Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate GOP to hold hearings on Black Panther tale?

By now you've heard that Senate Republicans have announced that they're seeking hearings into whether Obama's Justice Department engaged in racial bias in connection with the decision to pursue the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers as a civil action.

But what some folks may not remember is that Senate Republicans already quizzed Justice officials on this very case several months ago, in a public hearing on Capitol Hill. So why do we need more hearings?

I just read through a transcript of a hearing that the Senate Judiciary Committee held on April 20th, concerning oversight of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. During the hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions extensively quizzed Tom Perez, the head of that division, about the New Black Panther case.

Sessions alleged that the Justice Department had erected a "steel barrier" against efforts to probe this matter. In response, Perez pointed out that his department had already provided "over 4,000 pages of documents" to investigators. He also noted that two career people who made the decision to narrow the case against the New Black Panthers -- the decision that has riled the right -- have already briefed Republicans on the decision.

So what more is there to ask about? Well, Republicans say they would focus much of the new hearings on the claims of former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who told investigators he believed the case had been narrowed because his colleagues wanted to protect minorities. But even some conservatives have dismissed this claim as not credible.

There's no shortage of people already looking into this. Both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Commission on Civil Rights are expected to release reports on the allegations of wrongdoing.

It remains to be seen whether Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, will allow this latest round of hearings requested by Senate Republicans to go forward. Either way, it appears that those who want these hearings just aren't content with the behind-the-scenes investigations that are already underway. For some reason, they want yet another round of very public questioning.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 26, 2010; 4:29 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dems underestimate GOP strategy on unemployment
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Just a small taste of what we have to look forward to in the event that the Repubs win back the house or the senate this November.

During the 2006 and 2008 election cycles any Dem who even remotely hinted that they may hold hearings into misdeeds by the Bush administration was immediately painted by the media as the lunatic fringe, motivated by politics, or just seeking revenge. Is any one surprised that Repubs like Issa, Bachmann, and Sessions aren't treated the same way?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 26, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"For some reason, they want yet another round of very public questioning."

Gee, I can't imagine why. Election year, gin up the base even more. If the Republicans take back the house this will look like child's play by comparison.

OT, but Obama said today he will veto ANY bill that undermines the EPA's authority to cap carbon. Looks like Congress isn't so smart after all and that includes Rockefeller. Below is from DDay.

"This is pretty good news. It’s important to note that the death of climate legislation does not mean the death of carbon regulation. It just moves it into a new phase, where the EPA takes the lead. And the Administration will protect that privilege:

President Barack Obama would veto legislation suspending the EPA’s plans to write new climate change rules, a White House official said Friday.

Coal-state Democrats, led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.), Reps. Rick Boucher (Va.) and Nick Rahall (W. Va), are trying to limit the federal government’s ability to control greenhouse gases from power plants.

The coal-state proposals, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority for two years, would undercut what is widely seen as Obama’s alternative climate policy, now that Congress has punted on cap-and-trade legislation for the year. The Obama aide said the proposals won’t win the president’s signature if they managed to pass on Capitol Hill. Rockefeller’s bill is expected to reach the Senate floor at some point this year."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 26, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

schrodinerscat, that's a good point. might be worth pulling examples of that.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 26, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are making November about race and if they can knock out Holder as well, so much the better for them.

Posted by: Maezeppa | July 26, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

and yup lmsinca, all about the base.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 26, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry this is the best part of DDay's comment and I left it off.

"But on carbon regulation, the EPA is king. And it’s entirely the fault of coal-state Democrats and Republicans who didn’t believe the threat credible. Well, tough. EPA will now become your worst nightmare, and you caused it."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 26, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

So, just what IS the speed limit on Racist Road?
Don't know for sure, but you get there by turning right at Arizona Alley and right again on KKK street.

Thanks again T-Baggers/RepubliKKKans for parading your values and sharing your truths at the lunch counter for all of us to see and enjoy.

It's a Grand Old Performance from the Grand Old Party.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | July 26, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Do the Republicans EVER deal in any issues other than nearly nonexistent black nationalists and presidential sex scandals?

Has a SINGLE white voter who tried to cast a ballot in that YouTube video scene ever come forth to claim that he or she was intimidated from casting a ballot? Not one that anyone can tell.

Seriously, THIS is the party of Lincoln?

Posted by: andym108 | July 26, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Didn't the *criminal* charges get dismissed under the Bush administration for this? What's this commission going to find, that George W. Bush hates white people?

Posted by: dkp01 | July 26, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

FYI, from wiki:

J. Christian Adams

Adams previously was a poll monitor during the 2004 presidential campaign for George W. Bush. He also volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association.

Adams was hired in 2005 by then-Civil Rights Division political appointee Bradley Schlozman, who was later found by the Civil Rights Division's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have violated civil service rules by improperly taking political and ideological affiliations into account when making career attorney hires.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

andym108: "Seriously, THIS is the party of Lincoln?"

Umm..nope. That party has been usurped.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

They don't want another round of questions. They want reid to prevent the hearings and "prove" their kooky conspiracy theory.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | July 26, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think Reid should say, "Knock your socks off, boys." Let 'em have hearings. Let 'em look foolish. Kinda hard to prosecute someone for voter intimidation when NO VOTERS complained of being intimidated. But hey...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse


I eagerly await the day that the Republicans stop with this childish nonsense and start acting like adults again.

Posted by: jackrussell252521 | July 26, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if the New Black Panthers had been KKK or Tea Party members.

Dems and netroot nuts would be screaming for hearings.

What's good for the goose...

Hey, if Obama's agenda had worked they wouldn't have to worry about Republicans taking back the House and holding hearings.

Their own fault for being incompetent.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | July 26, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

This is a perfect example of race baiting.

Republican couldn't get Pres. Obama for having a "racist" USDA official so they decide to go back to the claim that the New Black Panther party intimidated voters. Those claims have been made and were DISMISSED under Pres. Bush.

Republicans have become very repulsive.

I hope MSM reports facts this time and are not swayed by Fox and Republican race baiters.

