What? No mainstream media covering this? Shocking!

[Jester]

[quote]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.[/quote]

I think the reaction to this was highly disturbing. Some right-wing slime-monger releases an obviously edited tape, and moments later, she is condemned by the NAACP, fired by Vilsack, possibly even with the nod from the top? Has the noise machine become so fearsome that it can get someone fired just by hooting and hollering now?

[quote]Yeah, I guess so was everyone, including Breitbart.[/quote]

Oh, so you're apologising for Breitbart now? You really think this was good faith on his part gone wrong? Yeah, you sure are cynical... about everyone who isn't from the right.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Um, the full story was debunked, on CNN, within what, a couple days? Vilsack didn't do his job - and that is both sad and frightening. But the media did a fine enough job of seeing through Breitbart's horsecrap.

[quote]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?
[/quote]

It tells me the noise machine works, and that the administration is more careful about its perceived image than about fairness. The first angers me greatly, the second is just downright depressing.

[quote]Now, do you see the connection?[/quote]

There is no connection, unless we're wiling to Kevin Bacon this thing.

[quote]But, the NAACP convicts them without a fair hearing regarding the facts.[/quote]

See? Breitbart wins. Now it's about the NAACP - their problem. Hey everyone, look how unfair the left is! Nevermind that we only got there because he hacked a video apart and released it to destroy this woman's career in the first place.

[quote]The Arizona Law was branded as racist, and falsely characterized as allowing cops to stop any person and ask for papers.[/quote]

That doesn't sound very false to me. There are a hundred reasons a cop might have for stopping someone, of having "reasonable" suspicion of something or another. But if we want to talk Arizona law, that should probably be another thread.

[quote]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. [/quote]

As I've said about a dozen times now, Jornolist is nothing but an e-mail server. It is a discussion amongst liberal journalists, bloggers, columnists, and other opinion makers. Your own links show perfectly well that, while some on the list advocated accusing the right of being racially motivated (Which, for what it's worth, still seems correct to me), and others, that they should avoid that tactic and stick to the issues, which they saw as Obama's advantage.

"Collusion" is a dirty word, if you're businesses "colluding" to fix prices, nations "colluding" to sign secret treaties. But if a bunch of liberal columnists (not owners... there is no Rupert Murdoch giving marching orders here...) talk to each other about how they think they should react? How is this even news?

[quote]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.[/quote]

If you read the Journolist e-mails, those advocating framing this in terms of race are not saying that because they want to make noise. They're doing so because they believe that the Jeremiah Wright controversy, like this one, is dog whistle politics - that the whole point of both scandals is a big "wink wink don't you see how black people are really scary and they're taking yer jerbs and raising yer taxes and blargetyblarg". They saw what was happening as racially motivated, and thought the correct tactic was to shout that from every rooftop. I agree with their conclusion, but disagree with their tactic, as did many on the list.

[quote]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.[/quote]

It's not even a question of secrecy. There were no big secrets on Journolist, unless Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman being liberal was some kind of secret. The "story," insofar as there is one, is that a group of liberals had a listserv, and they spoke frankly with one another. Some of them use salty language, don't like their opponents, and talked tactics. Zomg.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I have no idea what gets discussed on listservs you are a part of. Maybe they could fall into the hands of your worst enemies, and yield absolutely nothing. But it's amazing what drops of blood you can squeeze from a stone, if you're looking to smear someone.

[quote]Well, not quite true; [Quote=By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller]"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.”[/quote]

I don't agree with Ackerman's tactical suggestion, and neither did many on JournoList. What he is advocating is related to what Breitbart did here - throw mud to change the topic to something that hurts your opponents, not you. But again - not everyone agreed with him.

[quote]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."[/quote]

What substance are you accusing them of agreeing upon? That the attacks on Wright were motivated by a desire to reinforce the "black is scary" subtext? That sounds correct to me. That the pick of Sarah Palin was a cynical and insulting grab for female voters? It was. And so on, and so forth.

You may disagree. No doubt you do. JournoList is all about opinions, about liberal opinionmakers talking amongst one another about their jobs, their ideas, the issues and stories of the day. These are not editors. These are not owners. There is no Rupert Murdoch, no Ted Turner. Their only power is the one everyone already knew they had - to write their columns.

[quote]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.[/quote]

These are his personal opinions, no doubt saltier than he would express them in public, but Dave Weigel was not a shrinking violet. If he believed the opposition to gay rights was motivated by bigotry (I agree), then he'd say so. If he believed Matt Drudge was a bucket of slime who should be thrown into the fires of Mt. Doom (I agree), then he'd say so.

[quote]“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.”[/quote]

If you're looking to provide examples of how Dave Weigel is a clear-sighted judge of character, then great! Truth is a defense against slander. Matt Drudge *is* slime who uses the media exactly like Breitbart, with race baiting, gay baiting, outright slander and whatever else he can find to warp the discussion to serve his ends. Pat Buchanan *is* an anti-semite who *was* drummed out by Buckley. Newt Gingrich *is* an amoral blowhard, who *did* resign in disgrace.

But no, saying so is over the line. No, you have to treat anti-semites with respect. You have to smile politely when Matt Drudge throws buckets of mud at whomever is in range. You have to make mealymouthed apologies for Newt Gingrich's almost laughable hypocrisy.

[quote]And... This was the guy hired to cover conservatives.[/quote]

Do you not want someone reporting on conservatives who is not afraid to call hypocrites hypocrites and assholes assholes? I know I do. It's not like Dave Weigel was a raging leftist. He was a wonky libertarian type who had idiosyncratic opinions and spoke his mind.

But, no, in private, he didn't kowtow, so out he goes.

[quote]Again, looking specifically at Dave, he was destroyed by those on Journolist left of him, because he was not liberal enough.[/quote]

Perhaps I haven't read things thoroughly enough, but we know how that his career was destroyed "because he was not liberal enough"? I mean, it's Tucker Carlson publishing these e-mails, and he's about as thoroughgoing a Republican hack and you can get. Do we know who sent them to him?

[quote]If he hated conservatives so much, then getting booted from the job of covering them day after day was an act of liberation.[/quote]

Yeah, and I'm sure that Woodward and Bernstein would have been so pleased to have been taken off the Nixon beat. Journalists are not (repeat: not, not, NOT) required to like their subjects.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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.

I think the reaction to this was highly disturbing. Some right-wing slime-monger releases an obviously edited tape, and moments later, she is condemned by the NAACP, fired by Vilsack, possibly even with the nod from the top? Has the noise machine become so fearsome that it can get someone fired just by hooting and hollering now?

Well, I agree to the disgusting nature of both sides of it. Attack, counter, over react, counter-counter, ad nauseam.

Yeah, I guess so was everyone, including Breitbart.

Oh, so you're apologizing for Breitbart now? You really think this was good faith on his part gone wrong? Yeah, you sure are cynical... about everyone who isn't from the right.

No. I think he should reveal his source, or get the brunt of the outrage over some editing clearly out of context. But, if the NAACP gets to claim snookering, then why not everyone? Most everyone else who over reacted has issued a mea culpa, but I don't think he has. It reveals the nature of his character, and those of his ilk. Truly, I really despise the whole blogger slime on the internet whether it be right or left. It's a cesspool of unsubstantiated rumor, and manufactured news.

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.

Um, the full story was debunked, on CNN, within what, a couple days?

Shirley Sherrod fought back against Roland Martin on CNN.

Vilsack didn't do his job - and that is both sad and frightening. But the media did a fine enough job of seeing through Breitbart's horsecrap.

Not really. They ate it, then upchucked it. No wonder we're disgusted... upchucked horsecrap...

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?

It tells me the noise machine works, and that the administration is more careful about its perceived image than about fairness. The first angers me greatly, the second is just downright depressing.

What you call noise machine, I call propaganda war.

Now, do you see the connection?

