I like Shirley Sherrod after having spent the last forty-five minutes of my life watching her whole NAACP speech. She strikes me as solid good people, a truly nice woman. I’d welcome her to my table any night of the week, even though we would undoubtedly and most virulently disagree on any number of substantial political topics.
Mrs. Sherrod doesn’t sound like a racist by my lights and by no means could this woman ever be considered a liar based on that piece of long, honest tape. She tells a litany of familiar stories and owns a deeply Southern history that soundly resonates with any person raised in that particular neck of pre-1960′s woods.
Conservatives need to understand that recounting the truth of those times doesn’t make her a lying racist Black woman furthering some socialist nazi democratic Obama agenda, it just makes her human. Bad shit happened in this country, white folks weren’t at all nice to black folks, it’s time to acknowledge the uncomfortable honesty of the past and move the hell along without generating a whole new pail of ugly garbage generated by a few immoral, cash minded, self-serving men.
We all have stories to tell, hers are peculiarly Southern and like most of our mixed racial tales told south of the Maxon-Dixon line, they’re tinged with a streak regrettable sadness. Black people didn’t get anywhere near a fair shake under Southern skies before the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, admitting that fact means nothing more than acknowledging the truth of the times.
I don’t feel any collective guilt, have no desire to apologize for the wrongs of my forefathers and wish like hell that my fellow conservatives would stop pissing in the wind while making themselves look like mindless idiots.
I think Andrew Breitbart is a self-aggrandizing, corner cutting, race baiting, money chasing, media whore. Jeffrey Lord is an illiterate asshole and Shirley Sherrod doesn’t deserve a single day she’s spent under this ugly conservative sun.
Yeah, I knew from the get go that there was more to the story. Since when can you capture the South and race in a few soundbites? Good, bad, or indifferent, you just had to know there was a rich creamy frosting of history that wasn’t revealed.
Allen, you’ll probably be the only one brave enough to leave a comment on this thread.
I salute you.
I feel the cultural disconnect, too, and I’m not getting the outrage, either. While not a southerner, my mother’s family sure was, and I’ve described them here any number of times. It is all perspective, and her perspective shouldn’t be discounted.
The MLK that never gets quoted:
The “Could Be Construed As” standard has to die right here right now.
If it’s unseemly to use sound bites to end the career of Ms. Sherrod…then it’s unacceptable to use them to hurt anybody else, too. She doesn’t get her own set of rules.
She never played her own set of rules, Morgan. The woman gave a simple speech which our side of the aisle twisted into something outrageously ugly.
The conservative side of the blogosphere doesn’t need to lower the bar to win the mudslinging contest. We’ve already lost when we start smacking around small town Ag bureaucrats.
This whole story is fucking pathetic.
Fair enough.
Then I don’t want to have to attend any more mandatory sexual harassment training. I don’t want to have to be told someone can be “offended” by something I do in the workplace that’s misunderstood, and all of a sudden their insecurities put my career in jeopardy. I demand that the rules work the same way for me as they do for Shirley Sherrod. You say she isn’t demanding special treatment, so fine, let’s not give her any. She doesn’t need it.
Equal treatment under the law. This is America. If it’s unfair to take Sherrod’s words “out of context” then it’s unfair to do the same thing to anybody else.
…and Breitbart looks like a complete ass for picking on the woman.
I hear Zbignnew’s back in town, maybe Andrew ought to strap on someone else’s balls and go after a real Washington player.
I never said Mrs. Sherrod was demanding special treatment, never noticed that she asked for any. Did she? I’d be more than willing to backstep on that, my friend.
Did you demand those rules under Republican administrations or of your corporate employers, Morgan? How’d that work out for you? And what does your wish list have to do with this minor bureaucrat?
It’s not a matter of asking for it Daphne.
For generations now, it has been a staple industry in the legal profession, and a lucrative one, to end the careers of people who meant no harm because of the “Could Be Construed As” standard. Ask Don Imus. And no, you don’t have to be an aged radio personality to fall victim. Just have some comments taken out of context, and there you go.
Imus not good enough for you? Then ask the tea party protesters who were slimed as racists, throwing the N word around…and later on video footage conclusively proved it didn’t happen.
For someone to be taken down according to this, and THEN have a chance to “clarify her remarks” is unprecedented. It happened here because Breitbart’s a conservative white guy and Sherrod’s a liberal black female. And speaking just for myself, from all I’ve been able to learn about her, it seems these “out of context” clips posted by Breitbart are closer to the truth — she does see the world in terms of race.
He took her “out of context” by stitching together the few seconds in which she told the truth about herself, out of a 43 minute speech in which she lied her ass off. Or, maybe you want to give her the benefit of the doubt because you feel she’s a nice person. Okay, fine. What evidence is there that Breitbart knowingly falsified something about her? Conspired to get her fired? What evidence is there that Fox did such a thing?
Obama and Vilsack acted like spineless cowards. Let them take the fall. They want to blame conservatives for making ‘em do it…well, fuck ‘em. In the ear. They’re always doing this and maybe, just once, for a change of pace, they should be told no. Breitbart and Fox didn’t make them do a damn thing, it’s their mistake.
Ziggy? Brezhinski? I’m waiting for that intersection of this thread. What can I say, he’s a relative by marriage, sort of. I can’t quite imagine his thoughts on this one.
The video did not conclusivley prove the N word was not used on that occassion, and I’ll accept Congressman Lewis and the other witnesses word on that matter over the Breitbart’s and their ilk.
Sherrod seems like a good person, even Willie Nelson came to her defense.
Mahons, no video exists that conclusively proves that you aren’t a child molester. Until you provide such evidence, I’ll accept the fact that you are one. It’s obvious that you’ve been seen around children at some point in your lifetime and that’s good enough for me.
What’s that you say? You can’t prove a negative? You say that you have lots of video evidence of times when you weren’t molesting children, so we should assume that you’re not a child molester? I’m sorry, since you’ve set the burden of proof bar on serious allegations outside the orbit of Pluto, I will hold you to the same standard. And don’t give me any lip because I don’t take crap from child molesters.
Hundreds of people attended the rally, most of whom had video phones or cameras around to record the incident. And not one person stepped forward to claim $100k reward supporting the congressman’s allegation. But you claim that the allegation hasn’t been sufficiently disproven. I bow to the level of disingenuous to which you would stoop. My stomach simply isn’t up to such things, but you are obviously made of sterner stuff.