Posted by: rlj611 | July 26, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"For some reason, they want yet another round of very public questioning."

Gee, I wonder why. Could it possibly be the latest meme on Fox News?

How about we also hold public hearings on each tea party rally where someone was hung in effigy, or where someone brought a rifle to the proceedings.

Those distractions are *exactly* what this country needs as we slowly claw our way out of a morass of crises.

Posted by: Nissl | July 26, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca, if you are around, check this out!

Administration Warms To Warren, The New Progressive Darling

Even as the administration began sounding a more positive note on the potential of Elizabeth Warren earning President Obama's nod for the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she's emerged as the clear progressive favorite for the post.

Obama's team has recently seemed to warm to the idea that Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd splashed cold water on last week, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying this afternoon that she's "terrific."

"I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her," Gibbs said. Warren, a Harvard professor and author, now oversees Congress' panel evaluating the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank backs her candidacy.

And even though Dodd and others have said they think Warren would spark a major confirmation battle, Gibbs said today "she's very confirmable for this job." While Warren was hailed as a champion in Las Vegas this weekend for the Netroots Nation convention, the New York Times called on Obama to nominate her.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/administration-warming-to-warren-as-she-becomes-new-progressive-hero.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca, this one is for you, too!

NY Times Editorial
Elizabeth Warren
Published: July 24, 2010

President Obama should nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and not only because of her credentials.

Ms. Warren — a bankruptcy expert at Harvard Law School, an Oklahoma native whose father was bilked of his savings by a business partner — developed the idea for the bureau in a 2007 article. Since then, as head of the panel that monitors the bank bailouts, she has become one of the nation’s most prominent consumer advocates.

There are other candidates, of course. What Mr. Obama needs to recognize is that this particular job, at this particular time, is about more than competence. As the reform bill went through Congress, the banks were unrelenting in trying to kill or weaken the bureau. Having failed, they want influence in selecting its director.

Meanwhile, polls have shown public mistrust or misunderstanding of the administration’s economic policies. Mr. Obama’s choice to head the bureau must demonstrate that he cares more about ordinary Americans than about Wall Street, that he understands that the public interest differs — sometimes sharply — from the interests of big banks. He needs someone the banks do not want, and that someone is Ms. Warren.
Bank lobbyists say a regulator like Ms. Warren would overreact in protecting consumers from abusive loans, constraining needed credit. That is unfounded. In her academic work and in the 2007 article introducing the idea of the bureau, Ms. Warren has shown that she understands the power of credit to do good.

But she also knows credit can wreak havoc. In 2007, she wrote: “For a growing number of families who are steered into over-priced credit products, risky subprime mortgages, and misleading insurance plans, trust in a creditor turns out to be costly. And for families who get tangled up with truly dangerous financial products, the result can be wiped-out savings, lost homes, higher costs for car insurance, denial of jobs, troubled marriages, bleak retirements, and broken lives.”

The banks don’t oppose Ms. Warren because she doesn’t get it. They oppose her because she does.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25sun3.html?_r=1


Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"Republican couldn't get Pres. Obama for having a "racist" USDA official so they decide to go back to the claim that the New Black Panther party intimidated voters. Those claims have been made and were DISMISSED under Pres. Bush."

So true. This according to the Racist Republican Party:

NOT IMPORTANT TO USA:

Jobs, economy, unemployment benefits...

REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT TO USA:

2 scary black guys!!!!!11!11!!11!!11111!!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Another page in the "southern strategy". Let's make white folks believe the black president and black Attorney General won't respect their rights...

Posted by: soapm | July 26, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Someone should dig up the old KKK pictures of voter intimidations or that time where the white guys showed up in Black suits driving black SUV's and started asking for passports and if you owed any child support.

Oh yea, that was this same precinct in 2004 which is why this guy was there in 2008. to make sure that didn't happen again.

Posted by: soapm | July 26, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Would it be at all possible for Leahy to allow the hearing, and schedule as a first witness whoever had oversight during the Bush administration, have them answer the questions about how there were no complaints, no voters said they were intimidated, etc etc, and then end the hearing?

Let them have their show trial, but just truncate it so it reveals how empty their whole conspiracy theory is?

Posted by: JennOfArk | July 26, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you reading this?

JUST PUBLISHED:

GOP invites blogger Breitbart to fundraiser

The Associated Press
Monday, July 26, 2010; 5:18 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee has invited conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart to participate in a private GOP fundraiser next month with party chairman Michael Steele.

Breitbart was behind an edited video clip of a former Department of Agriculture official that suggested Shirley Sherrod, who is black, denied a white farmer aid. The speech, when viewed in full, shows the opposite.

Tickets to the donor retreat in Beverly Hills, Calif., start at $1,000 and go up to $60,800 for a couple. Steele and Breitbart are listed as confirmed guests to the Aug. 12 event to update donors on the RNC's plans for the midterm elections.

Talking Points Memo first reported the invitation on Monday and it was later confirmed by Republicans.

The RNC declined to discuss the event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072604602.html

That's the whole article.

Let's HOPE this gets picked up and expanded by the AP...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Just more BS from the Republicans to confuse any real substance from party. They are only interested in steal from the poor and middle class, and give to the rich politics. I say enough with the kid gloves treatment for the GOP from the Dems. Call the GOP out for what they are, LIARS, MORE LIARS and DAMN LIARS.....End of story!

Posted by: raca1234 | July 26, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Sue, I think she may get the nod and I wouldn't have said that a week ago. It's smart both policy wise and politically. Along with Obama saying he will veto any legislation that undermines the EPA, progressives will be encouraged to keep working, I think. There are still things we can do to empower the base, another one is having a vote on the Disclose Act, which they're doing. If the economy were a little better, I'd be pretty confident. It's still the major issue for people I think.

Posted by: lmsinca | July 26, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca, I think it's a pretty powerful indicator of where the WH is when Robert Gibbs says that Warren is confirmable. :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Lets do like the right and twist the facts, we can say he is the guest of honor and they're celebrating what he did to Shirley...

