Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

"Worst Week in Washington" winner: Tom Vilsack

Department of Agriculture head Tom Vilsack was the runaway winner of our "Worst Week in Washington" award thanks to his dismissal and attempted re-hiring of a midlevel employee over allegedly racially insensitive remarks that wound up being something entirely different.

We write in our "WWW" column in the dead tree edition of the Post:

"Remember that old adage that the secretary of agriculture is meant to be seen but not heard? (You know that one, right?)"

"Tom Vilsack broke that rule this week with his dismissal of, doubling down on dismissal of, apology to and attempted rehiring of (it reads like the 12 stages of grief) a midlevel Department of Agriculture employee named Shirley Sherrod."

Need a refresher on past "winners"? Click here, here and here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 24, 2010; 8:04 AM ET
Categories:  Worst Week in Washington  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Patriot Majority hits Sharron Angle for saying job creation is 'not my job'
Next: McCain spending tops $16 million for primary race

Comments

drindl wrote: "kinetical -- you are the racist... you embody it, you are disgusting. let's stop pretending."

You are factually incorrect and nothing that I posted supports your ridiculous accusations complete with name-calling. Because I am able to recognize racist and sexist remarks by others doesn't necessarily mean that I too am a racist. It is Democrats who make the most disgusting and racist comments conceivable.

It is the content of your character, or lack thereof, by the remarks you make that everyone is able to judge you from. Again, I maintain that Democrats make the most racist and sexist sounding statements comprehendible and the proof is in their quotes.

“I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived.” - Ron Blagojevich

Posted by: Kinetical | July 27, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Worst week in Washington winner. Obama, who ordered Vilsack to fire Sherrod without due process.

Posted by: joanz3 | July 26, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

kinetical -- you are the racist... you embody it, you are disgusting. let's stop pretending.

Posted by: drindl | July 26, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Sherrod not only explained how she denied white farmer's her help to a laughing audience at the NAACP but then went on later to say that those who oppose Democrat run abortioncare, racist.

All of you who blame FOX News or Breitbart for what the Obama Administration did in having Sherrod fired are pointing fingers for some Democrat political agenda.

The most racist and sexist sounding statements imaginable come repeatedly from Democrats from the President to Supreme Court Democrats to other race baiting Democrats.

For example, President Obama said he would be shot in Chicago during his "Cambridge Police acted stupidly" speech. Who is he saying someone in Chi-town would do such a thing? White Democrats? Black Democrats? Police unions? Other Chicago Democrats?

"I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago -- here I'd get shot."- Barack Hussein Obama

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sonia Sotomayor

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." - Al Sharpton

Posted by: Kinetical | July 26, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

For Brigade, from the "Austin American-Statesman" online:

As I reported last night on the Postcards blog, Democratic sources say President Barack Obama will be in Austin and Houston on Aug. 9 for a pair of fundraisers. And Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White doesn’t plan to be there.
Said White spokeswoman Katy Bacon, “That week is jam packed, and he’s not scheduled to be in Houston or Austin at all except for the night of the 12th. In August, Bill will be talking with Texans about the future of our state, laying out his plans for the same.”
The president’s approval numbers aren’t good in Texas, and Gov. Rick Perry has repeatedly sought to link Obama and White.
The Austin event will raise money for the Democratic National Committee and the Houston event for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
==========
I think that covers the matter. The Austin fundraiser will be at the Four Seasons Hotel. Probably a hundred mega-donors will appear. It will not be like a campaign event, with many thousands at a rally. White is in the middle of a hard fought campaign and cannot be raising money for the DNC and the DSCC. BHO is not coming to raise money for White, either. There is no reason for White to appear in Austin at that fundraiser.

One could make an argument that White could have helped BHO with an intro in Houston, I suppose. Were BHO campaigning for White, White would appear with him, I am sure. In other words, this is a standard political calculation but it is not a snub. IMO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 26, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | July 26, 2010 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina speaking to her base

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brazdQANgYs

Naaah, nothing racist there.

Fine decent people all.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 26, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

everyone else is trying to get some serious discussion

..............,.,,

I must have refreshed the wrong blog. I thought this was the Fix. Aka the mutual moonbat admiration and drivl, ped and ddunce racist recovery 12 step program.

Ped is now creativly writing history again. She's in troll recovery.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 25, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey burnout, broadwayjoe and DDAWD are welcome to come visit me in my House of Marble Nhà Đá Hoa and stay as long as they like.

You're not invited, though it'd be funny watching you turn inside out at the sight of the hammer and sickle flag.

Any time, guys. Walkthrough video on FB.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

The racists on this blog really do not want to defend themselves.

It is amazing how many democrats in this country prefer to turn a blind eye to the racist witchhunting in this nation.


Many have read the book the Crucible - we hear about McCarthyism - but to see an actual national political party engage in racist witchhunting is remarkable.


People point out how wrong it is - but the real GUILTY PARTIES are the ones who say nothing, and allow the witchhunt to continue.


yes, there must be the fear of being called a racist themselves - but it truly is remarkable to see those who choose silence over what is clearly right.


The silent ones - the ones who refuse to say that the NAACP was race-baiting - the ones who refuse to stand up for what is right - those are the REAL ENABLERS who are at the root of the problem.


Clearly the enablers feel they have something to GAIN from the witchhunt - somehow that attacking others helps them in someway.


And here is the true EVIL in the False Charges of Racism - the ones who are seeking to gain from the false charges.


The truth is darker than you might believe at first sight - the chosen democratic strategy for this fall midtern election, to "ENERGIZE" the democratic base with false charges of racism


IS PURE EVIL.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Tell us that when you are hanging upside down in some pit in Vietnam - being told you are a spy against the proletariat.

My only sadness is that somehow ddawd and broadway couldn't be there, hanging next to you.

It would be fitting if you three had only each other to talk to for the rest of your lives -

It would give the rest of us on this board who have had to read your garbage a little ease - that the three of you got what you deserved - listening to each other forever.

That would work.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The racists on this blog really do not want to defend themselves.


It is amazing how many democrats in this country prefer to turn a blind eye to the racist witchhunting in this nation.


Many have read the book the Crucible - we hear about McCarthyism - but to see an actual national political party engage in racist witchhunting is remarkable.


People point out how wrong it is - but the real GUILTY PARTIES are the ones who say nothing, and allow the witchhunt to continue.


yes, there must be the fear of being called a racist themselves - but it truly is remarkable to see those who choose silence over what is clearly right.


The silent ones - the ones who refuse to say that the NAACP was race-baiting - the ones who refuse to stand up for what is right - those are the REAL ENABLERS who are at the root of the problem.


Clearly the enablers feel they have something to GAIN from the witchhunt - somehow that attacking others helps them in someway.


And here is the true EVIL in the False Charges of Racism - the ones who are seeking to gain from the false charges.


The truth is darker than you might believe at first sight - the chosen democratic strategy for this fall midtern election, to "ENERGIZE" the democratic base with false charges of racism

IS PURE EVIL.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't get you, Brigade.  If you were zouk, I'd get it; zouk is incapable of doing a serious piece of writing and expressing his hate is all he can do.  Once in a long while, maybe once in a week, you do an post that actually has a little content and isnt't a pure retread of some right wing junk that's been making the rounds for months, or years, or decades.  You do it just often enough that we other readers know you can do it if on the odd impulse you choose to.

The rest of the time you do as below, cheap snark, vicious lurid insults usually of a sexual nature, like claiming I'm impotent or that I work with Mexicans with an anal access flap.  What exactly do you think is served by writing like that?  What sort of satisfaction do you get out of "creative insults" like that?  Do you think anyone here wants to read that stuff, or that it affects me in any way other than to lower respect for you?

Yeah yeah I'm one to talk, uh-huh, I used to get wrapped around the axle over the trolls, but while everyone else is trying to get some serious discussion here despite the spamming and the junk, here's Brigade, a poster with potential to be a contributor, writing like a potty-mouth grade-schooler.  Why don't you grow the hell up.

And quit ragging on Việt Nam. All that stupid Cold War junk. The Vietnamese are all around better people than Americans. They're kinder and more decent and they get no joy out of being nuisances.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

The award is really for second place.
Posted by: DDAWD

Hit it out of the park!

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Robotrolls, submitted for your approval -- prominent bagger, Ryan J. Murdough:

"In New Hampshire, voters have an interesting choice. Ryan J. Murdough is campaigning not on change so much as similarity. His message: Keep New Hampshire white.

"I would like to preserve what we have before it gets totally out of control," Murdough, a 30-year-old father of two young boys, said last week. "The more it becomes non-white, the more it's going to become a much different place to live, for white people especially.""

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/gop-candidate-nh-statehouse-rides-racist-wa
___________

Seems the baggers are doubling down on this madness. At this rate, they'll take America back to 1862 in a matter of months.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how far back "the week" goes, but did bagger spokesman Mark Williams, author of the bigoted "Letter to Abe Lincoln" in which "coloreds" indicate they want to stay slaves, ger proper consideration? Seems Mark got short shrift.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I bought the Chicago Tribune's special victory edition for Obama because I knew the day before the IL Lottery had drawn 666.
Lo and Behold ! Yes, the Lottery draw was on Page 2, back-to-back with Obama's victory front page cover.
I made an article and published the two photos of the newspaper.
They're here in this link:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/882/Hidden_in_Plain_View._Obama_Photos_Of_Mark_Of_Beast_Making_Him_Antichrist.html

The 50 million polled saying Obama IS OR MIGHT be the Antichrist will go off on a stampede now right away !!!!

Posted by: GeirSmith | July 25, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"That one's easy. Manager of a department fires someone. Said someone raises a ruckus. Head of the division tells the manager your asterisk is grassterisk. The buck stopped Vilsack was told to apologize and rescind the firing.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

Also, Obama is considered the defacto winner of this award since every week, all the conservatives gather on here and say how Obama should be the winner. The award is really for second place.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 25, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

BB, I've seen the work that profs have to go through to get teunure and even after that. Of course, budgetary issues have rendered tenure meaningless here since profs are being furloughed. I grew up in the DC area and all my family is still there. I imagine I'll end up back there someday, which would give me decent opportunities to work outside the university tenure system say at NIH or one of the many biotech companies in the area.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 25, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Obviously you've missed this hard hitting Alvin Greene ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar09czbfE8o

Say what you will about the man, but no one is beating DeMint. No wasted opportunity, say like in Nevada.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 25, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, why just Tom and not Barack? What happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

---

That one's easy. Manager of a department fires someone. Said someone raises a ruckus. Head of the division tells the manager your asterisk is grassterisk. The buck stopped Vilsack was told to apologize and rescind the firing.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 25, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Working folks in SC haven't focused on Nim's "extra curricular" activities and her real name so the polls don't mean much yet.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:59 PM
---

Since you're keeping track of SC, how's Alvin Greene doing these days? He'll probably pick it up once the voters focus.

Posted by: Brigade | July 25, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse


"there's better discussion just about anywhere."
Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 4:20 PM

---

Spoken like a true blog troll. You must spend every waking moment trolling internet blogs and discussion boards. Yet you keep coming back here, so we know that you secretly love us all. Too bad you don't bring more to the party---like a little intelligent discussion instead of all whining.

Posted by: Brigade | July 25, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, why just Tom and not Barack? What happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean attacked Fox News today

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

---

Funny thing is that he was invited onto Fox News today. I've rarely seen Chris Wallace so defensive. Perhaps he should check with Glen and Bill before interviewing guests.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 25, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Just passing through. Nothing of interest here. I think I need to do something really important like clean my oven.

==

It speaks volumes to note that even aside from. The 37th spamming, there's better political discussion on *Facebook* than here.

And of course when you factor in the utter uselessness of 37th, there's better discussion just about anywhere.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Working folks in SC haven't focused on Nim's "extra curricular" activities and her real name so the polls don't mean much yet.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to Sarah LOUISE Palin!

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Nimrata Kaur Randhawa is leading by 12 points in the last poll I saw.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

What "policy" issue would that be, 37?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

@bwj,

You must be following Nikki Haley's campaign closely. Any new news there? Polls?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

---

Cranky. Cranky. Cranky. But at least my crank still works; sorry about yours---that happens to some people when they reach your age.

You used a lot of words to say so very little. Republicans suck! Republicans will lose! Republicans are stupid! Your're stupid! This is a horrible blog! Rotten trolls! See. Sometimes words just get in the way.

==

I think with this we can safely put to rest any suggestion that you come here to "debate."

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

you seem to be the one obsessed with that - why don't you explain how you feel that issue ?

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"It's amazing" that when I drop by the Fix, here is Jabba the Hut plopped on top the Fix comments board spewing his barbed troll-lines. He's perpetually outraged how whites are abused in this country by persons of color AND how his speech is being impeded by a conspiracy, although there is no one but him belching his free speech all over the place.
----------------------------------------

Memo to conspiracy: WHEN are you going to start impeding Jabba's speech? Time to get started. Get out the gags.
----------------------------------------

Just passing through. Nothing of interest here. I think I need to do something really important like clean my oven.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many democrats in this country prefer to turn a blind eye to the racist witchhunting in this nation.


Many have read the book the Crucible - we hear about McCarthyism - but to see an actual national political party engage in racist witchhunting is remarkable.


People point out how wrong it is - but the real GUILTY PARTIES are the ones who say nothing, and allow the witchhunt to continue.


yes, there must be the fear of being called a racist themselves - but it truly is remarkable to see those who choose silence over what is clearly right.


The silent ones - the ones who refuse to say that the NAACP was race-baiting - the ones who refuse to stand up for what is right - those are the REAL ENABLERS who are at the root of the problem.


Clearly the enablers feel they have something to GAIN from the witchhunt - somehow that attacking others helps them in someway.


And here is the true EVIL in the False Charges of Racism - the ones who are seeking to gain from the false charges.


The truth is darker than you might believe at first sight - the democratic strategy this fall to "energize" their base by creating false charges of racism --


IS PURE EVIL.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

37/YouCanPostThis/LaserLight/Whatever, some say the last "policy" statement Mrs. Palin was the one she articulated to trombonist Gregory Charles Royal years ago. Has she changed her "policy" at all since then?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse


"It is amazing how....

{Unhinged bigoted robotroll junk omitted]

Posted by: [banned but not really]YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 3:00 PM"
________________

Just shortened it up a bit. All the best.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many democrats in this country prefer to turn a blind eye to the racist witchhunting in this nation.

Many have read the book the Crucible - we hear about McCarthyism - but to see an actual national political party engage in racist witchhunting is remarkable.

People point out how wrong it is - but the real GUILTY PARTIES are the ones who say nothing, and allow the witchhunt to continue.

yes, there must be the fear of being called a racist themselves - but it truly is remarkable to see those who choose silence over what is clearly right.

The silent ones - the ones who refuse to say that the NAACP was race-baiting - the ones who refuse to stand up for what is right - those are the REAL ENABLERS who are at the root of the problem.

Clearly the enablers feel they have something to GAIN from the witchhunt - somehow that attacking others helps them in someway.

And here is the true EVIL in the False Charges of Racism - the ones who are seeking to gain from the false charges.

The truth is darker than you might believe at first sight - the DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY IS FALL TO "ENERGIZE" ITS BASE THIS FALL


IS PURE EVIL.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

July 22, 2009, Obama claims that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" and then, of course, held his famous beer summit.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Granddaughter, amazing. Congratulations.
I should be so lucky. That is it for today, off to big board windsurfing with my little ones.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Yea Shrink - we all get it - you are a part of the cabal.


That is against the terms of service.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean attacked Fox News today


But the truth is that the editors at Fox were calling the White House and the Agriculture Dept in order to VERIFY the story and get reaction.


So Fox WAS DOING exactly what they were supposed to be doing - verify and get the reaction.

This whole thing about about the NAACP race-baiting - and the false charges of racism - which were instigated by Obama and his political people.


So - that was the real impetus behind the firing of Sherrod.

Again - in a post-racial world, Obama being black should be irrelevant.

Instead, we have the democrats USING OBAMA'S SKIN COLOR AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK.


It is a FRAUD - every democrat who does this, every time Obama does it - they make a FRAUD out of the 2008 campaign.

It is a disaster - the democrats are UNABLE to restrain themselves - and they are sinking themselves as they do these things.

Obama's people have a hyper-senstivity toward this - yes - but they are doing IT TO THEMSELVES.

