Politics At Its Ugliest And Stupidest

I am so tuned out from the Establishment Media that I just found out about L'Affaire Sherrod (I first thought it was about Sherrod Brown). Digby writes:

When our new overlord Andrew Breitbart says jump, the White House says, "how high?" Kevin Drum:

[. . .] BigGovernment.com "broke" a story yesterday about a speech given a few months ago by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, at an NAACP Freedom Fund dinner. In it, Sherrod tells a story from 24 years ago about not helping a white farmer as much as she could have because she was "struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land." The point of this story, told in a public venue, was that she quickly realized that she had done wrong. "That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white...it is about white and black but it's not, you know...it opened my eyes."

The Secretary of Agriculture explained why he did Breitbart's bidding:

Yesterday, I asked for and accepted Ms. Sherrod’s resignation for two reasons. First, for the past 18 months, we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices. Second, state rural development directors make many decisions and are often called to use their discretion. The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia.

This is old hat for Dems - the cowering approach to politics. That said, Sherrod took a political appointment and this is what politics is - stupid, ugly and hurtful. The problem is the Dems do not know how to fight.

Speaking for me only

< Judiciary Committtee Approves Elena Kagan for Supreme Court | Judge Orders Jurors to Disclose Prescription Drug History >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Et Tu Brute? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    Selective editing of public statements could be done to Vilsak himself.  And I hope somebody does that.   Will he resign if somebody does that and a "controversy" arises around his (unfairly edited) "statements?"

    RWers flip (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    I can't wait to see how many wingers flip.  Erik Erickson says Blowhard was off on this, so does the guy who started Redstate.

    MSNBC is taking bets on who on Fox will re-do their stories.

    Edit a parable of reconciliation to whip up white racists and then end up being able to attack the WH over it.  ba-zing-a

    How is this legal (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    This creep does this stuff with the intent to cause harm.  He has to be joyful he got her fired..... my question, how is this legal?  She's not a public figure, nor an elected politician.  A malicious act that has caused financial damage, should have some recourse.

    She works for all farmers (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    and for you and me.  Public servant.  Servant of all of the public, not serving some of the public.

    Btw, I have been told by an assistant DA that because I am a state employee, although I was not elected, I am a public figure.  Of course, he was an idiot, as he said that meant that he could do nothing when I was being stalked.  But he was correct in that by accepting a paycheck that comes from taxes, we also accept a responsibility.

    And, actually, the evidence that she was asked to speak to the public, to the NAACP, probably could be argued as evidence that she is a public figure.

    Beyond that, for pity's sake, she could get fired even in the private sector for discrimination -- for starters -- if she did act on her initial inclination.

    However, it seems that she did not do so.  So she was just sharing her feelings, the all-American pastime.  But we all have to watch how and where we do so, as video editing is so easy to do now.


    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:46:57 PM EST
    She was not a government employee 28 years ago, which is when the story she was telling about took place.  

    Ah, thank you -- that is a detail (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:08:00 PM EST
    that I had not seen or missed.

    Good lord, the WH and Vilsack were even more out of line then.

    After all, were we not supposed to understand that we all have a learning curve about racial issues?  Didn't I hear that in a speech -- Teh Greatest Speech -- about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?


    She says nobody in (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:11:58 PM EST
    the Ag Dept. give her so much as 10 seconds to defend herself or explain that the tape had been grossly shortened.

    Nor did the NAACP even contact her before publicly condenming her as a racist, though at least they have now done a complete turnaround.


    Yes, perhaps it was the NAACP's bidding (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:02:26 AM EST
    that motivated the White House?  I saw the NAACP officer on teevee tonight who led the attack on Ms. Sherrod.

    He was a fool.  Good looking guy for teevee but nigh incomprehensible as he tried to explain this.  I couldn't even make sense of some of what he said as he just kept hanging onto face time on camera by filling the airwaves with, well, blathering.

    Now, hmmmm, could there be some deep and dastardly strategy behind this?  I note that one of our posters from Georgia notes that it was an election day there.  Was the timing of this story -- as originally put out there -- to rile up votes for Repubs by showing an alleged bias against whites?