"GOP invites blogger Breitbart to fundraiser

The Associated Press
Monday, July 26, 2010; 5:18 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee has invited conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart to participate in a private GOP fundraiser next month with party chairman Michael Steele."

Posted by: soapm | July 26, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

TPM had the Breibart GOP thingy up at 10:00 AM, as an exclusive.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/steele-to-hold-rnc-event----co-starring-andrew-breitbart.php?ref=fpa

Here's their link to the actual invitation:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/07/republican-national-committee-event-featuring-andrew-breitbart.php?page=1

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Why the concern over the "rump southern party"? From what I've read here, the Republicans have employed this explicit race baiting and so called "southern strategy" for decades. Are we saying the Republicans are now even more explicity racist? Is that even possible? Are they more overtly racist than prior to the 2008 election? It seems to me that if the Repbulicans have employed such explicit and overt racism, than it's a miserable failure considering the Senate has a 59 seat majority (and was filibuster proof for most of last year) and the House has a huge majority. The Republican overt and explicit racism was therefore a disasterous policy and it's continuid use will result in more massive Republican losses.

Or, are we saying that Americans have suddenly become racist, due to Republican's supposed well worn racism, and are now ready to reject Barry's agenda, one they were willing to embrace less than two years ago?

I mean what gives? Are the Repbulican's able to be more racist and able to use that racism more effective? On a population that expressly rejected said racism less than two years ago that left the Repbulican electoral power in tatters?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 26, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh.My.Word.

Now we have wingnut running against Jan Schakowsky drawing a comparison between himself and Steven Biko (the murdered South African activist from the apartheid era), as he attempts to defend his association with Andrew Bigfart.

No, really, he really is.

GOP Candidate Invokes Steve Biko In Defense Of Breitbart

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/gop-candidate-invokes-steve-biko-in-defense-of-breitbart.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 26, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/happy_hour_roundup_57.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 26, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Sue, yeah, thanks. I was waiting for someone else to grab it, because the AP gets much wider distribution.

Troll,

"""Are the Repbulican's able to be more racist and able to use that racism more effective? On a population that expressly rejected said racism less than two years ago that left the Repbulican electoral power in tatters?"""

Yes and yes.

The GOP has a racist agenda, but have really ramped up the anti-black tactics since 2008 in a concerted effort to frighten white voters.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

If the Country rejected so called Republican racism less than 2 years ago, why would more explicit racism become effective? I mean if the Republicans rampant racism of 2008 was rejected than why would even more rampant racism be embraced by the same people who rejected it?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 26, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Troll, was that in response to my comment?

Because, if so, you need to read it again because I address your questions.

The GOP has a racist AGENDA, but have really ramped up the anti-black tactics SINCE 2008 in a concerted effort to frighten white voters.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 26, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, yes it was.

Are you saying that the same white voters who expressly rejected the Republicans explicit and overt racism and elected Barry and his fellow travellers are now susceptible to an even more explicit and overt racism peddled by the Republicans? Would it have been more beneficial for the Republicans if in 2008 they were even more explicitly and overtly racist than they already were?.

Why would these white voters who rejected the explicit racism of the Reublicans suddenly embrace even more explicit racism?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 26, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

Read the article on PolitiFact.org on the Black Panther story. Just do it. And BTW, then you won't have to take WaPo's word for it.

Then come back here and make the case that the GOP senators wanting a hearing aren't simply in the business of manufacturing outrage. I dare you . . .

(Gentle reminder: PolitiFact is non-partisan.)

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | July 26, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"than it's a miserable failure considering the Senate has a 59 seat majority"

There becomes a time when the results of your policies mean more than the scare you put in the voters. That is why the Dems have 59. Seems America is forgetting what their policies did to the nation and is again falling for their fear mongering. That is why the Democrats will have less than 59 seats next session.

Posted by: soapm | July 26, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

@tmwn: When times are tough, like with the economy now, the appeal of scapegoating goes up exponentially with low information voters. Of course the real irony is that minorities in general and blacks in particular are hurt even more than whites as a whole by the downturn because as a group they are already at the bottom of the economic heap and are the first to be affected by rising unemployment. The fact that minority businesses are generally running with less cushion and often service low income customers makes the downturn worse for minorities overall. That banks talked minority home buyers to subprime loans, EVEN WHEN THEY QUALIFIED FOR CONVENTIONAL LOANS only exacerbates the problem.

During the campaign, race baiting was commonplace among the shadow republican party of PACs, pundits, and "think tanks" on the right, but they didn't really take hold because Bush was such a monumental failure that anything would be better than a continuation of his clusterf*ck. Now that we have our first Black president and a few black appointed officials, scapegoating blacks and minorities in general is more politically effective, even though it remains morally evil.

Look at the zeal that the right blogosphere and faux news showed in repeatedly running the distorted Sherrod tape with titles like "Racism at USDA?". People were ready to believe the tape (even though it was clearly cut off prematurely) because the race baiting narrative was already in place, from the campaign to the first year of the presidency, to the NBPP meme, to the Sherrod debacle.

Posted by: srw3 | July 26, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"If the Country rejected so called Republican racism less than 2 years ago, why would more explicit racism become effective? I mean if the Republicans rampant racism of 2008 was rejected than why would even more rampant racism be embraced by the same people who rejected it?"

Every time I hear Obama called a Muslim I know there is a racist behind that comment. You see, only a racist would conclude being a Muslim somehow disqualifies you from being president. a comment like that only matters to a racist. Nothing in the constitution says a Muslim can't be president...

Posted by: soapm | July 26, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

One thing the wingnuts always forget to mention is that it was the Bush administration who decided not to press charges in the matter.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/25/ftn/main6711575.shtml

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | July 26, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Let them have the hearings. There seems to be nothing at stake for the Dems. At the same time the Dems should schedule some hearing on job creation. Seems the Republicans are off in the weeds with nothing to really gain but preaching to their little choir. At some point they just might fire up the minorities to vote in Nov.

