Instant racism

[Reservoir Dog]

Just add the Tea Party, throw in some right winger pundits, add a dash of the NAACP, a touch of low-level federal employee, and stir in everyone jumping to conclusions in an instant, and BAM!, Racism for everyone.

Surely, you guys have heard about the speech that Breitbart brought to everyone's attention after the NAACP called racism on some elements of the Tea Party. Of course, it was only a brief clip of the whole speech that the woman gave, which when it came to light, turned out to prove her claim that it was about overcoming racism.
When I first heard about it, especially the fact that Breitbart didn't have the entire tape, I was sure when the full tape came out, the interpretation might change slightly. Of course, that didn't matter to administration, which essentially fired her on the spot once the original clip came out. Once again, Obama's team is eager to throw their allies under the bus in a nanosecond with the false hope that their enemies will like them more.

Now everyone's got egg on their face backtracking.
Ugh, I doubt I need to go into every minute detail, it's been the political story the past couple of days. So, yesterday I was listening to Hannity on the way home and he was railing against the woman and I'm pretty sure denouncing her and the NAACP's racism. Then today, he was denouncing people who use the racism charge as a political tool. Followed that up by listening to Michael Savage for a few minutes, who thinks it's a secret plot by the Marxist Obama government to infiltrate Breitbart's organization and doctor the tape.

I can hardly wait for the election.
So, any thoughts?

[A.L.]

"First reports are often wrong."
Walter Cronkite

[TrojanHusker]

Surely, you guys have heard about the speech that Breitbart brought to everyone's attention after the NAACP called racism on some elements of the Tea Party. Of course, it was only a brief clip of the whole speech that the woman gave, which when it came to light, turned out to prove her claim that it was about overcoming racism.
When I first heard about it, especially the fact that Breitbart didn't have the entire tape, I was sure when the full tape came out, the interpretation might change slightly.
So, any thoughts?

How the ACORN 'pimp and hooker' videos came to be

The mastermind behind the release strategy was Andrew Breitbart - He said he then gave Fox News the exclusive

Unedited ACORN Videos Reveal O'Keefe, Hannity Lied At Great Cost To Taxpayers

Undercover "pimp" videographer James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles were found to have been deceitful in the editing of their infamous ACORN videos, according to California Attorney General Jerry Brown who acquired the full, unedited versions of the tapes. Brown's office arranged a deal to see the originals after agreeing not to prosecute O'Keefe and Giles for violating the privacy rights granted to all Californians under state law. Brown recently made public the raw footage to show how O'Keefe distorted the truth - and how his Fox-TV media benefactor Sean Hannity ran with the distortions.

Just in case there's any doubt about Breitbart's history of using edited tapes and Fox to further his agenda.

A great take about this on Crooks & Liars -
What did Breitbart know and when did he know it
It sounds like Breitbart kept this "ammunition" in the drawer since March, and when the Tea Party Express leader (Breitbart's buddy) got his organization kicked out of the Tea Party Foundation for racist remarks Breitbart unleashed this against the NAACP.
That giant sucking sound you hear is Breitbart's reputation going down the drain right before the '10 Elections; And Beitbart was a fanatic & vocal supporter of the extremes in the Tea Party.
Although I imagine the real fun backroom conversations are going on at Fox.

[Iconoclast]

The guy with the tapes is a lying piece of shit. Given. But it takes a knee-jerk, Obama administration to end up looking like clueless schmucks. Maybe a few hours of investigation may have been a wise idea before forcing her out. Maybe, just maybe, suspend her pending an investigation and take a whole day or two.

However, I do like that it does prove that douche bags racism since he and his minions are obviously combing through obscure videos of even more obscure black federal employees searching for things to make false accusations of reverse racism. She doth protest too much seems appropriate. Wouldn't it be easier to just say, "Yeah, we have some racist douche bags show up to our rallies. We ask them not to come. We ask them to be tolerant and respectful of others if they do come. In the end, this is America, and we can't force them to do our will. Their racism is not what our Tea Party is about, and we don't concur with their unfair characterizations based on race." There ya go. Wouldn't that just be a whole lot easier than saying that there is absolutely no racism in the Tea Parties and putting forth so much effort to find something racist about the other side and then point and scream, "Racism! Racism!", like a 6-year old on the playground. Nah, never mind. That's crazy talk.

