What? No mainstream media covering this? Shocking!

[--Pete]

Hi,

Especially cheap when one could easily make the argument that, if not the only reason, the main reason she was even picked to run as Vice President was that she was a woman. Her very nomination appears as a statement that women are so stupid they will just vote for the one that has breasts.

Partially true. However, McCain was having problems with the far right, and Palin was the person who was supposed to get their support back. Given her (relative) obscurity and the fact that the Republicans do not lack for people on the far right, the fact that she was also a woman may have been what tipped the balance in her favor. It was hoped that she would draw some of Clinton's followers away from Obama. After all, 2008 was very much the year of the minorities.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Especially cheap when one could easily make the argument that, if not the only reason, the main reason she was even picked to run as Vice President was that she was a woman.

I agree the they wanted a minority on the ticket. There were better choices, but I believe rather than specifically seeking a woman, the McCain camp didn't want to have two old white guys as their ticket. Too bad Condi Rice got involved with Bush, because she would have been the perfect foil to the Obama/Biden ticket. Her problem was she was tainted with Bush.

Her very nomination appears as a statement that women are so stupid they will just vote for the one that has breasts.

I'll side with Pete on this one. I don't believe they are this jaded. Usually, the VP is picked from a state with a large number of electoral votes (NY, Texas, Florida, or California). Palin was an unknown, very popular in her state, but didn't bring any regional electoral strength. They would have been better off finding any other minority from the east coast, with 1) national government experience, 2) distanced from Bush, 3) an Ivy league education. This was the big mistake in the McCain campaign. They should have damned the Republicans, and done whatever it took to get Hillary on the ticket. Then watched Fox squirm.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But... we are comparing a Vice Presidential candidate against another Vice Presidential candidate. If she is disqualified due to her poor scholastic performance, then what about him?

No, we are not. We are discussing Sarah Palin's competency. It was you who brought up the 'Johnny did it too" argument. While it may be true, it doesn't mitigate the fact. If you want to discuss Biden's shortcomings, I'll probably add to your list. But, whatever his shortcomings, they don't effect Palin's.

Yeah? What's your point here? I disagree with a lot of the unreasonable stuff too, but there are some things there that are reasonable.

The point is that you offered that link in her support. I went to that link. Yes, she's not totally outrageous on everything. I posted the things I think she's wrong on. As I said, the thing speaks for itself.

You know... I didn't vote for her either... I don't expect to turn you into a Palin supporter, just maybe you could drop some of the hatred and vitriol.

What hatred and vitriol? I don't hate her any more than I hate Forest Gump, but I wouldn't vote for him either. And calling a person who has shown herself to be poorly informed 'ignorant' is hardly vitriol. Nor is calling a person 'stupid' when she consistently tries and fails to appear more than she is. I do not attack her personality, nor her beliefs, nor her person or personal life.

Her positions resonate with a large portion of the electorate, but they are not the same as yours. She didn't win, and now she's just another book writing talking head, like Laura Ingraham or Rachel Maddow.

And even if that were all she was, she would still be a public figure, subject to public opinion. However, she's more than that. She's an established politician. She got more national and world wide coverage in most weeks of late '08 than Ingraham and Maddow combined have gotten in their lives. With the proper tutoring, the proper PR, the proper strategy, she could well be a contender for a congressional seat. And, eventually, make a run at the presidency.

--Pete

[shoju]

In light of the events that are coming out today, I think that Breitbart used a lot of creative editing to try and make a point.

In the complete recording of the talk, we find that the portion used by Breitbart to make his case (which was picked up by Fox News) was a work of creative editing to make a point, and that it wasn't a case of racism.

Now, all of the condemnation that has been thrown at this woman is being reigned back in. All of course, except for Breitbart (at least at the time of my posting).

The internet is a tricky tricky animal. Thank god for the internet, but if Breibart maintains that he did nothing wrong in his creative use of editing to make a point, he has lost a substantial amount of credibility.

This is starting to look more and more like pushing a social agenda and fight between the Tea Party and the NAACP than anything else.

