguments for immigration reform deserve to be suspect, but they should be evaluated by the standard procedures of argumentation, not taking the easy way out of pandering to emotions in order to avoid logically refuting the arguments.

If we follow Maddow’s procedure of dismissal by association (i.e. you have a personal interest in the debate), then that same approach hurts our cause when we find gay individuals arguing for equal rights.

The arguments need to be settled on their merits. And quite frankly, given how sloppy these anti-immigration organizations are, I don’t see why that’s such tough thing to ask for.