There is no connection, unless we're wiling to Kevin Bacon this thing.

No need to drag bacon into this. There is an avoided national conversation on race, and race baiting. I'd say there is a pretty clear strategy to use division as a political weapon, whether it be race, gender, class, or age. Political strategists on both sides pander and create incendiary dialog with the sole purpose of retaining power, and feigned concern about the actual well being of the electorate in general, or even that subsection.

But, the NAACP convicts them without a fair hearing regarding the facts.

See? Breitbart wins. Now it's about the NAACP - their problem. Hey everyone, look how unfair the left is! Nevermind that we only got there because he hacked a video apart and released it to destroy this woman's career in the first place.

Why don't we agree to call it all bull crap? The flimsy allegations against the tea party resulting in comparisons to Stormfront and the Klan are equally incendiary and ridiculous.

The Arizona Law was branded as racist, and falsely characterized as allowing cops to stop any person and ask for papers.

That doesn't sound very false to me. There are a hundred reasons a cop might have for stopping someone, of having "reasonable" suspicion of something or another. But if we want to talk Arizona law, that should probably be another thread.

Granted.

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.

As I've said about a dozen times now, Jornolist is nothing but an e-mail server. It is a discussion amongst liberal journalists, bloggers, columnists, and other opinion makers. Your own links show perfectly well that, while some on the list advocated accusing the right of being racially motivated (Which, for what it's worth, still seems correct to me), and others, that they should avoid that tactic and stick to the issues, which they saw as Obama's advantage.

In general yes, although, if the notion of race baiting were so repugnant and reprehensible shouldn't there be more outrage and backlash? But, there are actually many examples where the message was received, loud and clear for both sides. Race baiting is a political weapon of mass destruction used by both major parties. It's our old friend fear mongering rearing it's ugly head. Fear the cracker, and fear the black man.

"Collusion" is a dirty word, if you're businesses "colluding" to fix prices, nations "colluding" to sign secret treaties. But if a bunch of liberal columnists (not owners... there is no Rupert Murdoch giving marching orders here...) talk to each other about how they think they should react? How is this even news?

They should act professionally? Some content got leaked into the public domain, and it is embarrassing for the entire group associated for it's lack of filters. You don't think they should be held accountable for something unethical like contemplating the tactics of race baiting to derail the JW story?

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.

... They're doing so because they believe that the Jeremiah Wright controversy, like this one, is dog whistle politics - that the whole point of both scandals is a big "wink wink don't you see how black people are really scary and they're taking yer jerbs and raising yer taxes and blargetyblarg". They saw what was happening as racially motivated, and thought the correct tactic was to shout that from every rooftop. I agree with their conclusion, but disagree with their tactic, as did many on the list.

Or, misperception, or outright deception. My take on it is; Obama claimed Wright was his pastor for over a decade, he was part of the family, and baptized his children. Obama brought Wright into the conversation. So, we imagine Obama, sitting in the pew, listening to Wrights Marxist, anti-American, racially divisive diatribes. Asking Obama how Wright's views influenced his own beliefs is a valid question. Obama never came out to describe his experience, or how he assimilated Wright's views. He first tried to shrug it off as crazy uncle Jeremiah, and eventually tossed him under the bus. It wasn't about Wright, or Obama's color. It was about Wright's world view, and how close Obama's view was to Wright's (or Father Pfleger). What if Wright had been a white liberation theologist? I remember writing about Wright's liberation theological views on this very site at that time, and I actually studied Gustavo Gutiérrez's book, "A Theology of Liberation (1971)". You made charges of racism, and I said no, it was about discovering Obama's world view, and that his church was not like a main stream church, or even a southern black baptist church. This brand of protestantism/catholicism is distinctly different.

I have no idea what gets discussed on listservs you are a part of. Maybe they could fall into the hands of your worst enemies, and yield absolutely nothing. But it's amazing what drops of blood you can squeeze from a stone, if you're looking to smear someone.

Mostly questions on policy... How do you deal with X at your organization.

I don't agree with Ackerman's tactical suggestion, and neither did many on JournoList. What he is advocating is related to what Breitbart did here - throw mud to change the topic to something that hurts your opponents, not you. But again - not everyone agreed with him.

And, no one told him it was despicable either.

What substance are you accusing them of agreeing upon? That the attacks on Wright were motivated by a desire to reinforce the "black is scary" subtext? That sounds correct to me. That the pick of Sarah Palin was a cynical and insulting grab for female voters? It was. And so on, and so forth.

See above. Perhaps they saw it as "black is scary", but that is a jaded and distorted view. If the President of the US is an adherent to a theology twisted by Marxism, then that is news worthy.

These are his personal opinions, no doubt saltier than he would express them in public, but Dave Weigel was not a shrinking violet. If he believed the opposition to gay rights was motivated by bigotry (I agree), then he'd say so. If he believed Matt Drudge was a bucket of slime who should be thrown into the fires of Mt. Doom (I agree), then he'd say so.

So, in his job, if he lives by the sword, he dies by the sword. According to his employers, he stepped too far out of line, brought too much heat to the organization, and got what he deserved.

If you're looking to provide examples of how Dave Weigel is a clear-sighted judge of character, then great! Truth is a defense against slander. Matt Drudge *is* slime who uses the media exactly like Breitbart, with race baiting, gay baiting, outright slander and whatever else he can find to warp the discussion to serve his ends. Pat Buchanan *is* an anti-semite who *was* drummed out by Buckley. Newt Gingrich *is* an amoral blowhard, who *did* resign in disgrace.

Obviously, you are on the lunatic fringe. I despise Drudge, and find Buchanan a boor, but I think Gingrich is redeemable.

And... This was the guy hired to cover conservatives.

Do you not want someone reporting on conservatives who is not afraid to call hypocrites hypocrites and assholes assholes? I know I do. It's not like Dave Weigel was a raging leftist. He was a wonky libertarian type who had idiosyncratic opinions and spoke his mind.

If you want to get invited to the events where you can do your job, you keep you mouth shut and play along. It's not a job you or I could probably do, without having our souls removed.

Do we know who sent them to him?

Nope. There's a mole in the leftist underground!

If he hated conservatives so much, then getting booted from the job of covering them day after day was an act of liberation.

Yeah, and I'm sure that Woodward and Bernstein would have been so pleased to have been taken off the Nixon beat. Journalists are not (repeat: not, not, NOT) required to like their subjects.

Sure. Rain on my bright side.

[Jester]

And, no one told him it was despicable either.

Just going on Tucker's reporting of it, at least two people told him he was wrong, that this was not the way forward, that they should stick to facts, that this undermined Obama's message about doing politics differently. (Do we have the full-emails?) To Tucker, I guess, this is just tactical talk. I read it differently: part of the appeal of Obama to many on the left is his tendency to talk reasonably about facts, rather than simply hurl insults. Ackerman obviously thinks that this means his allies must fill the attack dog role. Others clearly disagree.

There is an avoided national conversation on race, and race baiting. I'd say there is a pretty clear strategy to use division as a political weapon, whether it be race, gender, class, or age. Political strategists on both sides pander and create incendiary dialog with the sole purpose of retaining power, and feigned concern about the actual well being of the electorate in general, or even that subsection.

True. Two notable examples in my mind include the Southern Strategy, and the Rothbard/Rockwell unholy alliance with the racist paleoconservative fringe (See: Report, Ron Paul.) I think both of those strategies have led quite directly to where we are now: an anti-tax, anti-government protest movement that is persistently unable to shake its racist components. This is not accidental. It's the inevitable result of decades of intentional alliance building and dog whistling.

Are there alliances between the Dems and groups like the NAACP? Of course. But courting the civil rights movement, even with its occasional excesses, strikes me as a much nobler enterprise than courting racists and inciting racism.