    But now what the impact will be on African American voters of this treatment of Ms. Sherrod by the NAACP and the Obama administration, well, who knows?  What a mess.  Bring in the professionals, please, to run our country!


    Public servant is not a public figure (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    You didn't convince me at all.  You didn't address the malicious act that caused financial damages.  Whether a person is a public figure or not, slander is a crime.  I'm not sure if this meets the qualification for slander as it wasn't a statment, but it was a malicious act to manipulate video to present someone as a criminal and has resulted in direct financial damages.  People (even public figures are successful) in civil charges against reputation let alone proving financial damages.

    The stalking example was odd.  Stalking is a crime because of the act not the target.... which goes with my idea that what Breitbart did looks actionable.


    Ask the lawyers here, but WHO (none / 0) (#35)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    actually instigated the financial damage?  SecAG by the firing?

    WHO actually slandered with their initial public statement?  NAACP?


    Well, gosh, guess what? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    That I didn't convince you neither surprises me nor particularly concerns me.

    It is what it is, you are what you are -- and I for one am glad, I am guessing, that you are not a public employee paid by the taxpayer to serve?

    That such fool assistant DAs are what they are, well,  that concerns me . . . because that sort of thinking could be far more damaging to other women.  So that assistant DA is gone now, and so is that DA from a few years ago.  And we are watching, watching the new one. . . .

    As for where your comment arcs, that is a different topic.  I just don't have the time to map out the route that you take.


    The orginal youtube video (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    was published by HereticsCrusade

    Make your own determination about (Guy DeWhitney) the owner of the site.

    Breitbart picked it up and published the YT clip along with an editorial.  Biggovernment.com has since published a follow up which parallels the story in the Atlanta Constitution Journal's details

    Breitbart (and Fox) either did not do due diligence or he laid a clever trap for both the WH and/or NAACP.  Either way, both the WH and NAACP failed with their knee jerk reaction and Mrs. Sherrod now has a crystal clear view of the undercarriage of the bus.

    Media mad it got punked (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    CNN is not happy.... now they are saying Breitbart refuses to address what he did to Sherrod (showed a clip where he stated he did not request Sherrod be fired), that he has a grudge against the NAACP etc, that he purposely edited the tape because of his grudge to push his accusations of racism against the NAACP.

    CNN has Breitbart on (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:20:58 PM EST
    Oy, Breitbart is flat out delusional, Breitbart is attacking CNN because CNN can't prove Sherrod's story happened 24 years ago, CNN can't prove the person they have on defending Sherrod is the farmers wife, n-word, n-word, n-word, NAAACP made up that black congressman were called the n-word, Jeremiah Wright? (yes, he brought up JW), affirms importance of tea party because she says you should get jobs with the govt, (he's so stressed, huffing) He attacks CNN again: why are you going off of her word? show me the evidence that makes her racist sentiments go away, NAACP confirms racism, this isn't about her if you want us to we will show her being racist, Journolist, media double-standard, NAACP condones racism, I was aware of the extended tapes in March, NAACP and Dems keep are un-American claiming racism with NO evidence, this is about NAACP, interview Vilsack, NAACP rebuked Sherrod, this is not about Sherrod.

    He states he's proving those in racist glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  His just a bundle of racial resentment blowing a gasket, he looks like he's about to stroke out.

    The media deserves derision.  You would think they would have learned after they got suckered over O'Keefe.


    Thank you for watching so I don't have to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    I saw his ugly mug on the screen, frothing and dribbling, and couldn't bring myself to turn on the sound.

    Media got punk'd and (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    so did the White House/Ag department and the NAACP.  It's totally mind-blowing they all let themselves get stampeded by this kind of stunt AGAIN.

    Why is it mindblowing? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:31:54 PM EST
    The Big O colludes with the Rs to throw a black woman under the bus. Isn't that business as usual?

    Ah (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:41:45 PM EST
    The luxuries of a white man....  As a political move, imo, he faces less backlash, than the backlash of him doing what Breitbart tried to scam. IOW Obama does not have the luxury to be generous or easy with blacks in his administration.