Posted by: chucko2 | July 26, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse


Sargent,

You wrote:

"There's no shortage of people already looking into this. Both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Commission on Civil Rights are expected to release reports on the allegations of wrongdoing."

Well, there's one investigation that's not being done - How far up the chain was the order given to the FBI Civil Rights Division that their lawyers should not go after voter harrassment cases if the defendant is black and the victim is white?

Also, why won't the Justice Dept let Coates, who received the order, comply with a subpoena to testify at a hearing concerning this case?

And why was Coates who was a Chief of his Division transferred from DC to a lower position in South Carolina?

My, oh my, what a wicked web we weave, "when we help others to deceive."


Posted by: janet8 | July 26, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans say they would focus much of the new hearings on the claims of former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who told investigators he believed the case had been narrowed because his colleagues wanted to protect minorities. But even some conservatives have dismissed this claim as not credible."

You are such a toolbag, Sargent.

You claim to say "some conservatives" have dismissed this, in order to give yourself some credibility, so you link to an article where one person -- who is not really a conservative at all, but actually a Clinton appointee -- doesn't even "dismiss" the claim as not credible at all, just merely calls it "small potatoes."

Do you know how to spell the word FAIL? Or did you forget that people can actually click those links to test your so-called substantiations?

And you wonder why no one -- except for your little echo chamber of Kool-Aid drinkers -- ever listens to you.

Not that I'd expect anything more from you. Your attempt at actually being a "journalist" is laughable on its face.

You make one hell of a Journ-O-list though. Why don't you and the "Attackerman" (nice name, mouthbreather) start calling some more people racists?

Posted by: etpietro | July 27, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

srw3, you state: "During the campaign, race baiting was commonplace among the shadow republican party of PACs, pundits, and "think tanks" on the right, but they didn't really take hold because Bush was such a monumental failure that anything would be better than a continuation of his clusterf*ck. Now that we have our first Black president and a few black appointed officials, scapegoating blacks and minorities in general is more politically effective, even though it remains morally evil."

So, the explicit and overt racism of the Republicans was overshadowed by President Bush's "monumental failure"? Or was the Republican's explicit and overt racism merely ranked second in priority to the whites who voted for Obama (i.e. the whites agreed with the Republicans explicit and overt racism but thought that McCain would be worse than Obama [whom they thought was inferior because of his race])? And continuing along that line, now that Barry is elected expicit and overt racial scapegoating of African Americans is now convincing to these whites that voted for Barry because the evil Bush (and his loyal minion McCain) are now out of the picture? So, the whites that voted for Barry have now forgotten how bad Bush is/was and are now much more amenable to Republicans even more explicit and overt racism? Is that right?

Or, were the Rupublicans, in 2008, just inept at getting their explicit and overt racist message out and thereby missed an opportunity to capture the whites that voted for Obama but forgot they were racist because Bush (who wasn't running) was so monumentally incompentent?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 27, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

soapm, you state: "There becomes a time when the results of your policies mean more than the scare you put in the voters. That is why the Dems have 59. Seems America is forgetting what their policies did to the nation and is again falling for their fear mongering. That is why the Democrats will have less than 59 seats next session."

So, in 18 months, voters who explicitly rejected the Republicans overt racism and handed the Democrats their largest majority in several generations have suddenly forgotten said bad policy and re-embraced their racism?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 27, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

@tmwn: So, the whites that voted for Barry have now forgotten how bad Bush is/was and are now much more amenable to Republicans even more explicit and overt racism? Is that right?

Well there is a grain of truth in this. Yes, people are forgetting how insanely bad things were during the Bush years. Incompetence, malfeasance, stupidity have all paled in comparison to the monumental economic and fiscal hole that Bush dug for the incoming administration. 8 years of exploding deficits and debt(after getting a surplus from Clinton) with job growth that didn't keep up with new workers entering the job market is going to take a few years to dig out from. I am not sure that the electorate is rational in its expectations of how fast the recovery will come and how robust that recovery will be. Of course, it didn't help that the original stimulus was cut by 1/3 to get 1 or 2 republican votes to break the undemocratic republican filibuster.

And racism isn't like a switch that is turned on and off. It is cumulative. Constant repetition over 3 years (starting with the campaign) that Obama is a scary, different, non-american (birther garbage), Muslim (preying on the religious bigotry that is often associated with fundamentalist Christianity), who will elevate blacks over whites when in office (this has roots in US history dating to Reconstruction), etc. builds doubts and creates issues where none actually exist. Now that Obama is in office and there are a few high profile black people in the administration, the conservative sleaze machine has created a (totally false) narrative of Obama in particular and the administration in general practicing reverse discrimination. The Sherrod debacle is a manifestation of this narrative (she is a racist that denied help to a white person.)

Again, throughout US history economic uncertainty has bred scapegoating of minorities. As I stated above, when people feel financially insecure, scapegoating minorities becomes easier to rationalize. It advances the false meme that if other (black) people get ahead, whites necessarily fall behind. I would point to the alien and exclusion acts as prime examples, but inflaming racial tensions for political advantage is not a unique activity in american history.

I don't think that people suddenly become racists because of a republican disinformation campaign. The roots of racism in the US are deep. The republican innuendo and sleaze machine channels the subtle racist currents in the population toward Obama. Very few people will admit to racial discrimination, but research shows that racism and racial discrimination is still tightly woven into the fabric of our society. The republicans are cynically exploiting the "The blacks are coming to take your job, your home, etc" meme to defeat Obama's agenda and weaken democrats. Republican conservatives are not necessarily racists, but they are happy to stoke racial fears to defeat dems.

Posted by: srw3 | July 27, 2010 1:36 AM | Report abuse

If O-Bummer & Hold Out Holder want to get to the bottom of this, they should stop stonewalling the Commission on Civil Rights investigation, & stop telling their own Administration's top players to ignore their subpoenas.

But O-Bummer & Hold-Out Holder don't want the truth of this matter to ever see the light of day.

They'd rather use the incomplete set of facts we do have at hand, to fire up their own Left wing political base, going into the upcoming November elections.