Regarding Sherrod, I have no idea of whether or not she’s a “good person”. Did she get fired unceremoniously before her entire story was known? Sure. However, the NAACP had the full video in its possession BEFORE it issued its condemnation of Sherrod. Obama and Co. could have taken one day to look for and review the entire video before Sherrod got sacked. Instead, they jumped the gun. Why? Because they’ve set the bar so low that it’s now the Mariana’s Trench with regards to racist allegations. Shoot first and ask questions later, if ever. It just so happened that the target this time was on the left instead of the right.
What did Breitbart do? He released an edited video exactly as he received it. Should he have done due diligence to see if there was more to the story? Yes. I don’t think anyone reasonable questions that. Did Breitbart even insinuate that Sherrod should be fired? No. In fact, his commentary on the video was that it was indicative of how racist the NAACP was as an organization. You will note that no one in the audience- who did not know that there was a change of heart, a moment of redemption coming in the story- seemed outraged or incensed by her treatment of the white farmer. There were a few “that’s right” statements and lots of nodding heads. They thought that her initial racist treatment of the white guy was dandy. In any event, if you want to blame Breitbart for how the White House, the NAACP and the USDA treated Sherrod, you should probably think twice. Instead, you should think a little bit more about how the “racist” weapon has become so widely and thoughtlessly used that everyone, left and right, reacts immediately when the charge is leveled.
I believe Breitbart put up a $100,000 reward for any real evidence of the N-word being used – No one has collected.
Shirley’s Husband has had some unkind words to say about “uncle toms”, and they won a monster settlement from the usda not long ago. Seems like NAACP and the white house kind of tripped on their dick here, Breitbart not so much.
I’m wondering who sent Breitbart an edited tape that made this woman look bad on purpose and why would Mr. B trumpet it to the skies without viewing the whole video first?
Looks like yellow crap journalism to me.
I have to disagree Daphne.
I watched the video, too. She gave a sermon, not a speech.
Anyone who calls someone a racist because they oppose you politically is deeply racist themselves just as is the audience that says Amen.
If all you have to fall back on race, then that is all you have. And that sums up Sherrod and the NAACP in a nutshell.
I am a unique product of the South, too. My GF was a Nightrider, but I attended a black Baptist Church almost married a black woman.
Much of the black community is deeply racist. The glares I got at Freaknik brought that home to me. My son’s Godmother is a black businesswoman – my wife, who is a Dallas Cheerleader Texas Blonde, gets stares when she goes to work the booths at all-black business events with her. yet, I see nothing of the same at mostly white events when blacks show up.
Breitbart’s target was not Sherrod. It was the NAACP. The NAACP had just hosted Michelle Obama who had called those who opposed her husband as racists.
All you have to say to be a speaker at the NAACP is “WHITE!” and “RICH!” and that gets you applause…hmm… I wonder where I heard that before?
I know a few people who are white who are deeply and offensively racist. They are good people until they drop the mask and utter something awful. Sherrod is made of the same cloth. She might as well just wear a sheet, too.
- “I’m wondering who sent Breitbart an edited tape that made this woman look bad on purpose…”
This is a matter of perception, I think, which is a subjective thing and outside the realm of ‘who’s right’, etc.
It’s no longer possible to assess Breitbart’s original report/post objectively. His enemies, the Tea Party’s enemies and this Republic’s enemies have ensured that. It’s no longer possible to view Breitbart’s report on the NAACP (via Sherrod’s speech) without seeing it through the lens of the NAACP’s and the White House’s incompetent, knee-jerk reactions and all the libel and slander directed at Breitbart as a result. That libel and slander were all based on the erroneous notion that he controlled their actions… using Karl-Rove-like powers, I suppose.
But I digress… the more important question is who the source is/was and what can be learned about them outside this particular incident in order to identify what motives they may have had. I think it’s an especially valid question in light of whoever passed the Laredo confirmations to Dvorak and Digger. They are BOTH either clinically insane (statistically unlikely) or were in fact given confirmation of the events they reported on. Who provided that confirmation? Who sent Breitbart the video excerpts? Big questions. I think they’ll come up again because things are truly getting ugly.
‘Racist’ – like ‘fascist’ – has taken on a novel new meaning of its own since the left began distorting it to demonize anyone that gets in the way of their collectivist agenda. Anyone – no matter how nice, congenial or seemingly normal – whose existence, interaction with the world and job performance are all consumed and/or directed entirely by the concept of race is, pretty much by definition, a racist. I’m not sure how I’d argue against that even if I thought differently. I believe Sherrod absolutely qualifies on those terms, and that subjective assessment is based entirely on watching the same 40-plus minute video. Does that make her a menace? Does it imply malice? Does it imbue any of the other evil traits we’ve come to associate with the distorted term ‘racist’? No. It simply means that she can’t see the world without dividing people into social groups: black/white, poor/haves, etc. Do we want hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds directed by people whose thought process is dominated by race and/or class issues? I know I don’t.
I’d love to believe Sherrod’s self-congratulatory diatribe, I really would. But I don’t. She’s fixated on and still living in the 60s. This isn’t the 60′s, I’m pretty sure. It’s 50 years on and the institutionalized racism she seems to see around her is simply no longer there. BHO is proof of that if nothing else. Her subsequent comments have made clear how she views the issues and her husband’s rhetoric speaks for itself. It’s just not realistic to think it doesn’t speak for her as well.
IMHO, Breitbart did the right thing and his intent has been consistent from day one. Unlike the incessant, unfounded accusations leveled against the Tea Party and its supporters by The Left Wing Media, his report was absent malice and the video excerpts he posted included all the relevant facts necessary to ascertain the intent of Sherrod’s speech. Only when one refuses to look at that post objectively is it possible not to see that. The report was not about Sherrod, per se. Damage Control by the NAACCP, the White House and The Left Wing Media made it SOLELY about her. Breitbart’s been pilloried for it as a result. But he’s also gotten results. In the end, what matters is whether or not he got what he bargained for, and I believe he did.
So, because people need to understand that the NAACP is a racist organization it’s fine for conservatives to slander a woman who was being honored by them that day?
Speech, sermon, whatever – it was her forty five minutes at the podium to say what she pleased and none of it was even close to being racist.
Oh and would someone please tell me when the Obama administration has ever done anything right? Those people running the White House are imbeciles.
No, it’s not fine for conservatives to slander anyone. And IMHO it’s a huge leap to claim that Sherrod was ever ‘slandered’ by anyone other than the NAACP and/or the White House.