[Chesspiece_face]

How can you attribute this to the any Tea Party? It was outed by Breitbart on BigGovernment.com, I believe. Which, as far as I know, is a conservative 'Reagan Republican' blogger. He is as bad as Micheal Moore, and one of the worst in the cesspool of media distortion, and I would put him in the same category of propagandist. In reading his bio, it is not a surprise to me that he helped put together "The Huffingtion Post" as well. Then, I think Hannity had it on his show (another Reagan Republican). Currently, the Republican party is attempting to assimilate the "tea party", since their entire platform is anti-progressive (power to the people, small government, lower taxes). Bush Jr. (and even Reagan) represented a version of progressive Republican, which is what most of the Tea party (many of which are former Republicans) find distasteful. So, yes, you have people like Hannity, Breitbart, etc. who may speak at rallies, or defend the Tea Party movement, but it is doubtful that they (or FOX) represent the goals of the Tea Party. Of all the FOC talking heads, Beck probably (through the 912 project) inspired the Tea Party movement. 912 is essentially a mechanism for people with similar conservative interests to meet up at a local grass roots level. I've been meaning to make it to one of these meetings some day.

The association of this to the Tea Party is that this manipulated video was posted as a direct response to the NAACP's resolution condemning rascist elements within the Tea Party. People that support the Tea Party tend to define it by abstract standards so that it represents their exact beliefs when in reality it as a movement is fairly ethereal and as far as I can tell can only accurately be defined as: Libertarians on the right that are pissed off. And even then I'm not sure if the Libertarian label is very accurate.

The issue of rascism has permeated a lot of factions within the Tea Party from the birthers to the signs people carry at their rallies to Glenn Beck saying Obama hates white people. Calling Obama or the NAACP rascist is a way of alleviating and obfuscating the rascist elements within the Tea Party as well as attempting to make opponents less likely to call them out for these issues.

[Jester]

Especially cheap when one could easily make the argument that, if not the only reason, the main reason she was even picked to run as Vice President was that she was a woman. Her very nomination appears as a statement that women are so stupid they will just vote for the one that has breasts.

I suspect the "vote for it because it has large mammaries" argument actually works quite a lot better on voters with Y chromosomes, overall - and I wouldn't be surprised to see that the same is true of Palin's support, although I have no numbers at hand.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The issue of rascism has permeated a lot of factions within the Tea Party from the birthers to the signs people carry at their rallies to Glenn Beck saying Obama hates white people.

I've seen some allegations, although very little hard evidence that this has permeated, or is a rampant thing. Would we characterize the Democratic party by the actions of the New Black Panthers? Would we characterize Christians by the actions of Phelps? The platform of the Tea Party is not racist.

Calling Obama or the NAACP rascist is a way of alleviating and obfuscating the rascist elements within the Tea Party as well as attempting to make opponents less likely to call them out for these issues.

I agree that some do-gooder conservatives (Breitbart, Hannity, et.al.) are making hay from the NAACP's politically motivated action. The liberal tactic of slanderously branding a vast category of millions of people (or even selected ones) racist is as reprehensible as is the trash tactics used by the Breitbarts, and Hannity's out there. I don't know by Breitbart, or Hannity are doing this, the NAACP accusation is false, and until there is actual evidence it remains a vicious lie.

“The racism accusation by the likes of the NAACP has been proved false time and again. Earlier this year, Democrats smeared tea party activists by claiming members of the Black Caucus were spit on and called the n-word as they paraded through a crowd of tea partiers,” he added. “Their blatant lie was proved false by overwhelming evidence from multiple video cameras that recorded the event.”

For example, Arizonans are branded as racists (boycott Arizona) for wanting border security to keep out drug smugglers, kidnappers, and violent criminals. The US government, along with a half a dozen foreign nations are joining in lawsuits against a State. Not because the State objects to the Federal law, but because the State copied the Federal law and wants it enforced. This is the rare case when the Federal government selectively refuses to enforce it's own laws, causing the citizens of the State to suffer.

