"It Hurts Her Cause, It Doesn't Help It"
In the ongoing story of Shirley Sherrod, the one thing that is broadly agreed upon by everyone from Ann Coulter to Barack Obama is that the two-minute version of Ms. Sherrod’s speech, as published by Andrew Breitbart, casts her in a significantly more negative light than the full, unedited version of her forty plus minute remarks. That is the only conclusion that can be reached by a person of sound judgment who watches the full video.
But imagine that you’re not someone who gets their news reading stuff on the Internet. You’re an American who heard someone discussing this story at the office, found your interest piqued, and tuned into the radio on the way home in hopes of learning more.
If you listened to this radio show — and a lot of people do — here is the version of events that was presented to you:
By the way, I have to make a comment. I’m watching this relentless assault on my friend Andrew Breitbart. It’s disgusting to me. He got a video. He made it public. Turns out the video was edited. The full video was always available at the NAACP because it was at their event. And they took the video. They could’ve released it immediately. And all this attack on Breitbart because he didn’t have the full video.
And yet I’ve now watched the full video. My buddy Brent Bozell watched the full video. We broke the story here about what the rest of the video actually shows, and what the audio says.
And she’s a race-baiter.
In other words, it hurts her cause, it doesn’t help it.
Stunning, isn’t it? The host tells his trusting audience that if you watch the whole video of Ms. Sherrod’s speech — a story he claims to have broken! — she comes off looking worse.
He says this too:
And I watch some people in the conservative media just, just – it’s pathetic. You can make your point about being accurate. We get that. What about the rest of the video. ‘Well, she has a story to tell.’ SO WHAT!? That doesn’t justify her attacks on millions of other Americans who also have stories, by the way. Black, white, brown and in between. Some of whom have been discriminated against, some of whom have been Holocaust victims, or had all kinds of challenges that they’ve overcome. They’re not racists because they oppose government run health care. They have stories to, you know. This is sickening to me.
Now that we have the whole video, nobody wants to talk about the whole video. Instead they want to trash Breitbart.
Stunning, isn’t it? He tells his audience that now that we have the whole video, “nobody wants to talk about the whole video.” I ask you, people of the Internet, is that true in the reality where you live? It seems to me that people are pretty keen to discuss the whole video! Are the listeners of that man — especially the ones who rely on him as a primary source to stay informed — well-served by being told “no one” is talking about the full video, because it does more harm to Ms. Sherrod than it helps her?
I try the patience of some readers by regularly writing about talk radio hosts. It isn’t a fun beat, for all the obvious reasons (hate mail, gratuitous insults, having to listen to their shows), and an additional one too: there’s precious little opportunity for inventive prose — I’d much rather write about beers I like or the Marquis de Lafayette’s return visit to America or places I’ve traveled (and I swear, I’m going to do more of that, especially since I post for free on this time-consuming subject far more often than I sell magazine pieces).
It is nevertheless important to engage prominent talk radio show hosts by setting down their words on blogs, because otherwise their most indefensible nonsense just drifts off into the air unchallenged, a convenience that allows them to grow lazy in their call-screener-maintained cocoon while retaining more respect than is deserved from their ideologically friendly colleagues outside of it. The good folks at National Review or The Weekly Standard, which have covered this story well from various perspectives, might read Liberty and Tyranny, and being people that work a lot during the day, assume without ever thoroughly checking that the quality of argument on Mark Levin’s radio show is comparable.
Given the discussion at The Corner over the last several days, however, it’s unlikely that they’ll see the talk radio host say that the full video makes Ms. Sherrod look worse, that since its release no one wants to talk about it, and even that conservatives (like many of them) who covered Sherrod sympathetically are being “pathetic” — and to take his judgment quite as seriously as they once did, or not worry just a little bit that his audience of loyal conservatives are being given bad information
It isn’t that they’re the victims of lies. But they are being misled by an intellectually arrogant man too think-skinned to accurately gauge when his critics are making sense, incapable of self-correcting, and unable to persuasively defend his work in any medium except one where he has call screeners and a mute button.
If nothing else, I hope I am making it increasingly untenable to retain stature as a serious thought leader while simultaneously saying things on the air that cannot be persuasively defended online — which isn’t to say that all Web outlets are created equal:
In closing, I dare Mark Levin to engage in a written online debate with Slate’s Will Saletan on the Sherry Sherrod story.