Breitbart didn’t edit the video excerpts he received and published – let alone did he change them to make Sherrod appear to be saying anything other than what she said. That becomes even more glaringly clear when one views the entire video, which included the racist stereotype that all black people want to avoid manual labor (i.e., farm work), and even moreso when listening to her comments since the incident.
Breitbart’s commentary in the original report – which few people have taken the time to read objectively – makes clear what he’s reporting on: the NAACP’s hypocrisy in the context of its incessant, baseless attacks on the Tea Party. The first video includes Sherrod’s reference to her “enlightenment” – which was in actuality nothing more than her claim of having “graduated” from racist to marxist. Breitbart never tried to hide that, even though it would have been trivially easy to do so with no obvious loss in the video’s continuity.
The first video includes Sherrod’s reference to her “enlightenment” – which was in actuality nothing more than her claim of having “graduated” from racist to marxist.
That’s very well said.
Daphne, as far as I’m concerned you’re still alright if you think Ms. Sherrod is a wonderful person. None of us would be friends with anybody else if we all had to agree on who else would make a great friend.
But in the final analysis, there’s really no evidence she’s “solid good people, a truly nice woman,” none whatsoever — just a recent tale that arouses our sympathy about having been unjustly fired because her former boss is a mental gelding.
She’s hopped on the bandwagon of inferring racist motives on the part of Breitbart and Fox, out-and-out boasting that they were behind her dismissal. There are obvious timeline problems with this. No matter how you slice it, that is lying.
Sometimes, bad things happen to bad people.
Booker T. Washington:
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well.”
This is the measure of the triumph of the left. We find ourselves defending a woman who’s job denying or extending help to farmers should not exist, in a gargantuan department of government that should never should have been created, representing an overwhelming federal government that Sherrod and the NAACP find perfectly natural and necessary.
The majority of black college graduates go to work for government. Everybody loses.
All races of government educated voters are increasingly seeing government as their ticket. That is why we grow it so easily. We can say Sherrod was treated unfairly according to standards in which she does not herself live, as Freeberg is essentially saying, but we can also say Ernst Rhoem was badly treated, and he was.
Most of the things Shirley Sherrod has to teach us are things that must be unlearned.
You speak for me, Daph. I got your back.
So, we applaud underhanded, skanky journalism when it’s done by our side of the aisle because the means justify the ends.
I seem to recall most conservatives taking serious offense when liberals chose to only show the small handful of racist and crazy signs at Tea Party rallies rather than providing the whole picture which would clearly indicate that TP supporters are not racist or deranged.
Y’all don’t like it when the left selectively presents misleading stories about conservatives, but this Sherrod incident is somehow different because the NAACP are a bunch jerks and she’s a marxist bureacrat.
Glad we have that bit hypocrisy cleared up.
No hypocrisy.
An execution of Saul Alinsky’s accuse-the-accuser strategy. A successful one.
Daphne, my read is that you’re attributing actions and motives to Breitbart because you’re outraged at the outcome of the events that ensued – events over which he had no control.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, because it’s clear that this is exactly the reaction both the NAACP and the White House have been trying to elicit for a week by twisting the facts.
I don’t see anything underhanded or skanky about the report Breitbart posted. Again, please correct me – what did he write, post or publish – specifically – that was underhanded?
His report revealed clear evidence of NAACP hypocrisy – the focus of his post – and he didn’t stoop to The Left Wing Media’s methods in doing so. The full length video from which those excerpts were taken doesn’t change the truth of that revelation in any way. Also, Breitbart didn’t set out to demonize Sherrod – that demonization was a function of the NAACP’s and the White House’s Damage Control machine, when they realized they’d both acted with knee-jerk incompetence.
In particular, even though he could easily have done so, Breitbart did not edit out any ‘exculpatory’ content from the video excerpts he received – unlike the incessant river of cherry-picked misinformation we’ve seen spewed by the left and its PR firms in the media that you’ve referred to here. So IMHO you’re comparing apples and oranges there.
The fact is that Sherrod is race-obsessed, and it is plainly evident in her videotaped speech and her statements subsequent to the events of the 19th. As such, she has no business being paid, using taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, to distribute hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. If this incident brings that fact to light, all the better.
Hi Daphne! Left this over at Morgan’s, realized it really belongs here. Can’t be giving him too much props for a little linkage:
Half with Daphne, half against. The half that is with her agrees that I am not quite ready to write Sherrod off as a particularly horrible person – really she’s about as run of the mi – no, no, nevermind. Not even going to start making those concessions right now. I don’t know if Sherrod is good, bad, or boring. Never met her.
The other half winces at the “peculiarly Southern” story, experience, etc. Like a particularly black experience, or uniquely Puerto Rican. The translation is: “Any disagreement you have with the following is simply an indication of your ignorance. Please stay out of this.”
It’s a good “Let’s Get Rid Of” topic. Let’s get rid of implications of experiential exclusivity. Especially when they imply that anyone outside of the circle of knowing is prohibited from criticizing anyone inside of it. “You ain’t been nebber dun lived here, so’s you canst be knowin whys we be speaksin like Jar-Jar Binks.”
Bonus “Let’s Get Rid Of” is spawned from this. One of my all-time most hated phrases: “As long as it isn’t hurting anyone else.” I will submit to a dozen wasp stings for every time in my life I have tried to defend an argument with that myopic drivel.
You’re not the only one. While I blame Breitbart for not checking to see what the contents of the entire video showed, I’m more than a little suspicious of the motives of whomever sent it to him. As I said, I believe that the crowd’s reaction to Sherrod kind of proves Andrew’s point about the overall tenor of at least that chapter of the NAACP. Whoever sent the tape to Andrew (or whoever sent it to the person that sent it to Andrew) probably knew Breitbart’s view of the NAACP and figured that, since the tape reinforced that opinion, he would jump on it and air the tape, which Breitbart then did. Suffice it to say that I’m skeptical that this entire sequence was happenstance.
Ever since 60 Minutes aired those fraudulent TANG documents to try and throw the election (note: CBS had planned to air the piece the Sunday before election day, but had to push it out earlier to avoid being scooped by the NY Times; thank God for ambition), my antennae have been on full alert for pretty much anything. I’m a naturally skeptical and cynical person and an election year only increases the sensitivity of my bullshit detectors. This year – and 2012- are going to set new standards in political skullduggery and political malfeasance, all so as to dishonestly influence elections.
I wonder, Miss Daphne, if you are no longer defending your opinions, but your ego. When I do that, which is often, I know right away it is because I am in some part wrong.