The combination of arrogance and stupidity is astonishing.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Grand-daughter (thanks : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

FB, stop that this instant!

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington


Good movie - a fish called Wanda - but they were stirring chaos and deception in order to conceal a robbery, right?


Not much like the democratic party - all these charges of racism - but the democrats still got off with the stimulus money, right ?

Low hanging fruit.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

So, is your daughter going to be a Coastie?
If she is, God Speed and all that,
traditional best wishes for her safety.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

It is true - we do have the two parties represented here - some are actually typing their talking points onto this board.


There are gays pushing their version


We have the blacks pushing their ideas

I would hate to say it - but you go to some of the county political party meetings out there - and the same kinds of nutjobs are there.

Not much different - if you have few democrats here sterotyping and hurling sexual slurs - you can be sure the same thing is going on at democratic meetings around the country.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Clearly I have been reading the posts on this board for quite some time - and many of the comments have opened up insight into various wings of the parties.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

---

From a Fish Called Wanda:

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement.

Couldn't resist the low hanging fruit.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 25, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Low-hanging fruit, my dear Watson. Wish I had more time to stay and play, but I've been very busy since moving here to Connecticut.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the big winner of 'worst week in Wash.'

Rep. Paul Broun of GA still says slavery should have not been ended!

http://www.youtube.com/user/chipshirley

ULTRA CONSERVATIVE PAUL BROUN CAUGHT ON OPEN SATELLITE FEED, MARIJUANA AND THE 'N' WORD!

BROUN'S OFFICE DENIES TAPE IS HIM BUT DOES NOT DENY THE CONTENT REFLECTS HIS OWN!
...

Posted by: ChipShirley | July 25, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers at 10:33


You are right - the nation has been going backwards on race relations since 2008 -


But the main problem now is the false charges of racism flying around.

NO racial progress is going to be made by calling people racist - the democrats have to learn that.

The NAACP resolution did NOT spark any racial progress - instead it sparked the Sherrod affair and the nation went backwards.

It is that clear.

In a postracial world, Obama's skin color would be irrelevant.

Instead, the democrats have decided that OBAMA'S SKIN COLOR IS A REASON TO ATTACK.

The democrats are destroying this country - that is true.

The federal budget is so packed with federal programs created by the democrats - everyone's heads spin just talking about the numbers - much less the programs themselves.


Democrats have LONG CEASED to entertain any discussion which INCLUDES ANY NUMBER AND THEIR PROGRAMS.

Anyway - the democrats continue to believe that the BEST STRATEGY FOR THEM IN THE FALL ELECTIONS IS TO MAKE FALSE RACIST CHARGES TO ENERGIZE THEIR BASE.


However, there is a high cost to the nation to doing that - Obama is causing the race relations to go backwards - and race relations will NOW PROBABLY BE HALTED FOR DECADES DUE TO THESE FALSE CHARGES.


This is all the doing of the democrats.

The scene at the health care debate - attempting to spark a racial incident by walking into a crowd (most Congressmen usually take a different route to the Capitol - so they went OUT OF THEIR WAY to go through the crowd)

That scene was the END TO OBAMA'S LEGITIMACY. Simple.

The democrats may still not see it that way, but it is true.

,.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Clearly I have been reading the posts on this board for quite some time - and many of the comments have opened up insight into various wings of the parties.


The only two people on this board who are truly racist are ddawd and broadwayjoe.

It is telling that both of them believe that if they continue to attack whites - calling them racist or using sexual slurs - that will HIDE their own racism against whites.

Well - that behavior does not hide anything - in fact it confirms their own racism.

Also on this board - there appears to be a constant VENTING of anger from the left.

The left just doesn't disagree with the right - they HATE them personally. With the left, they have to sterotype the right - and call them sexual slurs.

Obama has been caught on camera with these sexual slurs as well - quite surprising when the n-word is off limits.


One can not say one slur is OK, when the other one is not. That is ridiculous.

It all comes down to a lack of respect the left has.

Today, NBC ran a discussion in which one person complained about Obama being depicted as Hitler.


How is that wrong, when Bush was also depicted as Hitler by the anti-war democrats ???

The same standards APPLY TO EVERYONE.

Which gets us back to the racism of ddawd and broadwayjoe. The basic problem is they have two standards - one for them and one for the people they sterotype and hate.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It is an injustice to this country that the media started to conveniently "forget" that the Sherrod situation started with the RACE BAITING NAAACP RESOLUTION.


Egg came back on Ben Jealous's face.

The country is watching - everyone knows - but few commentators wanted to mention it.

If Obama and his people HAD RESTRAINED THEMSELVES, told the NAACP to no have a race-baiting resolution, the Sherrod situation would have never happened.


This is how things go -

Obama is causing race problems in this country -

Obama's attempts to turn the health care debate into a race issue was an ABUSE OF POWER.


It was actually a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION - because the tactics sought to deter people from exercising their freedom of speech - just as if there were tactics to deter someone from voting.

Obama is under a misconception - he got away with it a few times already, so it appears he is going to try it again this fall.

Only this time, everyone is sick of these tactics - OBAMA HAS BEEN EXPOSED.

These tactics are the political equivalent of tightrope walking without a net - only Obama losing a voter that way, Obama is not getting that voter back.

Obama is in a downward spiral - every turn presents him with LESS voters who will consider turning back to him - so he needs ever sharper turns to hold onto who he has and "energize" them.

The problem right now is: Obama has offended increasing number of voters - it is a disaster.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Many ways to react to the new low represented by this blog entry .. bias, sycophancy, rudderlessness, but what I am left with is how very immature it is.

Shame on you, Cillizza.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 6:14 PM
----

Oh look another 37th moniker. What fun.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 8:24 PM
----

As for this blog, I think Cillizza has reached a new low with this despicable entry. It's like politics has become some sorta game show called Gotcha. I say fire him and let Aaron have the gig.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 10:24 PM
----

Tell you what, Brigade, you guys can have Texas. Go ahead and secede. Require everyone over age six to pack heat. And no we won't trade ambassadors.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 11:05 PM
----

I was hoping for a Block Poster feature and looking forward to silencing the noisemaker and the dummies . . . Like when the Drudge trolls show up, all posting the exact same words . . . Republicans spend way too much time listening to each other and seducing themselves with their own myths, and all nodding together like women in a tampon commercial . . . And, of course, they're wrong.

Remember when Bob Dole lost big? A dull campaign, an uninspiring candidate, a platform of eye-glazing conservative boilerplate . . . Remember the Republican post-mortem? Did they figure out the act was getting stale? Not at all. Their conclusion? We WEREN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!!"

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 3:06 AM
----

Thought I'd repost some typical and predictable Noacoler comments from earlier in the thread that pretty much serve as a primer for his total contributions to the blog. Should he ever get banned, you can simply make a copy of THIS post and put in on the wall next to your PC. Look up every once in awhile and you won't be missing a thing.

I especially liked the part where he, who is retiring to the communist paradise Vietnam, is complaining about Texas. I couldn't decide if I liked that better or the post implying the Republicans didn't learn from the Dole disaster---all they did was win the next two presidential elections and control both Houses of Congress for a number of years. Echo chamber indeed. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | July 25, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Credit where it is due, JakeD and Brigade deliver zingers, perfect tee shots off what would LBJ do.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Clearly black racism against whites has to be discussed alongside white racism against blacks.


The ONLY too people I have seen on this board showing constant racism has been ddawd and broadwayjoe.

Rev. Wright and Obama taking his children there week after week, year after year - that is racism.

If a white politician did the same thing, the country would find that UNACCEPTABLE.

The blacks in this country have to understand that in America double standards are NOT right.

Somehow, those who make the false racist charges do not want the discussion to go further than their cries of racism.


Race Relations in this country ARE going backwards - and if Obama tries one more racial incident like he did with the NAACP resolution, racial relations WILL BE HARMED FOR DECADES TO COME.

It is really in the hands of the democrats right now - what is more important to them - makeing these FALSE CHARGES or racial progress itself.

Unfortunately, there is stupity and arrogance in the democratic party which will make the wise choice impossible.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"What would LBJ do?"

Refuse to run for re-election.

Posted by: JakeD2 | July 25, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The country elected Obama in part to put race behind them - not to have constant false charges of racism.


If the democrats really CARED about racial progress, they wouldn't be going down this road.


Instead, reasonable and honest people see that the democrats care more about the midterm elections than they do about racial progress.


It appears the democrats are going to be screaming RACIST down to electorial defeat.

Sounds like Nixon's "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore speech."

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

FB & DD, on memory lane, I owe Ronald Reagan for my medical career. I had graduated from the UW Ocean school and was about to go to grad school when one night, David Stockman eliminated the grants I was going to work on. Had to do another three quarters to finish the pre-med prerequisites, working (inhaling formalin and acetone, counting amphipods) too, but the medical school is a stone's throw from the ocean school down there on the Montlake cut, it seemed a likely prospect and better job security.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

44 needs to convene a senior level staff retreat with an eye toward "refreshing the staff" (DC euphemism for ... ) and the theme might be: "What would LBJ do?"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 9:03 AM
---

He's already done it. Afghanistan.

Posted by: Brigade | July 25, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"As a poster you're a square box with a crank coming out one side, and when you turn that crank we know exactly what comes out. . ."

---

Cranky. Cranky. Cranky. But at least my crank still works; sorry about yours---that happens to some people when they reach your age.

You used a lot of words to say so very little. Republicans suck! Republicans will lose! Republicans are stupid! Your're stupid! This is a horrible blog! Rotten trolls! See. Sometimes words just get in the way.

Posted by: Brigade | July 25, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - It's an entertaining life, though there's plenty of twists and turns. Most folks have no idea how hard most professors work in order to keep their research going. A friend of mine would wake for a couple of hours in the middle of the night to work on grant proposals. I'm also down on the tenure system. There are limited cases of political targeting (see our glassbowl of an Attny. General in VA), but these are the exception more than the rule.

Career burnout can happen where a young professor kills himself to get tenure. You'll note that I used the masculine reflexive pronoun. The pressures to get tenure within 6 years make it very difficult for women of child bearing age. There was recent article about this in the Post. By the time you finish college (22), grad school (28), postdoc(s) (early 30s) and get tenure (late 30s), it's awfully late to start a family.

I took a year off after college, which led a professor in charge of admissions at UW physics to conclude that I wasn't serious. That was one year off as I'd been slacking my senior year of college. I'd already taken most of the hard classes, so I was able to maintain a good GPA without exerting myself. It did take me a semester to get up to speed in grad school, but I think I benefited form the year off. In retrospect, I wish I'd done something like my wife (Peace Corps).

Good luck.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 25, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Poor lonely Ped.

Actually thinks her slobbering invective has talent. The hate and envy stems from no takers since girls garage for the adolescent snark. Yet proclaiming you are the next Steinbeck and suggesting cilizza is not will have to do. The world, it seems, has no interest in angry blog prose. It pays what it's worth. And the unending lonely circle continues.

Your therapy at our expense.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich's column in the NYT today on Sherrod-gate shows why he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Frank has kinda become the Harper Lee of our generation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25rich.html?_r=1&ref=frankrich
____________

Let's hope Fix gives Rich's column a read before typing another "news story" in this space about Mitt Romney's staff directory, or embedding another free political attack ad from Sharron "Right" Angle.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Thanks mm, you know what bwj?, we are going to find out what America is all about in 2012. If this country elects people to the right of Bush/Cheney after four years of this moderate gentleman, it won't be 44's fault, it will be because America loves to hate. There, I condensed a 3000 word diatribe into one sentence, I feel better now.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

deep-seated hatred for white people,” and the ever-opportunistic Newt Gingrich, who on Twitter maligned Sonia Sotomayor as a “Latina woman racist.”

Even the civil rights hero John Lewis has been slimed by these vigilantes. Lewis was nearly beaten to death by state troopers bearing nightsticks and whips in Selma, Ala., just three weeks before Sherrod’s father was murdered 200 miles away in 1965. This year, as a member of Congress, he was pelted with racial epithets while walking past protesters on the Capitol grounds during the final weekend of the health care debate. Breitbart charged Lewis with lying — never mind that the melee had hundreds of eyewitnesses — and tried to prove it with a video so manifestly bogus that even Fox didn’t push it. But he wasn’t deterred then, and he and others like him won’t be deterred by the Sherrod saga’s “happy ending” as long as the McConnells of the conservative establishment look the other way and Fox pumps racial rage into the media bloodstream 24/7.

“You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards,” Sherrod told Joe Strupp of Media Matters last week. She speaks with hard-won authority. While America’s progress on race has been epic since the days when Sherrod’s father could be murdered with impunity, we have been going backward since Election Day 2008.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 25, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Comparing the Frank Rich treatment of the Sherrod situation to this WWW tripe makes me want to screed too, but I won't, all that clicking might wake up the kids.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

@noa: To double back on an earlier thread. Seems we got coal. :-)

Kinda funny that the only thing that got PostWorld's attention was the free placement of political ads in the blog.

Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Holy Toledo!

...having a little look see what happened... white galley slaves...troll screeds...ddawd crack back on threatening "black" woman...Brigade wasn't buying...12B still laughing through miles of 37th...zouk must have been too exhausted to cut and paste anymore...all bracketed by cef and Noa stomping the Republican Rising!


Posted by: shrink2 | July 25, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

noa, for the first time, many in O-Nation are not so confident about BHO's re-election. For sure, they are not "fired up" or "ready to go."

Some feel that, even if the opposition can't find a GW Hope (as Lynn Jenkins put out the call for), he could still lose to Phalin or one of the rightwing cast of characters.

The problem is BHO's refusal to pushback, i.e., descend from Mt. O-lympus and engage in hand to hand combat with these corporately financed and promoted bagger lunatics determined to destroy his Administration. The plea for 44 to pushback has reached the screaming stage: David Ignatius, with his piece today in the Post, is just the latest of those demanding 44 fight back. Previously, we had MoDo, Courtland Milloy, Eugene Robinson, Dr. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz weigh in. Ignatius implies that LBJ would have had the baggers and Fox News for breakfast if they had tried their antics and dirty tricks and fake tapes on him. Pretty likely.

If BHO doesn't go off script, as Ignatius urges, and then, well, just "go off" on these mentals, in 2012, we could have a President spending much of her time "refudiating" the "lamestream media" and complaining about all of the MY-NOOR-IT-TEASE who live in DC (just as she complained about their presence in Hawaii years ago).

The main thing is 44 cannot continue to ignore the antics of a cable network that devotes practically its entire broadcast day to attack the President with fake news and fake controversies, some of which are totally manufactured, see Sherrod-gate and ACORN-gate, and the corporately funded hate community.

44 needs to convene a senior level staff retreat with an eye toward "refreshing the staff" (DC euphemism for ... ) and the theme might be: "What would LBJ do?"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 25, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Cont'd

The only evidence around that the GOP isn't broadcasting from the set of Doctor Caligari is DADT, which they know is going to fall, and which scant years ago they'd be screaming about and trying to rile up the rubes with arch tales of stalked children and shower soap.  Even those cavemen have figured that with gays on sitcoms and Out in the workplace that this isn't going to fly anymore. 

But they sure haven't twigged that about race.  And they're going to run one nutter after another and alienate everyone with an education once again, and try to slice up a slim sliver of pie made of up aging Jim Crow losers and crazy libertarians who work under the table and try to squeeze another election out of the southern strategy and it's not going to work.

Because they're living in an echo chamber.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I dunno. Seems like DDAWD gave a reasonable response. I was just throwing out a topic. Sorry I didn't clear it with you first. The floor's open. Any issues you'd like to raise?

==

Get over yourself, Brigade, you're familiar enough here that you can't get away with the pretense that it was just something you wanted to discuss.  As a poster you're a square box with a crank coming out one side, and when you turn that crank we know exactly what comes out. 

But yeah I do have a topic, expanding on DDAWD's response to you and on ceflynline's most excellent post earlier today.  Earlier this year we were getting a lot of excited hyperventilation about Republican resurgence, how this was their year, and Cillizza, among others, were swaggering with certainty that the Democrats were out and down for the count.  Not hearing that much anymore and I'm not surprised because I'm old enough to see the same pattern as always emerging again.  Republicans are misreading the electorate as they always do, and even more reliably, they're doing what they can't stop themselves from: they're going to far.