UPDATE: Incidentally, even Andrew Breitbart himself now says, “I grant her that she had her redemptive transformation.”
Connor,
I think you are right to continue hammering away at the conservative propogeese and ganders. I kind of don’t think it will change much, but at least you are a fly in Levin’s ointment: his butt is all chapped from a long day of sitting at his computer propogandizing and he reaches for his ointment and, dang it, there you are…. But our tree-climbing ancestors were lying about their political opponants back in Africa. It’s basic human nature. It’s also basic human nature to be eager to adopt opinions that fit your preconcieved notions, especially when doing the research required to from your own opinions is hard work.
Fox news and the infotainers know this and make money off it. They have discovered and mine a certain segment of the population—white, rural/suburban christian conservatives—that is very hungry for certain kinds of “truths.” A symbiotic customer/client relationship has evolved. And as this phenomena has grown and developed, it has attracted conservative politicians and intellectuals. At this point, to have any creditability with this fairly sizable group of “truth” besotted voters, conservative politicians and political intellectuals have to bow to the “truths” and the propogandizers. And many politicians and intellectuals have no problem with this, they see the besotting of the masses as a mean to an ends. And of course, some politicians and intellectuals may be besotted themselves, true believers. You don’thave to be that smart to be in politics. Look at Sarah Palin.
This seems like a very difficult system to disrupt (if that is what you are trying to do). You got this drunken mob and various parties both feeding and feeding off this mob and to break the system you have to get the mob to wake up and see how drunk they are and how they are being used. Doesn’t seem likely.
I think if you are really concerned with the effects of this mob on our politics the way to go is to isolate them. Don’t try to convert the mob, but point out to people who might be tempted to join the mob how drunk and used they are, and what a silly spectical they make.
Which is what the Shirly Sherrod kerfluffle does. Which maybe is what you are doing. You get Dr. Levin mad and then he says ridiculous stuff and a few people who may have been waviering in that direction read it and shy away.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
— cw · Jul 24, 03:27 PM · #
Good work Conor
Levin is a loathsome propagandist but I suspect his audience is so drunk on the Fox/Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh kool-aid that Levin doesn’t convince them of anything they haven’t bought into already.
I can’t help but think any new ‘independant’ listener would recoil in horror listening to Levin for the first time.
— Ken · Jul 24, 06:51 PM · #
“If nothing else, I hope I am making it increasingly untenable to retain stature as a serious thought leader while simultaneously saying things on the air that cannot be persuasively defended online — which isn’t to say that all Web outlets are created equal…”
A bit ambitious, I’d say.
— JP · Jul 24, 08:37 PM · #
The part of the tape that I thought hurt her position on reconciliation was when she made the blanket accusation of racism against Republicans. This is contrary to a sincere attempt to deal in ideas and find areas of agreement and not simply demonize opponents, especially with such inflammatory and hyperbolic claims as racism leveled against millions of people she doesn’t know, many of them African-Americans.
— Mike Farmer · Jul 24, 09:00 PM · #
This is more evidence that the attempt to be above parties and the culture war is futile.
— Dain · Jul 25, 12:29 AM · #
A bit ambitious, I’d say.
Oh, I don’t know. I think people are already becoming to realize we have a president who spouts wild nonsense. He may once have been thought of as a thought leader, but not as much any more. (Have you ever listened to one of his Saturday morning radio talks, or read one?)
— The Reticulator · Jul 25, 12:55 AM · #
Conor: Following your ambitious assumption of the trilogy of prosecutor, judge, and jury to eviscerate Mark Levin perhaps you next crusade should be the bovine excrement spewed by, oh I don’t know, let’s try MediaMatters. Nearly every e-mailed news letter I receive from them is nothing but brief excerpts of real events with absolutely no relevance to the actual event. If the tunnel of their vision(s) were any narrower it would be a dead end cave.
Then there are the promises and assurances presented by Mr. Obama and the Democrats in congress. How does those hold up to light of day? Remember when insurance mandates were not taxes, but when challenged in court the federal government claims they are taxes and not subject to law suits?
— JohnFLob · Jul 25, 01:08 AM · #
John,
I share your low opinion of media matters. Their transcription is sometimes useful, but their analysis is laughably poor. I doubt I’ll write much about them, but I do critique Mark Levin AND Barack Obama because — in different realms and to different degrees — they’re influential. I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell no one takes Media Matters analysis (as opposed to the straight video and text they provide of others) very seriously. God knows if they ever publish a best selling book I’ll be all over them.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 25, 02:06 AM · #
“…Mark Levin AND Barack Obama because — in different realms and to different degrees — they’re influential. I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell no one takes Media Matters analysis (as opposed to the straight video and text they provide of others) very seriously.”