Shirley Sherrod is not a private figure suffering for her opinions and deserving of your kindness. She was fired by the same types that would hire no other. She is the type.
When “conservatives” use Alinsky tactics to wrong a leftist, it is both full of ironical humor and wrong. We can’t smear shit and not get it on us. That, and dumb stories like the Mexican invasion, allow us to see what we have sitting in the back seats, which is invaluable. I’ve seen not one thing in the last few days that is very remarkable. The murder of Sherrod’s father was remarkable. Her firing was not, nor was anything surrounding it.
Sorry to be so damn hard on you, girl. You’re the greatest, and I am blowing arm farts at my betters. It is good you are like you. Nobody here seems to want to change that.
I certainly don’t.
This is what Sowell was pointing out in “A Conflict Of Visions.” In short, if you believe mankind ate of the apple, then Man is fallen and inherently flawed. That, in turn, must mean all this talk about “Republicans are better than democrats” and “no, it’s the other way around” and “oh look, I found a rotten sneaky person on this side of the line so the people on the other side must be much better” — is a waste of time and silly.
Love ya to pieces, but lately you, and our mutual friend in Portales, seem to be taking a perverse interest in finding imperfection on the conservative side of the line, David-Frum style. Not sure what you’re trying to prove. If it’s that right-wingers lie too, then my response is a big fat “well no duh.”
The perfection of the human race is a pipe dream for Star Trek fans. It is a mistaken goal, it is the error of which the Tower of Babel story is trying to warn us. We elected the Perfect Being to carry all of the human race to the next level of perfection in ’08, and look where it got us.
Taking one side or the other on these things in order to prove wonderful things about yourself, is an exercise for mental midgets and children. It’s beneath you. You too, Buck. You’re both better than this.
Excellent post Daphne.
…but of course some people are not.
Just who was it that fired her without even taking the time to find out if there was a good reason?
Thanks Morgan!
Ever get any fresh air or take a bit of exercise?
I worry about you!
Case closed.
james wilson!
Long time.
Que pasa?
At last, the final and proper perspective:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/27/jon-stewart-on-sherrod-breitbart-may-have-been-the-most-honest-person-involved-in-this-mess/
I don’t feel bad that Sherrod lost her job, other than in an impersonally polite normal way and it’s quite obvious the administration is solely responsible for wrongly terminating her employment.
But I find it disingenuous of anyone to deny that this doctored tape didn’t instigate that boneheaded decision. The widespread media attention of this tape, accompanied by boatloads of scathing and incendiary commentary, most definitely impacted this woman’s life in a very negative manner.
That this was done (and is still being done by other boldfaced, right aisle types) by a respected member of the far right conservative media makes me very angry, it’s disgusting and reprehensible.
It doesn’t matter if this woman is a private racist. What matters is that an innocent private citizen, not a public one, was used as a political tool to beat the Left. The bottom line is that Shirley Sherrod didn’t deserve this onslaught of horrific public scrutiny.
I understand your reactions, expected every last one written on this thread. My nose isn’t put out of joint at your contrary opinions and my ego isn’t ruling my better nature, at least not yet.
Here’s where I’m coming from at this point in my politically aware life; I expect better, I want better and I’m going bitch to high heaven when conservatives behave badly.
This current example isn’t a small imperfection, it’s another gaping hole in the road. I think we routinely circle the wagon and start shooting the critics when instead we should be honestly examining and holding to account the public members of the conservative movement, including our esteemed news disseminators (in this case, creator).
We get what we accept and from my point of view, conservatives haven’t been getting much of anything even remotely conservative in the past ten years.
The difference between your opinion on this matter and mine is that I’m just done taking the bullshit out for a walk anymore.
By the way James, have you read this fine nugget?
**sorry, bad typing.
Daphne, Daphne, Daphne,
oh, please don’t take this as being argumentative for its own sake – it’s the closest I know how to carry on a conversation on this thing…
- I find it disingenuous of anyone to deny that this doctored tape didn’t instigate that boneheaded decision.
Doctored? By whom? Are you actually saying that Breitbart ‘doctored’ the video? That is the central question, isn’t it? It should be, at least in my addled mind. Breitbart’s report instigated scrutiny. Period. The boneheaded decisions can’t be dumped on him and it’s disingenuous to assert otherwise. The NAACCCP and BHO’s lackeys were independent actors in this – their actions are 100% their own responsibility.
Furthermore, ‘doctored’ implies that the tape was modified in such a way as to present an event that was different from the reality. That in fact did not happen. That the reactions to the revelations in this tape affected Sherrod is not in question. I’m very glad they did, personally, because the woman is a flaming bigot. She doesn’t deserve to be attacked for being a bigot. By the same token, however, she has no business doling out hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars if she’s a bigot.
Either way, it’s hard to claim that Breitbart, or anyone, could see into the future and know (or, in this case, even guess) what that outcome would be. Demonstrating that he’s prescient is the only way you get to blame Breitbart for this mess when, in fact, his clearly identified target was the NAACP and he’s never wavered from that aim.
So it’s still a huge, enormous, gargantuan mystery to me what you think was disgusting. Again – what, specifically, in Breitbart’s initial report was reprehensible? How did he misrepresent the reality? What, exactly, did he do that he shouldn’t have done? Because if all the damage is a result of the unhinged reactions to his reporting, well then we have a disconnect, don’t we.
- It doesn’t matter if this woman is a private racist.
But that’s just it: she is NOT a “private” racist. She is – or was – a taxpayer-paid, public-sector racist with control over hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ funds! Forget everything else about this America-destroying administration and the reactions to it – that sort of thing simply can not stand. And again I, for one, am glad that this event resulted in an end to that situation. We need about 1000 or 10,000 repeats of this same scenario, I think.
And… who names her daughter “Russia” at the height of the Cold War, anyway?
That this was done (and is still being done by other boldfaced, right aisle types) by a respected member of the far right conservative media makes me very angry, it’s disgusting and reprehensible.
Brietbart isn’t shy about what his agenda is, and it isn’t delivering news. His agenda, as he has stated many times, is to “bring down the institutional left.”
This stunt damaged Obama and his media echo chamber far more than it damaged Brietbart, and in fact it advanced Brietbart’s agenda admirably. That is good, not bad.
And keep in mind, Daphne, that Sherrod wasn’t a “private citizen.” She was a government bureaucrat, working at taxpayer expense. But, don’t feel sorry for her, she’s going to be rich because of this.
This is not a case of conservatives “acting badly.” This is a case of Obama showing his true colors.