Back when we really thought there was a -gunna be some changes 'round here I was hoping for a Block Poster feature and looking forward to silencing the noisemaker and the dummies and you were panicking about the regular posters all doing the same and creating a liberal "echo chamber," a theme you returned obsessively even after CC announced that the New Thing was going to be prior censorship.  I thought it was kinda funny, though not in the "ha ha ha" sense, that you would see the echo chamber as a liberal tradition when it's so VERY clearly correlated with you people.  I mean, as if.  Like when the Drudge trolls show up, all posting the exact same words, or the way all you guys raise the exact same points on the same day like a school of little fish all changing direction at once in a flash ogf silver scales.

Republicans spend way too much time listening to each other and seducing themselves with their own myths, and all nodding together like women in a tampon commercial, agreeing that outside a few "loony liberals" in SF and NYC that the rest of the country is at heart just like them.  That everyone else is really homophobic and racist, everyone else buys into all that self-reliant tough talk that's deep-sixing Angle of the Two Rs, that everyone else hates the natural kingdom, everyone else wants the rich spared taxes, and yadda yadda.

And, of course, they're wrong.

You say you're in emeritus years .. remember Dole-Clinton?  Remember when Bob Dole lost  big?  A dull campaign, an uninspiring candidate, a platform of eye-glazing conservative boilerplate ("stop the slaughter of the unborn" ... zzzz),  Remember the Republican post-mortem?  Did they figure out the act was getting stale?  Not at all.  Their conclusion?

"We let the American people down!  We WEREN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!!"

That's what we call an echo chamber. 

Posted by: Noacoler | July 25, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

re.
Washington AP "Despite Sherrod spotlight, black farmers denied again", 7/24/10
(Condensed):
"Black farmers, due $1.2 billion for a legacy of discrimination by the Ag. Depart., suffered a setback when the Senate refused to pay the bill."
and
"Late Thur., the Senate stripped (this)$1.2 billion from an emergency spending bill, along with $3.4 billion in long-overdue funding for a settlement with American Indians, who claim that they were swindeled out of royalties by the feds."

It's interesting and revealing that the same bunch of racist black Sherrod defenders on Fix and other far-left blogs, the racist NAACP, and the Democrap Socialist--controlled Main Stream Media, that are crying crocodile tears over Sherrod's outing as a racist, haven't made a peep about this news report.
The reason for this MSM cover-up of course is obvious.
Since the Democrap Socialists have total control of both houses of congress, including the US Senate and the WH, and can pass any bill they want, guess who'd get the blame for screwing the poor black farmers and the poor American Indians 3 months before the midterm elections? Answer. The Democrap Socialists!
Comrade Obama and the Democrap Socialists apparantly need the money more than the poor black farmers and the poor American Indians.
I can just imagine what all the black racists here; the NAACP, Fix, and race-hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would do if this screw-job against poor black farmers and American Indians, had been done by G.W. Bush and/or a Republican-controlled Senate.

Posted by: armpeg | July 25, 2010 2:58 AM | Report abuse

12Bar writes at 1:15

If you only knew.


____________________________________

Go ahead, try me.


lipstick or butch ???


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing - all the liberals WANT to do is throw the charges out there - and then end the discussion there.

NO - that is NOT a discussion about race - it is an EXCUSE to attack.


AND that is ALL Obama has become - an excuse to attack.


Race relations in this country are worse than they have been in 40 years. WHY? Because of the democrats.


We started with all this garbage about being POSTRACIAL.


And what we were getting in terms of ACTION from Obama was: 1) False charges against Bill Clinton 2) False charges against Gerry Ferraro 3) an initial REFUSAL to part from Rev. Wright 4) a statement during the summer that "they didn't say anything racist yet, but they will."

Now, any REASONABLE AND HONEST person would have shown Obama the door at that point - sorry but this guy Obama is a complete joker -


The problem is really the democrats - they have found Obama to be an EXCUSE TO ATTACK AND CAUSE TROUBLE.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:23 AM | Report abuse

12Bar

If someone else actually defends their position well, YOU feel threatened, your whole self-justification about your sexual orientation gets threatened.


____________________________________

The first thing you have to remember is - liberal ideas are SEPARATE from your sexual orientation.

You are going to have learn to accept people who disagree with you. It is just life. People disagree with you.

All liberal ideas are not "proxy issues" for you being gay. It just doesn't work that way.

You can find other people besides liberals who will accept you.

To seek out other minority groups - and to self-identify as "victims" might seem like a good idea - but it really isn't.

I love how the liberals are DESPERATE to pull the hispanics into this "victim" idealogy. It is too bad for the democrats that the hispanics aren't buying it.


The hispanics want to buy a house, get a mortgage and move to the suburbs - at which point THEY INSTANTLY TURN TO REPUBLICANS - HOW DID THAT HAPPEN ???


oh, THEY GOT A PROPERTY TAX BILL from the democrats and the Teachers' unions - THAT IS HOW THEY TURNED REPUBLICAN.


Anyway 12Bar - I digress - YOU are not a victim.


ddawd isnt a victim either - other people have been victims IN THE PAST - helping ddawd does not change the past.


12Bar - you are not a victim -

Sorry - your hate and anger is not justified.

I know that you FEEL that the liberals' ideas have helped you COPE with being gay - but that really does NOT make any of those ideas correct.

Any playing these passive aggressive games with people on this blog doesn't help you either.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:19 AM | Report abuse

@37th,

If you only knew. Do you lie awake at night dreaming up these fantasies about all of us? Get a life, man.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


I understand that you wish to post rude comments on this board.


I also understand that for some reason you decide that it is appropriate to come on this board and act the way you do - what you have done is EXACTLY what you did tonight with kmday.

You engage someone for a little while - then when they start making good points and defending the wisdom of their positions - you get all crazy.


You start by mischaracterizing the other person's position - trying to make them look bad.

Then you squabble about what the topic is - you change the topic a little and start insisting you are right about some aspect which really WASN'T the topic of the conversation.

I have seen you do this time and time again.

No one really CARES WHO you want to talk to, and who you don't want to talk to.

YOU are on the board - so it is polite to talk to everyone.

YOU somehow believe that it is appropriate to be RUDE to other people on this board.

I think YOUR main situation comes from your sexual orientation - and how you are uncomfortable with that part of your life.

Perhaps your family has not accepted your sexual orientation - or whatever - somehow maybe some of your friends have not been happy with your orientation either.

Anyway - you have adopted liberal ideas as a means to PUT UP A WALL AGAINST EVERYONE IN YOUR LIFE.

That wall enables you to tell yourself YOU ARE RIGHT, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS FLAWED.

So, when you fight about liberal ideas, you are really fighting about being gay.

Whenever someone challenges your liberal ideas, and defends another position, you feel that your gay orientation is being challenged.

Really the other person is just talking about the issue at hand.


But you feel that they are threatening your gay orientation.

Again, your attitude is YOU are right and everyone else is FLAWED.


If someone else actually defends their position well, YOU feel threatened, your whole self-justification about your sexual orientation gets threatened.

That is when you get crazy - you feel you have to this passive-aggressive routine, mischaracterizing the other person and making sure you "win" somehow.

But at that point, everyone knows you have already lost.


Then you get really angry, and you feel the need to "get back" at that person somehow. Hence, your hostile attitude in the following days on the blog.


Pretty much on the mark, huh ????

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Gosh, ddawd, 37th really has a problem with you. I didn't realize it was sooooooooo personal. Wonder why? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Probably those white slaves you're keeping down there in the Big Easy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

ddawd


All we get from ddawd is his charges which are motivated by his own personal racist feelings.

Ddawd doesn't know ANY of the people he attacks - he knows nothing about them - and has little to go on.

Ddawd ignores the atrocities of the KKK - the real racists who lynched blacks and hung them from trees - the real violence against blacks.

Very little of that has happend in the last few decades.

But somehow ddawd feels it is appropriate to start ATTACKING other people with charges - charges which are based SOLELY ON HIS OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT RACE.

THAT IS RACIST PURE AND SIMPLE.

That is the basic truth in all of this - venting by calling whites racist - actually tells more about the people who are shouting racist - rather than their intended targets.

broadwayjoe and ddawd are two racists on this board. Time and time again they have vented their RACIAL ANGER on this board.

People try to talk to them, engage them - and all we hear is MORE RACIAL CHARGES FROM THESE ANGRY PEOPLE.


ddawd claims that schools are paying for his education - they see that as a way to compensate ddawd for his minority status - a way to right the wrongs against OTHER PEOPLE - they want to help ddawd.

ddawd RESPONDS BY LEVELING FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM AGAINST WHITES.

ddawd gets benefits from the wrongs of the past - and all ddawd shows in return is ANGER -

The truth is that ddawd has been coddled - what he wants is to go through his career in AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS

Make lower test scores good enough for ddawd to get into school.


Make it easier for ddawd to get a job


Make it easier for ddawd to get a promotion

Make hiring quotas - so ddawd is sure he is getting his fair share - NOT BASED ON MERIT, BUT BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

After all that, ddawd will STILL BE ANGRY - HE WILL STILL BE CALLING PEOPLE RACIST

So what good is it ?

The truth is - it is no good to give any benefits to someone like ddawd.

Just make everyone equal and tell people like ddawd to shut up.

THAT ACTUALLY WOULD WORK.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Seriously, 37th, if the liberals on this blog are just too stressful for you, you could just go to bed.

Rest assured (pun intended), I don't want to talk to you today nor will I change my mind tomorrow. I'm really cool with it too--I can spend my life without ever having a good discussion with you, and I'll be just fine.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

12Bar


Isn't your main thing gay rights? Isn't that what you want to push the most ???

Yes, the truth is the liberals ARE always saying they want to have a discussion about race.

However, that is NOT what anyone has gotten - all the nation has gotten is FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.

It is amazing - all the liberals WANT to do is throw the charges out there - and then end the discussion there.


NO - that is NOT a discussion about race - it is an EXCUSE to attack.

AND that is ALL Obama has become - an excuse to attack.

Race relations in this country are worse than they have been in 40 years. WHY? Because of the democrats.

We started with all this garbage about being POSTRACIAL.

And what we were getting in terms of ACTION from Obama was: 1) False charges against Bill Clinton 2) False charges against Gerry Ferraro 3) an initial REFUSAL to part from Rev. Wright 4) a statement during the summer that "they didn't say anything racist yet, but they will."


Now, any REASONABLE AND HONEST person would have shown Obama the door at that point - sorry but this guy Obama is a complete joker -

The problem is really the democrats - they have found Obama to be an EXCUSE TO ATTACK AND CAUSE TROUBLE.

The result is people like broadwayjoe and ddawd - running around the country calling people racist - somehow thinking they are justified, when they are not.

These tactics are pretty idiotic - IT IS A CHAOS THEORY.

Seriously, the democrats are seeking to cause trouble and chaos as a means to control the nation -


Well - anyone who uses RACE TO ATTACK IS A RACIST.

That might be a complex idea for you to understand - but it is true.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

37th,

Why are you whining again? You want to talk about race with the liberals? Get real. You had your chance when armpeg and kmday were around--you could moan and groan all day and all night about the terrible injustices being done to whites. Ah, there is white slavery, white slavers, white slave ships, and white slave auctions. To say nothing of the plight of whites being cut out of housing, jobs and schools. Wonder why I don't remember any of that, but no matter.

But, nooooooooooooo, you don't want to talk to them. You want to talk to liberals.

Speaking as one liberal, I don't want to talk to you. You're nuts and if I talk to you, I might catch it from you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 25, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone believe this will ever be a place fir uninterrupted thoughtful discussion?

______________________________

Don't know - the democrats seem to constantly be complaining about everyone else.


yea - there is no discussion about race.

What we get from the democrats is baseless charges of racism - not a discussion.


If someone challenges the democrats on such a charge, they run away - because the democrats DO NOT WANT A DISCUSSION, THEY JUST WANT A MEANS TO ATTACK.

12-Bar - you really didnt even try to have an honest discussion with kmday - you just mischarcharacterized what kmday said, and then attacked.

The discussion, what little exchange there was, was ended by 12bar.


Noacoler has not had a discussion with anyone in years.


Seriously folks, the holier-than-thou attitude game is completely ridiculous.

Are you fooling yourselves? Because you haven't fooled anyone else.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 25, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/lies_damn_lies_and_approval_ra.html?wprss=postpartisan

Also, read this. Made me laugh and very telling. We Americans are a capricious bunch.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

BB, I'm pretty lucky too. I think I have some gift for tricking institutions into paying for my education. I probably go to community college if UNC didn't decide to pay for almost everything. And grad school pays me for my education. (Although now I'm NIH funded, so my thanks goes out to all of you who pay Federal taxes. Much obliged. I'll try and make it up to you in the future.)

But grad school is great. Work on stuff that really interests me. And while I spend insane hours in the lab or the office writing, I have a lot of freedom to enjoy New Orleans. I make very little money, but my expenses are also very low. It's a cheap city and I'm also insanely frugal.

My PI is a Muslim, so I don't think he's going to buy me a drink any time soon, but it's amazing the freedom he gives me, even by grad school standards.

As for being an adviser, I'm not there yet, but I can't wait to be. I don't have much monetary debt, but I've racked up a LOT of karmic debt stemming back to my days in high school when an NIH scientist entrusted me with one of his projects up to being in grad school today and so many stops in between by people willing to take a chance on me.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama must be toxic in Texas. Any thoughts?

==

Yeah like that has potential to lead anywhere past "Obama is toxic." as though you just showed up and nobody knows where you're headed with this.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 11:30 PM
---

Oh, I dunno. Seems like DDAWD gave a reasonable response. I was just throwing out a topic. Sorry I didn't clear it with you first. The floor's open. Any issues you'd like to raise? I mean aside from the usual whining about the terrible blog, the trolls, and the bias of the moderators?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama must be toxic in Texas. Any thoughts?

==

Yeah like that has potential to lead anywhere past "Obama is toxic." as though you just showed up and nobody knows where you're headed with this.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Brigade fishes for snark. Let's find a way to work in utterly predictable Obama-hatred screeds. Seem be having a shortage?"

---

Fishing for snark? Hatred screeds? From Mark and leichtman1? This is a political blog, but we certainly don't want to veer off into topics about the President or the governor's race in Texas or why the Texas Democratic candidate for governor refuses to appear with the guy who's trying to raise money for him. No, that might rattle someone's cage. Someone might make a disparaging remark, and we wouldn't want that on this blog. Now would we?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, it's Texas. How popular do you think Obama is there?

I guess I can understand why Republicans get so giddy every time a Democrat doesn't want to appear with Obama. I have to admit to getting a chuckle when GWB's presence at the 2008 RNC amounted to a short video message because he apparently started to care about hurricanes hitting New Orleans.

But I'm fine with that. Diversity is the way to go. As much as I'd love everyone to be as liberal as Pelosi, we've seen that we can get a hell of a lot of mileage even with a bunch of blue dogs. Republicans howled over the fact that Mark Critz was anti health care, anti gun control, anti gay marriage, and whatnot, but that's old news. You look at the House Dems and you'll see plenty of Mark Critz clones. Old news. Republicans taunting Democrats over nonpure members is like a woman taunting me (a guy) for not filling out a c-cup. I'm a guy. I don't care about breast size. Purity isn't the domain of the Democrats and that mindset was instrumental in their return to power.

The sooner Republicans accept ideological diversity as a necessity to gaining power, the better for them. Pick and choose your battles. Yeah, get rid of Bennett in Utah since no Democrat wins in Utah, but don't get rid of Specter in PA and don't get rid of Crist in FL. Both of those guys win in a cakewalk and might not vote with the GOP all the time, but they can still get a lot done. You think Gordon Smith, Lincoln Chafee, Mike DeWine, John Warner, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Judd Gregg kept Bush from getting almost everything he wanted?

White knows his electorate. If he decides that appearing with Obama isn't the best thing for his chances of getting elected, good for him.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone believe this will ever be a place fir uninterrupted thoughtful discussion?
-----------------------------
I admit, it's hard to keep up the faith. We waited for the godot, we waited for superman, we waited for the rapture, but nothing is quite like waiting for the new Comments software that's going to make everything better.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Brigade fishes for snark. Let's find a way to work in utterly predictable Obama-hatred screeds. Seem be having a shortage?

Tell you what, Brigade, you guys can have Texas. Go ahead and secede. Require everyone over age six to pack heat. And no we won't trade ambassadors.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Remember we were promised a new Fix interface free if spammers?