[TrojanHusker]

Newsweek agrees with you.

Obama got suckered, and I'd imagine he's pissed about it.

[Reservoir Dog]

The guy with the tapes is a lying piece of shit. Given. But it takes a knee-jerk, Obama administration to end up looking like clueless schmucks. Maybe a few hours of investigation may have been a wise idea before forcing her out. Maybe, just maybe, suspend her pending an investigation and take a whole day or two.

However, I do like that it does prove that douche bags racism since he and his minions are obviously combing through obscure videos of even more obscure black federal employees searching for things to make false accusations of reverse racism. She doth protest too much seems appropriate. Wouldn't it be easier to just say, "Yeah, we have some racist douche bags show up to our rallies. We ask them not to come. We ask them to be tolerant and respectful of others if they do come. In the end, this is America, and we can't force them to do our will. Their racism is not what our Tea Party is about, and we don't concur with their unfair characterizations based on race." There ya go. Wouldn't that just be a whole lot easier than saying that there is absolutely no racism in the Tea Parties and putting forth so much effort to find something racist about the other side and then point and scream, "Racism! Racism!", like a 6-year old on the playground. Nah, never mind. That's crazy talk.

I couldn't agree more. All the reasonable critics of the Tea Party have been asking for, NAACP included, is the simple acknowledgment and denouncement of the obvious fringe elements. Interesting that this all happened as one of the more organized elements of the Tea Party was kicking out one of it's more prominent members for his inappropriate, mock, "slave" letter response to the NAACP.

Speaking of knee jerk reactions, here was Fox News' initial reaction. What was really shocking was Glenn Beck's completely reasonable thoughts on the matter, before the whole tape came out.

Leave it to the Obama administration though, to come out of this whole thing looking almost as bad.

[Sean C]

However, I do like that it does prove that douche bags racism since he and his minions are obviously combing through obscure videos of even more obscure black federal employees searching for things to make false accusations of reverse racism. She doth protest too much seems appropriate. Wouldn't it be easier to just say, "Yeah, we have some racist douche bags show up to our rallies. We ask them not to come. We ask them to be tolerant and respectful of others if they do come. In the end, this is America, and we can't force them to do our will. Their racism is not what our Tea Party is about, and we don't concur with their unfair characterizations based on race." There ya go. Wouldn't that just be a whole lot easier than saying that there is absolutely no racism in the Tea Parties and putting forth so much effort to find something racist about the other side and then point and scream, "Racism! Racism!", like a 6-year old on the playground. Nah, never mind. That's crazy talk.

How does this prove "that douche bags racism"? Is it because, in you mind, he falsely accused her of racism? Your searing logic would also tell you that, if he falsely accused her of murder, that would make him a murderer.
And how did he exactly go "combing through obscure videos"? The video was sent to him (and only the originally shown portion), and he watched it. You're saying he's a racist because he reads his mail?
And are you really saying that you beleive that the Tea Party is claiming that there are zero racists in its group, and that you are unaware that their argument is that there are racists in all groups and, until every single group (Democrat National Commitee, Progressives, NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Rainbow Coalition...etc) renounces racists in their groups, the Tea Party shoould not be singled out?

It is obvious to me that Breitbart falsely accused her of racism because of the latest flap concerning the NAACP and the Tea Party, and he wanted to expose a liberal group's hypocrisy. If she had been a black conservative, he never would have paid attention to her...meaning: it is conservative vs. liberal, not white against black...which means you falsely accused Breitbart of being a racist which, in your un-sophisticated mind makes you as bad as he.

And let's not forget the fact that the saintly Miss Sherrod (who admitted to being a racist until 40 years old) later in her speech said that racism played a large role in the anti-healthcare sentiment that dominated the nation in the past year.
And no one has asked her for proof.

[TrojanHusker]

It is obvious to me that Breitbart falsely accused her of racism because of the latest flap concerning the NAACP and the Tea Party, and he wanted to expose a liberal group's hypocrisy.....