Posted by: Just-Tex | July 27, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

@tmwn: From what I've read here, the Republicans have employed this explicit race baiting and so called "southern strategy" for decades.

If you only heard about the southern strategy here, you need to get out more. There is nothing "so called" about the southern strategy.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats... In the past, politicians' highlighting of issues such as busing or states' rights appealed to white angst about integration. More recently, Republican politicians made appeals to "conservative values", and used cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and religion to mobilize their base. This has also been viewed as the Southernization of American politics.--wikipedia

"It seems to me that if the Repbulicans have employed such explicit and overt racism, than it's a miserable failure considering the Senate has a 59 seat majority (and was filibuster proof for most of last year) and the House has a huge majority."

If politics were as simple as 1 cause produces 1 effect, then political consultants would be out of jobs. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 mainly because of the unpopularity of the continued Iraq debacle, the pervasive incompetence of the bush administration in most things not involved in shoveling money to plutocrats, and in 2008 the culmination of Bush's 8 years of economic and regulatory malfeasance manifesting in the near meltdown of of the financial system and the global recession/depression. That doesn't exclude the undercurrent of race baiting that republicans have been practicing since the Reagan administration (the cadillac driving welfare queen for starters).

"because Bush (who wasn't running) was so monumentally incompentent?"

Bush and the republican congress (up until 2007) so tarnished the republican brand that almost any candidate with an (r) after his/her name would probably lose. Leading up to and just after the 2008 election, people identifying as republican dropped to the lowest level in a generation. McCain's thoroughly underwhelming campaign and especially picking a clearly unqualified vp candidate just made it easier for Obama to win.

Posted by: srw3 | July 27, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans have embraced a strategy of practicing racist, racial politics. They have a whole deck of race cards and they will most likely play every one of them before the fall elections. The Republicans don't have any power and they're angry and frustrated. Well they might as well get accustom to it because they will remain out of power for the next 50 or 60 years. It will take that long for these sophomoric idiots to grow up.

Posted by: ODDOWL | July 27, 2010 2:49 AM | Report abuse

yes you can save money on your auto insurance by making few simple changes find how much you can save http://bit.ly/d4HSCH

Posted by: brownhall24 | July 27, 2010 4:04 AM | Report abuse

The New Black Panthers are a registered "Hate Group" on SPLC and every other legitimate Hate Watchdog organization,

All of America saw (and heard) them on video intimidating voters with billy clubs.

Why does the liberal media keep going to such extremes to protect and defend the New Black Panthers? For that matter why did Holder and Obama go to such extremes to protect and defend?

Posted by: fury60 | July 27, 2010 4:10 AM | Report abuse

So Ezra, just what aspect of the Waxman treatment do you not like?

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | July 27, 2010 4:25 AM | Report abuse

This is funny. Two black guys wearing Halloween costumes, one with a slap stick, stand around a polling place for 30 minutes until the cops tell them to leave.

Two chumps who aren't smart enough to make a decent rap video, representing a non-existent "party," and yet they have the entire rightwing of the US political scene rushing around, peeing in their pants with their hair on fire.

Posted by: OldRedneck | July 27, 2010 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Hearings on black panthers?

Why, are they an endangered species?

What's next, hearings on cougars?

Posted by: edlharris | July 27, 2010 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone believe that people should walk up to their polling place and be greeted by men with batons? The punishment for the man in the video was to ban him from polling places, until the next Presidential election. Cowardly behavior by our DOJ and Government officials is just that, cowardly.

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 27, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

this election, if white men stand around the polls with baton's...
will they get the same treatment or crucified to the full extent of the law...

Posted by: DwightCollins | July 27, 2010 6:38 AM | Report abuse

It's just more Fox style dog-whistle race baiting by the republicans. Designed to churn up their poor prosecuted lilly white base.

I see more intimidating crackpots while I'm waiting for a bus every day. This is just another fox generated stunt by those hoping to find bigotry. It'd be a lot quicker and cheaper if those investigating would just look in the mirror, the bigotry is right there in front of them.

This is just another fox generated scare tactic that their lemming viewers will fall for. It's a waste of time and a pathetic stunt. But it all fits with their MO - ACORN, Van Jones, etc. Be afraid of the scary black men.

Pathetic.

Posted by: JilliB | July 27, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Gotta love the liberals who would be screaming (and justifiably so) if a skinhead with a weapon was stationed in front of a polling place in Birmingham. But this was a black man with a weapon and a "uniform" and a menacing attitude in Philadelphia. I guess liberals somehow think there's a benign difference.

And do you really think that the Office of Professional Responsibilty, which reports directly to Holder, is going to submit an honest report?

You who are trashing the Republicans' efforts in this matter are afraid that the truth will be something you don't want to hear.

Posted by: Darlene_Jr | July 27, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

The New Black Panthers are a registered "Hate Group" on SPLC and every other legitimate Hate Watchdog organization,

All of America saw (and heard) them on video intimidating voters with billy clubs.

Why does the liberal media keep going to such extremes to protect and defend the New Black Panthers? For that matter why did Holder and Obama go to such extremes to protect and defend?

Posted by: fury60 | July 27, 2010 4:10 AM | Report abuse

---
Fury - did both of the nbp's register? All two of them?

Their numbers seem quite small in comparison to the number of white people carrying firearms at political rallys as shows of intimidation. You know, the tea bagger rallies with the show of all that testosterone. What was the point of that? Intimidation? But I guess tens or hundreds of white men carrying firearms at a public gathering isn't as intimidating as two crazy black guys at a polling place with sticks. Yeah, no double standard there.

Just more of the pathetic southern strategy employed on the ignorant.

Posted by: JilliB | July 27, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

jackrussell252521 wrote:
I eagerly await the day that the Republicans stop with this childish nonsense and start acting like adults again.
--------------------------------------------------
It'll be a long wait, Jack. They're patiently waiting in line behind Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, Rangel, Kerry, Franken, et al.

Posted by: jpost1 | July 27, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

This is another example of the Republicans inventing a bogeyman so they can scare the wits out of us (those of us that have wits). It's called divide and conquer and they hope to win elections that way. Forget issues. Forget substance.