When the McCain campaign was in dire straits, and people kept coming to rallies calling Obama a traitor, questioning his birth, his religion, and so forth, McCain seemed very uncomfortable, and tried to take the high road. Sarah Palin didn't seem to mind, though, so it all worked out, in a sad kind of way.

Why don't we agree to call it all bull crap? The flimsy allegations against the tea party resulting in comparisons to Stormfront and the Klan are equally incendiary and ridiculous.

Because, at the base of the Tea Party movement, way back buried, are Stormfront, David Duke, and the like. (The Klan itself, probably less. I think they've more or less descended into crime.) When Murray Rothbard decided it was not only okay, but strategically beneficial, to get chummy with David Duke; when Lew Rockwell, writing under Ron Paul's name, spewed forth overtly hateful invective against racial minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, and any other easy target he could find, they were forging a very, very hazardous alliance.

They made their bed, and now lie in it. The nutty fringe, including (but certainly not limited to) racists and bigots, is an integral part of the Tea Party movement. The racist fringe is no longer cleanly separable from the low-tax-and-constitution crowd.

Does that mean every Tea Partier is a racist? Of course not, especially since it has broadened into essentially a right-Republican umbrella term. But it does mean that the Tea Party has to be doubly vigilant, and so far, it's been a pretty shoddy job. Their apologists, yourself included, seem to have no defense except for No True Scotsman - whenever someone from the movement is revealed to be a racist or a bigot, whenever obviously racist signs or slogans (Obama-the-witchdoctor, "African lion and lyin' African," Bitherism, "Congress = Slave owner, Taxpayer = Niggar", Obama/Osama wordplay, etc...) are shown, the claim is that they don't really represent the movement, that they're exceptions - up to and including national leaders like Mark Williams. So far, it hasn't been very convincing.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/19/us...cp-speech/

How many more years will pass until mainstream media stops covering this crap up? I'd say about 15-20, until the current generation of degenerates that runs the mainstream network/cable news croaks.

Thank god for Breitbart and the Internet. It's becoming much more difficult to deny and cover up the truth. Oh yeah, another 20-25 years and the current generation of non-serious Internet users will croak also.

I'm finding Ashock's original post incredibly hilarious right now. I love watching American politics from the sidelines. It's like the Three Stooges or Keystone Kops, only it's meant to be VERY SERIOUS.

[kandrathe]

First, I was pretty angry at what you wrote, and I wrote a pretty scathing reply, and my computer over heated and I lost that version... Probably a good thing. Now, I'm a bit remorseful, since I thought you and I were actually coming closer to agreement. The bottom line is that in this post you appear to be only looking at this from the lens of a far left wing extremist. You don't even attempt to view your political opponents as human, or seem to believe other than the very worst about them. It would seem they are all ugly, hateful, racist, stupid, ignorant, bigots. I find that sad.

And, no one told him it was despicable either.

Just going on Tucker's reporting of it, at least two people told him he was wrong, that this was not the way forward, that they should stick to facts, that this undermined Obama's message about doing politics differently. (Do we have the full-emails?) To Tucker, I guess, this is just tactical talk. I read it differently: part of the appeal of Obama to many on the left is his tendency to talk reasonably about facts, rather than simply hurl insults. Ackerman obviously thinks that this means his allies must fill the attack dog role. Others clearly disagree.

I disagree on the opposition part. We're making no progress here, so I'll move on.

There is an avoided national conversation on race, and race baiting. I'd say there is a pretty clear strategy to use division as a political weapon, whether it be race, gender, class, or age. Political strategists on both sides pander and create incendiary dialog with the sole purpose of retaining power, and feigned concern about the actual well being of the electorate in general, or even that subsection.

True. Two notable examples in my mind include the Southern Strategy, and the Rothbard/Rockwell unholy alliance with the racist paleoconservative fringe (See: Report, Ron Paul.) I think both of those strategies have led quite directly to where we are now: an anti-tax, anti-government protest movement that is persistently unable to shake its racist components. This is not accidental. It's the inevitable result of decades of intentional alliance building and dog whistling.

Ok, so now you're going out to the right wing fringes. Well, the Progressive (government can make you better) movement and their muckrakers brought us Prohibition, Eugenics (with support by Marxist AF&L union leader Samuel Gompers), and Planned Parenthood (e.g. Margaret Sanger, the one that sought to limit the number of black babies born). The Klan, actually began as the underground organization affiliated with the southern Democrats that killed Republicans both black (freedmen) and white(scalawags). This was the mainstream in the late 1800's and earlier 1900's. If the Republicans erred then it was in compromising with the Democrats over reconstruction in the first place. Trent Lott, used to be a racist Democrat, when he made foolish statements at the University of Mississippi. Robert Bryd, an actual former Klansman until his mid 30's, was in fact a Democrat his entire life. Yes, it was a big mistake for the Republicans to allow these racist Dixiecrat, blue dogs into the Republican party. They should have held strong to their principles as the party of Lincoln, and equality of justice for everyone.

Who is on the fringes of the Democratic party now? ALF, ELF, Marxists/Communists, M19CO, Revolutionary Action Movement, United Freedom Front, FALN, LARGO, etc. And, then I left unlisted, the racist paleoliberal fringe...

Let's contrast that to what people like me want... That would be a small government (as small as is possible), which provides justice for all, and then gets out of our way and lets us thrive in peace.

The racism of the democratic party, and the beloved progressives has been to reinforce the class system. Yes, they make and keep people poor. In a democratic republic, with a level playing field, the most industrious will rise to the top, regardless of where their origins were, their gender, their race, their age. And, yes, I see a difference between a free market system, and a free for all, market system.

Yes, there is racism here built by both Democrats, and Republicans in reinforcing a system of unequal justice, which drives people onto government assistance in order to control them. This is not accidental. It's the inevitable result of decades of intentional alliance building and democratic dog whistling. Yeah, like a shell, and the ocean, I'm sure if you hollow out a Republican's skull you can hear the bigoted dog whistling. I hope they keep at it. Maybe the continual race baiting tactics will actually reveal them to be the overtly partisan hacks they really are.

In the past twenty years, the talk-radio right has increasingly created a politics of dumbness and low-IQ inanity. It’s striking to see how many “liberals” long to do the same thing.

I believe there is a role for government, for keeping the playing field level. That's not what they are doing. If libertarianism stands for anything... It's equality under the law. No privileges, and no unnecessary restrictions either. The tea party movement is a tax/deficit revolt, and every platform from every one I've seen drives that message home load and clear. What is racist about trying to stop out of control government spending? Nothing... Which is why the rabid left and their press lap dogs are race baiting. Look at the angry, mostly white crowd... They must be racists!

So, are you really trying to marginalize here? Your tactics are making my stomach turn. Do we need to go back to the 70's, or the 30's to retrace the origins of fringes of Democrats, and fringes of Republicans.

Are there alliances between the Dems and groups like the NAACP? Of course. But courting the civil rights movement, even with its occasional excesses, strikes me as a much nobler enterprise than courting racists and inciting racism.

I'm sure the Democrats are friends with sewing circles, and local PTA's... While, their opponents choose cozy alliances with Stormfront, and the Klan. Very fair. How very objective of you. First, if Don Black says, "I'm a Democrat", or donates money to the Hillary campaign what would you make of Democrats, and Hillary? She'd refuse it, and so would Rand Paul. Are you really that blind? Ever hear of Andy Stern? Are their alliances between the Democrats and SEIU? Heard of SDS, the Weathermen, in Chicago? I don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing...

When the McCain campaign was in dire straits, and people kept coming to rallies calling Obama a traitor, questioning his birth, his religion, and so forth, McCain seemed very uncomfortable, and tried to take the high road. Sarah Palin didn't seem to mind, though, so it all worked out, in a sad kind of way.