Instead we have this stupid burnout clogging the place up with the exact same junk he's been posting over and over for months. Does anyone believe this will ever be a place fir uninterrupted thoughtful discussion?

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"He doesn't know these people, and he has nothing to go on - but ddawd MUST vent his RAGE AGAINST WHITES SOMEHOW, so he starts calling people racist."

I'm not crazy or threatening enough to make it on the Megyn Kelly Minstrel Show. So I have to resort to coming on here.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

I hate to threadjack away from discussions of racism but . . .

Here's a quote from an article about a story I haven't seen covered here. It's by a fellow named Ted Oberg, but it could as easily been anyone else---it's all over the web.

I haven't seen Mark_in_Austin or leichtman1 around here today, but I was hoping they could shed some light.

"AUSTIN, TX (KTRK) -- President Barack Obama is set to make a trip to Houston next month for a party fundraiser. But one top Democrat in the state won't be there with him.

"When Air Force One lands in Houston on August 9, President Obama will descend the stairs to raise money for Democrats across the country.

"But Texas' highest profile Democrat, former Houston Mayor Bill White, will be in Dallas, campaigning for governor.

"His campaigns says, 'Bill will be talking with Texans about the future of our state, letting people know about his track record and the choice they have in this election.'

"Not appearing with the incumbent president of your own party must be a tricky choice, but when his opponent says stuff like this, the choice must be a little easier.

"'This guy is trying to shut the state down with EPA regulations, cap and trade,' said Texas Governor Rick Perry. 'Obamacare, I've got to think, is not the most popular piece of legislation to come out of DC. I understand why Bill White doesn't want to be around him.'"

Obama must be toxic in Texas. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I think the major question in all of this is this: SHOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK ???


If you are post-racial, the answer is NO, nothing should be different because Obama is black - everything should be the same. Obama's skin color is irrelevant.


HOWEVER, to the democrats, EVERYTHING is different because Obama is black -


Words have to be chosen carefully, issues have to be looked at differently.


Because Obama is black, there are "proxy issues" out there, which hide people's racism.


Because Obama is black, FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE - EVEN BEING DISCUSSED IN JOURNOLIST - AS LEGITIMATE MEANS TO ATTACK EVEN THOUGH THE CHARGES ARE KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE.


To the democrats, Obama's skin color is an OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE OTHER SIDE.


To the people who are post-racial, all the democrats who do that look like stupid little children.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Charlie Rangel is now a double-agent - and his loyalties are clearly with the Republicans now.


Rangel MUST be upset with Obama and the democrats in such a way that he wants to hurt the democrats - in an extreme way.


At this point, Rangel is doing NOTHING but help the Republicans.


Quite hilarious -

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

And I can assure you, I'm no card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 10:27 PM
-------------------------------------
You did this on purpose didn't you? Tee it up and you know that someone will take a swing at this. Well, I won't do it. Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I think you are crossing the line from discussion with kmday - to harassment of kmday.

Yea, you lost the discussion - she demolished you on all the points.

But can't you be mature about it ???

She is right, you are wrong.

Accept it, concede kmday is right - move on to the next topic.

The topic is: why does ddawd hate white people so much that he would come on a blog and start to falsely call people racist ???

He doesn't know these people, and he has nothing to go on - but ddawd MUST vent his RAGE AGAINST WHITES SOMEHOW, so he starts calling people racist.


In ddawd's mind, this is helping race relations - just another sign of poor reasoning ability.


SO WHY DOES DDAWD HATE WHITE PEOPLE???


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

@noa,

Trolls come and trolls go, but it's either make fun of kmday or make fun of 37th. I've used up all my 37th humor, whereas km is a whole new hoot.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying that I am too Christian, that I speak to “properly” to be black? You base your BS meter off of my debating and writing skills?

Wow-again, the ignorance from you and 12Blue is truly outstanding!

And for the record, I am not worked up rather I am disappointed that those within the black community are truly this ignorant.


Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 10:06 PM

---

I must confess that my instincts were not activated by your being "too Christian" or speaking "too properly."

I've known a number of black Republicans, but I'm sure I've never met one who couldn't empathize with Shirley Sherrod or any other African-American who grew up in the Jim Crow South and was a direct victim of injustice and discrimination. It seems to me she's been quite effective in overcoming her rage and becoming a very productive member of society. And it's unusual to hear a black person refer to the bulk of the black community as "truly ignorant", even when there is disagreement.

And I can assure you, I'm no card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope none of you actually believe in this troll.  This is about as credible as the Nigerian scam or the "I voted for Obama but he turned out to be a Socialist Fascist" troll.  Come on, guys.  Doesn't the indefatigability set off alarms?  It'll be gone before the end of the day.

But believe or not it's disappointing that you would even respond.  Column-feet filled up with this junk.  Don't you have a wallpapered room you could count the flower patterns in instead?

As for this blog, I think Cillizza has reached a new low with this despicable entry.  It's like politics has become some sorta game show called Gotcha.  I say fire him and let Aaron have the gig.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Pretty soon, km is going to tell us she's a disabled Vietnam veteran, blind black woman with ADD and facial tics, LGBT, who supports white rights for Republicans, and will die in the effort. And WE are just too hate filled and blinded by [something] to perceive the obvious truthfulness of her statements.

And, to cap it off, there are a LOT MORE just like her.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Indentured servitude goes on today. Just ask any grad student.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

---

;-) I'm lucky that my degree was in the physical sciences. I came out of grad school free and clear. The missuz was $50k in the hole (on top of undergrad loans).

My best moment as an advisor was when a delicate piece of glassware broke when my student was working on it. It was a vacuum cryostat for ESR which meant that it had to be quartz and that meant it was *very* expensive. I'd done that operation myself when I was a grad student and had been freaked out about what might happne. So, I told the student to close the door to the lab and we were going out for a couple of beers. He's still a good friend.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying that I am too Christian, that I speak to “properly” to be black?
------------------------------------
I don't know about everyone else, but do you feel like you've been spun? Like a centrifuge.

Now, km's a black woman who's offended. And she'd fire another black woman for something done 24 years ago and promptly remedied.

Pretty soon, km is going to give us "her" facebook page, won't you km. You're dying to tell us who you really are, aren't you?


Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The Great 37 in the Sky is watching ALL of you.

The Great 37 is watching 12Bar

The Great 37 is watching ddawd


Don't think you can get away - the Great 37 can see ALL

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

37th, you're all bluster. You can't even make your way to sending an email to Chris C asking for my banning.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

"ddawd, expand it to include indentured servitude and viking slavery.

Posted by: ceflynline "

Indentured servitude goes on today. Just ask any grad student.

Kidding aside, indentured servitude as well as sharecropping was never perpetrated by blacks. The guy's original statement mentioned something about blacks being enslavers. Not in this country.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

No problem - give us your address

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, expand it to include indentured servitude and viking slavery.
---------------------------------------
I KNEW someone was going to pin it on the Norwegians. I'm OFFENDED (mortally) because I'm norwegian. :o((

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

KMDAY has alot of excellent points.

Again, 12Bar, someone has come on this board and beaten you.


Martin Luther King advanced universal principles - the same standards apply to everyone.

That is NOT what Obama is pushing, or affirmative action - or the democrats.


Martin Luther King said it is not the color of one's skin, but the content of their character.


I'm sure he did NOT have in mind the way Obama has been bipartisan.


Or post-racial


Or transparent.


Martin Luther King would be ASHAMED by the way Obama has turned his campaign platform into a complete FRAUD.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

"Here's to hoping that this is sarcasm......if not, then does this equally mean that the black people who opposed Bush, who carried dolls made to look like him in a noose, who drew swatiska's on posters of him..ect...ect..., does this make the black people who opposed Bush racist?

Double Standards will only breed more hatred....keep it up and you will not like the outcome.

Posted by: kmday "

Nope.

And please don't threaten me on the internet. If you want outcomes, come threaten me to my face. Thanks.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

can't see you, but something about the way you formulate your arguments causes the B.S. meter to buzz when you say you're black. You'd have to be WAY to the right of Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas. You're not just making a case, you're as worked up as 37th over the matter. And I didn't see anyone claim it was impossible for whites to be discriminated against.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 9:49 PM

I can’t help but laugh at this comment-the way I formulate my arguments? And just exactly how should an educated black woman “formulate” her argument?

Way to the Right of Clarence Thomas? LOL, while he may be a Supreme Court Justice he cannot articulate a good argument, hence why he typically concurs with whom he sides with and does not add anything to the findings either way.

Are you saying that I am too Christian, that I speak to “properly” to be black? You base your BS meter off of my debating and writing skills?

Wow-again, the ignorance from you and 12Blue is truly outstanding!

And for the record, I am not worked up rather I am disappointed that those within the black community are truly this ignorant.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

And again, if the charges against these “white people” who refused to help black people is in fact true, then they should be fired. I suppose a list of these people and their alleged behavior should be produced and investigated.
Until then, there is nothing but her words and accusations of others. I am not denying it took place, but I am not saying it did because there is not proof either way.
Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

---

Umm. Like the billion in settlements you acknowledged earlier? Like the $300K settlement to Sherrod's parents because their farm was lost? Those are court cases, bubba. Already proven.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, expand it to include indentured servitude and viking slavery.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 24, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

ddawd


You are not going to make any racial progress coming on this board and calling people racist.

What is worse, is that you have been told this many, many times - and yet you persist in this name-calling.


Go take your garbage somewhere else -

What you - and other democrats like you - are doing - is COMPLETELY DESTROYING THE RACIAL PROGRESS WHICH HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 40 YEARS.

Do you honestly believe that ANYONE you falsely call a racist is going to want to talk to you, or do anything about racial progress ???

What you are doing is COMPLETELY COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.


You have been told this before, and still you don't get it. You must be completely stupid. Seriously.

I don't know what else to tell you - but the name-calling is going to have to stop.

NO one wants to hear it anymore - IT IS A PILE OF GARBAGE.


And this might be too difficult for you to understand - yes , since 1945 there has been racial progress in this country.


But there is nothing that says that racial progress HAS to continue.

In fact, that progress can HALT - this country CAN go backwards.

It is precisely YOUR BEHAVIOR AND YOUR NAME-CALLING which will cause the racial progress to halt and go backwards.


I realize that concept might be too difficult for you to understand.


Racial progress HAS gone backwards in this country before - after the Civil War, the country slipped backwards into Jim Crow.

At this point, the BLACKS AND THE DEMOCRATS are making RACIAL ATTACKS ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS.


Maybe it started with the idiots at Journolist - but the blacks have surely joined in.

It is not helping anything - it certainly isn't helping you.

AND I JOIN IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IN SAYING - IF YOU DON'T LIKE AMERICA, LEAVE.


,.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I can't see you, but something about the way you formulate your arguments causes the B.S. meter to buzz when you say you're black.
-----------------------------------
My bravo sierra meter is measuring a 10.0 on the Richter scale.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

kmday,

With friends like you watching out for white rights, maybe whites someday dig themselves out of their past history of discrimination and hardship and slavery in Africa. Someday, whites could even be perceived as the superior race. You know, get their fair slice of the wealth and privilege in this country.

And you'll know that you did your bit.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

kmday wrote,
"We all know racism occurred and occurs, but it is ignorance within people like you who assume that only blacks/Hispanics can be discriminated against but not whites. That is true ignorance at its finest!!!!"

---

I can't see you, but something about the way you formulate your arguments causes the B.S. meter to buzz when you say you're black. You'd have to be WAY to the right of Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas. You're not just making a case, you're as worked up as 37th over the matter. And I didn't see anyone claim it was impossible for whites to be discriminated against.


Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

It is true - those people who use Obama's skin color to attack others ARE BEING RACIST.

The color of Obama's skin should be irrelevant to ALL POLICY DISCUSSIONS.

Instead, we have people like ddawd and broadwayjoe - who think THIS is the time to vent their anger, to settle their scores.

Well - I speak for the ENTIRE country - take that attitude somewhere else.


Obama's skin color IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ATTACK PEOPLE.

It is sad that the other side HAS to explain it to you.


The democrats are not MATURE enough to have a black President - that has been PROVEN.


People like Ddawd are clearly NOT smart enough to engage in the conversation here - everything degenerates into some name-calling based on the color of someone's skin,

ddawd you are WRONG AGAIN.

It is getting tiresome with your overbearing, self-righteous pompous attitude when you are WRONG.

Arrogance and stupidity are a horrible combination - no matter what the color of your skin is.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

" because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion, and nationality."

Hmmm...googling "white American slaves"

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Many of the opposition to Clinton health care were in fact tagged as racist. Not because they were against health care reform, but because they hated black people.

Same thing with Obama's health care plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, 37th, jaked, zook were all against health care reform and all are racists. Not because they were against ACA, but because they hate black people.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 9:14 PM |
==========================================

Here's to hoping that this is sarcasm......if not, then does this equally mean that the black people who opposed Bush, who carried dolls made to look like him in a noose, who drew swatiska's on posters of him..ect...ect..., does this make the black people who opposed Bush racist?

Double Standards will only breed more hatred....keep it up and you will not like the outcome.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

ddawd


You are completely full of it


You are a RACIST - because you only attack white people.


Again, the color of the skin of the Chief Executive should be irrelevant - instead you use it as an EXCUSE to attack people.

THAT is racist too.


It is an EXTREMELY GOOD POINT - there was opposition to health care under Hillary - and racism had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Your main problem is you are too stupid to engage in the discussions on this board.

Your postings are boring, childish, and they are often time filled with logical flaws.

Your stupidity is clear to everyone - it has to do with WHAT you write, not the color of your skin.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

12Blue…..unlike you I am not a woman filled with hate. Unlike you I do not need to judge other people by their race. Unlike you I have respect for everyone unless they-and I mean THEY give me a reason not to.

It must truly be sad to be in your shoes and be filled with so much hate. I suppose you can appreciate Sherrod, Jackson and Sharpton because they too are so full of hate and racism.

You will be judged one day, so I will leave it be. I just hope you are not raising children to be as hate filled and racist as you are.

In the future, if you want an honest debate stop acting like a child; it makes whatever you say pointless/meaningless.

PS….. I suppose I should apologize for not falling lock-step in with you and other blacks whom believe it is okay to “stick it to whitey” for what other people did to the black race some 50-60-200 years ago, but I will not. Your ignorance and blatant hate is truly sad.

For the record, and if you really and truly follow history; try researching the North African’s enslaving European’s and how much more vile and cruel they were to the white galley slaves. I will leave you with a bit from Thomas Sowell, although I suspect you believe his research is pointless because he is an “Uncle Tom”.

Thomas Sowell: The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read — not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species — because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion, and nationality.

But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.

Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans — more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States or in the 13 colonies from which the nation was formed.

The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves who picked cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to Roots, and our schools and colleges don’t pound it into the heads of students.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Many of the opposition to Clinton health care were in fact tagged as racist. Not because they were against health care reform, but because they hated black people.

Same thing with Obama's health care plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, 37th, jaked, zook were all against health care reform and all are racists. Not because they were against ACA, but because they hate black people.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

It's been an amusing day.

First, armpeg unmasks Brigade as a card carrying member of the NAACP, although brig counters that his membership technically has run out. Good one, brig.

Then, kmday reveals that he thinks that Whites' Rights is the real overlooked discrimination issue. Here's the kicker: he is a Black Guy who really feels for whites, especially if (or maybe only if) they are Republicans. And there are many more just like him, so he says.

Is there a full moon?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I think the major question in all of this is this: SHOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK ???


If you are post-racial, the answer is NO, nothing should be different because Obama is black - everything should be the same. Obama's skin color is irrelevant.

HOWEVER, to the democrats, EVERYTHING is different because Obama is black -

Words have to be chosen carefully, issues have to be looked at differently.


Because Obama is black, there are "proxy issues" out there, which hide people's racism.


Because Obama is black, FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE - EVEN BEING DISCUSSED IN JOURNOLIST - AS LEGITIMATE MEANS TO ATTACK EVEN THOUGH THE CHARGES ARE KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE.


To the democrats, Obama's skin color is an OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE OTHER SIDE.

To the people who are post-racial, all the democrats who do that look like stupid little children.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

kmday


12Bar usually turns into her childish twisting-around-of-words in many of these discussions.


All of a sudden, she views the discussion as some sort of fight, and she has to start characterizing what the other person has said in some bad light.