FWIW, I’ve never heard of Mark Levin outside this blog. But I’ve had leftwingers on other e-forums quote Media Matters at me many times. Yes, these leftwingers are the extremist fringe, but most of the left is fringe, like those 1920s flapper skirts. In other words, I think there’s a good chance you’re wrong.
— The Reticulator · Jul 25, 03:26 AM · #
I’ve watched the whole video and I’ve watched what is being said on CNN and MSNBC, etc. People aren’t talking about what is actually on the rest of the video – only one snippet (part of what was shown on Breitbart’s edited version). What people are saying (she made a fundamental change in her beliefs and is now Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks) does not match up with Sherrod says in her speech.
She says she realizes it isn’t ALL about race. But it still is about race. It’s about race but it’s also about poverty which is why she should help the poor whites. She talks about rich whites trying to keep everyone down and they use race to separate poor whites from blacks. She goes on to attack everyone who opposes Obama’s health care program as opposing it because Obama is black. I’m pretty sure you, Conor, opposed ObamaCare. At least you profess to be a conservative of sorts, I believe. Was that because you’re a racist? Are you OK with her statement?
She’s still driven by race. Perhaps some of that is understandable (although not justified) given the horrific experiences in her life. But the fact remains that she is still driven by race – look at what she’s been saying of late – that Breitbart and Fox News wants to return to slavery. She’s not so big on the First Amendment either, calling for Breitbart to be shut down.
Breitbart practiced some shoddy journalism but it was directed at the NAACP who uses racism as a weapon, not Sherrod. He never called for Sherrod to be fired. He was pointing out the obvious double standard of the NAACP which has strayed far from the ideals it had at its founding. The Obama White House is responsible for Sherrod’s firing, not Breitbart. I’m sorry about what happened to her but she’s attacking the wrong people. She’s caught up in the myth that Fox News was behind it when they didn’t even mention it until after Visack fired her. Two of their main commentators immediately criticized her firing (Beck and Krauthammer).
I’m on Levin’s side politically most of the time but don’t particularly care for his radio persona. But what he is saying is undeniable. Sherrod had a bit of a turning point but she didn’t give up her obsession with race. She just expanded it into class consciousness as well.
— Sean · Jul 25, 01:08 PM · #
“She talks about rich whites trying to keep everyone down and they use race to separate poor whites from blacks.”
And that’s an untrue statement because…?
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 25, 05:28 PM · #
I believe this is the relevant passage:
Emphasis added. It would seem that she realized it’s not about race at all, it’s entirely about poverty.
This is objectionable? That’s the political strategy of the Republican Party and the business model of Fox News Channel and Big Government—whether or not everyone who supports or works for those institutions approves of the strategy, that is in fact their strategy.
I couldn’t find that, I found this
That’s pretty clearly referring the “mean-spirited” subset of people who opposed the Affordable Care Act. Now, as sociological analysis, I don’t agree with Sherrod here—I’m pretty sure people would be flipping out just as much if HRC were president now. Still, it’s pretty clear that something more is driving all this talk of “socialism” and “treason” than reasoned opposition to the same kind of health care mandates once proposed by Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. Without this tribalistic resentment of the Other, of people other than “real Americans”, not only would the tone of the argument be completely different, but so would the outcome—Republicans would have offered a more serious remedy to the problems of the uninsured than simply “start over” and “repeal”. Heck, if Republican leaders were prepared to see all Americans as Americans, the suffering of the uninsured would have motivated them to act long before Dems came to power.
— Consumatopia · Jul 25, 05:50 PM · #
I like how conservatives—who were as a political movement, against segragation, and whose political representatives, the Republicans, have persued a policy of pandering to the racist instincts of southern/rural/suburban voters for the past 40 years—demand that everyone be totally pristine about race. They require thier opponants to be totally colorblind in thought and deed.
It’s a totally Orwellian joke. Republicans invented the race card and have been playing it cosntantly for 40 years. It is the cornerstone of their political strategy. When they talk about “real americans” and “our” way of life “dissapearing,” they are playing the race card. When they complain about someone else playing the race card, they are playing the race card. When they talk about reverse discrimination, they are playing the race card. Their whole political strategy is based on playing the race card.