Excuse me, G? When hasn’t Obama shown his true colors?
Obviously Breitbart isn’t delivering factual news and Sherrod is very much a private citizen, earning a paycheck from grunt government work does not make one a public figure.
Breitbart’s fine goal to destroy the institutional Left was just taken down a peg or two because the middle now finds him to be just another repulsive manipulator.
Sherrod is very much a public figure now, and like I said before, she’s set to cash in big.
It remains to be seen whether Brietbart’s goal was “just taken down a peg.” I, for one, don’t think so.
I mean, do you actually believe that most people even know who he is? My guess is that the cash will keep pouring in, his stunts and stings will keep rolling along, and the fools and charlatans he keeps exposing will not fail to disappoint. Remember, his goal wasn’t to damage Sherrod, his goal was to damage the credibility of both the NAACP and the Obama administration. In both cases he succeeded admirably.
I’m off to cuddle with the kids, the debate can wait until tomorrow.
Jewel, excellent video.
Goy, we need to talk son.
G, Sherrod has become a very public figure, shame on us. Like I said before, it doesn’t seem to matter who takes the beating if the boss looks bruised at the end of the day. Nice tactics.
Nice tactics.
Though fraud in other activities be detestable, in the management of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes an enemy by fraud is as much to be praised as he who does so by force.
Machiavelli: Discorsi
Well Daphne, I can certainly see the beginnings of your point, I’ll give you that. And I’m not at all down with the whole “praise whoever overcomes an enemy by fraud.”
Let’s just leave it at this: You need to find a better victim to make the argument convincing to someone like me. Wasn’t so long ago you were downright nauseous over Sarah Palin flocking to the spotlight, with but a tiny fraction of the zeal we see from the starstruck Shirley Sherrod.
There is no more worthy goal than improving and policing the right. The left is not approachable or teachable; we can only improve ourselves, our margins for error left thin. So I’m with your effort.
I do sense something else entirely within you on this thread. Because you are dismayed by bad actors and deception, and are good at combat, we are not prepared to see that you are–I will make a personal guess here–horrified at the dysfunction and incivility of political combat. Periodically you call a truce to retrieve the wounded and look for a new direction to end the war. That is in vain. So far as I know.
I read your link. It too is false. And a falsehood is greater for the degree of truth it contains. We are so far down this road to the end of the American experiment we cannot remember where we came from, or even where we turned off. Of Two Minds, like Black Swan, are people who want out of the great manipulation, but use understandings that never leave the reservation that imprisons them.
- Goy, we need to talk son.
I would love that. Because frankly my dear, you’re scaring the sh!t out of me.
what have you done with Daphne? Who are you?
the other day you railed against another Breitbart site and blamed the “right wing bloggers” for the Texas invasion story. Declaring you are the only one who actually investigates stories.
” I tell you I am a blogging housewife from Austin and I demand to know the truth.” as I’m sure you told the deputies who answered the phone.
my google search turned up 5 out of 1 million plus that dealt with the invasion (Mexican not space alien kind). None of which I read as a faux revolutionary. The main site was…..MediaMatters….are you kidding me? and they listed 4 wacko right wing sites.
Todays rebuts have been made, better I’m sure,than I would have done. ( Especially from the Physics Geek and his full body slam of the child molester.)
Now today you give arguments that aren’t, with not atrace of our dear friends craft and/or craftiness. I won’t mention the typos, darn, I did. that rival my own.
So, agin I query, who are you? ( sorry that was another typo, I’m not poking fun at you northerners. Kona is even with Key West, so yes, you are to my North.)
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true
Apparently there are a whole lot more black farmers looking for reparations than there are black farmers-
Splain’ it to me Lucy….
A monster scam and Sherrod is right in the middle of it.
Of course the entire USDA is a scam system, as are most of the bureaucracies created by the federal government. Sherrod may be in the middle of it, like all of her other fellow bureaucratic workers, but she’s not running it, funding it or crafting legislation that keeps expanding its power year after year.
You need to blame Congress for that state of affairs.
The consensus amongst most of you seems to be that Breitbart’s ultimate goal of exposing the NAACP’s racist hypocrisy, as well as the Obama administration’s racist hypocrisy, in defense of the accusations of racism those two parties leveled against the Tea Party were completely justified because he didn’t intend to drag Sherrod through the public mud, he was duped by a doctored tape, and the greater good was justifiably served at the end of the day.
I see your point, but I still disagree.
If the goal is to dismantle Leftist institutions and the insidious spread of contemporary liberalism, you are going to have to change people’s minds, alter their perceptions of how they view the world.
That is not going to be accomplished by creating sympathetic victims and using what appear to be underhanded tactics.
Centrists, Independents and the apolitical middle, the very people you wish to persuade, aren’t inclined to listen to the conservative message when they believe we are represented by unscrupulous men who don’t mind targeting innocent women in their quest to sell the message.
You all obviously see this story one way. Other people, normal non-leftist people, don’t see what you perceive as the truth, they see something very ugly.
Point taken, next time we’ll have a woman do it.
Seriously though, this gets back to my comments about the “Could Be Construed As” standard. White male says something at work, in the hallway, to another co-worker, is overheard, and it’s his fault that his remarks are taken out of context. It’s been going on so long that we have become acclimated, in a tragic way, to the current state which is quite barbaric when you get down to it. Gals can have calendars filled with half-dressed construction guys in their work cubicles, but if a man does the same with a Hooters Waitress calendar it’s hasta la vista. It isn’t a basic civil right to hang a wall calendar up in a cubicle space that doesn’t belong to you — but there is something traditionally sacred that is being sacrificed here: Manhood. A man can only be assured he’s accepted in all walks of life as a harmless thing, if he stops being manly. Also: Justice. The traditionally inalienable right to confront your accuser. And to offer a rebuttal. Shirley Sherrod has this right — it is undeniable, she made effective use of it here. Most people thrust into the middle of such a maelstrom do not have this right anymore. It went against political correctness so we made a conscious decision to get rid of it.
My point is, Daphne, since you seem to be making a point that these thoughtless “independents” run most things anyway, so we might as well let them decide it all — this does not produce good results. You call it “very ugly” to expose hypocrisy in the NAACP…if a white guy is doing the exposing. It isn’t the exposition that creates the ugliness. If there’s a “Big Middle” of people who decide all our elections who think this is Breitbart’s doing, well they’re just wrong.
If truth doesn’t remain truth when it becomes unpopular, then that’s the antithesis of justice. Just people will reject this, regardless of who’s disagreeing.