The Tea Party movement is not a third party movement, but rather a set of principles regarding establishing the constitutionality of law (not fuzzy, but clearly), reducing the burden of government, and increasing personal liberty and prosperity. They seek to hold their candidates, Republican or Democrat more accountable to serving the interests of the people, and not special interests. I've heard it said that the Tea Party doesn't endorse candidates, but rather the candidate needs to choose to endorse the principles of the Tea party. It's the Democrats and the Republicans that use division and discord as political weapons.

So, is it possible a vast majority of the Georgia KKK endorse the Tea Party principles? Sure. But, the logic of reversing that to mean the Tea Party are all Klansman is absurd. And... Had the NAACP made a resolution asking the Tea Party to affirm "Civil liberties for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, creed, etc.", I'm sure it would have been better received. Calling on the Catholic church to be more accepting of homosexuality, is a far cry from condemning it for its inherent bigotry.

[Jester]

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, and if we assume Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, then all we're doing is making an ass out of u and me, because the whole point is her spectacular lack of qualifications for one of the hardest jobs on earth.

Reading the resume' is a respect I'd give any person seeking to be employed by me as my public servant. You might find her resume' lacking, which it is, compared to many who deserve the position.

We can judge her based on her performance in her last major elected post, where she decided to up and quit a job she'd been elected to. How does *that* read on a resume?

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

I agree that some do-gooder conservatives (Breitbart, Hannity, et.al.) are making hay from the NAACP's politically motivated action. The liberal tactic of slanderously branding a vast category of millions of people (or even selected ones) racist is as reprehensible as is the trash tactics used by the Breitbarts, and Hannity's out there.

You'd have a point if they actually did this. The NAACP resolution has never alledged that every person that associates with the Tea Party is a racist. The resolution specifically condemns extremist and racist elements that have arisen in the movement and calls for all people associated with the Tea Party to condemn and repudiate these acts.

[Jester]

The Tea Party movement is not a third party movement ...

True. It's a second-party movement - the Republicans.

... but rather a set of principles regarding establishing the constitutionality of law (not fuzzy, but clearly), reducing the burden of government, and increasing personal liberty and prosperity.

Used to be an inchoate mass of discontent from the right wing of the Republican party, plus the original protestor core of fringe lunatics, survivalists, Larouchies, the tattered remains of the Ron Paul Revolution, and so on.

Now it's just a media brand for the Republicans.

They seek to hold their candidates, Republican or Democrat more accountable to serving the interests of the people, and not special interests.

I count exactly one Democratic candidate ever endorsed by the tea party, Walt Minnick. And he rejected it. All the rest are Republicans, and not generally moderate ones either.

I've heard it said that the Tea Party doesn't endorse candidates, but rather the candidate needs to choose to endorse the principles of the Tea party. It's the Democrats and the Republicans that use division and discord as political weapons.

Google "tea party endorses" and read them off for yourself. (Rather comically, including an article about how the tea party endorses no candidates...)

Once upon a time, this was a strange outpouring of fringe discontent that sparked some small to moderate sized protests in the wake of the 2008 election. It has long since ceased to be that, and is now simply a convenient label for the right wing of the Republican party in an era where the official brand identity has become toxic. Any hint of this being a bipartisan, or non-partisan movement died almost as soon as it was born.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, and if we assume Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, then all we're doing is making an ass out of u and me, because the whole point is her spectacular lack of qualifications for one of the hardest jobs on earth.

I agree, she wasn't spectacularly qualified to be President, and neither was Obama. I still have questions on whether the other two were either.

We can judge her based on her performance in her last major elected post, where she decided to up and quit a job she'd been elected to. How does *that* read on a resume?

I guess some combination of; A) She would have a hard time settling back into the wee life she had in Wasilla, B) she was burdened with so many lawsuits she needed to earn the better income that her national prominence afforded her, C) she felt she could further her political and personal cause by remaining in the national spotlight.