There's a better explanation -
Conservatives Try To Bash USDA Anti-Racism Suit

Andrew Breitbart's timing of the release of the grossly distorted video of Sherrod, which he admits having had for weeks, may not be entirely random. Congress will soon vote on whether to fund part of a settlement between the USDA and African-American farmers who faced acknowledged discrimination -- farmers like Sherrod and her husband used to be. Sherrod was a claimant

[Iconoclast]

How does this prove "that douche bags racism"? Is it because, in you mind, he falsely accused her of racism? Your searing logic would also tell you that, if he falsely accused her of murder, that would make him a murderer.

Nice example of searing logic.

And how did he exactly go "combing through obscure videos"? The video was sent to him (and only the originally shown portion), and he watched it. You're saying he's a racist because he reads his mail?

I was unaware of how he came across it. One would think that he would have wanted to do a little more investigation before posting it, but he doesn't really care. He found something that made a black person look bad when taken out of context (context he failed to investigate), and that was enough for him. He was just looking for some black person to pillary--something a racist douch bag would do.

And are you really saying that you beleive that the Tea Party is claiming that there are zero racists in its group,

Absolutely. I've heard that over and over, and it's as ridiculous as you obviously think that it is.

and that you are unaware that their argument is that there are racists in all groups and, until every single group (Democrat National Commitee, Progressives, NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Rainbow Coalition...etc) renounces racists in their groups, the Tea Party shoould not be singled out?

It's a sad and pathetic argument. It's the ol' yeah-but-what-about-them argument, which I know you detest because you jump Dog for it all the time.

It is obvious to me that Breitbart falsely accused her of racism because of the latest flap concerning the NAACP and the Tea Party, and he wanted to expose a liberal group's hypocrisy. If she had been a black conservative, he never would have paid attention to her...meaning: it is conservative vs. liberal, not white against black...which means you falsely accused Breitbart of being a racist which, in your un-sophisticated mind makes you as bad as he.

Yep, singling someone out, via misrepresentation, for ridicule because of her race obviously has nothing to do with racism.

And let's not forget the fact that the saintly Miss Sherrod (who admitted to being a racist until 40 years old) later in her speech said that racism played a large role in the anti-healthcare sentiment that dominated the nation in the past year.
And no one has asked her for proof.

"Large role" would seem to be an unsupportable position.

[Reservoir Dog]

And how did he exactly go "combing through obscure videos"? The video was sent to him (and only the originally shown portion), and he watched it. You're saying he's a racist because he reads his mail?

I was unaware of how he came across it. One would think that he would have wanted to do a little more investigation before posting it, but he doesn't really care. He found something that made a black person look bad when taken out of context (context he failed to investigate), and that was enough for him. He was just looking for some black person to pillary--something a racist douch bag would do.

Here's an article about how he may have come across the tape.

Here's the common thread: Each and every one of those videos was edited and provoked, and each and every one of them tracks back to the Breitbart henchman, Larry O'Connor.

Larry O'Connor had the video. Larry O'Connor works for Breitbart. Breitbart admits to having the "edited" version since March, 2010.

Take it for what it's worth.
Just seems like shoddy journalism. From what I understand, the edited version was originally cut off in mid-sentence. It would seem that with such an inflammatory video, you'd want to look at the whole thing before throwing out the racist charge. If it was really as inflammatory as he claimed it was, ex. Reverend Wright videos, wait for the full video to back up your claims. The real crazies usually have a large body of work, not just a single sound bite.

[Iconoclast]

I was going to add the following but forgot. I know a couple of folks who went to a local tea party when some bus rolled through ,and they said that they found no race baiting of any kind. They said that everyone was pleasant. All they were doing was circulating a whole bunch of petitions about assorted, pointless crap--pointless in that the petitions were going to accomplish nothing but maybe not the issue itself (sounds like a bunch of liberals now that I think about it).

[Iconoclast]

I found a good article on the Tea Party movement.

The tea partiers are half right
By Amitai Etzioni

Several observers on the left side of the opinion spectrum write dismissively of the followers of the Tea Party.

About the kindest labels appended to them are "rednecks," "highly volatile" and "laughable." Young research assistants at George Washington University see them as "psychopaths," "racists," "anti-Semites" and "homophobes" and hold that, in the political arena, "one cannot talk to them; one must defeat them."