Of course McCain took the high road. Obama deserved respect, if for no other reason than that he was then a fellow Senator. I remember that most people were in favor of Obama, because they were opposed to a variety of things done against the sensibilities of both mainstream Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Things like the Patriot Act, Iraq War, expanding government and run away deficit spending. The Democrat could have been 3 feet tall and green, and as long as they preached "Hope" and "Change", they'd have won. The weight of opinion was anti-Bush. Obama won before he even talked about his plans, and in fact, the more specific he got, the lower his poll ratings went. So they stopped getting specific, and left it vague and the people ate it up.

Why don't we agree to call it all bull crap? The flimsy allegations against the tea party resulting in comparisons to Stormfront and the Klan are equally incendiary and ridiculous.

Because, at the base of the Tea Party movement, way back buried, are Stormfront, David Duke, and the like. (The Klan itself, probably less. I think they've more or less descended into crime.) When Murray Rothbard decided it was not only okay, but strategically beneficial, to get chummy with David Duke; when Lew Rockwell, writing under Ron Paul's name, spewed forth overtly hateful invective against racial minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, and any other easy target he could find, they were forging a very, very hazardous alliance.

Are you intentionally attempting to make me angry? You know this is BS, so why do you try to peddle it here? Shame on you. I can dig up the first Tea Party protest... In fact it was in NY, by some youngsters protesting the proposition of adding a hefty tax to soda pop. Then, Mary Rakivich, and my she seems *real* dangerous... not. Did you find any organized by David Duke? Lew Rockwell? Even Rothbard? Even Ron Paul? (In fact... the term limit loving Tea Partiers are looking to unseat the elder Paul. Shocking.)

They made their bed, and now lie in it. The nutty fringe, including (but certainly not limited to) racists and bigots, is an integral part of the Tea Party movement. The racist fringe is no longer cleanly separable from the low-tax-and-constitution crowd.

No. You are tossing crap into their bed. Literally crap. In that Stormfront, or David "KKK" Duke are attempting to slip into the crowds, may or may not be true. But, it is wrongful repetition of false information, and why you are listening to the crap spewing from David Duke, or Frickin Don Black and repeating it as facts? Are they usual sources of information for the Left? I could produce a long list of Democrats who've said racially hateful things in the past ten years. I could produce a list of hateful people who've contributed money to democratic candidates. Does this taint the Democratic Party, of course not. Any reasonable person would see the same relationship here. I can only surmise that you are being intentionally blind on this.

Does that mean every Tea Partier is a racist? Of course not, especially since it has broadened into essentially a right-Republican umbrella term. But it does mean that the Tea Party has to be doubly vigilant, and so far, it's been a pretty shoddy job. Their apologists, yourself included, seem to have no defense except for No True Scotsman - whenever someone from the movement is revealed to be a racist or a bigot, ...

It does mean they will need to be doubly vigilant, not only from the *real* racists who try to side show, but also the democrat operatives who attempt to manufacture negative press, and the leftist propagandists, yourself included, who use *any* pretext to undermine, marginalize, and demonize an activist movement where 99.99% of them are expressing their rights to peacefully assemble and speak their grievances. Will wing nuts show up? I would guess, since they are public events, yes, they still will show up.

...whenever obviously racist signs or slogans (Obama-the-witchdoctor, "African lion and lyin' African," Bitherism, "Congress = Slave owner, Taxpayer = Niggar", Obama/Osama wordplay, etc...) are shown, the claim is that they don't really represent the movement, that they're exceptions - up to and including national leaders like Mark Williams. So far, it hasn't been very convincing.

This is totally low, even for you. Those people were booted from the protests, before they even started. Dale Robertson, Mark Williams, and the other four or five were chastised and booted. They are not welcome. But, you forget so quickly that at the RNC convention in the Twin Cities... Protesters were arrested before the event for plotting to toss bags of cement from overpasses onto buses. For filling balloons with urine, blood, and feces to hurl onto delegates. For making pipe bombs, smoke grenades, and other items of destruction. Police in riot gear dispersing crowds with tear gas, who tip over cars and set them on fire, throw rocks at the police, and through windows. Not to mention the hateful things on the signs they carry... But, that of course is A-OK with you, right?

[Jester]

First, I was pretty angry at what you wrote, and I wrote a pretty scathing reply, and my computer over heated and I lost that version... Probably a good thing. Now, I'm a bit remorseful, since I thought you and I were actually coming closer to agreement.

Perhaps you were radiating heat. Now I'm kind of curious as to what was in the flaming version. The current one is fiery enough.

The bottom line is that in this post you appear to be only looking at this from the lens of a far left wing extremist.

You caught me. I'm actually a Sandinista. Hasta la victoria siempre!

You don't even attempt to view your political opponents as human, or seem to believe other than the very worst about them. It would seem they are all ugly, hateful, racist, stupid, ignorant, bigots. I find that sad.

Is it your contention that humans are never ugly, hateful, racist, stupid, ignorant or bigoted? I try and call it like I see it. I didn't defend John McCain because I thought he was my political ally. I defended him because he genuinely tried, in his awkward way, to calm the beast being unleashed in the last days of his campaign.

And, by the by, as I said quite clearly in the very post you are replying to, not all, nor even most, Tea Party protestors are bigots or racists. But there is a solid core of anger that has boiled over again and again, in birtherism, in nonsensical attacks on Obama's religion (and I don't mean Jeremiah Wright), in warmed-over racism of the Mark Williams variety. It's not just a few wackos. There's no damn way it's 0.01%. Depending on how we're weighting for latent or subconsious, rather than overt, racism and bigotry, I might believe 10%, though I think the number is more like 25%. We're talking about a movement where only 40% of people will tell you Obama was born in the USA - and a full third will flat out tell you he wasn't. Tell me with a straight face there's no racial motivation in believing this ridiculous tripe, even if they don't recognize it themselves.

That's not even getting into the good solid hyper-godwinning of great oceans of signs calling Obama a communist, often in nonsensical conjuction with also calling him a fascist. We'll chalk that up to the same kind of hyperbole you find on the radical side of leftist protest culture.

Ok, so now you're going out to the right wing fringes.

Given that a major part of my thesis is quite explicitly that the too-right-for-the-Republicans fringe forms a key component of the Tea Party movement, this makes sense, no? Of course we're out on the fringes.

Well, the Progressive (government can make you better) movement and their muckrakers brought us Prohibition, Eugenics (with support by Marxist AF&L union leader Samuel Gompers), and Planned Parenthood (e.g. Margaret Sanger, the one that sought to limit the number of black babies born).

Yeah... eighty years ago. My views on prohibition are surely well known, and eugenics hasn't been even marginally acceptable by left or right since Hitler. The notion that this is the same "progressive" movement that exists today is Beckian paranoid nonsense. (Look out, the ghost of Woodrow Wilson is dragging the US towards oligarhy!)

The Klan, actually began as the underground organization affiliated with the southern Democrats that killed Republicans both black (freedmen) and white(scalawags). This was the mainstream in the late 1800's and earlier 1900's. If the Republicans erred then it was in compromising with the Democrats over reconstruction in the first place.

True. And, as someone from further north than the north, from a big city rather than a small town, as someone fairly high up the education curve, had I been alive and American in the late 1800s or the turn of the century, I probably would have been a Republican. Not that this means much of anything for me or for the Republicans, except that times have changed and so have politics.

Trent Lott, used to be a racist Democrat, when he made foolish statements at the University of Mississippi.

... along with Strom Thurmond, and other racist bigots who found the post-civil rights Democrats to be intolerable. Where, pray tell, did they go to? The Republicans, who were rebranding themselves as the supporters of... well, as Lee Atwater once famously put it, they couldn't say (and I do apologise - this is a direct and pertinent quote) "Nigger, nigger" anymore, so now they said "states rights" and "tax cuts". What used to be perfectly respectable intellectual positions about justice and the economy were now being grafted onto racist anger, as part of a political ploy to win the south. And boy howdy did it work - just look at the regional dispersal in Obama's numbers!