- “…he was duped by a doctored tape…”
A. He wasn’t duped.
B. The tape was not ‘doctored’.
And the thing that’s getting frightening, to me, is that it takes a special sort of willful blindness to assert otherwise.
Both of the videos were unedited excerpts from a longer video that, once viewed in its entirety, did not ‘exonerate’ Sherrod in any way. She’s a race-hustling bigot who, as a public employee, can lay no claim to immunity from public scrutiny simply because she’s a spinning cog in a broken system. The fact is that she benefits from that broken system at Taxpayers’ expense while abusing the public wealth and trust to further her own and her husband’s clearly voiced, racist agenda. Meanwhile, the NAACP’s racist reaction to her presentation was real, not ‘doctored’.
The first excerpt included all the context necessary to divine the intent of Sherrod’s screed, which was nothing more than a glorification of her personal ‘enlightenment’ and ascendancy from racist to Marxist. Breitbart never ‘doctored’ the video in an attempt to hide this because, from the standpoint of the group he’s fighting for – the Tea Party – Sherrod’s admission is actually more relevant: she promotes the collectivist redistribution of wealth to the “poor”.
The second excerpt included an example of Sherrod’s racism, as she glibly stereotyped blacks as a race averse to manual labor (i.e., farm work). No amount of additional “context” is going to alter the significance of that video record.
Twice damned, by her own words.
As far as the unwashed masses with little interest in preserving their own Republic are concerned, they elected BHO in a media-induced stupor, despite a mountain of facts and a past that would have utterly disqualified a white man. The truth did not matter.
Allowing the left to dictate the narrative, the rules of discourse, and what constitutes truth, while at the same time pretending that the credulous sensibilities of the normal non-left will somehow reveal to them the reality, is what has gotten us where we are. Breitbart recognizes this. So do I and many others. I hope you’ll reconsider.
I give up.
Your/Breitbart’s message didn’t get out, which is the point.
And what would it take to get that message out?
From what I see, the people who came out of this situation fully ignorant of the racist agenda of the NAACP, would be blind to it no matter what.
I’m not even sure I agree with you about this message-not-getting-out. Here we are, once again, being told what to think about things. Don’t speak ill of Saint Shirley. And Fox News got her fired…which the facts absolutely prove is a lie, and here are all these people running around saying it anyway.
I’m reasonably sure there are a lot of people in your Big Silent Middle who are becoming extraordinarily tired of it all. But you’ll see a lot of polls about what’s distressing you, before you ever see a poll on what I’m talking about. So it ends up being kind of a “If a tree falls down and there’s nobody around to hear it” thing.
Ok.
Maybe it didn’t get out.
;-)
Happy thought for the day:
… the racist agenda of the NAACP…
Excellent! I’ve been a member since the early 1970′s and this ‘fact’ had escaped me.
Go figure.
That’s because you’re a demented liberal, Arthur.
You were there when they made their feelings known about Justice Thomas’ nomination.
Well, I guess we must have different definitions of the term.
I opposed the Thomas nomination after hearing Hill’s testimony.
Back then I believed that women wouldn’t lie about such serious accusations. I’ve sinced learned different.
By the way, my darlin’ Goy, that piece only gores the two main prongs for firing and chastising in haste at the instigation of a false media blitz leveled against Sherrod and their bit on Bart actually smears the man you’re defending as a right wing loon.
It’s not an endorsement of your position, it’s a scathing, satirical indictment of the administration’s general incompetence and the right wing who propagated the non-story.
Sherriff, no problem, I still don’t know who shot the deputy.
And, we never do find out. Which is where this story is at. Who acted the worst in this sorry mess? Take your chances, place your bets, and spin the big wheel.
This story is as dead as Elvis.
Stay tuned for the next one….it won’t be long.
- ‘…gores the two main prongs…’
This is… a problem? I think it’s more than Breitbart could have hoped for. He only aimed as high as the NAACP.
Stewart spends 98% of his shtick ridiculing BHO and the NAACP. Another win, so I don’t mind at all seeing him replay Breitbart’s challenge (Stewart, at least, didn’t lie about it) and calling him ‘honest’.
The question was whether the message got out, I think, not whether these folks endorsed any particular view on it. The message – leftist hypocrisy and this administration’s incompetence – got out. BHO’s approval index this past weekend topped -20 for a bit and the NYT is backpedaling ever so slightly on the Tea Party = racist rhetoric. Post hoc? Yes. Coincidence? No such thing in politics.
No matter though – Sherrod has apparently been sequestered “for her own good”, i.e., before she becomes an even bigger embarrassment to the administration. If Fox decides to cover Pigford, you’ll see her name again. $13,000,000.00 may be mentioned.
All in all this put the left on the defensive at the highest levels. I say that’s not bad for a single blog post and 5 minutes of video.
“Elvis isn’t dead, he just went home.”
I have the feeling we’re arguing about a 55-gallon drum composed of disparate pints & ounces.
Daphne’s point is about P.R., as I understand it, and that this is a net loss. Without a doubt there is an inflamed acrimony directed at Mr. Breitbart over this; her point is strongest there. Even there though, I have the feeling the left is overplaying their hand.
Breitbart is saying, essentially, “Lookit them they have nothing to say, they just call their opponents racists!”
NAACP responds: “Racist!!!”
A net P.R. loss for the conservative side that very well may be. But it can’t be a lasting one. Even the weak-minded see what’s hosed about it, if it’s just run through their feeble brains three or more times in a row. It’s obvious.
And as far as the administration’s incompetence, this is where your point is the weakest Daphne. They are reduced to saying, just like the NAACP, “We made the wrong move but it’s because we were ‘snookered’ and it’s the fault of those evil conservative people…whom we believed.” They asked for the ridicule Jon Stewart gave ‘em. You just cannot look cool doin’ that.
Heh. Heh.
Year 2010. Middle aged, balding, overweight white guys.
The only legitimate victims of racial discrimination in these great United States.
Back in the day the NAACP were ‘communists’. Now that that monster is no longer hiding under the nation’s bed the NAACP are ‘racists’.
And it isn’t possible to be racist against white guys is it Arthur? What with them being middle aged, balding, overweight & all.
Of course it’s *possible* Morgan.
It’s just that the likelihood of a white guy being denied his rights based on his skin color is infinitely less than a black guy being denied his based on his skin color.
The game is still very much rigged in favor of guys just like you and me Morgan.
