Go to Geoff Davis on Wikipedia, footnote number 2 under "Controversy (Use of Racial Epithet" links to the download the MP3.

When the whole speech is used to put down Obama with lies (never held a real job, put into the senate for a man who is going to spend time in jail).

Most important is the audience reaction. It is clear the speakers choice of words got the reaction every speaker wants, laugher and applause.

It was not a poor choice of words.

I do not know what was going through Representative Davis’ mind when he made these remarks, nor do the people commenting on Davis’ remark. Racism has been a serious problem in our country and unfortunately still exists. Ironically, Senator Obama has himself done much recently to help our nation confront the remnants of racism. Since racism is such an important issue, charges of racism should not be leveled lightly. We do not know what was in Geoff Davis’ heart when he used the poorly chosen word “boy”, but at this point it is fair to say we do not have the appropriate weight of evidence to judge this as an intentionally racist remark. Poor judgment? Yes. Deliberately intended to diminish Mr. Obama as an individual and denigrate his experience? Self-evidently. Fanning the flames of partisanship that paralyze our government? Absolutely. But racist? We can not afford to make a snap judgment in such a weighty matter as labeling someone racist.

It seems regrettable that a possible verbal gaffe has drawn national disapproval to Representative Davis when his voting record in Congress, which is clear and incontrovertible, should be far more influential in helping folks form their opinions of Mr. Davis. Representative Davis has voted against providing healthcare for children via SCHIP. Mr. Davis has voted to protect the payday lending industry, an industry which rewarded him with the dubious honor of donating more money to his campaign than to any other Representative or Senator. And Mr. Davis has continued to carry George W. Bush’s water in defense of the disastrous ongoing occupation in Iraq. I strongly feel that Geoff Davis’ votes give any reasonable observer ample reason to disapprove of his performance, without requiring us to speculate about his recent controversial comments.

Michael Kelley, MD
(posted by Mike Bailey, Treasurer - Michael J Kelley for Congress)
http://kelley08.com

You must have the life experience of a turnip...

* or culturally, religiously, etc offensive language

This has nothing to do with pc.

I am sorry to have to say this, but the above quote is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog. Anjin-san, this issue is the definition of political correctness! I recommend you do a Google search on definition: political correctness to learn what the term means. It is the Political Correctness Thought Police who decided the word "boy" is incorrect (along with words like cripple, spastic, crazy, etc.)

Who knows what the Political Correctness Thought Police will dream up next?

This has nothing to do with pc. "Boy" directed at a black man by a white man, is an race based insult. Period. Ask yourself if you would call a black man boy to his face without being prepared to put up your dukes. Or just try it and see how it works out.

I have black friends who I have been tight with for 30+ years. I would never be comfortable calling one of them "boy", under any circumstances.

Your question assumes as fact that Obama froze when action was needed. Can any reliable source verify this happened? I'm sure not going to take the word of a congressman of the other party, just as I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said the same thing about Davis freezing in the tobacco subsidy program simulation. What are these simulations anyway, did someone leave a Playstation in the basement of the Senate?

While I wouldn't want a President who can't make quick decisions when they are needed, I don't really think instant spot decisions are actually necessary nearly as often as they show on 24. I'd be willing to have decisions made a little slower if they might actually be right for a change.

1) "Boy" = an impudnet youngester who doesn't know what he's doing

2) "Boy" = shorthand for n#$$er

I'm a 30 year old black guy who currently lives in California but grew up in southern Virginia from the time of my birth until I graduated from college and I have certainly heard "boy" used in the second context. Of course, you could have a older white (or black) man call a younger male of his same race a "boy" in context one and there wouldn't be the same level of outrage. I find in hard to believe that someone who grew up in the south wouldn't know that "boy" functions as a racial putdown.

Having said all that, looked at in the context of Davis' remarks, he probably meant it along the lines of formulation one, but I could easily see it being formulation two (or both, actually). In any case, calling a Columbia and Harvard educated U.S. Senator (let's recall that Obama is within 3 years of Davis' age and hold a higher elected office) a "boy" is just stupid, whatever he meant.

The issue was that Obama froze when confronted with a hard choice that need a decision. That is an attribute that portends problems beyond just questions of war. But of course the Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss that substantive issue, just yell 'bigot' and let loose the dogs of political correction.

You are correct though that words and their cultural meanings change over time, and what was once deemed acceptable mat be viewed with contempt and visa versa.

Although I still think it is a huge leap to take one comment and declare somebody a racist. Insenstive, clueless, careless but I think you need more than the one comment to declare racist intent.

Really? Your going to characterize black men as 'uppity' for taking offense at being called boy?

In the time frame referenced in my remark, I would have to answer yes.

Language changes continuously. A good example is "cripple". It meant someone who couldn't walk. The term became perceived to be a prejorative, so it was changed to "handicapped" until handicapped itself evolved into a prejorative. The last I heard, we are using "physically challenged", but that could be obsolete by now.

By the same token, if you called a dark skinned person "black" back then, you could wind up dead. It was considered worse than the N-word is today. The proper term was "Negro", but "colored" was acceptable. Of course, that's no longer true. Plus "African-American" has pretty much run its course, and we're back to basic "black".

Nowadays, "boy" is widely considered to be a prejorative term when spoken by a white to/about a black. Davis should know that. He shouldn't have said it.

Who knows what the Political Correctness Thought Police will dream up next?

I can't say that anyone around me used the term, however through TV and school I understood that it has a racial context.

I think you can absolutely argue that the term has a racial context.

I think you have a harder time arguing that its use automatically equates with the user being a racist. I think it is more than possible to use the term "boy" without a racial context. In high school/college I called pretty much all males about my age boys and all girls girls. Nobody ever objected. I worked in a fast food place with some young black and white men. I arrived one day, said "hello boys" as I walked by a group of them-fromboth races. One of the black guys obviously bristled. I apologized explained what I meant and was careful to not use the term again at work.

Sometimes you just use a term without thinking.

you wondered what he was all uppity about.

Really? Your going to characterize black men as 'uppity' for taking offense at being called boy?