Funny how this overlaps with my thesis, that the Tea Parties are drawing almost exclusively from the right wing of the Republicans and beyond...

Robert Bryd, an actual former Klansman until his mid 30's, was in fact a Democrat his entire life.

Unlike his colleagues, he renounced his racist views, and called his time with the Klan the greatest mistake he ever made. This does not make him an untarnished good guy - far from it. But, unlike the Strom Thurmonds of the world, he tried to be a better person.

Yes, it was a big mistake for the Republicans to allow these racist Dixiecrat, blue dogs into the Republican party. They should have held strong to their principles as the party of Lincoln, and equality of justice for everyone.

I'm not a religious man, as you well know, but an Amen seems appropriate.

The fact remains, however, that they *did*. They abandoned their principles as the party of Lincoln in exchange for their pieces of silver - the votes of racists both overt and latent. That undercurrent in politics has not disappeared, and it is not restricted to an insignificant fringe.

Who is on the fringes of the Democratic party now? ALF, ELF, Marxists/Communists, M19CO, Revolutionary Action Movement, United Freedom Front, FALN, LARGO, etc. And, then I left unlisted, the racist paleoliberal fringe...

When you say "now", do you mean "thirty years ago"? M19CO hasn't existed for twenty five years. LARGO barely ever existed, and died almost as soon as it was born in 1970. The Panthers (whom I presume you mean by the RAM) died out in the late 1970s, though this hasn't prevented others from nicking the name. The United Freedom front died out in the 1980s. The FALN kicked the bucket in 1983. And so on.

Unnamed "Marxists/Communists" are surely out there (I've met some... strange people), but they usually have their own political parties, even in the US. But aside from some college flirtations with radicalism, their numbers are tiny, and their influence zero.

The ELF and ALF are certainly good examples of fringe groups with leftist causes. Pretty far beyond the outer limits of the Dems, though.

(Who the heck are the "racist paleoliberal fringe"? Paleoliberalism at the wiki seems to be distinctly unhelpful.)

Let's contrast that to what people like me want... That would be a small government (as small as is possible), which provides justice for all, and then gets out of our way and lets us thrive in peace.

If we're arguing about the Tea Parties, we're arguing about an existent group of people. If we're arguing about "people like you," not only will everything end up skirting the line of ad hominem, but it's impossible to nail down who we're talking about - we'll spend all day arguing about the truth of various Scotsmen.

The racism of the democratic party, and the beloved progressives has been to reinforce the class system. Yes, they make and keep people poor.

...

Yes, there is racism here built by both Democrats, and Republicans in reinforcing a system of unequal justice, which drives people onto government assistance in order to control them.

Are there anti-poverty policies that the Democrats have pursued that have backfired? Yes, absolutely. The big one is urban planning - what was intended to be housing, ended up as a ghetto. When the social infrastructure fell apart, the communities descended into crime and decay.

Is this because the Democrats wanted it that way? Yeesh, you accuse me of only seeing my opponents as monsters. Think about the motivation it would take to even consider such a strategy - to deliberately ruin the lives of millions upon millions in order to secure some votes. That's beyond cynical, that's into Orwell territory.

That this is a strategy that cuts across party lines is even more paranoid. Given that there are only two parties with a non-trivial share of the vote, why on earth do they require a dependent underclass? At least for the forseeable future, you gotta vote for one of the two, and if both parties are complicit, then the logic kind of collapses.

In a democratic republic, with a level playing field, the most industrious will rise to the top, regardless of where their origins were, their gender, their race, their age. And, yes, I see a difference between a free market system, and a free for all, market system.

Heartwarming. And no doubt, a country where interracial marriage was illegal, where lynchings were fairly common, where blacks and whites could not study at the same schools, where homosexuality was a crime, all within the memory of living people, is just going to hop aboard this meritocratic supertrain? Such that anyone suggesting any other policy is just race baiting, or trying to construct a dependent underclass?

I don't disagree with your ends. I don't even doubt that freedom is a very important component of the means. But history is not so easily cast off.

What is racist about trying to stop out of control government spending? Nothing... Which is why the rabid left and their press lap dogs are race baiting. Look at the angry, mostly white crowd... They must be racists!

It's what Lee Atwater said about the southern strategy. You don't talk about race directly. That'll just alienate people. Instead, you talk about things that people can tie back to race, things that incite racist anger without requiring racist language. You talk about welfare, knowing who your target audience thinks is getting all the welfare money. You talk about tax cuts, knowing who your audience thinks is getting the benefits of their taxes. You talk about states rights, knowing which federal laws your audience would like to see revoked. You talk about how illegal immigration is overrunning the borders, knowing who your audience is thinking of. You talk about Judicial activism, knowing which decisions your audience didn't like. You talk about how country has strayed from the constitution, you talk about "restoring" a lost order, you talk about how much more free people were so many years ago. You know that even if your audience doesn't put all the pieces together, somewhere in the back of the minds of enough of them to matter, the connections are being made.

Are these all perfectly acceptable positions, in and of themselves? Of course. That's the point. The strategy is to use the acceptable as code for the unacceptable. As Murray Rothbard correctly noted, if you just kind of gloss over the whole KKK bit, David Duke's platform isn't really so different from his brand of Libertarianism, and maybe there's a common cause to be made there. Y'know, definitely not racist, because Duke left all that behind him when he converted, surely. But an alliance nonetheless.

So, are you really trying to marginalize here? Your tactics are making my stomach turn.

Sorry. Might want to take some pepto-bismol, because the state of your stomach isn't convincing me.

Do we need to go back to the 70's, or the 30's to retrace the origins of fringes of Democrats, and fringes of Republicans.

The '30s are right out. But, then, I haven't brought up the '30s, at least as far as I can remember.

The '70s are only relevant insofar as strategies laid down then are still in use today. Aside from that, I'm happy to leave it to current events.

I'm sure the Democrats are friends with sewing circles, and local PTA's... While, their opponents choose cozy alliances with Stormfront, and the Klan. Very fair. How very objective of you.

I try.

First, if Don Black says, "I'm a Democrat", or donates money to the Hillary campaign what would you make of Democrats, and Hillary? She'd refuse it, and so would Rand Paul.

I'm reminded of the cheap Michael Moore trick of sending off cheques to candidates, to see which campaigns would cash them, even if they were from odious mortal enemies. My favourite was "Abortionists for Buchanan." That one actually did get cashed.

Obviously, it would say nothing about any of them, except perhaps that Don Black had finally lost whatever remaining marbles were rolling around in his skull.

Ever hear of Andy Stern? Are their alliances between the Democrats and SEIU?

No, actually, I hadn't. I'd heard of the SEIU, of course... where are you going with this? They're a union. He's an aggressive unionist. So?

Heard of SDS, the Weathermen, in Chicago? I don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing...

Once again with the "groups that have not existed in my lifetime" meme? The Weathermen were bonkers, and rightly condemned in their time for political violence. But the group itself has not been in operation since forever. Their relevance to current events is pretty much zero, unless (as you have suggested in the past) you believe that Bill Ayers is still a dangerous crazy and profoundly in cahoots with Obama.

Are you intentionally attempting to make me angry? You know this is BS, so why do you try to peddle it here? Shame on you.

What is BS? That the Republicans pursued the Southern Strategy? That Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell decided in the 1990s to court "former" racists and paleoconservatives? That they were directly connected to the later Ron Paul movement? That the Ron Paul movement has been a vocal and active part of the Tea Party protests? That's all demonstrably true.

I can dig up the first Tea Party protest... In fact it was in NY, by some youngsters protesting the proposition of adding a hefty tax to soda pop. Then, Mary Rakivich, and my she seems *real* dangerous... not.

Were I claiming, as you seem to be suggesting, that all Tea Partiers are unreconstructed racists, then your existence claims would indeed refute my universal. However, I am not making any such claim.