The NAACP, across many chapters, has a long and rather consistent history of supporting affirmative action. Specifically, race-conscious decisions in hiring, contracting and enrollment.
That is discrimination. Dance around it to your heart’s content. Say it ain’t so, just as much as you like.
It changes nothing.
No formula for failure is greater than perpetual victimhood. A century of enemies never managed to do the permanent damage to blacks that their friends have done in two generations, and are not done doing.
Two classes of people are convinced that black people cannot compete in a meritocracy–blacks, and thirty million of Arthur’s closest friends. Some of us don’t believe that they cannot compete, others don’t care. Either one is a winner.
The NAACP is a pathetic organization. It would be a laughing stock and irrelevant, as would be Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Wright, and Minister Farrakanhan, but the intelligencia will not let that happen. Pull that string, and it leads right to our maladapted intellectual zombies, not the NAACP.
White people are indeed the problem.
Ah yes. Affirmative action.
The great one size fits all evil abhorrent to people who ‘don’t care about the color of a person’s skin’.
Or their gender. Or nationality. Or sexual preference or any of a myriad of ways in which folks were, are and will continue to be discriminated against.
The fact is that affirmative action is here to stay and remains a useful tool. As the great collectivist/Marxist/Leninist/Maoist jurist Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.” She’s right.
“Meritocracy”?
Where?
Sorry James. We aren’t there quite yet. Affirmative action helps establish the starting line. ‘Merit’ takes place a bit later in the process.
But I have to agree with you on the dangers of victimhood. The ‘we have to take back our country’ crowd shows just how misbegotten the impulse has become. As for the notion of ‘libruls’ being more damaging to blacks than a hundred years of Jim Crow and slavery?
Nope.
Sorry.
Affirmative action helps establish the starting line.
So that Whitey can take his turn in the unemployment line. He needs to find out what it’s like!
But there’s no racism here folks. Move along.
Don’t worry Morgan. In the meanwhile have you any figures on how white unemployment rates are affected by preferential hiring of minorities?
Of course you don’t. There aren’t any. Blacks continue to suffer far higher rates of unemployment, lower wages, smaller net worth and fewer economic opportunities than ‘whitey’.
A couple more generations and it will be a moot point. Things have improved over the past few decades and they likely will continue to do so.
But as we definitely aren’t a ‘color-blind society’ just yet Justice O’Connor describes, quite rightly, the law of the land.
Then by all means Arthur, do continue to discriminate, and encourage others to do likewise. And rationalize away.
But let’s call it what it is. Racism.
All kinds of affirmative action programs exist alongside those which are race-based.
Veteran hiring and recruitment preferences. University preferences for alumni & donor sons and daughters.
Special economic incentives for purchase of U.S.-made products, import quotas against foreign goods, and agricultural and textile subsidies.
This is interesting:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
It looks perfectly reasonable so long as you filter out all of its risible and humiliating failures. Just like anything does. Go find me a racist, in either direction, who isn’t ready, willing & able to justify his racism with “I had it coming” or “he had it coming” or “they had it coming.” Just like any common thief.
It becomes painful to watch when efforts are made to “recruit” females into engineering positions, and the institution runs headlong into the Lawrence Summers wall. Goodness gracious, the gals don’t seem to be interested; how do we make our stats come out right? Well, they can only true to do it by means of one method: Raise the standard on one side of the wall, and lower it on the other. So that you reject people who are qualified and accept people who are unqualified. Which creates a problem whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
Of course it creates a problem. It’s the problem we encounter when we discriminate. That’s why the Constitution says you shouldn’t be doing it.
They shouldn’t call it “affirmative action.” “Negative action” would be more fitting.
“Arthurstone Of course it’s *possible* Morgan.
It’s just that the likelihood of a white guy being denied his rights based on his skin color is infinitely less than a black guy being denied his based on his skin color.”
You guys didn’t grow up in Hawaii where “fucking haoles” often got served or hired last at local establishments and white women were fair game. It is better now, but still happens.
I remember my mom telling the story of hearing a group at the YWCA singing Christmas carols -”Deck the halls with balls of Haoles, tra la la…”
In the meantime-
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/07/27/my-apology-to-shirley-sherrod-withdrawn/
Affirmative action is an excellent way to unmotivate people, keep them in place, to remove the greatest teacher and motivator–adversity, and replace it with envy and dependence.
As you assert, affirmative action is here to stay. You argue for their limitations, and they get to get to keep them: habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break.
That includes your side of that coin. So long as you need to control other people, however benign you believe your motives, you are captive to that need. To help people until they can no longer help themselves is not a redemption, but an enthrallment.
Mallock–
Upon this Empire, as upon that of Rome, calamity has at last fallen. A host of intellectual barbarians has burst in upon it, and has occupied by force the length and breath of it. The result has been astounding. Had the invaders been barbarians only, they might have been repelled easily; but they were barbarians armed with the most powerful weapons of civilisation. They were a phenomenon new to history: they showed us real knowledge in the hands of real ignorance; and the work of the combination thus far has been ruin, not reorganization. Seeing just too well to have the true instinct of blindness, and too ill to have the proper guidance from sight, it has tightened its grip on the world of thought, only to impart to it its own confusion.
Perhaps this is a good time to point out it is logically impossible to reconcile race-based Affirmative Action with Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified by the United Nations in 1948.
Hi again, all. Daphne, perhaps you have already read this, but here’s the link from CY about the utter hypocrisy and awfulness of the Sherrods by those who have had the misfortune of working for them
http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html
Well maybe this might help you understand a bit more about the Sherrods.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/08/05/slave-labor-conditions-at-sherrods-farm/
I want a front row seat when Shirley lays her hand on the bible and swears to tell the truth about Breitbart. OH that is going to be an eyeopening day, sho’nuf!
Yes, yes, Ed, I know.
The Sherrod’s are evil incarnate, racist commie liberals intent on destroying America as we know it. They truly needed taken down by the great conservative saviour, Brietbart, in order to wipe the stain of racism from the Tea Party brand.
Got that, thanks.
If anyone’s still following this thread a week later, here’s a thought;
The Tea Party leaders (I know there are a few reputable, outspoken individuals who seem to have taken on the mantle) ought to make a statement to this effect:
“Yes, there are some die hard racists who attend attend Tea party gatherings. There are also some birthers, truthers, militia types, complete nutbags and any other number of people who hold a variety of minority opinions.
We are not a monolithic entity. We are a collection of individuals who agree on one single principle – that the federal government is not representing our interests and we believe they are failing this country miserably.