She has done it several times before - it usually signals that she is terribly uncomfortable with her own position, and she thinks she lost.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, kmday, you are the Winner of the Least-Sought Award of the Year.

You are the Black Guy Defending Whites' Rights. And you say there are a lot just like you? I'll bet all your white friends are so grateful for your help, poor babies.

Are you angling for some kind of talk show schtick?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

This is what kmday wants us to believe:
He is a possibly-black guy who wants to fire a black woman for something she did 24 years ago working in another capacity, something which she promptly remedied.
And the reason this possibly-black guy wants her fired is because she implied that white Republicans have some racists in their midst.
And further, this possibly-black guy, kmday, doesn't really KNOW that there has been institutional racism in the USDA and in the US for decades. I mean, has it really been proven?
Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, wait, this possibly-black guy has a lot of friends who think just like he does.
Posted by: 12BarBlues
===============================================================12Bar….you really cannot be this childish.

How she behaved 24-years ago has a bearing on how she is behaving and what she is saying today. Meaning, she is still as racist if not more so today as she was then.

She did not imply Republicans are racist, she flat out said they are, while working as a USDA employee giving a speech to the NAACP.

I believe what I said, before a child in our midst decided to behave like, well a child was that while lack of evidence is not proof that the DISCRIMINATION did not occur it also does not mean that it did. All I was stating is that it would be nice to actually see the evidence that it did occur in a society of today where the cry of racism is so predominate that people are beginning not to listen or care anymore.

We all know racism occurred and occurs, but it is ignorance within people like you who assume that only blacks/Hispanics can be discriminated against but not whites. That is true ignorance at its finest!!!!

Reminds me of the two boys I hear another person talking about where the two black boys told her white son that black people cannot be racist. Breeding ignorance must be truly blissful!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I think the major question in all of this is this: SHOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK ???

If you are post-racial, the answer is NO, nothing should be different because Obama is black - everything should be the same. Obama's skin color is irrelevant.


HOWEVER, to the democrats, EVERYTHING is different because Obama is black -


Words have to be chosen carefully, issues have to be looked at differently.

Because Obama is black, there are "proxy issues" out there, which hide people's racism.

Because Obama is black, FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE - EVEN BEING DISCUSSED IN JOURNOLIST - AS LEGITIMATE MEANS TO ATTACK EVEN THOUGH THE CHARGES ARE KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE.

To the democrats, Obama's skin color is an OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE OTHER SIDE.


To the people who are post-racial, all the democrats who do that look like stupid little children.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

@kmday,
If you are not white, then your position is really strange. Why do you care so much that Shirley Sherrod makes statements about white Republicans, that you want her fired?
What is it you are so busy protecting? The white race? Republicans?
You were willing to "let it go" until she criticized white Republicans. What gives with you?
Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 8:05 PM
===============================================================12Blue----I did not say I was willing to let the “white farmer” issue go. I believe I said I was more appalled at her labeling people whom do not agree with a half black president as being racist.

Do you not understand that her behavior, her actions do not help close the racial divide rather it only increases it.

Obama accusing a white cop of acting stupidly and in the same speech claiming he does not know all of the facts. That only fueled the divisiveness, not calmed it.

My issue is the double standards and hypocrisy. You cannot claim that you want a more peaceful and less race drive country/world and then spread the kinds of hate, the crap like Sherrod said.

What am I busy protecting? I am busy protecting a country that is supposed to be FOR the People, one that is not dictated by the government.

You assume that because I am of another race I should automatically be a Democrat? That is far from the truth, and if you are well versed in history, then you will know that it was the Democrats that were against helping the black/Hispanic/Native American races, not the Republicans.

Do you not see that the black race, for the most part is nothing more than a slave to the government? They tell us that we need special treatment, that we need to have lower standards when getting into colleges, medical and law school, that we need to have lower standards on our tests scores and that every company should hire X amount of minorities regardless if someone else is more qualified.

Do you not see that this has NOT advanced the black race, rather is has set us back?

Do you realize that blacks are the highest percentage of those receiving abortions yet we are only less than 15% of the population? Blacks have more people living in poverty than Hispanics and Whites yet our population is smaller compared to theirs?

I choose not to be a slave to the government, I choose to make something better of myself and not cave the whole mentality that the only way I can get by in this life is if the government does it for me or on behalf of me.

But I will stick to my principles and the label of an Uncle Tom before I ever let the likes of the Sherrod, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton mentality dictate my life for me-they are all racist and only further the divide in this country!!!!!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh look another 37th moniker. What fun.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

This is what kmday wants us to believe:

He is a possibly-black guy who wants to fire a black woman for something she did 24 years ago working in another capacity, something which she promptly remedied.

And the reason this possibly-black guy wants her fired is because she implied that white Republicans have some racists in their midst.

And further, this possibly-black guy, kmday, doesn't really KNOW that there has been institutional racism in the USDA and in the US for decades. I mean, has it really been proven?

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, wait, this possibly-black guy has a lot of friends who think just like he does.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

12bar


I think you are jumping all over kmday a little too much.

The truth is that EQUAL STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE.

Democrats do not believe that - they believe that whites should have one set of standards, and blacks another set of standards.

Like in affirmative action, one threshold for whites, another for blacks.


What we have NOW is very much like the JIM CROW era - like it or not.

During Jim Crow, those people were perfectly comfortable - they thought they had good reasons to have different standards for different people.

Today the democrats THINK thy have good reasons for different standards.

Reasonable thoughtful people believe that universal standards are superior.


Martin Luther King agrees with me.


Martin Luther King would be ASHAMED of all the False Charges of Racism, all the Race Baiting under Obama -

Martin Luther King would be ashamed of Obama - a missed opportunity.

History will agree with me - even if you and the nutjobs on this blog do not.

.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Excellent point:


That aside, when people of today were against government run health care during the Clinton years they were not labeled as Racist. However, the same people today are still against it and she openly calls them racist-more specifically point out Republicans, which mind you are predominantly WHITE.


from kmday

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

kmday - You stated in your 6:44 post that a white man acting in that way would have been fired in an instant. I pointed out that remark was utterly untrue as individuals who did a lot more than show some initial reluctance are STILL employed or were permitted to go to retirement. Game. Set. Match.
BB
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 7:47 PM |

And I was talking about her blatantly stating that she refused to help a white man because he is white. That she took him to “his people” to help him because all she could think about was the black farmers losing their land.
And again, if the charges against these “white people” who refused to help black people is in fact true, then they should be fired. I suppose a list of these people and their alleged behavior should be produced and investigated.
Until then, there is nothing but her words and accusations of others. I am not denying it took place, but I am not saying it did because there is not proof either way.
The problem is, people cry racism all of the time now when more than ¾ of the time it is proven not to be. I am not saying it does not take place, heck I know that if I walk into a certain liquor store the Pakistani owner looks at me like I am going to rob his store.
Maybe his behavior is paranoia, maybe it is racist-who knows.
But Sherrod’s behavior was nothing short of racist and her accusations and labeling of those in the Republican party is racist-therefore, she has not “learned” from the white farmer incident, in fact she is still the same as she was before that incident if not worse.
And as for the $2+ billion settlement, it was just that a settlement. Meaning, there was no ruling on whether or not what took place was in fact racist in its very nature.
Before you start, I am NOT claiming it did not take place, rather I am claiming that we have not been presented with all of the “evidence” to prove that it did and who behave in this manner.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

@kmday,

If you are not white, then your position is really strange. Why do you care so much that Shirley Sherrod makes statements about white Republicans, that you want her fired?

What is it you are so busy protecting? The white race? Republicans?

You were willing to "let it go" until she criticized white Republicans. What gives with you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

So, it isn't the horrible thing that Shirley did 24 years ago. It's because you think she is labeling your lilly-white posterior as a racist.
So, this is NOT about Shirley--it's about you. Why am I not shocked.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse
===============================================================12blue…………you apparently did not read my other post when another “assumed” I am white, which I am not. But, hey if it makes you feel better to assume I am go for it.

That being said-what she said and how she behaved 24 years ago is a factor as it is sad that a black person felt they should behave in that manner knowing how it felt to be treated this way at some point in her life.

It is childish to have a mentality of “well you did it so now I am”-not to mention ignorant.

Yes, she gets kudos for changing her mind two weeks later and helping the farmer-I have said that several times. But do not for one minute believe she has changed her racist mentality because if she had, she would not be saying the things she is saying now-calling people out as being racist because they happen to be white people posting the video-or the fact that she labeled Republican’s as racist because this group is primarily white and disagree with Obama’s agenda-who happens to be HALF black.

I suppose that because I do not agree with Obama’s agenda I am an Uncle Tom, because this is what they are labeling those who are black within the Tea Parties, Republican Party or those who just flat out disagree with Obama’s agenda.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

You are a piece of work, kmday. If you can't can her for your preferred charge of racism 24 years ago, now you want to harass this woman for something else. Maybe you should hire a detective and see if she has any traffic tickets and get her for that too.

You are in the minority--a very tiny minority. If you don't believe that, wait a month and see if you aren't the only person still harping about poor Shirley Sherrod.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Let me say this, kmday, thank God your view on this matter is in the tiny minority. I hope you never find yourself judged in the manner in which you judge others.
Now that I know where you are coming from, it will save me a lot of time when I come across your posts.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:32 PM
===============================================================12Blue, and where is it that you assume I am coming from? I am not sure what rock you are hiding under, but there are a lot more that you think who do not agree with the way she behaved.

Her behavior with Obama as President and her labeling Republican’s as racist has called into question whether or not she also violated the Hatch Act.

Sherrod was indeed on duty, speaking at the NAACP rally in her official capacity as a USDA official; that's the whole reason she was invited to speak at the event in the first place. Ergo, she was indeed on duty.

Federal employees are allowed to have political opinions, and even voice them, but only when they're doing so as private citizens and not as representatives of the government. In this event, she was speaking as a representative of the government.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

kmday - You stated in your 6:44 post that a white man acting in that way would have been fired in an instant. I pointed out that remark was utterly untrue as individuals who did a lot more than show some initial reluctance are STILL employed or were permitted to go to retirement. Game. Set. Match.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I would have been more inclined to let it rest if it were not for the fact that she began labeling a group that is primarily white-the Republican’s-as racist because they do not agree with Obama’s agenda.
-------------------------------------
So, it isn't the horrible thing that Shirley did 24 years ago. It's because you think she is labeling your lilly-white posterior as a racist.

So, this is NOT about Shirley--it's about you. Why am I not shocked.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, kmday, for saying it straight out--that Shirley Sherrod should be fired.
It's clear that Shirley Sherrod doesn't get any benefit of anything. The farmer and his wife love her--but no matter. She used this example in a speech to show a completely different value--no matter. She helped the farmer save his farm--no matter. Her father was murdered--no matter. She has had a long career of public service--no matter.
Nothing matters, but that she has been EXPOSED.
Somehow, this reminds of Javert prosecuting Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.
Posted by: 12BarBlues
===============================================================12Blue-do you care to know why she does not get any credit? I watched then entire 43+ minutes of her speech and I listened to the first 20+ minutes in disbelief that she was actually using her time to talk about the tax payer funded USDA to talk about how bad the white man was and how a white man murdered her father and how white people let him get away with it. She continued to talk about how bad white people were in the 50’s and 60’s this entire time.

I do not deny what took place 50, 60 or 200 years ago-but why was she using that time to talk about a subject that only further increase the racial divide and hatred?

She then went in to talking about how she denied the white farmer her full assistance because he was white. Then she stated two weeks later she decided to help him because it was about the “haves and have not’s”.

Principle: If a man murder’s another man with the sole intent to murder him, he then apologizes and tries to do right, does this erase the fact that he behaved like a murderer? No- he is still a murderer.

I would have been more inclined to let it rest if it were not for the fact that she began labeling a group that is primarily white-the Republican’s-as racist because they do not agree with Obama’s agenda. Heaven forbid it be because they do not agree with his agenda-no, in her own words it is because he is black.

Then she jumps on the news wagon quicker than you moving your hand off of a hot stove only to turn around and start labeling other white people as racist.

The whole point of the video was to show how hypocritical the NAACP was-that’s it. Because other news organization chose to run with it is on them. Because Obama and the USDA chose to fire her is on them. Because NAACP doesn’t have enough brains to watch their own friggin video is on them (that, by the way is shear IGNORANCE from this organization-you know, not to even watch your own video before jumping the gun).

Instead of being upset with Obama and his administration for asking that she resign, she is mad at Breitbart for posting her speech. Was her speech edited, no. Was only a portion of it showed, yes.

Should Breitbart be required to show the entire 43 minutes-the video was their in its entirety when he got his hands on the whole video. How others chose to jump on it is on them.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Let me say this, kmday, thank God your view on this matter is in the tiny minority. I hope you never find yourself judged in the manner in which you judge others.

Now that I know where you are coming from, it will save me a lot of time when I come across your posts.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, kmday, for saying it straight out--that Shirley Sherrod should be fired.

It's clear that Shirley Sherrod doesn't get any benefit of anything. The farmer and his wife love her--but no matter. She used this example in a speech to show a completely different value--no matter. She helped the farmer save his farm--no matter. Her father was murdered--no matter. She has had a long career of public service--no matter.

Nothing matters, but that she has been EXPOSED.

Somehow, this reminds of Javert prosecuting Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse


Just say it straight out: would you fire Shirley Sherrod for what she said at the NAACP talk?
Yes or no? Or is that just a little too much plain talk for you?
Posted by: 12BarBlues

12Bar…. I believe I did answer your question in my post right below drindl’s. Here was my answer: Yes, she should have been fired. Not because she EVENTUALLY helped a white farmer, but because she openly admitted to abusing her “power” and briefly discriminating against him. Because she openly calls those who oppose the governments take over of the health care industry racist, simply because they are white.
Whether she was working for a non-profit organization or the government, she was still abusing her position, or in her words “her power” to help a person not of her skin color.

More importantly is the fact that while she was a government employee this past spring, she had this to say about white people who disagree with Obama:

“I haven’t seen such mean spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racist we thought was buried resurfaced. Now We endured 8 years of the Bush’s” and “we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President”.
This, 12blue, is in fact a racist statement and should not be tolerated.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse


Please read a little before posting, kmday. There was a long history of discrimination against black farmers in the USDA, leading to many settlements. There was a recent article in the Post on that particular point. A snippet:
"She [Sherrod] lost her job in a matter of hours under the suspicion of racism, but officials in the Department of Agriculture who were found to have withheld loans from Sherrod and her husband's farming cooperative were never fired."
You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you'd care to learn a little, read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072206085.html
BB
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse
===============================================================Fairlington-I assure you that I read about the people whom withheld loans not getting fired. I never stated otherwise, therefore you accusing me of distorting facts is baseless and ignorant. I never said what you mentioned did not take place, in fact I never mentioned it.

With that being said: Are you implying that because there was a long history of black farmers being discriminated against, that this gave Sherrod free reign to be racist or behave in a racist manner?

Are you implying that because of the past indiscretions of others that this some how allows her the right to say crap like: ““I haven’t seen such mean spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racist we thought was buried resurfaced. Now We endured 8 years of the Bush’s” and “we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President”.

You are not honestly stating/implying this are you?

I am well versed in history and do understand exactly what took place in the 1800’s, 1900’s-I do not need a recount of history. This does not mean, however that those of today must pay for the past indiscretions of others.

I am also very well of the fact that $1+ billion of tax payers dollars was allocated to compensate these black farmers, and then some. You know, blacks whom were never victims of this event, or blacks whom stated they wanted to become farmers and then slid in their paperwork to become a part of this class action lawsuit.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

What's the bottom line with you folks parsing Shirley Sharrod's words?

I get it that you say she is a racist and that nothing she did even two weeks later makes up for that. And that her father being shot in the back and the white shooter getting away without charges has NOTHING to do with anything.

So, she should be fired?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

@kmday,

At least get your facts straight; Shirley Sherrod worked for a non profit organization at the time of the incident she described. She didn't work for the government so she was not "abusing her power". http://www.ajc.com/news/usda-reconsiders-firing-of-574027.html

Just say it straight out: would you fire Shirley Sherrod for what she said at the NAACP talk?