Posted by: MNUSA | July 27, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Keep moving people, there is nothing more to see here... Move along... Keep moving...

Posted by: demtse | July 27, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Keep moving people, there is nothing more to see here... Move along... Keep moving...

Posted by: demtse | July 27, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

JilliB writes:
"Their numbers seem quite small in comparison to the number of white people carrying firearms at political rallys as shows of intimidation. You know, the tea bagger rallies with the show of all that testosterone. What was the point of that? "
------------------------------------------------------

Two big BLACK men are menacing. A handful of good old boys are only out having a good time. Surely you know that.

I am always saddened when folks refuse to recognize their innate prejudices like this one. As a little white guy who grew up in the 60s, I would be a fool if I didn't recognize the influences that my history has on my initial, visceral reactions. The question is, do I recognize it for what it is, and learn to set my innate prejudices aside, or do I let my emotions rule me?

And politicians are more than willing to make me ruled by those emotions, that's for sure. The real question that folks should be asking is, why are they playing so hard on my emotions, and not reinforcing their arguments on a rational level? So far, every argument for re-re-exhuming this issue (which has been looked at by 2 administrations) has been specious indeed.

Posted by: iamweaver | July 27, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Althought I too share sense we have have far too many dog and pony shows that result in political points made or lost and no real change, I can't get over the fact there are people here who see no problem with the dropping of a "clear slam dunk" case of voter intimidation. There are screams of the same nature whenever our State Police have radar or checkpoints withing 5 mile of a polling place. Apparently if they stood right out front it would be OK. The additional video of Mr Shabazz's ranting to "kill crackers and they babies" is also a tempest in a teapot , I suppose?

No hearing. Investigate why the DOJ dropped the case but NO HEARINGS!!!

Posted by: theduck6 | July 27, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

For people upset about the voter intimidation, get the facts straight.
1) It was ONE guy with a police baton
2) Police came and escorted him aff
3) DOJ got an injuction against him
4) DOJ said not enough evidence to suppport intimidation by ALL of New Black Panther group, just the one member
5) Christian Adams, the "whistle blower" has history as REP polster, etc and his concerns have not been backed by ANY other person in civil rights division.
6)Suit against DOJ for dropping case was dismissed by REPUBLICAN judge saying it was politically motivated and DOJ actions were ok.
Enf of story.

Posted by: cadam72 | July 27, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

For people upset about the voter intimidation, get the facts straight.
1) It was ONE guy with a police baton
2) Police came and escorted him aff
3) DOJ got an injuction against him
4) DOJ said not enough evidence to suppport intimidation by ALL of New Black Panther group, just the one member
5) Christian Adams, the "whistle blower" has history as REP polster, etc and his concerns have not been backed by ANY other person in civil rights division.
6)Suit against DOJ for dropping case was dismissed by REPUBLICAN judge saying it was politically motivated and DOJ actions were ok.
Enf of story.

Posted by: cadam72 | July 27, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

"But what some folks may not remember is that Senate Republicans already quizzed Justice officials on this very case several months ago, in a public hearing on Capitol Hill. So why do we need more hearings?" - the corrupt liberal/progressive POST

Answer:

We need more public hearings to see if our corrupt liberal/progressive MSM wolfpack press CONTINUES to CENSOR this story, that's why.

There is a perception within America that the corrupt Holder is all to ready to investigate issues where Blacks and minorities might have had their rights violated........... but when it comes to Black Panathers standing right in FRONT of a polling place with clubs, no investigation is needed.........really?

There is a reason why the symbol for "justice" has a cloth over their eyes and that's because "justice" is suppose to be "color blind".

But in the Obama/Holder Administration that "cloth" has been removed........sad

Posted by: allenridge | July 27, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

We are all surprised this case of obvious voter intimidation was dropped.

I hope the GOP asks some questions about the hasty change of action on this fundamental violation of voter rights.

I insist they ask more questions.

Posted by: docwhocuts | July 27, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Is it really that surprising that anyone wants a hearing? It's what Congress does to show its interest in something. They bring people in, hang 'em out to dry, and then move on to the next "outrageous" thing. Democrats do it to CEOs, Republicans do it to Government officials - both sets of people that each party paints as the "bad guy."

Posted by: Pacprop | July 27, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

This is all about discrediting President Obama. Too bad the decision on this New Black Panthers episode was made by the Bush Justice Department. No matter how hard the Republicans try, it goes back to the Bush wrecking crew.

Posted by: mglbrown1 | July 27, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

New evidence new hearings, J Christian Adams quit the DOJ to point out corruption that is why there are new hearings.

The Civil Rights Commission has major concerns about the case.

A former NAACP lawyer and civil rights advocate was one of the poll watchers threatened by the New Black Panthers.

Tapes of the men involved going on racist rants and calling on people to "kill a cracker" or "murder white children" have also made people angry this case got ignored.

We hear about double standards in justice all the time, this is just another case.

Posted by: flonzy1 | July 27, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

For the UMPTEENTH time if would be interesting to find out the reason just why the OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DROPPED ALL THE CHARGES.

Posted by: johnsonmarc51 | July 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Given that it was the Bush administration who decided not to press charges, are the Republicans going to hold hearings and find Bush at fault?

Not likely. We'll just get a charade attempting to make race an issue in the upcoming elections.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | July 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

More PROOF that fux the news is driving the political agenda of the right. this was such a minor incident -- even smaller than the stupid Acorn story -- it warrents nothing beyond a local investigation.Yet here is the do nothing party of no wasting taxpayer money and the senate's time piddling away fro the cameras and for the tin temporary political gain it might bring. Latent racism, anyone???? I'll have a helping of Southern Strategy and a trip down "memory lane" circa 1948 on the side....

this story is complete BS and is only getting any attnetion because the rightards who slobber on themselves while being told what they think by fux every night eat it up not understanding a thing of what they watch or why they are so incensed by this.