    "But, but, BUT ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:27:19 AM EST
    ... he had no choice!!!"

    can't tell (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:02:10 AM EST
    what this means:

    doing what Breitbart tried to scam

    what does that mean?

    but this:

    Obama does not have the luxury to be generous or easy with blacks in his administration.

    some would say this is a political reality

    but to claim that a president's being black hampers the president in any way in the execution of presidential duties (including the duty to treat all federal employees fairly and equitably) is to argue that a black president, ipso facto, is not up to the job of being president

    i've seen that argument before from other commenters here

    unskillful & unacceptable line of argument imo


    White House needs a new reaction (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Ginny in CO on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    Can we propose a ZERO tolerance policy for giving into the RW echo chamber faux campaigns to get rid of whoever they decide to put a bulls eye on?

    Van Jones, Acorn, Sherrod, NEXT?  WH to RW media: Bring 'em on with enough exposure, we'll get rid of them.

    Reminds me of the old description of hospital administration attitudes toward nursing. "The Cockroach philosophy: there's more where you came from."

    Maybe we should put out a national request that no one accept an offer from USDA for her position.


    Now I understand my Twitter feed (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    I can't keep up with the outrage machine.

    I thought we were supposed to be trying to have honest conversations about race in this country. Sherrod will be the last one to try that in public.

    Lost moral compass (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    Sherrod's story isa poignant story that could be used to teach several important lessons: That no one is immune from stereotyping, that it is important to see what unifies us as much as what makes us different from one another, etc.

    Seems some Dems have not only lost their spines, but a moral compass as well.


    Seriously.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:57:52 AM EST
    People who claim to never have made a maistake can't be trusted...here is a woman who admits past err and her lesson learned, providing a lesson for us all...and she gets canned.

    It's little wonder anybody who would be any good at it steers clear of this politics racket...who needs this sh*t.


    Due diligence was done . . . (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    . . . neither by Vilsack nor the NAACP. Fire Vilsack and shake up the NAACP knee-jerkers.

    they should be proud (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by diogenes on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:49:49 PM EST
    If Sherrod did nothing wrong then certainly the Obama administration should have welcomed the opportunity to publicly and openly defend her and should have stated that they were proud to have her as a political appointee.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:38:08 PM EST
    Instead, they throw her under the bus. I'm shocked.

    This thing (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    is spinning out of control now.

    I watched, on the teevee tonight, a real, very  elderly, white, farming couple; a picture right out of Norman Rockwell, who were relaying a heart wrenching story of how they were about to be evicted from their life-long home. The problem was mostly a Bureaucratic snafu, but at their advanced age, and with the confusing legalese involved, they were about to go under the auctioneer's gavel, when Ms Sherrod got involved. She went to work like a crazy person, the government never knew what hit them. Anyway, when the interviewer asked this couple, point blank, "would you have lost your home if Ms Sherrod didn't get involved?" Neither could answer, as they both broke down in tears.

    I may have used a little poetic license here, but not much.

    What a travesty, all around.

    If there had not been 3 days of (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:56:59 AM EST
    non-stop NBPP disinformation from the RW media, Shirley Sherrod would still have her job -

    Confused (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    are you talking about the head of the United States Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack?

    Commonly referred to as (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    the Secretary of Agriculture.

    yeah, that too (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    but, are we supposed to take that at face value?

    Stupid doesn't begin to explain it.


    Sherrod says (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    (at least, according the the NY Daily News), that the WH put pressure on Vilsack to fire her.  Vilsack denies this, and says the buck stops with him.

    But Sherrod defended her speech, saying the words had been taken out of context, and that she was forced to resign by the Agricultural Department who cited pressure from the White House.

    "They called me twice," Sherrod told The Associated Press. "The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that's what I did."

    The image (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    of a nice, elderly, black female being badgered, harrassed, and Ordered to pull over Right Now! and resign on the WH's orders......just devastating.

    All that's missing.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:02:15 AM EST
    from that image is a tasering and an overcharged indictment of the poor lady.

    Honesty will get you a lot of grief in the land of the shady...I tell ya.  


    Vilsack ought to be fired (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:24:43 PM EST
    if, as the evidence so far suggests, he did do this kneejerk firing of an employee -- for her thoughts.