Did you find any organized by David Duke? Lew Rockwell? Even Rothbard? Even Ron Paul? (In fact... the term limit loving Tea Partiers are looking to unseat the elder Paul. Shocking.)

Interestingly, one who agrees with you about Ron Paul is Dave Wiegel. And I agree that the two movements are far from identical, especially since the Tea Parties broadened out to embrace a large swath of conservative Republicans, rather than just the extreme anti-government Ron Paul crowd. Many of Paul's more Cato-aligned supporters are clearly not Tea Partiers. But much of the movement that gained steam as the "Ron Paul Revolution" has fed into the Tea Parties, and it's not hard to find Paul supporters, proteges, or even offspring in major Tea Party positions.

No doubt, the powers that be in the Republican party would rather a more pliant person in his seat, which may be driving some of these challengers. I would presume so. I seriously doubt the Tea Party could muster much enthusiasm to overthrow Paul, but he's a small enough fish that he could conceivably be eaten by the sharks.

David Duke clearly wants to be identified with the Tea Parties. How many there find him appealing, is an open question. I give no credence to anything David Duke says, so his word on the matter is worth zero. But that doesn't mean the opposite of what he says is automatically true. It only means we need to find out some other way.

Murray's been dead for 15 years, so clearly he's not organizing anything. Lew seems more ambiguous - he seems to delight in pointing out how statist and Republican the Tea Parties have gotten.

But it was never about the intellectuals themselves, but rather about their audience. Nobody honestly gives a fig who Lew Rockwell supports, and even Ron Paul is just a small player in a big game now. But their followers turn out to events, join up with Tea Parties, make shiny "Ron Paul Revolution" signs to hang.

No. You are tossing crap into their bed. Literally crap.

Are the beds and the tossing literal too?

In that Stormfront, or David "KKK" Duke are attempting to slip into the crowds, may or may not be true.

It's true. We don't need to guess at that - Duke is clearly interested in inserting himself into this movement.

But, it is wrongful repetition of false information, and why you are listening to the crap spewing from David Duke, or Frickin Don Black and repeating it as facts? Are they usual sources of information for the Left?

I don't believe anything David Duke or Don Black says. I haven't cited them, I haven't quoted them, I am not relying upon them for the tiniest hint of information, except at face value as evidence of the obvious, that they are both interested in associating themselves with the Tea Parties.

I could produce a long list of Democrats who've said racially hateful things in the past ten years. I could produce a list of hateful people who've contributed money to democratic candidates. Does this taint the Democratic Party, of course not. Any reasonable person would see the same relationship here. I can only surmise that you are being intentionally blind on this.

I believe I've made my position pretty clear. Not all Tea Party supporters are bigots. Not even most. And of those that are, I'm sure most aren't even consciously bigoted, they're simply influenced by the racial undertones without being directly aware of it.

It does mean they will need to be doubly vigilant, not only from the *real* racists who try to side show, but also the democrat operatives who attempt to manufacture negative press, and the leftist propagandists, yourself included, who use *any* pretext to undermine, marginalize, and demonize an activist movement where 99.99% of them are expressing their rights to peacefully assemble and speak their grievances.

If I'm a propagandist, I'm doing a pretty crappy job of propagating my message - I post here, and just about only here, to an audience of surely dozens! I'm certainly not a democratic (the correct adjective, rather than the pejorative "democrat") operative of any stripe. If I'll use *any* pretext, then I'm doing an even worse job of that - there are surely thousands of pretexts left unused!

Will wing nuts show up? I would guess, since they are public events, yes, they still will show up.

Less and less, no doubt. As the movement becomes more mainstream, more an arm of the Republican party than a motley crew, they'll take Karl Rove's advice and purge the crazies. It's already started, you can see it in the shiny mass produced signs with carefully messaged slogans on them replacing the older wacky outpouring free expression, good and bad.

This is totally low, even for you.

Thank you, I'll be here all year. Glad to know you think so highly.

Those people were booted from the protests, before they even started. Dale Robertson, Mark Williams, and the other four or five were chastised and booted. They are not welcome.

Y'know what? I'll give you Dale Robertson. Guy's a kook, and I'd buy that he was drummed out long before his racist sign became infamous.

But Mark Williams? That guy was regularly stepping over the lines for a whole year before anything was done about him - and even that only after he'd gone so far over the top in reaction to his previous racism. He was calling Obama (on CNN, no less) an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief" and claiming that Islam worships a "monkey god". (Which he later apologized for... to Hindus, for having offended their actual monkey god by association.)

He didn't get turfed the day, week, or month after making those comments. He got turfed a year later - and the movement isn't even 2 years old! I'm not saying he's in any sense typical, but as a big-time public spokesman for the movement, it sure didn't reassure me that they were seriously sensitive about racism in their midst.

But, you forget so quickly that at the RNC convention in the Twin Cities... Protesters were arrested before the event for plotting to toss bags of cement from overpasses onto buses. For filling balloons with urine, blood, and feces to hurl onto delegates. For making pipe bombs, smoke grenades, and other items of destruction. Police in riot gear dispersing crowds with tear gas, who tip over cars and set them on fire, throw rocks at the police, and through windows. Not to mention the hateful things on the signs they carry... But, that of course is A-OK with you, right?

Yes, of course it is, because those are lef...

Waaaaaait a minute. You're trying to trick me!

(Er... where did I say that I approve of leftist protest culture? I hate leftist protest culture.)

I fully support the rights of any group to peacefully assemble and protest whatever they want. I don't think protesting, in its modern incarnation, is a super useful tactic, and this is a large part of why - even if your intentions are pure as driven snow, the messaging is terrible. You get whatever you're saying mixed up with whatever the black booted anarchist next to you is saying. Heck, he may even be a provocateur, in which case, you're really in for a ride. Dumb way to make a good argument, great way to make a bad one.

-Jester

Afterthought: "I'm finished."

[Chesspiece_face]

Which is why the rabid left and their press lap dogs are race baiting. Look at the angry, mostly white crowd... They must be racists!

The left race baiting? Seriously? I love how your logic conveniently omits the fact that this whole topic is based on a specific example of race baiting from ideologues on the right. Which is the whole tactic. They create an issue entirely inundated with racial vitriol and then when called out on it turn around and villify the other side for bringing race into it.

Fox News spent a whole day degrading Shirley Sherrod for being a racist and then when the facts came out (the facts which were easily available and that they never even tried to assertain) they had the nerve to turn around and spend the next day assailing the Obama administration for acting hastely and without the facts. Nice Try.

[kandrathe]

Which is why the rabid left and their press lap dogs are race baiting. Look at the angry, mostly white crowd... They must be racists!

The left race baiting? Seriously? I love how your logic conveniently omits the fact that this whole topic is based on a specific example of race baiting from ideologues on the right. Which is the whole tactic. They create an issue entirely inundated with racial vitriol and then when called out on it turn around and villify the other side for bringing race into it.

Yes, seriously. When you say, "They create an issue entirely inundated with racial vitriol", you must be talking about the NAACP's censure of the Tea Partiers linking them with the Klan, and Stormfront. You know, I agree they need to work hard to keep the loons away, but the tactics of the left wing pundits, the NAACP, and the Democrats are attacking, and attempting to destroy the movement. Breitbart is slime, and I'm just surprised everyone followed the slime. Look, I'm trying to stand back here, and get out of the tit for tat. He said, then they said, then she said, crap. Can we just condemn the tactic of calling people racists? Can we condemn racism, and let the buffoon's and their ignorant signs condemn themselves? Ms. Sherrod admitted to changing she views over time, and we admire her for it. Former Sen. Bryd gets a pass after spending over a decade actively in the Klan, then he spent until he was in his 50's fighting against race equality in the Senate. Then, yes, by the time he was in his late 50's and early 60's he finally got on board with the whole equality thing.