Most individual commenters aren’t responsible for the creation of this policy, but when you repeat this kind of crap you give your support to the policy inflaming race-based fears to attract votes. Plus, if you seem to actually buy into the propoganda, you look dumb.
— cw · Jul 25, 06:03 PM · #
CORRECTION:
I like how conservatives—who were as a political movement, against INTEGRATION
— cw · Jul 25, 06:05 PM · #
“demand that everyone be totally pristine about race. They require thier opponants to be totally colorblind in thought and deed.”
But Ma, all the other kids in the neighborhood do it.
— The Reticulator · Jul 26, 03:10 AM · #
You’re right, Reticulator, that finger pointing sucks, it’s time to take responsibility.
I’ll apologize for the people on my side who are resentful for being subject to a lifetime of discrimination and racial injustice.
You apologize for the people on your side who are resentful for not being able to discriminate as much as they used to.
— Consumatopia · Jul 26, 04:04 AM · #
[“She talks about rich whites trying to keep everyone down and they use race to separate poor whites from blacks.”
And that’s an untrue statement because…?]The claim made above was that she still sees things through a racial prism which is what her statements show. There was no claim of truth or untruth so your question is somewhat irrelevant. For the record, do you really think there are a group of “rich whites” who conspire to keep blacks down? You’re living in a fantasy world created by the Left that tries to keep its grip on power through false accusations of racism.
Racism exists in individuals of all colors (of course some on the Left believe blacks are incapable of racism because they don’t have power). But institutional racism is pretty much gone. Maybe in some small towns where Boss Hogg is still in charge.
[It would seem that she realized it’s not about race at all, it’s entirely about poverty.]The statement about people not wanting a black man to succeed certainly shows the racial grievance mentality -as you concede, government health care was the issue, not race, at least for Republicans. I also recall in her statement that she corrects herself at one point – something to the effect of “that’s when I realized it’s not so much about white…well it is about black and white, but it’s also about (or it’s more about) power (or poverty).”
[She talks about rich whites trying to keep everyone down and they use race to separate poor whites from blacks. This is objectionable? That’s the political strategy of the Republican Party and the business model of Fox News Channel and Big Government—whether or not everyone who supports or works for those institutions approves of the strategy, that is in fact their strategy.]Give me a break. The Journolist revelations just proved that it’s in fact the Democrats who use fake allegations of racism as a sledge hammer against Republicans – or as plate glass to ram their faces through. Of course fake racism cries go back to Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton and the Duke lacrosse case. Folks like Sharpton and Jackson only survive through false charges of racism. Republicans have always been about a color blind society. All Democrats ever point to in order to prove “racism” are these imaginary “code words.” Some one calls Obama arrogant – well arrogant sounds like cocky and cocky sounds like uppity – aha, there sending a secret code to people to go put on their white robes.
And of course they point to a few signs at Tea Parties created by Think Progress party-crashers. And LaRouche-ites – of course LaRouche is a Democrat. And the media runs all sorts of scary stories about a guy carrying a gun a tea party rally to prove racists want to kill Obama, but they crop out the person’s face because he is a black man.
As for the Heritage Foundation – they’ve come out pretty strongly that their ideas were nothing like ObamaCare and it was a total distortion by the administration to make their plan sound reasonable. Romney went way beyond what Heritage envisioned and it’s proving to be a disaster as we speak. There won’t be any insurance companies left in MA if Patrick doesn’t let them increase their charges – they’re bleeding money. Republicans had multiple proposals but as with all legislations since 2009, they’ve been completely shut out. This notion that Republicans only see “the Other” is complete projection. That’s exactly what came out of this Journolist – the Left never really attacks conservative policies but only their motives – it’s all racism; it’s all greed.
The guy who said Republicans created the race card is delusional – again, it’s been in the Left’s playbook for years. The Party of Lincoln is the party that voted in greater percentages for the Civil Rights Act. Those in their party who opposed it like Goldwater were not racists but motivated by (mistaken) constitutional views. The Party of Klan had more members oppose the Act and they were motivated by racism. Exalted Cycolps and Grand Kleagle Byrd fillibustered it and went on to the be the only Senator to vote against both blacks to the Supreme Court. The only statement I’ve ever seen attributed to him about his “regrets” about serving in the Klan were simply laughing it off as something to do as a youngster to get involved in the community. Nothing like the true remorse of someone like Thurmond or even Wallace.