    Now the USDA has joined the thought police, too?

    And to do so based on an incomplete investigation, on reacting to reaction rather than to evidence?  Evidence that would show that the context was her sharing of her dawning realization that class is the problem, not race, in so many of this country's problems?

    She's got a good lawsuit there, if she wishes, I would suspect.  But I shall defer to the lawyers on this site about that.

    This does add to things I've heard about Vilsack as being, as they say at home (where the guy hardly would have learned much about race and probably could benefit from listening to this employee), a few bricks short of a load in terms of savvy.  Good intentions, poor implementations.


    Who's Vilsack's boss? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:32:43 PM EST
    Isn't he the one who should be fired?

    A Vilsack resignation (none / 0) (#32)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:30:43 PM EST
    would be just as politically embarrassing to the WH as what has already happened.  Actually, it probably could be worse.  It is a no win for the WH.  

    Oh yes, well, to h*ll (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    with a person's life, to h*ll with a public employee who does not to our knowledge have other marks on her record.

    It's all about the political fortunes of Obama.

    So much for that hopey changey thang. . . .


    It's a chess game... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    and if this woman can be treated as a mere pawn to be sacrificed in the quest for a "win" (whatever that is), does that make all of us less than pawns?  A piece of lint on the chessboard?

    Jane H. was more right than she knew. (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:48:18 PM EST

    Jeeez, it's a conspiracy (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    would that be Jane, what's her name, from FDL?

    Just read on another location (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    someone watching Beck today says he is siding with Sherrod and she should have her job back.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    It does not matter what the WH does, according GOP agenda it wrong.

    Because it only matters to make the Democrats look bad, the health of the country not so much...


    Yup- a twofer for them (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:30:31 PM EST
    Get someone fired, and get to be righteously against it.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    can't make the WH look bad. The WH does it all by itself, the helpful little critters from the gop just point it out.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:36:43 PM EST
    With a little help from their friends, particularly those with an ax to grind.

    But, given that, my point is lost on you.


    Have to admit (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    that this turnaround from the Right is somewhat surprising, and I am not sure it is all that wise.

    They are discrediting Breitbart, who is an important part of the noise machine. The next time he tries to gin up one of these, it won't take so easily.

    This result is not that bad politically for the White House.

    CAVEAT: Politics is an ugly stupid business and iot is terrible what happened to Sherrod.


    respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:48:22 PM EST
    Brilliant move by the winger team; takes the "wild-eyed, crazy loon" decription right out of the Dems' hands. makes them look so reasonable, fair, willing to correct their errors, in other words, like adults.

    And Breitbart, taking one for the Team, comes out a hero too.Memories are short, he'll bounce back.

    Win, win, touche!


    In addition they get to say (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:40:16 AM EST
    that the moral of the story is that false charges of racism are everywhere, making the real ones seem like another instance of crying wolf.

    I agree with NYShooter (none / 0) (#18)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    Per my comments in a post below, the WH and NCAAP knee jerked and knee capped one of their own.  She can't be given her job back without the SecAG replacing her under the bus.

    Breitbart will survive.

    Fox issues a retraction.


    I was just about (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    going to say, Boy, they're good!" But, you know what? The Dems make it so easy, like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Now, Willie Horton, one short skit, and a 17 point lead gets turned upside down, THAT was "good"


    That you actually view this (none / 0) (#64)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    as some sort of master plan by the GOP is a hilarious look into how out of touch with reality you are on this issue.

    You're nuts (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    This hurts the WH and NAACP with some on the left (though if they rehire Sherrod- they'd get the "thoughtful" bonus Shooter was giving to the right), but it kills Breitbart- he's out there with the "Loose Change" people and the "whitey tape" whacko his credibility is gone.

    Turnaround? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    The current memo from the GOP, and Beck, is that they are not racists.

    "The point was to get them to understand that we need to look beyond race," Sherrod said.

    Breitbart did not get the memo, and was working off the old memo to be on the lookout for racist blacks to justify the "occasional" racist slip of the tongue from a GOPer and the concept of reverse racism.