We need to have an open dialog on race, one which isn't divisive. For the NAACP to label the Tea Party as racist, and then to link it to Duke, and Black is in my view a reprehensibly partisan attack meant to divide. And, in my albeit cynical opinion, I believe it is an intentionally political move meant to polarize the electorate for the upcoming election.

Fox News spent a whole day degrading Shirley Sherrod for being a racist and then when the facts came out (the facts which were easily available and that they never even tried to assertain) they had the nerve to turn around and spend the next day assailing the Obama administration for acting hastely and without the facts. Nice Try.

Who did? Your data is flawed here. According to the facts, Hannity had one 5 minute segment on it, Orielly briefly mentioned it in a overview. Beck, ignored it, and once he had all the information, took her side and supported her re-instatement. I know you hate Fox, maybe more than I do, but I'm hatin' on them all, equally.

MSNBC defends their Race Baiting...
CNN asked to stop following Fox's lead on the New Black Panthers...

[Jester]

Who did? Your data is flawed here. According to the facts, Hannity had one 5 minute segment on it, Orielly briefly mentioned it in a overview. Beck, ignored it, and once he had all the information, took her side and supported her re-instatement.

From whence do you get this data?

Beck pumped it on his radio show earlier that morning. You can quibble about whether that's "Fox" or not, but it's certainly Glenn Beck, and he's sure not ignoring it. By later in the day, it had become clear to everyone that this was a land mine, so Beck took the tack of using it to attack the administration, rather than Sherrod. But that certainly wasn't his initial reaction, which was to talk about how some people just seem to want revenge, and how we're going back to 1956, only roles reversed.

Hannity went over it at least twice, once with Newt Gingrich (who said she absolutely should have been fired) and once on his Great American Panel.

O'Reilly didn't just mention it in passing once. At the very least, there's a Talking Points Memo clip where he references *himself* talking about it the day before - demanding that she resign, complaining that the Networks aren't covering it, etc...

Fox and Friends' Laura Ingraham pushed the story as well.

-Jester

Afterthought: They also keep saying, over and over, that they didn't broadcast about the story until after she'd been turfed. Which would be fine and good, except that they have a website, and the times tell a different story. Fox isn't just what's on the air.

[Chesspiece_face]

Fox News spent a whole day degrading Shirley Sherrod for being a racist and then when the facts came out (the facts which were easily available and that they never even tried to assertain) they had the nerve to turn around and spend the next day assailing the Obama administration for acting hastely and without the facts. Nice Try.

Who did? Your data is flawed here. According to the facts, Hannity had one 5 minute segment on it, Orielly briefly mentioned it in a overview. Beck, ignored it, and once he had all the information, took her side and supported her re-instatement.

Every single day program on fox that day spent at least a quarter of their hourly program deriding Shirley Sherrod as being a racist. You know, all those programs that are supposed to be the "News" portion of Fox, not just the opinionators.

[kandrathe]

Every single day program on fox that day spent at least a quarter of their hourly program deriding Shirley Sherrod as being a racist. You know, all those programs that are supposed to be the "News" portion of Fox, not just the opinionators.

Did you watch the whole day?

[Chesspiece_face]

Every single day program on fox that day spent at least a quarter of their hourly program deriding Shirley Sherrod as being a racist. You know, all those programs that are supposed to be the "News" portion of Fox, not just the opinionators.

Did you watch the whole day?

Actually I was flipping between all the news channels that day as the second I saw the video I knew the sword was going to drop on it at some point. CNN was the only channel that seemed like they were working to get the whole story. MSNBC reported the whole thing that day in terms of "possible" and "it seems". And the Fox reporting was all astonishment and disgust about how she could tell such a racist story and be proud of herself.

[kandrathe]

Beck pumped it on his radio show earlier that morning. You can quibble about whether that's "Fox" or not, but it's certainly Glenn Beck, and he's sure not ignoring it. By later in the day, it had become clear to everyone that this was a land mine, so Beck took the tack of using it to attack the administration, rather than Sherrod. But that certainly wasn't his initial reaction, which was to talk about how some people just seem to want revenge, and how we're going back to 1956, only roles reversed.

I would quibble a little. Beck reacted to what was in the news cycle already on all the networks. I didn't know he did a little cover of it on the radio in the morning. By the evening of the same day, he'd reversed his view.

Hannity went over it at least twice, once with Newt Gingrich (who said she absolutely should have been fired) and once on his Great American Panel.

Yes, he did. Hannity did devote some time to it. He then apologized for it.

O'Reilly didn't just mention it in passing once. At the very least, there's a Talking Points Memo clip where he references *himself* talking about it the day before - demanding that she resign, complaining that the Networks aren't covering it, etc...

Yes, that is the only place he talked about it, in his memo piece, and in his memo piece from the day before. He also apologized.

Fox and Friends'

They are idiots and they may or may not have talked about it. I have a hard time distinguishing what they say from flatus.

My point is... FOX is as guilty as MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or NBC, or CBS... They all covered it as a leading story, when in fact it was probably an intentionally cynical jab by Breitbart, using this out of context type attack, and everyone fell for it. Maybe Fox is a little more guilty, since they were the ones going "AHA!, Gotcha!". They were also the ones eating crow, and apologizing for their error.

Let me repeat again, from above...

We need to have an open dialog on race, one which isn't divisive. For the NAACP to label the Tea Party as racist, and then to link it to Duke, and Black is in my view a reprehensibly partisan attack meant to divide. And, in my albeit cynical opinion, I believe it is an intentionally political move meant to polarize the electorate for the upcoming election.

---

Every single day program on fox that day spent at least a quarter of their hourly program deriding Shirley Sherrod as being a racist. You know, all those programs that are supposed to be the "News" portion of Fox, not just the opinionators.

You've got a stronger stomach than I do. I avoid all of them, and try to get my news from a selection of objective online sources that take time to ruminate a bit.

[Jester]

My point is... FOX is as guilty as MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or NBC, or CBS... They all covered it as a leading story, when in fact it was probably an intentionally cynical jab by Breitbart, using this out of context type attack, and everyone fell for it. Maybe Fox is a little more guilty, since they were the ones going "AHA!, Gotcha!". They were also the ones eating crow, and apologizing for their error.

Sure - although the apology was necessary to minimize damage, and pivot to their new talking point, "how dare the administration fire this woman without context."

But I don't see this as primarily a Fox issue. This is Breitbart's baby, and he bears the lion's share of the blame. Fox just spun it like they spin everything - into whatever would be maximally bad for the administration.

We need to have an open dialog on race, one which isn't divisive.

Wouldn't it be nice. But I'd put good money that even agreeing on what the issues are, let alone solving them, would be divisive enough to shatter the whole process.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Sure - although the apology was necessary to minimize damage, and pivot to their new talking point, "how dare the administration fire this woman without context."

Probably true. They are a machine that gets rewarded for yanking liberal chains.

But I don't see this as primarily a Fox issue. This is Breitbart's baby, and he bears the lion's share of the blame. Fox just spun it like they spin everything - into whatever would be maximally bad for the administration.

Here is an interesting analysis of the situation by Politico.

Here’s the optimistic case: The embarrassment of the Shirley Sherrod story — with its toxic convergence of partisan combat and media recklessness — will be a tipping point. It will remind journalists and politicians alike that personal reputations and professional credibility are at stake, and a bit more restraint and responsibility are in order.

Here’s the realistic case: Get ready for more of the same.

We need to have an open dialog on race, one which isn't divisive.

Wouldn't it be nice. But I'd put good money that even agreeing on what the issues are, let alone solving them, would be divisive enough to shatter the whole process.

It's not going to happen in Washington, or be done by pundits. It's probably going to need to be done by main street, and we're going to have to come together to first refuse to be led around like rival herds of lemmings.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's probably going to need to be done by main street, and we're going to have to come together to first refuse to be led around like rival herds of lemmings.