Posted by: John1263 | July 27, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Predictions: Uncle Sellout President Obama will lose the Black vote next - and the GOP will impeach him after November. His spineless tail will not make it to 2012. Can you say President Biden.

Blacks should have called him out last year. It may have force him to do the 'Right Thing' and saved his Presidency.

Posted by: question-guy | July 27, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Predictions: Uncle Sellout President Obama will lose the Black vote next - and the GOP will impeach him after November. His spineless tail will not make it to 2012. Can you say President Biden.

Blacks should have called him out last year. It may have force him to do the 'Right Thing' and saved his Presidency.

Posted by: question-guy | July 27, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The party of Lincon ceased to exist in 1864 thanks to JWBooth. The republicons have ben a wholly ownedsubsidiary of corporate America since 1877 with election (selection) of RBHayes. Odd historical coincidence that it was cheating in Florida that put him in office by one electoral college vote.....

This is more pandering to the rightards. I have a aquantance who is a foaming at the mouth rightie - and he has been weeping and gnashing his teeth about this complete trivia for weeks, and why????because fux and talk radio told him it was important.

Posted by: John1263 | July 27, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

12 Panthers...2 armed. In front of a predominately black housing project.

Not much gold there but the GOP needs to fling as much dirt out of that hole as possible to build the false equivalency with racism on the right.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | July 27, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The author asks
"So why do we need more hearings?"

Answer: Fox news, that stellar and meticulously accurate news organization, says we need to.

Coming up shortly thereafter: Is the earth really flat, and why have the democrats been hiding this fact from Americans?

Posted by: dfolk1 | July 27, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Hmm!! Very interesting. If the KKK was involved all National News stations would show the demonstration from various angles. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would lead a march against the demonstrators. They would also boycott any white stores in the area where the KKK demonstrated. Maxine Waters would call for an investigation into the matter and ask her friends Castro and Chavez to help coordinate the investigation. Leahy and Reid would scream this is a travesty of justice and the Senate would investigate. Pelosi would say that she hadn't heard rhetoric like this she was a hippy demonstrator in the 60's against the war in Vietnam. Obama would come out and issue a decree that the DOJ would henceforth conduct an investigation into any Civil Rights actions. The Unions would start busing its personel down to where ever the sight was.

But Senator Sessions asks that more questioning be done and its nuke day?! Hello out there!! What must you be afraid of?

Posted by: pechins | July 27, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

In a democratic republic, even murder is only arguably a more serious crime against society than interfering with or manipulating an election. We have no laws if we haven't got the right to vote our beliefs as represented in the candidate of our choice.

I have no idea, really, what the facts were on the day and in the place in question. I've seen the video, of course, but that hardly affords context or a sense of consequence. The appearances are damning, though, and if the facts were as intimidating as they appeared to be, this case should not be allowed to go away until convictions are reached and sentences - LONG sentences - are meted out.

Posted by: dryrunfarm1 | July 27, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

It took the Republicans 2 years to figure out how to do it, but they FINALLY have figured out how to run a Southern Strategy on Obama. They used classic Atwater attenuation. Yell N*** until it backfires, then yell something else that means the same thing: They're coming for what's yours!

The problem for the Republicans in 2008 was that they had a playbook which said you call the Democrat a N***-lover. That's what they did to Clinton. They forced him to make concessions to this slur--symbolically with his sister souljah moment, and substantively with his push for welfare reform. It didn't work well enough to keep him from getting elected, but it certainly helped them consolidate the South & win in '94.

What the Republicans found in 2008 is that they had to Atwater the Clinton N***lover strategy. First off, when you call a black man a N***lover, a lot of white people who are usually not very racially aware notice you are acting like a racist! Most people have a heightened awareness of race-baiting when the candidate is black. The second Republican problem was that Obama could make symbolic concessions on race that Clinton couldn't make. He could give a speech on race that really resonated with racially unaware whites, but didn't alienate black voters.

Things have changed. Republicans have spent the past two years associating his administration with scary radical ideas (socialist health care, death panels) and powerful "bad negroes" like ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, the Black Panthers. Nothing new here: it's the "community organizer," redistribution, Rev. Wright & Bill Ayers oppo drops from the campaign. But it's relentless; every couple of weeks Fox News launches a new opposition research hit, and pounds it.

They have fully attenuated N***lover to "bad negro."

They have succeeded in caricaturing history to make Martin Luther King into a tepid "good negro." In their world, MLK just raised awareness. He gave a few speeches and led some marches that were largely attended by white people and poof! White people saw how bad racism was and decided to end it.

This is in contrast to "bad negroes" like Thurgood Marshall who didn't want justice, but who wanted superiority. He abused his office by making the law fit his personal preferences. Oh, and powerful ACORN criminal opportunists, and Black Panthers. Obama isn't with the good negroes who worked with white people end racism, he's with the bad ones who were radicals, racists, and opportunists.

And so we end with the consistent take-away of the Southern Strategy. White people, be afraid of Barack Obama. He doesn't care about you, he doesn't share your American values. Every time he does something good, it goes only to "his" people. And when he's not ignoring your problems, he is taking something away from you to give to "his" people. He is unfair, he is un-American, he is a bad negro, and his power must be checked.

Ironically, this is exactly what they said about the now-sainted MLK.

Posted by: theorajones1 | July 27, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

is this the anti republican 'cause the democrats who aspire to greater values and are so much nicer human beings and will do anything it takes to love and be loved, blog site?

or did i stumble upon a wonky zealots site who not only believes his own self improtant hype but most frigthingly, believes that all people believe his self important hype is actually improtant?

Posted by: perryrants | July 27, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

All three members of the "New Black Panther Party" are a menance to the Republicans? HAW! HAW! HAW!!!

Posted by: wlockhar | July 27, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I know if I was a black man voting in a predominately black polling place I would really be intimidated by another black man dressed like Johnny Cash with a baton in his hand...
Wow, another "Chicken Little" story.

Posted by: mlx10dp | July 27, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

the little creep sessions looking for racists? He ought to look in the mirror.