She was probably correct that it was best for Alaska, and rather than go through 2 years of continual political warfare in Alaska, she's taken Alaska out of the equation. Gov. Sean Parnell seems to be doing a fine jobs, and with less bravado.

---

From CNN,

You'd have a point if they actually did this. The NAACP resolution has never alledged that every person that associates with the Tea Party is a racist. The resolution specifically condemns extremist and racist elements that have arisen in the movement and calls for all people associated with the Tea Party to condemn and repudiate these acts.

Their final resolution was a watered down version. Mr. Jealous hardly used that language.

Like Stormfront.org, a website founded by former KKK leader Don Black, the Council celebrates its allegiance to and influence in the Tea Party. The avowed racist David Duke notes that thousands of Tea Party activists have urged him to run for president. When the Tea Party marches by, Duke thinks it’s his fiesta.

Our members know too well the pain and the potential danger of white supremacist groups. Since our resolution was publicized, a number of our branches and our corporate offices are reporting violent threats.

We have all seen the blatantly racist signs portraying President Obama as a monkey. We have seen the press conference with the civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis describing how he was spit on and called the N-word, or Rep. Barney Frank being called a vicious slur for gay men.

Dick Armey and other Tea Party leaders have not only refused to disavow the racism — they have denied it.

How do you prove you are not a racist, nor do you support racism in any form when the NAACP calls you a racist organization and compared you to Neo-Nazi's and the KKK?

Edit: FreedomWorks, headed by Dick Armey, is a Republican organization founded in 1984. A common tactic of the left is to intentionally lump all non-left organizations into one basket, which makes it easier to Demogogue them.

[kandrathe]

Used to be an inchoate mass of discontent from the right wing of the Republican party, plus the original protester core of fringe lunatics, survivalists, Larouchies, the tattered remains of the Ron Paul Revolution, and so on.

The non-progressives.

Now it's just a media brand for the Republicans.

When Karl Rove joins the Tea Party movement, you'll have convinced me. The movement has its share of problems, like national coordination, and trying to remain separated from covert Republicans.

They seek to hold their candidates, Republican or Democrat more accountable to serving the interests of the people, and not special interests.

I count exactly one Democratic candidate ever endorsed by the tea party, Walt Minnick. And he rejected it. All the rest are Republicans, and not generally moderate ones either.

How many small government democrats are there?

I've heard it said that the Tea Party doesn't endorse candidates, but rather the candidate needs to choose to endorse the principles of the Tea party. It's the Democrats and the Republicans that use division and discord as political weapons.

Google "tea party endorses" and read them off for yourself. (Rather comically, including an article about how the tea party endorses no candidates...)

I think I said earlier, the movement will figure out a way to differentiate itself, or like many counter culture movements be consumed by posers. Generally, Tea parties don't endorse... But, yes, you are correct that some have... It's a monster with a thousand heads, with little leadership, and no national organization. There is a grave danger from being consumed by the Republican brand, but that is not what it is about.

[Chesspiece_face]

Dick Armey and other Tea Party leaders have not only refused to disavow the racism — they have denied it.

How do you prove you are not a racist, nor do you support racism in any form when the NAACP calls you a racist organization and compared you to Neo-Nazi's and the KKK?

They've never asked anyone to prove they are not racist. They have pointed out specific acts of racism and called for people with voices within the Tea Party to stand up and say that these types of actions and statments are not only unacceptable within the Tea Party but also unacceptable within proper political discourse.

Unfortunately the go-to response from the Tea Party is to just say this is a minority and doesn't represent the entirety of the Tea Party. Ok, fine, it's a minority. But that doesn't make these acts any less racist. And by not openly addressing it and discounting it as if it isn't important they give an implicit message that it is acceptable.

[Jester]

The non-progressives.

I seem to recall accusing you of abusing that word to the point of meaninglessness - I suppose I can't be terribly surprised that this has not changed.

When Karl Rove joins the Tea Party movement, you'll have convinced me.