Yes or no? Or is that just a little too much plain talk for you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"They don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Sherrod's father was murdered in cold blood by the Klan.
--------------------------------
Yeah, Shirley should not have ANY residual resentment of whites, just because a white guy shot her dad in the back and got away with it. I mean, really, why would that matter?"
kmday and 37 are racists to the bone, so that is nothing to them.
Even when the old white couple in question testified to how she helped them these two's bigotry and hatred blinds them to facts and reality.
Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 7:03 PM |
LOL dirndl……. Might wanna tell my black family this, boy won’t they be shocked!

I am NOT questioning whether or not she helped them, I admitted that she did.

She originally let her racist side get the better of her and DENIED the white farmer her help for over two weeks.

She then OPENLY calls those who disagree with Obama-RACIST.

This accusation in and of itself is racist because when Clinton was President and the same people disagreed with it then, they weren’t labeled racist.

Do I really need to put her quote back up here for a third time for you to read?

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Now, imgaine this person is a white man doing and behaving in the manner towards a black man. We would not be having these discussions because the white man would have been fired in a heart beat!!!!!!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

---

Please read a little before posting, kmday. There was a long history of discrimination against black farmers in the USDA, leading to many settlements. There was a recent article in the Post on that particular point. A snippet:

"She [Sherrod] lost her job in a matter of hours under the suspicion of racism, but officials in the Department of Agriculture who were found to have withheld loans from Sherrod and her husband's farming cooperative were never fired."

You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you'd care to learn a little, read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072206085.html

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


I think the story is that 24 years ago - Shirley Sherrod was not working at the USDA.


The story is from when Sherrod was working for a non-profit.

It is not a story about when she was working as a government official.

AND again - the reaction of the NAACP people in the room with her seemed to indicated that they were voicing a positive response to her story of discrimination against a white farmer.

This whole "superior to her" part of the story too - I don't think that was what he was doing at all - it seems to me he was trying to explain the details of his situation to him - not trying to be "superior to her."

It is pretty much over - Sherrod is trying to see if she can sue and get a big payout from the government - the problem with that is that the damage to her has been mitigated - every person in the country knows that the intial story was not true.

So where is the damage ? She was offered her job back and the Secretary of Agriculture apologized.


So the damage to her has been LIMITED dramatically.

Anyway - the real issue is the NAACP ATTEMPT TO SMEAR THE TEA PARTY AND THE FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


If the democrats and the media are seeking to divert attention from that real issue by talking about Sherrod, the public knows better.

Everyone knows the NAACP started this fight - and they are the ones with the black eyes.

(I'm going to use that term because it would be racist just to change it because they are black.)

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse


kmday, Sherrod was acknowledging her humanity, the lessons she had to learn and how she has grown. I don't see how anyone can complain about her behavior.
Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 5:36 PM |
Has she learned? She was on CNN the other night calling Breitbart a racist for posting the video. A video, mind you was not originally directed at her, but rather the hypocrisy within the NAACP.

That aside, when people of today were against government run health care during the Clinton years they were not labeled as Racist. However, the same people today are still against it and she openly calls them racist-more specifically point out Republicans, which mind you are predominantly WHITE.

Please tell me you honestly do not see this? Because the President is ½ black that means any white person who disagrees with him or his policies is a racist?

“I haven’t seen such mean spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racist we thought was burried resurfaced. Now We endured 8 years of the Bush’s” and “we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President”.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"They don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Sherrod's father was murdered in cold blood by the Klan.
--------------------------------
Yeah, Shirley should not have ANY residual resentment of whites, just because a white guy shot her dad in the back and got away with it. I mean, really, why would that matter?"

kmday and 37 are racists to the bone, so that is nothing to them.

Even when the old white couple in question testified to how she helped them these two's bigotry and hatred blinds them to facts and reality.

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

kmday,
You think Shirley Sherrod should be fired? What the heck is your point?
Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse
12Bar……if a white man had behaved in this manner, should he have been fired?

I mean, it appears as though she should be given a pass because her father was allegedly murdered by a white man and her people were victims of slavery.

Seriously?

When Trent Lott stated that Strom Thurmond would have made a better President than the man who won, he was forced to resign from his post. Why?

I mean, he did not even say a fraction of the racist crap Sherrod did but he was forced to resign.

Make no mistake, I am NO FAN of Trent Lott but do you honestly NOT see the double standards and Hypocrisy?

Yes, she should have been fired. Not because she EVENTUALLY helped a white farmer, but because she openly admitted to abusing her “power” and briefly discriminating against him. Because she openly calls those who oppose the governments take over of the health care industry racist, simply because they are white.

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I believe Obama is a racist, just like Rev. Wright.


So it makes sense that Obama would have other racists in his administration with him.

A President is entitled to appoint his own people.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

kmday,

You think Shirley Sherrod should be fired? What the heck is your point?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Shirley should not have ANY residual resentment of whites, just because a white guy shot her dad in the back and got away with it. I mean, really, why would that matter?
But, conservatives freely admit they accuse the President for everything including the killing of Cock Robin, because they're mad that liberals went after GW. You would think this was such a personal psychological trauma they'll never get over it, and it justifies the most horrible revenge.
I guess conservative don't hold themselves to the same high standards they demand from Shirley Sherrod.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 6:20 PM |
112Bar? Are you seriously stating that it was/is okay for Sherrod to behave in a racist manner and abuse her “power” at the USDA because her father was shot by a “white man”? Please tell me this is NOT what you are implying!?

The white man who allegedly shot her father was never tried nor convicted. Does this mean the white man did not murder her father? No, just like it does not mean he did murder her father.

With that being said, she did openly and freely ADMIT to behaving in a racist manner by NOT helping the white farmer to the best of her ability. Did she two weeks later go back and then try to help him, yes. Does this negate the fact that she abused her power and behave in a racist manner, NO!

Fast forward to the 43 minute NAACP video- she was there to talk about the USDA and how they could help the community; why spend the first 20 minutes stirring up more divisivness and hate about what the “white man” did in the 1800’s or her fathers murder in the 50’s/60’s? How did this promote the tax payers funded USDA?

“I haven’t seen such mean spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racist we thought was burried resurfaced. Now We endured 8 years of the Bush’s” and “we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President”.

The above is what she said, on video unedited. I mean you really do not believe this language and mentality is NOT racist in its very nature? If a white man said it, it would be.

During the Clinton years the same people were fighting against “HilaryCare” and were not dubbed racist, but because there is a ½ black president it is all-of-the sudden racist to be against it? Really? That accusation is racist on its very nature because it would not be said if there was a white president.

Mirror Mirror on the wall, whose really the racist of them all? The mirror replies, why you Mrs Sherrod because stupid accusations against those who opposed something during a “white president’s” tenure were not racist but now they are.

Stupid Ignorance-Double Standards and Hypocrisy-Double Standards and Hypocrisy!!!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

12BAR


No, 12Bar - the same standards ???

Obama has the same racism as Rev. Wright - he brought his children there to listen to those teachings, week after week, year after week.

If a white politician had done that, it would be called white supremacy - seriously - THAT IS WHERE THE SAME STANDARDS HAVE TO APPLY.

If one believes that Obama is a racist, it makes sense that Obama would appoint racists to his administration.

I think conservatives pretty much expect it.

Look at the NAACP - running a SMEAR CAMPAIGN against the Tea Party - because they are WHITE.


The NAACP is not commenting on the Black Panther situation - or any other black issues.

FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM IS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.

STEROTYPING IS RACISM.

It is that simple.

The democrats of this era are going to be depicted as Neanderthals.

Let's face it - the democratic party is pretty ugly these days.

We have the furthest thing from a post-racial atmophere - what we get from Obama is pretty much a complete joke.


That goes equally for his claims to be bipartisan.


In fact, in some speeches, we get a partisan speech from Obama - in the exact same speech Obama is calling for the Republicans to put partisanship aside.

The hypocrisy is GLARING.

Obama is a fool - if a white tried this garbage, he would be driven out of Washington - people are just protecting him because he is black.

Eugene Robinson and Colbert King are prime offenders - wouldn't it be great to unbiased columns out of those two ? I think that is what everyone wants. Instead, they constantly make fools of themselves - and the Washington Post prints it.

It is completely out of control.

Adults KNOW how to act. The democrats have become a bunch of lying children.


It is absolutely unbelievable that adults would find is appropriate to act they way they have.

The democrats are foolish not to clean up their act.


And then the liberal democrats get out there and take the position that they should be more demanding.

The shameful behavior under Obama has been off the scale. I'm not sure why - because we have a black President - the democrats believe they can suddenly act this way.

The fish rots from the head - and the hypocrisy certainly starts with Obama.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I grow weary, with each passing day of the media elite within this country. The medias whole purpose is to inform and investigate to ensure that American’s are well informed. There appears, however to be this blatant bastardaization by those on the “far” left to hide, manipulate and/or destroy with their double standards and hypocrisy, especially when it comes to claiming and labeling racism.

Case in point: Breitbart was given a video of an NAACP speech given by a USDA government employee, Shirley Sherrod. Now, only part of the UNEDITED speech she gave was provided. The part of the speech that was provided was NOT edited.

Short version: Sherrod talks about how she had the power to basically stick it to a white famer, but after two weeks she realized that it was not about black and white rather it was about the “haves and have not’s”.

During this video, you can hear the NAACP members in attendance agreeing, amending and clapping about her denying a white farmer her full attention and how she wanted to send him to his own people because all she could think about was the black farmers losing their land.

Did she finally assist the white farmer to her full capacity, she and the farmer say she did. Does this negate the fact that she originally used her “power” to discriminate against a famer simply because of the color of his skin? No, it does not.

Sherrod still behaved in a racist manner, there is no other way to view this.

In fairness I viewed the entire 43 minutes of the tape and what was more disturbing than the NAACP members laughing and clapping at her racist behavior and power was that of the first 20+ minutes of her speech.

These first 20 minutes of her speech, a speech mind you that was intended to promote the USDA within the community paid for with tax payers dollars, was the fact that she talked about how bad the white man was during slavery, during the 1950’s and 60’s. Why?

What purpose did that 20+ minute speech serve other than to rile up the black members of the NAACP and increase the already larger racial divide?

Now, imgaine this person is a white man doing and behaving in the manner towards a black man. We would not be having these discussions because the white man would have been fired in a heart beat!!!!!!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

“I haven’t seen such mean spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racist we thought was burried resurfaced. Now We endured 8 years of the Bush’s” and “we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President”.

Right, poor Shirley she does not have a racist bone in her body!

Sherrod spending the first 20+ minutes of her 43 minutes speech talking about how whites were so awful, murderers, ect……why was she giving this as part of her USDA movement speech? And, did she really think that this speech was appropriate to prove she is no longer racist? Please………

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


I never said Shirley Sherrod should be fired - the furthest I went was to call for an investigation of the hiring practices at the Obama administration - what they knew about this woman and when.

Sherrod may still have some far-left wing statements in her background - which if they are out there, the Obama people know about - so they know all about her, you can be sure.

If you look back on the threads, on TUESDAY I said that Sherrod should be re-hired - or her resignation should not be accepted.

ALL WEEK I have focused on the NAACP false charges and the NAACP SMEAR CAMPAIGN as the root cause of this controversy - as you well know.

As you are well aware, I believe Obama is a student of Rev. Wright - holding the same RACISM as Rev. Wright. Certainly Michele feels that way too.

Having the belief that Obama holds these views, it is certainly logical that Obama would have several people in his administration holding these views.

That Van Jones guy is not an isolated incident.

After the election in 2008, on this board there was a substantial discussion about have Obama, a racist, being President.

And the agreement that arose was surprising - the clear truth is MOST US Presidents have been racists. Certainly a good number were slaveholders.

From the Civil War to the 1950s, virtually nothing was done about Jim Crow. Perhaps Grant was the ONLY PRESIDENT to do anything about Civil Rights - ever before the 1950s. Ok Truman integrated the military.

But the analysis is that Grant is the ONLY ONE before Truman to do anything - is probably true.


So to have Obama the racist as President is not all that different from most of the Presidents prior to Truman.

So, I just believe it is important to be truthful about Obama, about Rev. Wright - about Black Liberation Theology - about all that.

It isn't doing the country any good sweeping all those issues under the rug.


Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

They don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Sherrod's father was murdered in cold blood by the Klan.
--------------------------------
Yeah, Shirley should not have ANY residual resentment of whites, just because a white guy shot her dad in the back and got away with it. I mean, really, why would that matter?

But, conservatives freely admit they accuse the President for everything including the killing of Cock Robin, because they're mad that liberals went after GW. You would think this was such a personal psychological trauma they'll never get over it, and it justifies the most horrible revenge.

I guess conservative don't hold themselves to the same high standards they demand from Shirley Sherrod.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

The Daily Caller has the Journolist emails -


And in one email, the journalists start talking about calling people RACIST with no basis.

It was a specific strategy - thought through - and at the very beginning they knew there was no basis for such charges.

So clearly, the people on this blog MAKING FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM - are just following this mindless strategy.

What have these people and Obama DONE TO OUR COUNTRY ? The democrats may be blind to it, but they have SET BACK race relations 40 years.

In addition, the democrats are acting like race relations would continue to improve - but with these FALSE CHARGES, racial progress has been HALTED - and perhaps it will not start up again for 40 years.


Obama and the democrats have DAMAGED THIS COUNTRY.

Fools.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Many ways to react to the new low represented by this blog entry .. bias, sycophancy, rudderlessness, but what I am left with is how very immature it is.

Shame on you, Cillizza.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

So, You Can Spam it, you think Shirley should be fired for being a racist.

Why is it no Breitbart apologist will answer this question? They go on, and on, with a great deal of angst about the demise of the media, liberalism and innuendos about the NAACP, but what is the bottom line? Is this general wringing of hands, or is there some conclusion?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Ohh, btw, The R plan if they take over?

First of all, endless subpoenas, as Michelle Bachman promises. Then,


'In a meeting with several reporters this afternoon, House Minority Leader John Boehner outlined the top three measures he'd pursue if he becomes Speaker of the House next Congress to create new jobs. But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.

In other words, repeal a program that largely hasn't yet taken effect; prevent new legislation that is also not in effect; and keep a current tax structure in place despite the deficit."

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Racists can and will, margaret, like the ones on this blog.

They don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Sherrod's father was murdered in cold blood by the Klan.

No biggie, you know.

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

EXCELLENT post at 2:38, ceflynline, best here in months.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 24, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what anyone says - I listened to Breitbart's video on MONDAY night - and at the end of the video Shirly Sherrod started to say that the story was NOT about white and black - but about rich and poor.


So, at least some of the rest of the story was being told on the ORIGINAL CUT from Monday night.

Also - the reaction of the people in the room - the NAACP people - seemed to voice happiness at the discrimination parts of the tapes.


I know that the newscasters said otherwise, but it was there.


Just the facts.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

kmday, Sherrod was acknowledging her humanity, the lessons she had to learn and how she has grown. I don't see how anyone can complain about her behavior.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Drainyou, thanks for the link. Kirk has a real problem with the truth and that is a great list.

I will say in Kirk's defense that Lake Michigan is cold in June. I grew up in Evanston (Kirk and I are roughly contemporaries) and if the lake water goes over 65 degrees you swim. The water does not go over 70 until later, in July. I can remember my lips being blue my teeth chattering and hardly being able to walk my feet were so cold ... and still arguing with my mother that I didn't need to lie in the sun and warm up. I imagine the water is even colder a half mile out.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

So, kmday, you think Shirley Sherrod should be fired? Is that your position?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"In Texas they say the only things in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armadillos. Poor me. Am I going to catch hell from both sides now?

Posted by: Brigade | "

You are funny and you like Dr. John, so you're okay by me.

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I grow weary, with each passing day of the media elite within this country. The medias whole purpose is to inform and investigate to ensure that American’s are well informed. There appears, however to be this blatant bastardaization by those on the “far” left to hide, manipulate and/or destroy with their double standards and hypocrisy, especially when it comes to claiming and labeling racism.

Case in point: Breitbart was given a video of an NAACP speech given by a USDA government employee, Shirley Sherrod. Now, only part of the UNEDITED speech she gave was provided. The part of the speech that was provided was NOT edited.

Short version: Sherrod talks about how she had the power to basically stick it to a white famer, but after two weeks she realized that it was not about black and white rather it was about the “haves and have not’s”.

During this video, you can hear the NAACP members in attendance agreeing, amending and clapping about her denying a white farmer her full attention and how she wanted to send him to his own people because all she could think about was the black farmers losing their land.