Posted by: calif-joe | July 27, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't anyone mention that the Panthers were just exercising their right to bear arms? Why are so-called conservatives trampling on the 2nd amendment? When night sticks are outlawed, only outlaws will have night sticks!

Posted by: sjpatejak | July 27, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

the new black panthers are the same as the original,just younger. after all it is only a social club that is not named after a nut

Posted by: pofinpa | July 27, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

String them up like pinatas and whack them with sticks until candy falls out.

Posted by: carlbatey | July 27, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"Imagine if the New Black Panthers had been KKK or Tea Party members"

-------------------------------------
KKK or Tea Party members...um, what's the differece? Besides attire, I mean.

Posted by: sux123 | July 27, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"But what some folks may not remember is that Senate Republicans already quizzed Justice officials on this very case several months ago, in a public hearing on Capitol Hill. So why do we need more hearings?"

We need more hearings because The Justice Dept. Officials lied to the Senators." We need to get to the bottom of what is going on with the US Justice Department and prosecute those who lied and get rid of those who have become obstructionists, and the Democrats won't have anything to do with it.

Posted by: mike85 | July 27, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The question isn't that someone is not "looking into it", but whether or not due diligence is part of the process.

Spare us the 4000 pages nonsense. It's what is not being produced that is the question.

Posted by: primegrop | July 27, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Bottomline if they were a couple of KKK guys in white sheets turning away Black voters this would not have been treated the same way by the Democrats.

Posted by: sovine08 | July 27, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Most of you posters are absurd. If the table was reversed, a Repub administration not going after alleged black voter intimidation, you'd have a coronary... Oh wait. Didn't that happen a few years ago?

Mr. Sargent, your link to the 'even some conservatives' dismiss the Adams claim is misleading. Abigail Thernstrom is the only conservative mentioned who has any issue with the allegation, and even she does not dismiss it, as you allege; she states it's 'small potatoes.' The claim is definitely misleading.

But groupthinkers, just keep telling yourselves your right, they're evil, and everything will be ok.

Posted by: slatt321 | July 27, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Geez Mr Sargent - let's see - we have a DOJ going after Arizona with a non-existent case - yet were ample evidence exists and a slam dun case of voter intimidation existed - this same DOJ decides to drop the case?

Arizona mirrors federal law - because the Feds fail to act - yet the DOJ files a lawsuit.

We clearly have voter intimidation laws that were clearly broken - yet this same DOJ fails to act?

DUH? Exactly what point are you missing?

Now - imagine the opposite? The KKK standing at a voter booth in the south in full garb and crosses? All you liberals would be foaming at the mouth on such a story. It would be front page headlines for months..and you know it.

In regards to Arizona - just enforce our laws.....Yet Holder deems it fot to go after Arizona....yet Holder fails to go after the sanctuary cities that fail to uphold our laws.

You Dems remember the fact we are a country of laws .....??????

Posted by: short1 | July 27, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

sovine08
Bottomline if they were a couple of KKK guys in white sheets turning away Black voters this would not have been treated the same way by the Democrats.
___________
It was ONE guy with a batton, no one was turned away, AND teh DOJ got an incuntion against him? hmm, sound like end of story.

Posted by: cadam72 | July 27, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Before Abigail Therston started selling her book in another column on NRO about Eric Holder she stated that Holder dropped the Black Racist Panther suit despite the uncontested evididence of voter intimidation.

Sargent you must be racist to be complaining about this.

Posted by: robtr | July 27, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Gee Greg... you suggest we just "move on" but millions of Americans aren't quite so trusting as Post reporters/bloggers.

We do want to know why all the stone-walling by Justice ? its Attorneys forbidden to appear before Congress and the Civil Rights Commission.

Why all the ignored subpoenas ?

Who in Justice leadership approved dropping the charges ?

Curiously you omit these points in your narrative.

If these had been white Teabaggers blocking a voting booth during the Bush era... we'd have a column or front-page story every week in the Washington Post.

Just asking... but were you a member of the left-wing talking-point cabal called Journ-O-list ?

Posted by: Petras123 | July 27, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

DAILY CALLER:

Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify on New Black Panther Party case ?

Posted by: Petras123 | July 27, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"This was an isolated incident in 2008 that, while involving reprehensible behavior, does not deserve the level of attention it has received when there are much more important questions involving voting-rights enforcement on which to focus. I did not write to defend the Panthers or DOJ, but rather to plead for some perspective on the matter. The actions of two Black Panthers in one Philadelphia precinct in 2008 were not remotely equivalent to the effort to keep blacks from exercising their democratic rights throughout the South; the equation is breathtakingly ignorant. The Panthers are a tiny fringe group--a handful of racist nuts. The KKK was a serious criminal conspiracy that terrorized millions of black Americans, and only massive intervention by the federal government could stamp it out. No competent historian would possibly endorse McCarthy and Bull's contention that the actions of two Panthers in one little corner of Philadelphia were more blatant than what went on in Mississippi in the 1960s. If this ludicrous and poisonous idea gains acceptance in conservative circles, it will do more damage to American race relations than anything the Panthers could possibly do."
These are the words of Abigail Thernstrom.
Unfortunately I doubt anyone can hear her over the screams of Meagan Kelley. But then only Meagan is "fair and balanced."

Posted by: mlx10dp | July 28, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Hearings? What hearings? We don't need no stinking hearings!

Hows that Tuna Charlie thing working as the face of the corruption that is the Democrat party?

Posted by: thetroll01 | July 30, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the American people won't let it go because we keep hearing from the Obama Administration and websites like this one that we need to sit down and shut up and not ask too many questions about this. Anyone who saw that video clip of the Black Panthers at that polling place and says it was no big deal is just lying. The GOP and Democrats have lost credibility with the American people because of unwillingness to deal with the truth, they're only interested in pushing their own agenda. Truth and fairness fell by the wayside a long time ago. Both Parties are only out to advance their side, care only about staying in power. Both parties are as corrupt organizations as have ever existed. Register as an Independent and quit voting in all these self-dealing liars that spew crap like this story.

Posted by: HowBoutNonPartisanTruth | August 1, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company