Karl Rove is so last administration. How about Michael Steel? Or Sarah Palin? Or Newt Gingrich? Dick Armey? They've all expressed their support for the Tea Party, shown up at rallies, etc... These are not small players. These are the public faces of the Republican party, the movers and shakers: the head of the RNC, the former house majority leader, the last VP candidate.

Do you really need Karl Rove specifically to see the glaringly obvious?

The movement has its share of problems, like national coordination, and trying to remain separated from covert Republicans.

Covert Republicans? How about *overt* Republicans? Look at any of the polls. The overwhelming majority of both participants and support are from the Republican party. A handful are either independent-lean-Republican, which are basically Republicans, or too-right-for-the-Republicans fringe lunatics. Almost none are from any other political orientation.

How many small government democrats are there?

That fits fine with my point. The party obsessed with "small government," or at least the party that uses it as a constant catchphrase, is the Republican party. Out of whom is a small-government protest faction likely to be comprised? You guessed it... Republicans!

Generally, Tea parties don't endorse...

"Generally," Tea Party movements, both national and local, have been endorsing rightist candidates across the country, primarying moderate Republican incumbents and trying to win seats for the movement. This would be the exact opposite of "generally not endorsing candidates." They've only existed for two years, and already they've endorsed dozens of candidates for everything from dogcatcher to senator.

There is a grave danger from being consumed by the Republican brand, but that is not what it is about.

Om nom nom. Eated already. I can haz moar?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

They've never asked anyone to prove they are not racist. They have pointed out specific acts of racism and called for people with voices within the Tea Party to stand up and say that these types of actions and statements are not only unacceptable within the Tea Party but also unacceptable within proper political discourse.

How do you police attendance to a rally at the Capital? Well... you let the police handle it. In the incident where the Congressman was allegedly spit upon, the guy was arrested by Capital Police, then released, and the Congressman declined to press charges. I read that the Republicans who were involved as speakers at the anti-health care rally offered their apologies for any offenses by the crowd. The tea party web sites I've reviewed do repudiate racism, and most of them have very vocal minority conservatives as well. There is no head of a national Tea Party Movement, so do you want every local chapter to issue a statement?

Unfortunately the go-to response from the Tea Party is to just say this is a minority and doesn't represent the entirety of the Tea Party. Ok, fine, it's a minority. But that doesn't make these acts any less racist. And by not openly addressing it and discounting it as if it isn't important they give an implicit message that it is acceptable.

Who organized the events in question? Will the *racists* please stand up? Of all the photos taken and posted on thousands of web sites and blogs.... hardly a blip. I've seen the alleged incident on March 20th, 2009. I've seen the ones where the people have been booted from events with distasteful signs. Whenever, and every time an incident has been accurately described the response from the local organizers has been to repudiate the miscreants. What more do you want? Probably the best approach would be to keep the events roped off, and make people go through some kind of check in, other than that, I don't know how you sift the crazies (fringe groups seeking attention) from the normal people who care about the issues. Just like the Catholic priesthood is not defined by certain pedophiles who abuse their positions of authority, any response from the Vatican is never enough to satisfy those who are looking for more. But, every incident is damaging, and the movement will need to figure out how to define what it does stand for more clearly.

This is not a new phenomenon for the left either. How about protests at the G8 events? All the peaceful left wing protest groups get smudged by the anti-social, violence prone radicals (you can tell them from the others because they cover their faces and bring protective head gear). It works, and gets news coverage whereas it would probably not get any attention.

[kandrathe]

The non-progressives.

I seem to recall accusing you of abusing that word to the point of meaninglessness - I suppose I can't be terribly surprised that this has not changed.

At least I'm consistent in my stubborn definition of "progressive". I suppose it might be different where you live. Republican progressives, like Ariana Huffington, or Arland Specter tend to switch eventually to the democratic party.

Karl Rove is so last administration. How about Michael Steel? Or Sarah Palin? Or Newt Gingrich? Dick Armey? They've all expressed their support for the Tea Party, shown up at rallies, etc... These are not small players. These are the public faces of the Republican party, the movers and shakers: the head of the RNC, the former house majority leader, the last VP candidate.