Did she finally assist the white farmer to her full capacity, she and the farmer say she did. Does this negate the fact that she originally used her “power” to discriminate against a famer simply because of the color of his skin? No, it does not.

Sherrod still behaved in a racist manner, there is no other way to view this.

In fairness I viewed the entire 43 minutes of the tape and what was more disturbing than the NAACP members laughing and clapping at her racist behavior and power was that of the first 20+ minutes of her speech.

These first 20 minutes of her speech, a speech mind you that was intended to promote the USDA within the community paid for with tax payers dollars, was the fact that she talked about how bad the white man was during slavery, during the 1950’s and 60’s. Why?

What purpose did that 20+ minute speech serve other than to rile up the black members of the NAACP and increase the already larger racial divide?

Now, imgaine this person is a white man doing and behaving in the manner towards a black man. We would not be having these discussions because the white man would have been fired in a heart beat!!!!!!

Posted by: kmday | July 24, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Poor me. Am I going to catch hell from both sides now?
-------------------------------
Nah. Come join up with our team. Or, join up with armpeg. Which side to you think will be the winning side? [heavy rhetorical question]

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Changing the subject: I see North Korea has threatened a nuclear strike if the South and the U.S. carry through on their planned joint exercise. Who was that poster who warned us?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

In Texas they say the only things in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armadillos. Poor me. Am I going to catch hell from both sides now?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Scrolling past armpeg is generally a good idea. But once in a while, and TODAY is that DAY, armpeg hits it outta the South Park. I'm still laughing.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Brigade, you must be a NAACP'er, because you pointed out that in 1965 Shirley's father was shot in the back by a white farmer and an all-white grand jury declined to charge the shooter.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:53 PM
---

I fell delinquent in my dues, and my membership has not been renewed. Joe should be looking into that, but he's been busy with Nikki Haley.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

poor armpeg is always stewing in white racist hate, I just scroll past... ain't worth your time, folks, it's sewage.

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

But of course the problem is Vilsack had no reason to think the video was fake, well, other than its source...Breitbart of ACORN tape-gate fame.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 3:17 PM
---

LOL. You think?

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

armpeg always exceeds her grasp, but today she has out done herself. Why would she say something so nasty and so foolish about Brigade?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 4:23 PM
------------------------------------
Lest any of us get carried away with our own importance, it is clear that armpeg does not read the comments section, or at least Brigade has made ZERO impression. (Sorry, brigade, but we've gots to call 'em as we sees 'em. Bwahaha.)

Now, mm, girl, get a grip. Brigade has joined up with us liberals, and is even a secret member of the NAACP, probably planted here to further their racist agenda. [dripping sarcasm here]

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Shrink


Are you keeping track of Obama's lies too, or just Kirk ?


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

And the highly leveraged Remnant of the republicans will become an impotent third party out there in the fringes, with the greens and the Communists.

But that, again, is consequential, and CC isn't in the particular business of watching consequential history develop on the pages of his paper.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 24, 2010 2:38 PM
---

What an imagination. That's the same thing people were saying about Democrats a few years ago.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Doh! It is my fault.
Good bye.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

How about Ben Jealous - he had a horrible week - Vilsack didn't really look that bad at his news conference.


Ben Jealous SPARKED this whole nightmare for Obama.


The NAACP should never have been on this issue in such a blantantly political way -

I can see if the KKK was back, hanging people from trees, then a response would be necessary.

But we have the Tea Party, which is already restraining itself - policing the signs at its rallies - but that isn't good enough for the NAACP

The NAACP was more an attempt at a SMEAR than anything else.

And where is racial progress here ???

This week is a turning point - whereas previously Obama may have thought that playing the race card could benefit him - NOW the race card is POISON for Obama.

That is why Obama is so afraid of even making a statement on the Sherrod situation until later in the week - and it became obvious that Obama was running from the issue.

Obama - and the democrats - really have reached a dead end on their issues - they have no where else to go - everything they have has been discredited.


Even the British are decentralizing their health care, going in the other direction from Obama.


Obama is lost - he really does not understand economics so he is in trouble on that issue - and he doesnt want to concentrate on economics too much because he regards it as a "small" issue.


Please not how Obama accuses Boehner of calling the economy an "ant" - but it is really Obama who belittles the importance of economic issues.

We have Obama who has his priorities wrong - who has played serious games with the stimulus - and basically has FAILED the American People, even if the democrats will never admit it.

The extent of Obama's FAILURE will never be measured by how many democrats have abandoned him in an overnight poll.


Obama is a Failure - and it is sad for the country.


Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 24, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Kirk has a little problem distinguishing what happened from what COULD have happened.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"For those of you who are having trouble keeping track of Illinois Republican Mark Kirk's lies..."

Thank you DrainYou. I was just thinking, "I am having trouble keeping up with Mark Kirk's lies." Problem solved!

The Fix really works when the one who shall remain namefull is getting yelled at by his mom for spending too much time on the internet and flunking out of Georgetown.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

armpeg always exceeds her grasp, but today she has out done herself. Why would she say something so nasty and so foolish about Brigade?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are having trouble keeping track of Illinois Republican Mark Kirk's lies, here's a list (so far):


As of about a week ago, the list was up to twelve separate incidents: Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon"; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; and (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; and (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar. (9)the deployment debunking, in which Kirk repeatedly claims his annual training missions are deployments. The Navy begs to differ. (10), we now have confirmation from the DOD that Kirk had violated Pentagon policy by conducting partisan political activity while on active duty, which Kirk has strenuously denied, even to the point of claiming that the Obama administration altered his record. (11) the nursery school where he didn't teach. (12) and where he didn't have students bringing guns to class.


And now we can add #13 to Kirk's long list of lies.


IL-Sen: Republican Mark Kirk Embellishes Stories, Even When He Is Not The Hero In The Story:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-kirk-coast-guard-20100722,0,7637895.story

.

Posted by: DrainYou | July 24, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

@mm,

I thought I remembered the Coulter/Breitbart connection from the New Yorker article. So, it makes sense that she'd be the designated attack dog to defend him. And that he would highlight it on his website.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Breitbart a pal of yours, CC, like that other scumbag Drudge?

That was a disgraceful putdown of Vilsack. He made a mistake and he tried to atone for it.

* * * *

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 3:40 PM"
_________

Don't know the answer to your specific question and won't speculate about the answer, d, BUT a lot of the media folks defending Breitbart, or deflecting blame away from him, have some relationship with this guy. As we understand it, Post policy requires writers' relationships with the subjects of their articles to be disclosed to the readers. If the article does not disclose any such relationship, it implies there isn't any.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

My sister grew up criticized by her five awful brothers she looked like Joni Mitchell but with no voice. NAACP, ya sher...

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Uff da!

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar, Breitbart gave Coulter a big shout out in the New Yorker piece about him. He lurves her.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Norwegian NAACP'ers.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Ok Chris, armpeg ♥♥♥♥♥ Breitbart. Now let's take it from the top, who had the www?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

stop scooping my jokes 12B, you are probably NAACP too

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

that happened 100 or so years ago

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

...'Brigade' is probably a NAACP member...

Welcome to The Fix! Brigade, you are officially indicted, I mean inducted.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 3:50 PM--------------------------------

When armpeg indicts, inducts, deducts or otherwise calls out liberals like brigade for making up the facts that probably "happened 100 years ago or so to Shirley's father", well...that's really something.

Something that happened 100 years ago to Shirley's father? This must be the new math in action.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I mocked Brigade for being a race baiter and then armpeg accuses him of being a race traitor. Brigade, you might be ok.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Armpeg, thank you for the best laugh I've had in a while. Your post of 3:44 was truly inspired comedy.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 24, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

You can't make up what happens on the comments section. Reading comments is much better than the article itself.

Hey, Brigade, you must be a NAACP'er, because you pointed out that in 1965 Shirley's father was shot in the back by a white farmer and an all-white grand jury declined to charge the shooter.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Sure looked to me like the comments in the discussion thread were pretty heavily slanted for Breitbart as the winner.

I prefer to think the best of everyone, and I've been very hesitant to agree with people who feel that you don't do a balanced job reporting, Chris. This post, however, really makes me wonder if many of the posters aren't correct: that you show a real right-wing tilt.

Vilsack will recover from this.

Breitbart, however, crossed the line so egregiously that I think this will have a permanent negative effect on moderates and independents. I think he's done himself, the Tea Party, Fox News, and the right in general a big, BIG disservice.

GOOD.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 24, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

...'Brigade' is probably a NAACP member...

Welcome to The Fix! Brigade, you are officially indicted, I mean inducted.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

(but then again, 'Brigade' is probably a NAACP member so it figures).
-------------------------------------
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It never fails.
When the black racists (or liberal kow-towing whites) on Fix can't debate the facts with their own facts--because they don't exist--, their only answer is to pull out the race card and give the person presenting these facts a guilt-trip, as Brigade 02:24 PM did with his "Shirleys father getting killed by the KKK" bit(implying that all white people, including myself, are KKK'ers and are responsible for something that happened 100 or so years ago to Shirleys father).
This dishonest claim is about as racist as one can get (but then again, 'Brigade' is probably a NAACP member so it figures).
Shirley Sherrod's father (according to Brigade anyway) was killed by the KKK. This however doesn't justify, or excuse, her racist act that she admitted to, when she said that "..she didn't do her best for that white farmer", who had nothing to do with this, and doesn't excuse the NAACP's audience's cheering and applauding her racist act that she either bragged about or was sorry for.
Andrew Breitbart, like in the ACORN expose case, proved his point. The NAACP needs to clean house of it's racist white-haters. Thank you Andrew Breitbart!

Posted by: armpeg | July 24, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if Breitbart "outs" his source for the video. If he does, that is tacit proof that his credibility IS valuable to him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart a pal of yours, CC, like that other scumbag Drudge?

That was a disgraceful putdown of Vilsack. He made a mistake and he tried to atone for it.

A woman's life was almost ruined, Vilsack was embarrassed, and you think it's funny? All because of some little racist creep who gets his jollies trying to hurt black people.

Mark is right, you Beltway types are jaded and you have definitely lost your bearings. Too much rightwing koolaid at the cocktail parties, I expect.

Posted by: drindl | July 24, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

But of course the problem is Vilsack had no reason to think the video was fake, well, other than its source...Breitbart of ACORN tape-gate fame.
------------------------------------
I know. I'll just bet that Vilsack is kicking himself around the block for suckering for the story...and I'll bet he damn won't do it again.

I hold Breitbart as primarily responsible for this cockup. Now, he's blaming somebody who fed him the video. At least Breitbart and I agree on which direction the blame lies.

Vilsack is a victim, Democrats were villified, blacks were villified, but the biggest victim is Shirley.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"The MSM is well aware of the dynamic you're talking about but, with few exceptions, won't touch it."

Now is not the time. They will. America's demographics and history are immutable. The Renaissance of the Southern Strategy is not going to happen.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

12: that would have been a beautiful screenplay. But of course the problem is Vilsack had no reason to think the video was fake, well, other than its source...Breitbart of ACORN tape-gate fame.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"...and the Jim Crow wing is ready to leverage the T-s to their own delight."
__________

An E.J. Dionne or Eugene Robinson could write a five part series just on that topic. Billy Roper, Ron and Rand Paul, Mike Williams, Dale Robertson, Andrew Breitbart, James O'Keefe, Tom Tancredo, Ryan J. Murdough, and on and on. The MSM is well aware of the dynamic you're talking about but, with few exceptions, won't touch it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

@bwj,

If we could create a Hollywood story with a satisfying ending, it would be Vilsack taking a few days to get to the bottom of the video, while the cable networks hype the HELL out of this story, feature Breitbart prominently with numerous soundbites. Then Vilsack goes on the Sunday talk shows and shows the entire thing in context while bringing along the farmer, his wife and Shirley in a group hug.

Of course, that's not exactly what happened. Too bad.

Exactly right about Breitbart. He's into defense mode, big time. That means he's been hurt.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Vilsack worst week? Hardly.

Riddle me this:

Breitbart feeds the bogus video to Fox News. Vilsack sees the video and doesn't pressure Sherrod to leave. Let's assume the uncut video never surfaces, as was clearly intended. Vilsack would have been crucified every day first by Fox News and the enablers within the MSM would have brought in the pitchforks. Ultimately the mob would have claimed he showed bad judgment and he would have been sacked ala Van Jones.

As someone else pointed out, the fact Breitbart has his enablers scrambling to defend him on TV, and he now claims, unconvincingly, he was duped, suggests he doesn't view himself a winner in Sherrod-gate.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Just like weed killer, uncontrolled growth results in death."

Really, is that how Roundup works? It just looks like no growth to death to me.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, *sigh* you know I have a man crush on this guy, ceflynline you could get paid, be a pundit, with the right editor of course. A long time ago I told him he should be a candidate, but he demurred. Also, this guy is not just an opinion spinner, he does real political homework.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

They let Limbaugh, Beck and company take over the face of the Republican party, and let Fox fire up its astroturf revolution. The hope was to cheaply raise a public base.
------------------------------------
Very well written post.

The establishment Republicans may have seen the advantages of leveraging the conservative talk show audience for a "cheap revival" as you so astutely write. They may have even thought that they had some kind of control over the talk show hosts. Initially, they probably did have some kind of control. Gradually, the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannitys proved that they could bring the establishment R's to their knees, and they regularly did so.

Then the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannitys thought they had control of the loosely organized (Tea Party) base. For a while, they did. Now, Limbaugh et al are beginning to be irrelevant as the real revolutionaries start to emerge. The roll-back-to-Jim Crows and just general anarchists are feeling their oats and are like cattle smelling water. Every ranch hand knows it's real hard to turn the herd when they smell water.

Back to the politicians, now Michele Bachmann has dashed out in front of this stampede and is singlehandedly trying to turn the herd. In the end, she'll be taking orders instead of giving them--that's my prediction.

My other prediction is that the Tea Party movement will spin further out of control until it spins out of existence. Just like weed killer, uncontrolled growth results in death.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"... Fox and Limbaugh took the lid off the racism, and the result is the foment that encourages the racist component of the T-s to be as public as they are. Now no one is in control, but the T-s in general are leveraging the republicans to the General T-crazy crowds delight, and the Jim Crow wing is ready to leverage the T-s to their own delight.

Soon enough the various forces will have to decide just who is going to be the real voice and intellect of the T-Party, and with that the control of the republican party.

And in the process the last vestiges of centrism will exit the republican party permanently. By that time something like 30% of the electorate just to the Right of center will have no Party to rally around. So 40% of the electorate, the Democrats, will have several election cycles without any significant organized opposition.

Like the demise of the Whigs, some coming political motion will rise, and they will quickly absorb the available middle.
* * * *
Posted by: ceflynline | July 24, 2010 2:38 PM"
______________

Spot-on analysis worth repeating.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

dd, I hear you. But the last word's not written yet.

If Sherrod sues and we finally get to the bottom of Sherrod-gate and Breitbart's earlier ACORN-gate, it will tear the lid off this (alleged) hate network and their enablers. Then he truly will be a loser.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, the fix IS more about ephemera than substance, and the aspects of the Sherrod incident are truly ephemeral, whereas the underlying problems and the Republican contribution to them are consequential and cumulative.

Faced with empty coffers and a resurgent Democratic Party, the Re[publicans cast about for cheap ways to keep up the struggle against the Dems. They let Limbaugh, Beck and company take over the face of the Republican party, and let Fox fire up its astroturf revolution. The hope was to cheaply raise a public base.

The problem is that, while they did stir up a mob of people angry with the status quo, the angry mob was monotonically far right and what was roused with that monotonic mob was the nearly dead embers of the last gasps of the Fight for Jim Crow. So as the hoped for tax revolution grew, intrinsically growing with it was the racist component that has been mostly smothered over the years by both parties, the Dems because they were the inheritors of the Civil Rights Movement, and the republicans because, having absorbed the Jim Crow Democrats, they had to tamp down racist rhetoric to codeword language lest their racist component destroy the party.

Fox and Limbaugh took the lid off the racism, and the result is the foment that encourages the racist component of the T-s to be as public as they are. Now no one is in control, but the T-s in general are leveraging the republicans to the General T-crazy crowds delight, and the Jim Crow wing is ready to leverage the T-s to their own delight.

Soon enough the various forces will have to decide just who is going to be the real voice and intellect of the T-Party, and with that the control of the republican party.