    Now the right is proving that it loves black liberals, particularly ones that learned an important lesson about race and class, and wound up helping a white guy in the end,


    Who's the racist? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    It wouldn't be whoever actually fired the black woman, would it?

    Or is that just too simple?


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 05:20:35 PM EST
    Looks like you will say anything to discredit this administration. But never thought you would be calling them racists. Given that I am not sure what separates your activities as a political operative from Breitbart's.

    Gibbs denied that the administration acted so quickly to fire Sherrod because it is "afraid" of conservative commentators or hypersensitive on issues of race. But Sherrod, speaking on CNN, maintained that "being so afraid of the machine that the right has put out there, that's what driving this."



    It's a question, squeaky! (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:30:11 PM EST
    Go ahead, answer it!

    * * *

    Of course, since you're an Obama Fan, you've been playing the racist card since day one, and, again since you're an Obama fan, you're playing the the racist card now, since it's all you've got.

    Hey, I don't blame you for doing the best you can with the hand you've got...


    Nice Fantasy (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    But I am sure that an egomaniacal star like yourself has to generalize, if only as a matter of expediency.

    Squeaky, of the Buddha-like nature... (none / 0) (#73)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    speaks talks of ego. Hilarity!

    Another question for you, since you've dodged all the others. You wrote:

    Obama does not have the luxury to be generous or easy with blacks in his administration.

    Is that statement now inoperative, since the administration flipflopped, and decided to apologize to Sherrod?

    Oh (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    Well I do believe it is still operative.

    The way I see it, is that since the NAACP  asked the Tea party to dissociate itself with racists like Mark Williams, and were called on it, they decided it would be bad to have that clip go on for days on end.

    Everyone involved has realized that they acted rashly, and Breitbart is off the hook, because he was only doing his job, what he is hired to do. What was he going to starve.

    And yeah, Obama has to work significantly harder show he is not being preferential to blacks. That is why Breitbarts little operation worked. There are more white people to please than black people, and their respective sympathizers.  

    Bush did not have to hide that fact that he liked white people more than black people, because that is normal. A Black President is not normal, because "whites" are still a majority. So yeah it is harder for Obama because he represents a minority. There is a double standard in the US, and it may have to do with our history.

    Yeah, I still think it is operative. Unless I am missing that your point you believe that Sherrod is a racist and should be removed.  Then I would say that there is good chance that you were a tea partier.


    Of course I don't think Sherrod... (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:01:31 PM EST
    .... is a racist. Pure foolishness. And if you read Corrente, it couldn't be more obvious that we're not -- hate trigger alert! -- tea partiers. Just one smear after another from you guys, eh? Then again, it's all you've got.

    Still, we're agreed that it was wrong of Brietbart to fire Sherrod. Oh, wait....


    Yellow Journalism (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:06:56 PM EST
    It was wrong of Vilsack to fire Sherrod. He apologized once he saw the full context, and admitted to being duped.

    That does not make him a racist. To insist that Vilsack is a racist is about as honest as Breitbart was pulling his stunt, imo.

    Oh, that's right, you are not insisting anything, you are just asking questions.

    nice trick



    So, let me ask two more (none / 0) (#80)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:12:54 PM EST
    1. Why do you say Vilsack fired Sherrod, when the White House was involved?

    2. Do you think Sherrod was fired because she was a woman?

    Ah, Jack A Lope.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    You've got a job, I thinking.

    Too bad about the 10% nominal (20% real) who don't.

    So why don't you go steal some more caucuses?


    *** Crickets *** (none / 0) (#66)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    From squeaky.  Hey, what were the odds?

    Wow (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    So your non-sequitur point is that the WH is racist? Vilsack is racist?

    Please explain?


    It's a question, Squeaky, and for you! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:27:59 PM EST
    See, the concept non sequitur -- "a statement containing an illogical conclusion" -- doesn't apply to questions.

    Maybe it's hard to see from under your bridge, so I'll just ask it again:

    Who's the racist? It wouldn't be whoever actually fired the black woman, would it?

    Clue stick: You can start with "Yes." Or possibly "No"! We all have choices to make!


    Lambert, who's the sophist? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jack E Lope on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    It wouldn't be someone who disguises their rhetoric by posing it as a question, would it?