Right. And just what are you going to put in the water to make people change? Because we've had the power to do this every 2/4/6 years for over two centuries. All people need to do to have a better government is read a newspaper or watch a news station for a couple of months every two years and then cast their votes. A lot don't do the second, and of those that do, a lot don't do the first.

But tomorrow morning, thanks to the power of a unicorn's horn, all those apathetic ignorant voters will wake up as informed, concerned, active citizens. If that ever happens, I might just have to revise my opinion on the rapture.

--Pete

[Jester]

It's not going to happen in Washington, or be done by pundits. It's probably going to need to be done by main street, and we're going to have to come together to first refuse to be led around like rival herds of lemmings.

I'm reminded of a story from the divisive days of the Quebec seperation referendum in Canada. A popular meme was, naturally, that the problems were being inflamed by politicians for their own interests, and that if only regular folk from around the country would get together and talk it over, the'd be able to come to an agreement.

I have no links, but from what I remember hearing, the CBC tried this. They got some regular folk. Everyone came to the table with their common sense and their lack of the self-interested bias that plagued their politicians. And, by the end of their discussion, they were every bit as deadlocked as the nation itself.

The moral of the story, at least to me, is that there is no "main street." There is no generally homogeneous mass of little guys, who are simply being led around. Solutions are tough - and I think Max Planck might have had the right of it in saying (in so many words) that you don't convince people, you wait for them to die. Cynical, but not entirely without merit.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...the CBC tried this....

Well there's your problem...

...you don't convince people, you wait for them to die. Cynical, but not entirely without merit.

Oh, great. Here comes Stalin and the great purges. I'm moving to Canada!

The lemming leaders I was referring to were the FOX's, the MSNBC's, bloggers, pundits and the other propagandists out there actively shaping public opinion. We've got to tune them out, or I fear the result will be civil war. They are destroying America. For both sides... the game of "AHA! Gotcha!" needs to end.

If you travel around the south, you'll find that almost everyone has figured out how to get along, and the race issues have been buried. That doesn't mean they live in a color blind society, and I think much of the talk of 'color-blindedness' by pundits masks an inherent friendly racism of mere tolerance. The divisions are pretty clear though, especially in more rural areas. There are white churches with a few black people in them, and black churches where whites would feel unwelcome. The two cultures have learned to live together, but they are by no means well integrated.

Is the number of "racists" 25%? I dunno, but that seems pretty high. I've looked through many surveys who all come up with vastly different results. It is a hard thing to measure "racism" by asking people survey questions which may be tainted by ideology (e.g. blind justice and equality), religion (e.g. proscribing homosexuality), and the lack social diversity and any experiences other than the homogeneity of their small community.

I feel that race issues in the north are more pronounced, where minorities are slim, and have been mostly herded into urban HUD 'reservations' and we haven't been able to live together as a single people. Although, I would say that in the North, its the xenophobic fear of the unknown, rather than ages old grudges that separate them. Crime, sex, drugs, and violence in the meaner parts of the ghettos (where the majority of minorities are forced to live) taints the perspectives of generation after generation of people who are not from the projects.

I'm more apt to say that everyone, of every background, who hasn't had the opportunity to experience diversity is bound to harbor some inherent xenophobia. And, when you ask people questions about whether one person should get preferential treatment due to injustices from prior generations they may not have perspective, or empathy. I'm thinking that if you need to label them, there is something shy of outright "racist", more like culturally ignorant, or culturally insensitive. This goes for Ms. Sherrod's past, whose prism of white people was heavily influenced by the situation in her county. Or, for those who let things slip today, Harry Reid, David Gergens, Chris Matthews, ad infinitum. We see people many people, especially inebriated entertainers, accidentally let their ignorance and insensitivity slip out once in a while, and have to apologize and give the PR people a huge mess to clean up.

Even affirmative action, while ensuring an opportunity, results in the unintended consequence of perhaps of "carrying" a person who can't forge that opportunity into bringing about true equality. In essence, by opening up the pool of applicants to those less qualified, it increases the probability that the opportunity will be given to an individual who may not succeed. At some point in their career, merit will apply.

How much of the anti-Obama sentiment is due to; partisanship?, performance?, unkept promises?, lack of change?, economic hardship?, and race? While, race may play a role in coloring a slim minority of people's opinions (e.g. looking for a reason to protest or hate him), I'm not sure it's as high a factor as the leftist pundits and bloggers are portraying. Or, as Maureen Dowd implies here from the NYTimes; Obama's administration may not be Black enough.

Look at a select few snapshots in the extensive history of "Race Card" playing since Obama became a factor in even seeking the nomination;

Chris Cuomo, December 21, 2007
Politico January 11, 2008
Jacob Weisberg, August 23, 2008
Carter, September 17, 2009
Dave Matthews, September 21, 2009
Chris Matthews, January 10 2010
Harry Reid, January 11, 2010

I still see race used as a divisive weapon to attack political opponents. "You won't vote for him, because he's black", "You won't support him because he's black", and now, "your protesting unprecedented government spending because he's black". I think Spencer Ackerman's comments in the "Journolist" reveal the subconscious of the liberal left. When they want something to go away, they play the race card (consciously or not) to put their opponents onto the defensive. It works. What the NAACP should have done was to demand that the GOP renounce racism, and eliminate it from it's ranks.

...all those apathetic ignorant voters will wake up as informed, concerned, active citizens.

I was thinking about that while I wrote it, and the person who came to mind was Dr. King. I think we need a leader, such as him, who can bring people together on principles, and stand up against the forces of division. What I'm saying here is that the subconscious racism is not going to just evaporate, even across generations, unless someone leads us away from it. It's going to take action to get people to address the topic, otherwise things will continue on as they have for another 150 years. It's far too easy for people to remain where they are and ignore the uncomfortable.

[Jester]

How much of the anti-Obama sentiment is due to; partisanship?, performance?, unkept promises?, lack of change?, economic hardship?, and race? While, race may play a role in coloring a slim minority of people's opinions (e.g. looking for a reason to protest or hate him), I'm not sure it's as high a factor as the leftist pundits and bloggers are portraying.

Of the above, the most important is economic hardship. After that, it's economic hardship, and economic hardship. This affects practically everyone, dampening his support with his supporters and detractors alike.

Once you've finally plowed through that, the question is not what's causing what, but who cares about any given problem. Some people want more change. Some people are furious at how much change there's been.

Is race a big factor in his overall levels of support? Depends on what you mean. It's probably not changing his approval numbers much. How does that square with race still being important? Well, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans support him, but then, they are also almost all Dems who would support any Democratic president. Likewise, the Tea Partiers are almost all Republicans or conservative Republican-leaning, who would oppose any Democratic president.

So, different questions: "How important is race as a motivator for Tea Parties" vs. "How important is race in Obama's approval numbers." For motivating the Tea Parties, I think (again) economic hardship is no. 1, followed by political opposition to his policies, and then race. But I also think it's a "critical mass" scenario - a protest movement needs a certain amount of enthusiasm, or it dies. Would a white president be seeing these protests? Or this persistently? I think not, but it's impossible to say for sure.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Once you've finally plowed through that, the question is not what's causing what, but who cares about any given problem. Some people want more change. Some people are furious at how much change there's been.

Obama ran a campaign on the promise of change. The six rational people (five of whom post on this board) in the world took this to mean that he would try to leave the country in somewhat better shape after his 4 or 8 years in office. The remainder of the world expected peace, prosperity, and good weather the day after the inauguration.

So, now, those looking for change are complaining because he hasn't filled a hole eight years in the digging in less than two years of filling. Those that don't want change are complaining because he is filling it at all. And the apathetic remaining 90% are sitting on their couches, watching WWF and echoing the gripes of their neighbors, with neither they nor their neighbors having the slightest idea of what Obama is doing.

If this country gets any more apathetic or ignorant, we'll end up with a B actor as president. Oh, wait, that's already happened.

--Pete