We come from a wide walk of American life. Our religious views differ, our personal wealth crosses the spectrum, we reside in cities and rural communities and yes, we come together in a variety of ages, races, educational levels, sexes and personal opinions that aren’t all shared by one another.
The Tea Party people have one plank: to drastically change the current path of government. The majority of us couldn’t give one ripe shit about another person’s color, religion, race, education or wealth and the vast majority of us repudiate the crass ugliness and clear insanity displayed by a few dolts waving offensive signs at our rallies.
Yes, we have a few racists show up at our gatherings, who, other than you, gives a flying fuck about those stilted morons?
Our agenda isn’t racist, our focus isn’t racist and if you can’t see the plain truth of our honest intent than you can go fuck yourselves three ways to Sunday. We’re done dealing with this bullshit, go play by yourself.”
I’d love to see that statement that come out the Tea Party.
Perhaps you just might. If the day ever comes that someone spots a “death to Obama” sign or a “Ni***r outta my White House” sign, or something of the like, and manages to supply some solid evidence that it was a real tea party person holding it.
There has been an organized effort to “infiltrate” the tea party movement with phony tea party participants. Fruit of the Poisoned Tree, Daphne. To anyone who has a genuine care for finding out what’s really going on, rather than just slinging some dirt, that means the signs can’t be trusted. And if they can’t, why should the tea party movement admit to racism within its ranks any quicker than the NAACP? Or any one of a number of blogs? Or the Obama administration?
Find me some real racism in the tea party movement. Then we’ll figure out what to do about it.
Don’t be naive, Morgan. Some tea party devotees are serious racists. I personally know two, that doesn’t mean what the movement stands for is racist (as I’ve said) or that the majority of people attending are racists.
There’s nothing to do about it, just stop dealing with crap thrown about by the likes of the NAACP.
Tell ‘em to fuck off, they clearly don’t care about the truth or the underlying reasons for the movement and they are never going to see otherwise.
Stop fueling the fire and go about your business. Concrete actions always say more than loud words in the long run.
“Go about your business”? Now, that’s being a little bit of a Cheesecake Nazi there: Now that an inflammatory and baseless accusation has been made, let’s move on. I think not.
The NAACP has made an issue out of race. Jim Wallis has made an issue out of race. Barack Obama, and most of His friends, have made an ongoing issue out of race. The Congressional Black Caucus has made an issue out of race, MSNBC has made an issue out of race, Jesse, Al, Bill Maher, hey I could probably add to this list all weekend long…
Why in the world should I presume there’s a significant racist motive within the tea party, and not among those fine folks?
The Tea Party has a mission statement — which, by the way, is somewhat galling to many of their sympathizers who wish it were a bit more broad. This mission statement is absolutely color-blind. Many of the folks on my spiffy list up above, cannot make such a claim.
This is just another in a long, long, long line of examples of a phenomenon I’ve taken to calling…until I can get a more direct and to-the-point phraseology of it working…”racists calling non-racists racists.” And America’s real shame is that we’ve been putting up with it for so long. Year after year, we’re called upon to support bigger government, the derogation of manhood, higher taxes and a decline of our national pain threshold, and if we don’t then we’re racists. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Wanting my kids & grandkids to be able to hang onto their paychecks, is a primal drive that knows no color.
This is a propaganda drive put out by modern communist scum. If there’s anything more to it than that, I’m doubting it’s anything significant until someone can show me otherwise.
Hey here’s a thought. How about calling upon some prominent democrats and Obamapologists to denounce the tea party infiltrators. There’s a demand that’s needed and called-for. Put some people on the defensive who actually belong there.
Other than your stellar list of classic liberal race baiters, who has made it an issue?
Feel free to shake your fist in righteous defiance, you’re only singing to the choir and not persuading a single soul who believes otherwise.
And why do you care, really? Why do you feel the need to be on the defensive? Is it that important that people like you more than the goals you aim to accomplish?
The Party looks like a vindictive, petty putz when it attacks the low hanging fruit like Sherrod. Especially because she’s black. Try nailing a white guy the next time if you’re looking to score a few beneficial publicity points.
There may well be saboteur infiltrators, Morgan. Screaming that bit from the rooftops just makes you look nutty and unserious to most people outside of the Party.
I agree completely.
If by “shake your first” you mean “make the salient point,” if by “sing to the choir” you mean “point out what shouldn’t need pointing out,” if by “feel the need to be defensive” you mean “feel the need to finally answer a slanderous charge that’s been allowed to sit and stink for way too long,” if by “not persuade a single soul who believes otherwise” you mean “not persuade people who didn’t want to be persuaded anyway,” if by “there may well be saboteur infiltrators” you’re actually admitting you don’t have any solid evidence of any racists in there anywhere…et cetera.
Other than that, you’re right on the money.
It’s Friday, babe. My intuition tells me you need to pour yourself a cold one. I certainly intend to.
You made a bad call on this one. Sherrod’s scum. Just move on to the next subject and let it be.
Cheers darlin’ man.
I didn’t make a bad call, y’all did. It’s an unfortunate debacle that didn’t do one solid thing to elevate or vindicate the Tea Party in the eyes of television attuned America. You do remember that most of America aren’t reading your sort of blogs, right?
Breitbart still looks like an ass, rightwing bloggers look desperate and the innocent, good folks at Tea Party central unfortunately took an unnecessary kick in the pants over this hot mess.
It’s a shame that you still don’t get it, Morgan. It doesn’t matter what or who Sherrod is in her personal life. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if a smattering of Tea Party folks are belligerent racists.
What matters is what you do, how you behave and what you achieve. You want to fight the ideological wars down and dirty, be my guest, but don’t expect many converts.
I would hope that the Tea Party means to achieve more solid accomplishments than merely hosting a series of rhetorical fisticuffs by beating down private citizens to make their point.
Down and dirty?
Try this one on for size…you tell me if this is down and dirty. It’s a little bit late on a Friday for thinking with the left brain, but that’s the half that tells us what’s really going on. And the right half, fun as it may be, really hasn’t given us much besides bad movies, bright paintings and cheesy “top ten” hits.
Let’s say there are real racists in the tea party. Significant numbers of them.
Why infiltrate at all? Why do this? Or this? Or this?
Seriously, why bother to do all this? If there are large numbers of real tea party racists…why not just film them? Why the paper mache bullshit?
Only one possible answer: There was some level of difficulty involved finding the real ones.
You got an alternative explanation?
Bottoms up. Have an awesome weekend.
let’s see what November has in store, for this land of the free.