And in the process the last vestiges of centrism will exit the republican party permanently. By that time something like 30% of the electorate just to the Right of center will have no Party to rally around. So 40% of the electorate, the Democrats, will have several election cycles without any significant organized opposition.

Like the demise of the Whigs, some coming political motion will rise, and they will quickly absorb the available middle.

And the highly leveraged Remnant of the republicans will become an impotent third party out there in the fringes, with the greens and the Communists.

But that, again, is consequential, and CC isn't in the particular business of watching consequential history develop on the pages of his paper.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 24, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

you know what race baiting is too. We're good.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 2:12 PM
---

Point taken. It must have been a VERY poor analogy.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I too have "done a racist act".

And, who among us is innocent of that charge? (although I suspect armpeg will come charging in to claim that he/she/it has NEVER done a racist thing, EVER).

If everyone who had done a racist act, or had a racist thought, was fired, unemployment would be 100%. And the last boss would have to fire herself.

The question isn't who's guilty of having "done a racist act", but who is comfortable with racism? Who finds racism natural and logical and, most of all, convenient? Who finds racism lucrative and self reinforcing? Who lives with racism and feels no tug of conscience?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

armpeg wrote,
"Shirley Sherrod is (or was) a racist white-hater, and she admitted it on that tape when she told the audience that she DID NOT DO HER BEST to help this farmer because he was white (she may have gotten religion since then, but the fact is that she did admit to having done a racist act in her past)."

---

I can't imagine why having your father murdered by the Klan would put a chip on your shoulder.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I am here to tell you I too have, "done a racist act in my past."

So first thing Monday I will resign from my job and dress in sackcloth, covered in ashes for the rest of my days.

I am Shirley Sherrod.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

We have armpeg's vote: Shirley Sherrod should be fired for rampant racism.

Now that's what I would call a minority opinion. Bwahaha!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe it's a poor analogy,"

Yes, sure I get the point you were making, but you know what race baiting is too. We're good.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Andrew Breitbart for exposing the NAACP as the racists that they are, and have always been.
1-- Shirley Sherrod violated the Hatch Act by giving a speech to the NAACP. The Hatch Act prohibits all federal employees from engaging in partisan political activeties, and getting benefits from them.
2--The NAACP had Sherrods entire speech on tape before Breitbart got a hold of it, and before they condemed her for it, so they were NOT "SNOOKERED". They were just too lazy or too dumb to look at it.
3--Shirley Sherrod is (or was) a racist white-hater, and she admitted it on that tape when she told the audience that she DID NOT DO HER BEST to help this farmer because he was white (she may have gotten religion since then, but the fact is that she did admit to having done a racist act in her past).
4--Andrew Breitbart's main point was (and he proved it) that the NAACP is full of racist white-haters, when that audience became ecstatic, cheering and applauding with laughter Sherrod's racist '...didn't do all she could have done to help the farmer because he was white' statement.

Thank you Andrew Breitbart for exposing these racist white--haters at the NAACP. Job well done!

Posted by: armpeg | July 24, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I can't speak from personal experience what Fox ran, and when they ran it.

I cut my cable off more than 5 years ago. I got sick of the business networks hyping stocks, and the worst of the "news" networks hyping their ideology. And that is Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left. You can't drag me to watch either of them, and having to pay for the privilege is adding insult to injury.

I hear some people saying Fox hyped the hell out of this story, and others saying, no Fox didn't hype it until after Shirley was fired. I don't know the facts, so don't know when Fox hyped it.

If the White House reacted out of fear before, or during, the hyping makes little difference to me. It just shows what the destruction and mischief the media can do when they run a story, or threaten to run a story, that is a lie.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Drawing in the tragic homicide of a black kid by a white cop is disgusting. GO wash your mouth out with soap. I suggest Irish Spring.


Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 1:54 PM
---

Maybe it's a poor analogy, but you should at least get the point. Apologies AFTER an incident has occurred are no substitute for being careful and competent enough in the first place to AVOID the incident. If people actually believe that the transit officer couldn't tell the difference between his gun and his taser, then the man had no business being hired and put in that position. He was incompetent. Fear of Fox News has evidently put the White House in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mode. And I expect more from them.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

MIA and MM - both good posts. I believe that CC is referring to the fact that Vilsack spent Tuesday defending his decision to fire Sherrod. It took a call from the White House for him to reverse. He did double down.

He does, however, get a lot of credit from me for a proper apology. As in I screwed up. I was wrong. I apologized to Ms. Sherrod. He also owes an apology to his entire department as he just ripped through all of the civil service protections. It is possible to make an employee's life hell. That's why there is a term called constructive dismissal. It means making working conditions so horrible that the employee is forced to resign. Office Space gives a great example of this.

So, Vilsack belatedly realized or was forced to realize the magnitude of what he had done and how wrong it was.

Incidentally, Breitbart is scum. I was listening to C-SPAN this morning and some right-wing blogger was defending him. He's scum too.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 24, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I will go further and say that Fox News is hurt as much as Breitbart. Do you think that Fox will be so quick to use Breitbart-sourced material. Absolutely not.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:37 PM
---

I'm under the impression that Fox News didn't really run with this story until Sherrod had been fired. O'Reilly had mentioned earlier that the story was out there, and he was one of the first to admit that the story was bogus. Glen Beck stuck up for Sherrod. It seems it was more the fear of what Fox MIGHT do or WOULD do, rather than anything they actually did. But Fox makes a good boogeyman.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, that is wrong, just a sec, let me get this right...Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Politically, socially, and ethically WRONG.

The decision to panic and fire shirley sherrod came from the White House. You know it, I know it, Shirley Sherrod has said it, and Chris Cillizza knows it too.

[But] Fired by the media has been going on since journalism began. All this "outrage" is a little over the top don'cha think?

Drawing in the tragic homicide of a black kid by a white cop is disgusting. GO wash your mouth out with soap. I suggest Irish Spring.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

That Fox News must have some kind of power!
--------------------------------
Disgusting, isn't it?

Of course, it's not JUST Fox News who has this power, but it's like a pack of snarling dogs, with Fox News the pack leader. 24 hour news has finally achieved what all feared--hyper -activity and hyper-responsiveness.

Hopefully, the administration has learned the lesson that the media can be treacherously WRONG. I hope the media has learned the same thing, but I suspect they need to be punished a few more times.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

How anyone can say Vilsack and not Breitbart is the worst actor in Sherrod-gate is beyond me?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 9:05 AM
---

I wouldn't say that Vilsack is a worse actor here than Breitbart; but we expect more from Vilsack. This sort of thing is how Drudge came to fame; sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong, but it's up to the person using his "scoops" to make that determination before taking action. Unless Breitbart is eventually on the losing end of a lawsuit, he wins simply by becoming a household name---like Drudge.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"what does Breitbart sell?"

Correct question. This is all about the business model. For this crowd, there is nothing that matters apart from the business model.

"Breitbart has lost something of value - his credibility"

Correct answer. B+ you didn't show your work...sorry about that, traumatized by too much edgemacashun.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"A graduate of a Jesuit institution should believe that covering up an error and failing to amend is a mistake, and should
know better than to vilify Vilsack for making amends."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 24, 2010 8:50 AM
----

I wouldn't fault him for making amends. Under the circumstances, there was no other option. With the full speech available for all to see, cover-up was never an option. My complaint is that he was punked by some rightwing pundit---he didn't even check into the story. They made the poor woman pull over in traffic so she could resign immediately. And the name Sherrod is supposedly well known in the black community because of her husband's actions during the struggle for Civil Rights; yet the NAACP immediately threw her under the bus---as if they had no problem believing she might actually say this sort of thing. That Fox News must have some kind of power!

I say it's like the transist officer who shot the guy in the back because he thought he was using a taser. It's good and proper to apologize after the incident, but if you were reasonably competent, the incident would have never occurred in the first place.

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm with shrink. It will be a gradual process, but Breitbart has lost something of value--his credibility. That may not be his only "professional asset", but it is one of them.

Another example is Dan Rather with a story on GW's military career, based on a forged letter. Granted, Dan's professional assets were almost ALL credibility, but that was the end of Dan Rather as a journalist.

I will go further and say that Fox News is hurt as much as Breitbart. Do you think that Fox will be so quick to use Breitbart-sourced material. Absolutely not.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Correct 12B and remember we are not talking about whether he will survive as a right wing noise maker, he will, that room is packed with unabashed liars.

Journalism is something else. While Chuck Kraut. and Will, the Fix for that matter, will distort the truth, slant the part that matters and so on, they do not lie. Breitbart is no longer a journalist, but it will take awhile for that to become clear.

After this story fades, slowly but surely, his phone will stop ringing. Apart from the Foxenklatura, no one will care what Breitbart thinks. Lets watch as it happens.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying fear of Fox News is actually a major factor in White House decisions?
--------------------------------------
Apparently it is.

That says a lot about the power that Fox News has, doesn't it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe wrote,
"The Facts: Vilsack was shown a video edited to make it appear a high-level subordinate of his had made blatantly racist remarks during a speech. He was justified in acting swiftly on Sherrod given the conclusive "evidence" he was presented. He knew if he didn't act quickly, Fox News would batter the WH non-stop ala its 2008 Reverend Wright endless loops in 2008."
---

This doesn't wash. It's the business of the executive branch to distinguish facts from noise. Are you saying fear of Fox News is actually a major factor in White House decisions? This was like someone launching a "retaliatory" strike against Russia because of a suspicious blip on the radar. Rent THE BEDFORD INCIDENT with Sidney Poitier and Richard Widmark. As Ross Perot liked to say, "measure twice, cut once."

Posted by: Brigade | July 24, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I forgot to tell you where I got the link to Ann Coulter's defense--right off Breitbart.com. The fourth video on the U.S. page.

http://www.breitbart.tv/coulter-media-makes-sherrod-a-saint-but-still-smears-tea-party/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I just watched Ann Coulter give a 7 1/2 minute furious defense of Andrew Breitbart on CNN. That tells me that she thinks Breitbart needs someone to defend him. She jumped, weaved, made counter-claims, and finally hinted that Breitbart had been set up by a mystery person who sent him the tape.

I think this scandal HAS hurt Breitbart, otherwise you wouldn't be seeing his surrogates out there defending him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Do you really think FOX News will stop paying attention to Breitbart? I sure don't. And when they use their considerable megaphone to amplify Breitbart, the rest of the media will follow. You would think that the rest of the news world would have known by now that FOX News is not a trustworthy source of information, but they don't seem to have gotten the message. As long as FOX News continues to pick up on Breitbart's peddled racism, he will have credibility.

I want to be wrong about this, but these right wing lies seem to be picked up again and again.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I want to agree with shrink.

A question from me: what does Breitbart sell? I mean, what makes him valuable in his world?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"...he will continue to be treated as a journalist and continued to be granted credibility."

I am saying he won't.
Lets check back a year from now and see.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

BWJ, if you go back and read the comments section from when the nominees were being taken, there was a pretty toxic reaction to Breitbart's name being out there. The guy gained notoriety for himself while not facing any consequences for his racist actions. The guy freaking doctored a video and yet he will continue to be treated as a journalist and continued to be granted credibility. There is no evidence to suggest he had a bad week.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 24, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Breitbart is the liar.

He started the lie, others, including Fox, pushed the lie, Vilsack believed the lie, and Shirley Sherrod got sacked because of the lie. Why anyone is confused over this, is amazing. This is just the simple matter of connecting the dots to get back to the original lie and liar.

Breitbart is the liar.

Isn't Breitbart's credibility hurt by this lie?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 24, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Poor inept obungler the victim. Someone ought to apologize to him.

This is the first decisive action he's ever taken. For the first time he moved in less than three months. Too bad it seems absolutely stupid.

Can you imagine how swift he could have jumped if the oil spill Had said something racist?

Posted by: Moonbat | July 24, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

mmmmm, pilsener

Fired by the media has been going on since journalism began. All this "outrage" is a little over the top don'cha think?

Fortunately, this ends well. It is Breitbart exposed as a fraud.

No media outlet, certainly no political officer will ever respond to another one of his, shall we say, products, without a deep and time consuming vetting process.

That is a fact and that makes him irrelevant to the insta-news world in which we live. He lived by it, he dies by it. Andrew Breitbart, just another right wing noise maker, join the pack Andrew, you don't matter anymore. So everyone relax and stay cool this weekend.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

MIA, thank you for your excellent post. This story has had me so angry I haven't wanted to post.

Breitbart is a villain -- the liars in the Right know they can send trash to him and HE will post it without any inquiry into its background or context.

The story was then carried by a media so willing to garner "hits" it, too, will repeat anything attention grabbing.

Vilsack is also responsible. He shouldn't have allowed himself and his staff to be stampeded. Every employee should have time to defend themselves.

Obama? I don't think he was steering Vilsack's response. But he is a victim here, along with many other government officials contacted by the press for their premature opinion. If you say "I cannot comment yet" to the press you are instantly portrayed
as stonewalling,
a culprit,
or weak.
Those words are used against Obama every time the press gets ahead of the story and pressures for movement so they can file their next story.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 24, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Is there really anyone on the planet who believes the decision to fire Shirley Sherrod came from Tom Vilsack? He's as much a fall guy as Shirley Sherrod was going to be.

The decision to panic and fire shirley sherrod came from the White House. You know it, I know it, Shirley Sherrod has said it, and Chris Cillizza knows it too.

So you can blame Breitbart for starting the whole affair, but step 2 before there was any TV or radio commentary was from the White House political operation.

Posted by: pilsener | July 24, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

M-I-A: what's lacking here, IMO, is full disclosure by the media.

A LOT of THEM have social/professional ties to Breitbart. For instance Breitbart was an editor for the Drudge Report website, and even a researcher for Huffington Post, see wikipedia. Some have speculated that this is why some media outlets and figures have tried very hard to steer the story AWAY from their pal Breitbart and toward Vilsack and the WH.

How anyone can say Vilsack and not Breitbart is the worst actor in Sherrod-gate is beyond me?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

(also, Recovery has the 12 steps, Grief is supposed to have 5 stages)

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I misstated:

"A graduate of a Jesuit institution should know better than to believe that covering up an error and failing to amend is a "mistake".

should be

"A graduate of a Jesuit institution should believe that covering up an error and failing to amend is a mistake, and should
know better than to vilify Vilsack for making amends."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 24, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Politically, socially, and ethically WRONG.

You wrote

"...doubling down on dismissal of, apology to and attempted rehiring of..."

with contempt and scorn.

Acknowledging a mistake and immediately attempting to correct it would be a sign of weakness and doubling down in an Orwellian world, a dictatorship, or a very cynical bureaucracy. In a free and open society it is a sign of freedom and openness - the core strength.

A graduate of a Jesuit institution should know better than to believe that covering up an error and failing to amend is a "mistake".

The villain of the piece was indeed Mr. Breitbart. He should not get a free pass because the media has lost its bearings.
Vilsack's mea culpa should be a welcome relief from pols who try to cover up their mistakes with arrogant flummery.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 24, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Vilsack had the worse week?!??!

Not Breitbart, but Vilsack?

This is ridiculous pure Fox News spin -- don't believe your lying eyes/ears.

Very hard to believe.
_____________

Not surprisingly, the spin here is consistent with the same anti-WH/pro-Breitbart spin pushed by Politico.com, who, like Fix, was called a Drudge "emulator" in an article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

The Facts: Vilsack was shown a video edited to make it appear a high-level subordinate of his had made blatantly racist remarks during a speech. He was justified in acting swiftly on Sherrod given the conclusive "evidence" he was presented. He knew if he didn't act quickly, Fox News would batter the WH non-stop ala its 2008 Reverend Wright endless loops in 2008.

As it turned out the Breitbart video was doctored/edited and the full uncut videos showed Sherrod delivering a long parable AGAINST racism based on her life story. But Vilsack had no way of knowing the video he was shown was fake at the time.

The clear loser was Breitbart. (BTW, Does Fix know this guy?) This guy was finally exposed, big time. Sherrod herself called him out, saying Breitbart wants to take blacks back to slavery. On CBS, she said she is considering legal action against Breitbart. If she does, the discovery phase may open a window into the world of Breitbart, James O'Keefe, and Marcus Epstein the MSM wanted to stay closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 24, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

(sounds more like the 12 stages of a Republican marital scandal, except it is missing the Godly part)

Posted by: shrink2 | July 24, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company