Sorry. They are in the poser class. It's them we've got to worry about. The "Tea Party Express" is a part of the Republican machine, which is where most of these Republicans have attended.

Do you really need Karl Rove specifically to see the glaringly obvious?

I dunno. It's hard to say. I see a lot of fear from the Republicans, and the Democrats at the angry mob of "tea party" activists coming at them. Both are running for cover. One, through demogogery, the other by assimilation and camouflage.

Covert Republicans? How about *overt* Republicans? Look at any of the polls. The overwhelming majority of both participants and support are from the Republican party. A handful are either independent-lean-Republican, which are basically Republicans, or too-right-for-the-Republicans fringe lunatics. Almost none are from any other political orientation.

Why yes Mr. Peabody I have seen the polls...

How many small government democrats are there?

That fits fine with my point. The party obsessed with "small government," or at least the party that uses it as a constant catchphrase, is the Republican party. Out of whom is a small-government protest faction likely to be comprised? You guessed it... Republicans!

The frustrated group of people who *really* want smaller government, and who are disenfranchised by "The Republican Party", as represented by Mr. Steel, and company who talk about small government on the campaign trail, but act differently in DC.

Generally, Tea parties don't endorse...

"Generally," Tea Party movements, both national and local, have been endorsing rightist candidates across the country, primarying moderate Republican incumbents and trying to win seats for the movement. This would be the exact opposite of "generally not endorsing candidates." They've only existed for two years, and already they've endorsed dozens of candidates for everything from dogcatcher to senator.

Check out this one as an example.

There is a grave danger from being consumed by the Republican brand, but that is not what it is about.

Om nom nom. Eated already. I can haz moar?

{Flee}

[Jester]

Check out this one as an example.

Yes, let's!

According to Gallup, 49% identified as Republicans, and 43% "independents", with only 8% Dems. (it being fairly well established that "lean Republicans" are basically Republicans, and "lean Democrats" are basically Democrats, with only a 10%-ish slice of independents actually voting independently). They are 70-whopping-percent conservative identified, and 22 "moderate". Only 7% identify as liberal.

Like Republicans, they are slightly more male and slightly higher income than the general population. This is also true of more conservative vs. less conservative Republicans. Similarly, they are light on minorities, especially blacks.

The single-digit % numbers for liberals and democrats are pathetically small, to the point where they might well just be errors, people confused by the poll, or people selecting randomly.

These are Republicans. Conservative republicans. Other than being Conservative Republicans, they are basically just ordinary Americans.

I believe the term is "Quod Erat Demonstrandum."

-Jester

Afterthought: Let's be clear - this accurately describes the group of people who *support* the Tea Parties. Largely, this is driven by the go-to conservative media, Fox, where the movement has received fawning coverage from moment one.

This is *not* the initial group of people who formed the first round of protests, who are a much less homogenous group, plucked from all sorts of extreme camps. These are single-issuers, gun nuts, the black helicopter crowd, the Larouchies, etc... These people do not make up more than a small fraction of the current supporters, although they are still vocal, visible, and in some cases, influential as founders of the movement.

[Maitre]

I believe we should use the information we have. I also believe context is critical in interpreting that information. I don't believe in "gotcha," I don't believe in scalp-taking or witch-hunting on the basis of snippets of evidence. I also don't believe that people are obligated to be saints, especially when they can expect privacy.

Racism is over the line. But saying one was once racist, once upon a time, is not the same thing, especially not in the context of an anecdote about how one learned that race is not the fundamental issue, but rather discrimination and powerlessness generally. People can change for the better, and honestly discussing that change should not be a career-ending mistake.

-Jester

I don't dispute thst change for the better is possible (I wouldn't be in therapy if I didn't believe change was possible), but I do take issue with your assertion that expectation of privacy provides liscence for communicaiton of discriminatory (or other offensive) opinion. Permitting individuals to maintain a private opinion that is contrary to their public responsibility seems inappropriate to me: how can discrimination be eliminated when those charged with preventing it privately hold biggotted opinions of the protected group?