As I see it, it is never a good idea to dismiss out of hand a major social movement. One poll in December found the tea party movement was then viewed favorably by more Americans (41 percent) than either the Democrats (35 percent) or the Republicans (28 percent).

More importantly, the concern on the part of tea partiers that the government is not responsive to the interests and values of the majority is a valid one.

Whether the bank and auto industry bailouts, the huge economic stimulus package and the health care bill are good policies or bad --and will help the economy or hurt it -- they are not favored by the majority of Americans. And the things that people most care about -- the creation of new jobs and vigorous economic growth -- are lacking.

Even more important are the ways the bills were fashioned. There is a saying in Washington that one should never see the ways laws and sausages are made. Well, many people are choking on them even without knowing how they were concocted.

Those of us who follow politics closely have become inured to the fact that the bills that are finally enacted (often after months of haggling, slicing and dicing) are loaded with earmarks that favor some congressional districts or industry and are riddled with exceptions for special interests.

You may not wonder why the auto dealers won exemptions in Congress from the new financial regulations. But the behind-the-scene deals the White House has made are enough to make you sick.

These include deals with private hospitals to drop the public option in exchange for their support of the health care bill and with the pharmaceutical industry to block Americans from purchasing low-cost drugs from other countries.

Some of us have learned to live with these maneuvers as long as something comes out at the other end.

However, many Americans are busy working or looking for a job, taking care of their families and trying to find some spare time to follow their favorite sports team and have a beer. But when they are made aware of these shenanigans, they are nauseated. As they should be.

I choose my words carefully. I suggest that the sense of the tea partiers that they have been had is largely a valid one. At the same time, their ideas of what ought to be done are very much off the mark.

The desire to gut the government ignores the fact that there are many important missions that the government is best-suited to accomplish. However, before those of us who do not belong to this movement can carry this message to the tea partiers, we first need to validate their feelings, rather than dismiss them.

And we must be honest: Reforming the government so that it will be less captured by special interests and more responsive to the public interest is a difficult road to navigate.

Indeed, that road was recently made more difficult to navigate by a Supreme Court ruling that largely lifted the limits on legalized bribery, which is the proper name for allowing corporations and labor unions to make unfettered donations to the political campaigns of those who do their bidding.

The best we can offer is to point out that a major, populist social movement can serve to countervail special interests, as long as it sees its role as to straighten out the government, rather than to decimate it.

This is what the progressive movement of yore accomplished. However, we cannot have this very badly needed dialogue with the followers of the tea party unless we make it clear that we understand where they are coming from.

[Reservoir Dog]

Some of us have learned to live with these maneuvers as long as something comes out at the other end.

However, many Americans are busy working or looking for a job, taking care of their families and trying to find some spare time to follow their favorite sports team and have a beer. But when they are made aware of these shenanigans, they are nauseated. As they should be.

I choose my words carefully. I suggest that the sense of the tea partiers that they have been had is largely a valid one. At the same time, their ideas of what ought to be done are very much off the mark.

Watching the debate of compensation of 9-11 first responders, both in Congress and on both sides of the punditry, it's been nauseating. For all the screaming Anthony Weiner did about Republicans hiding behind procedure, it was the procedures the Democrats used that doomed the bill. Politics as usual, to be sure, but as the author notes, at least in the past everyone got their cut, and something got done.

As the author also mentioned, some of the Tea Partiers suggestions are just plain off the the mark, to be kind. And it's been little more than attempt at re-branding and repairing the Republican image. Now some of them are starting to realize they can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[Sean C]

I was unaware of how he came across it.

You grandly proclaimed that the proof of his racism was that: "he went combing through obscure videos". When I kindly pointed out your stupidity (it was sent to him), you admitted that you did not know the facts but said that he should have done a little more investigation before implying racism.
Being the dufus you are, you are unaware that you have done the exact same thing you accused Breitbart of: falsely labeling someone without a thorough investigation.

Do you see how foolish you can be made to look when you speak on topics you are ignorant on?

[A.L.]

Do you see how foolish you can be made to look when you speak on topics you are ignorant on?

HAAAAA!!!!!!