    Or is that too on-point?


    What's rhetorical about this? (none / 0) (#77)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    Here it is again:

    Who's the racist? It wouldn't be whoever actually fired the black woman, would it?

    You can answer "no" and say why.

    But you guys would rather make it about what Breitbart said rather than what the administration did.

    I mean, I understand why, clever diversionary tactics, but a little transparent, at this point, no?


    moral of the story: (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    dont throw Lambert "under the bus" and don't imply that he, or anyone else at Hillary shoulda' been 44 ever had any racist tendencies..

    Unless you have some deep desire to never hear the end of it.



    Nah, your point (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:55:46 PM EST
    is just getting too stale by now.

    Assuming we both want Obama to be successful, if his success also means the country's success, then I believe the whining and pointing sissy fingers at the gop is a loser.

    What happened to "framing the agenda?"

    Why isn't the gop afraid of the WH?

    Sadly, and believe it or not, I mean, sadly, there's nothing to be afraid of.

    If I missed the point, please straighten me out.


    It depends what you mean by afraid (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:54:08 PM EST
    if you mean afraid about 2010- they're not, about 2012- I think most of the smart people in the GOP have already accepted that Obama's probably going to win big in 2012 and are concentrating on making his 8 years as ineffective as Clinton's were (though that's already shot with FinReform and HCR- put it this way if the Bush tax cuts expire the Obama Admin and its allies in Congress will have done more in 3 years than the Clinton admin and its allies did in 8).

    Best joke of the day (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:19:49 PM EST
    Obama's probably going to win big in 2012 and are concentrating on making his 8 years as ineffective as Clinton's were (though that's already shot with FinReform and HCR- put it this way if the Bush tax cuts expire the Obama Admin and its allies in Congress will have done more in 3 years than the Clinton admin and its allies did in 8).

    Heh, heh, heh ....

    Oh, ...... wait.

    You were being serious ...

    Well, .... the laughing still works.

    Just in a different way ....


    does anyone know of a link to the unedited (none / 0) (#14)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    original video?

    If the edited and unedited versions could be placed side-by-side, this could be a real teachable moment regarding Breitbart's integrity, or lack thereof.

    See the link below to the Atlanta CJ (none / 0) (#16)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:45:28 PM EST


    The AJC is working to recover the full video footage of Sherrod's speech to the Douglas NAACP. A production company, DCTV3 in Douglas, recorded the event at the local NAACP chapter's request and is waiting for the chapter's permission to release the full speech.

    "We broadcast it on cable," Wilkerson said. "Somebody probably picked it up and recorded it, then put it on YouTube. That's probably why the video looks so shabby."

    NAACP (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    supposedly has the full video up now on their Web site.  Don't believe Breitbart's version was edited, as such, he just cut it off at the point where she started to tell about her revelation that the issue was poverty and not race.

    of course breitbart has no integrity, (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    that's a given. and showing the complete video now is useless, except to the true believers. what people will always remember is what they first saw/heard. see: "pimp video", acorn

    Well, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    if you ever spent any time on facebook you'd see this stuff all the time. I've even had to hide a few "friends" because I get tired of them jamming up the news with this stuff.

    This is actually brilliant to keep the veal pen (none / 0) (#34)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    in line.

    Aside from peee-ing in your booties over what kind of ridiculous McCarthy-esque garbage will be dumped on your head -

    IF the fascists lie about you,
    THEN you'll be tossed from the Garden of Hope & Betrayal! (oops! Hope & ... HOPE!)

    0-sell-out is turning out better for the thugs than a real thug would, long run wise. The 'accomplishments' of obama are, relative to the entrenched thieving of AHIP Pharma AIG Exxon Enron Fannie Freddie Goldman Haliburton Boeing ...

    obama's 'accomplishments' are short term nickles and dimes compared to the long term big buck$ the big boy$ are $tealing, AND

    the Dims are getting the blame! ha ha ha.

    and now ya gotta shut up or your place in the veal pen could be gone!


    Vilsack reconsidering (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:52:32 AM EST
    ... her firing, but Sherrod says she's not sure if she'd return.

    Good for her.