I believe people should be held accountable for their opinions as well as their actions: yes context must play a role in evaluating the opinion that is expressed, but I'm not afraid of someone loosing their career as a result of thier failure to execute their assigned duties in an appropriate manner. In my mind that's getting fired for doing your job poorly, which seems wholy appropriate. And yes, I have been fired for doing my job poorly, and while I was infuriated at the time and disagreed with the assessment, upon reflection, I deserved it.

[Jester]

Somehow, despite my best efforts, the two wings of this thread are getting squashed together.

The issue of racism is from the Sherrod wing. What she said was public. (It also wasn't racist, it's abundantly clear that she did her job just fine, and that this whole thing was extremely stupid, even by Breitbart's barrel-scraping standards.) She has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and as it turns out, needed none.

The issue of privacy is from the Journolist wing. What was said on that e-mail list was private. There is no accusation there of anyone being racist. Salty language about political opponents was widely employed. Dave Wiegel said some rude things about the Tea Party members, whom he was covering. I think they deserved every word. But even if they didn't, that should not be grounds for firing, especially when the person writing them was communicating among friends and colleagues, and not in the public sphere. Had he said racist things, that would be different. But he didn't, and neither did anyone else on Journolist. But nonetheless, their private communications were made public by their opponents (and yes, by Mickey Kaus, who is a complete lunatic), and used to wreck their careers - for their speech, not for their actions.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Somehow, despite my best efforts, the two wings of this thread are getting squashed together.

Well, they are related. In the JournOList, reporters discussed the strategy of playing the race card. And, here is a case of the NAACP playing the race card on the Tea Party, when every instance that Ben Jealous has identified has been dealt with. Could it be that Ben Jealous really sees the millions of people affiliated with the Tea Party movement as the rise of a White Supremacist organization worthy of comparing to Stormfront, and the Klan, or is it possible he is playing the race card as a coordinated, calculated political move to drive black voters to the polls here in November? I'm pretty cynical, and I'd guess the latter.

The issue of racism is from the Sherrod wing. What she said was public. (It also wasn't racist, it's abundantly clear that she did her job just fine, and that this whole thing was extremely stupid, even by Breitbart's barrel-scraping standards.) She has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and as it turns out, needed none.

To me this is a bigger story now than an injustice of character assassination. You have NAACP denouncing her based on their own video tape, and responded by saying, "The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action." Then hours later, after viewing the entire tape (in their possession) retracted their position claiming they were snookered. Yeah, I guess so was everyone, including Breitbart. The biggest share of the blame goes to the head of the chain, but... Hardly any news organization waited even an hour or a day to do even cursory fact checking before reacting. Yesterday, the self-flagellation began, as the "journalists" again decry the rush of a 24 hour news cycle.

"Asked why Cheryl Cook, the Agriculture Department official who repeatedly called Sherrod on Monday on Vilsack's behalf, told Sherrod that the White House wanted her gone, Vilsack said there may have been a misunderstanding." So, is Vilsack covering for someone, or was Cheryl wrong? Who did she talk to? This is a long time employee that has worked at USDA for like 15 years, and within hours without any due process, she gets pressured into quitting. Doesn't she have the right to at least a meeting with her boss to figure out what happened here? What does it say about our Nation, when convictions come before hearings due to appearances?

Now, do you see the connection? Ben Jealous knows of three examples from all the millions of Tea Party people attending events for the past two years, and all three incidents have been dealt with by their organizations. But, the NAACP convicts them without a fair hearing regarding the facts. The Arizona Law was branded as racist, and falsely characterized as allowing cops to stop any person and ask for papers. There is a rush to judgment, and conviction by the court of public opinion before they can get the facts. This was the essence of the Jeremiah Wright case in the first place (tainting Obama with his associations), and in the Journolist's collusion on how to deal with it. Race bait. Now, how can you take anyone who plays the race card seriously, when it is clearly a political weapon of last resort on the left? Whenever they cannot argue on substance, they resort to defamation. Wright was thrown under the bus, just as Shirley Sherrod was thrown under the bus for political expediancy. But, the story is not about them. If you falsely accuse someone of something heinous – especially something repugnant like racism – they are going to explode. Train derailed, bomb plot success, career ruined perhaps. And to the accusor, and the bulk of the media, it rarely matters that the rage is righteous. Because all they want is the story to move on to the angry person, and away from what they were talking about in the first place. The democrat reaction to the tea party movement is not to counter, or support it's principles, but rather to attempt to discredit and destroy it. Why worry about having a debate with your opponent, when you can get your opponent disqualified from even attending. It's obviously worked on you, as you characterize the movement as a collection of misfits. Huzzah propaganda.

The issue of privacy is from the Journolist wing. What was said on that e-mail list was private.

I agree with you to a point. Every place where I've worked, and that is many, we give people notice that what they do on their computers will be stored in logs, and may become public knowledge. Consider every e-mail that you write as maybe someday being posted on the hallway bulletin board. If you really need a private conversation, do it face to face, or over the phone. Transcripts of E-mail's and backups are frequently used as evidence in lawsuits, not to mention the risk of having hackers dump the contents out onto a website (Hadley CRU, cough). Not to mention the very real possibility that an e-mail may be accidentally forwarded. But... This was even more public than that... This was a albeit closed listserv, but still, you are posting an e-mail to a group of about 400 people. Each person represents a risk in keeping your secrets, secret.

I belong to lots of listservs and have for along time. I always represent myself and the organizations I represent in a positive manner. We discuss items of substance, and there isn't the kind of casual backstabbing, and "gossip" I observed on JournoList. But, then, I'm not a journalist, so maybe their profession is less professional.

There is no accusation there of anyone being racist. Salty language about political opponents was widely employed.

Well, not quite true;

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

While many members of the group voiced concerns about Ackerman on strategic grounds, there seemed to be no clear disagreement with the substance. The strongest repudiation came from Mark Schmitt, now at the liberal magazine the American Prospect, who said the tactic of calling conservatives racist would do nothing to advance the argument."

Dave Wiegel said some rude things about the Tea Party members, whom he was covering. I think they deserved every word. But even if they didn't, that should not be grounds for firing, especially when the person writing them was communicating among friends and colleagues, and not in the public sphere.

Here is what was said. Let's see, Matt Drudge should set himself on fire, trash talking a colleague Byron York, the Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent, and calling Ron Paul supporters Paultards. Nope, nothing racist there. Just dumb.

Then, after he resigned/gotfired, he added,

“There’s also the fact that neither the pundits, nor possibly the Republicans, will be punished for their crazy outbursts of racism. Newt Gingrich is an amoral blowhard who resigned in disgrace, and Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite who was drummed out of the movement by William F. Buckley. Both are now polluting my inbox and TV with their bellowing and minority-bashing. They’re never going to go away or be deprived of their soapboxes,” Weigel wrote.

Of Matt Drudge, Weigel remarked, “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”

And... This was the guy hired to cover conservatives. What? The proverbial self inflicted shot to the foot. Granted, he probably thought his secret loathing of the subjects of his job were safely hidden in the Journolist.

Had he said racist things, that would be different. But he didn't, and neither did anyone else on Journolist. But nonetheless, their private communications were made public by their opponents (and yes, by Mickey Kaus, who is a complete lunatic), and used to wreck their careers - for their speech, not for their actions.

Again, looking specifically at Dave, he was destroyed by those on Journolist left of him, because he was not liberal enough. Racist, no, but dumb moves, yes. Race baiting, you betcha. If he hated conservatives so much, then getting booted from the job of covering them day after day was an act of liberation. I think this is a classic case of venting the wrong stuff in the wrong place, and trusting acquaintances too much. He should have vented into his daily journal and saved it for his memoirs.

What we are not talking about is the rational approach. Rather than call each other names, like racist, how about we elevate the national dialog to a discussion, rather than a propaganda war.