The Republican ideas of getting black support to promote entreprenership in black communities so they can get ahead on their own. The Democrat idea of keeping their death grip on the black vote is keep them dependent on government and then drum up false racial fears that evil Republicans want to take away their government benefits. So any word or phrase used by a Republican is a “code word,” a “dog whistle.”
— dunadan · Jul 26, 04:41 AM · #
“You apologize for the people on your side who are resentful for not being able to discriminate as much as they used to.”
Sounds good. One thing our President has taught me is the joy of apologizing for other people’s sins.
— The Reticulator · Jul 26, 05:32 AM · #
There is no logical way to get from here to “she still sees things through a racial prism”, unless by racial prism you mean the word “race” is still in your dictionary.
No, that’s not what anyone said. Nobody said “group” or “conspire”. But individuals and institutions in the political and media, acting on their own, find it easier to gain and hold onto power and money by appealing to the racial resentments and paranoid fears of white people. The lies on Mark Levin’s show are a good example of that.
They have to say that, but it’s a joke. They proposed health care mandates as an alternative to government-run medicine or insurance. If Republicans had counter-proposed the Heritage’s plan, Obama would have taken it in a heartbeat (heck, he’d have taken that even when he was a senator). The level of extreme rage on display in the tea party was utterly divorced from policy concerns and entirely grounded in tribalistic paranoia.
More shortly.
— Consumatopia · Jul 26, 06:09 AM · #
There’s a difference between de jure racism being gone and systematic racism, but you know what? This, like most of your rant, is besides the point.
The point is that the Republican party isn’t capable of seeing all Americans as Americans. People are suffering and even dying because they can’t afford treatment or coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. To disagree as to the best bill to fix this is totally understandable. To completely ignore the problem for years of holding power, and to dedicate yourself to delay and obstruction when someone else tries to fix it, then rather than try to fix the legislation just insist on repeal so that problem remains unsolved forever—you would have to either not see the people you’re hurting as Americans or not particularly care about Americans.
— Consumatopia · Jul 26, 06:38 AM · #
Chet, I think you’re providing an anecdote about individual racism, rather than institutional racism. Are you saying that every employer follows this “policy” or that certain individuals are making certain choices? My employer has been the USAF on active duty, and as a civilian and I think our record is pretty strong for an organization filled with more southern and more conservatives than the general public (at least from what I’ve observed). Blacks have made tremendous progress in the USAF and most blacks that I work with say they are sick of the Jacksons and Sharptons and want to be judged on their character and merit. So I can’t speak for the private sector but I tend to doubt that it’s as wide spread as you think.
As to the racial prism discussed above, I would think still believing “it” is still about black and white is seeing things through a racial prism. Still believing that whites opposed Obamacare because the president is black is seeing things through a racial prism. Complaining about being unfairly called a racist while at the same time saying Breitbart and Beck want to return blacks to slavery devoid of any evidence satisfies the test of seeing things in a racial prism.
As for “groups conspiring” maybe you ought to read her quote again. You may not have said it but Shirley Sherrod certainly did. She said the “white elites” decided, “hey we need to do something” about poor whites and poor blacks working together. So they “created” racism. I guess racism and slavery never existed before white Americans came into existence. No racial prism to see there, move along.
Do you think really Republicans sit around decide, “you know these Others don’t have health insurance but I don’t want them to have it so I’m not going to do anything?” Do you really think Republicans want people to die? Is this Alan Greyson talking here? If so you prove the above point about liberals unable to talk policy but turn everything into a referendum on evil motives.
Don’t you think it’s more likely to be political cowardice or lack of will? I mean, no one other than Paul Ryan is talking about reforming the bankrupt Ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare – from either party. Why? Because they afraid they’ll get hammered politically.
Bush made a decision early on that he needed Democrat support for foreign policy because of the crisis we faced. He gave education to Kennedy and signed on to Clinton’s prescription drug plan and campaign finance deform. His calculus was not that he wanted people to die but he couldn’t afford a divided Congress. Of course, Democrats turned around and called him a traitor and a war criminal so his plan was pretty foolish. When he tried to do something about social security, he was attacked mercilessly and accused of stealing money from poor elderly women, never mind that his plan only affected the young.
Your notion that Republicans don’t want “the Others” to have anything is really a bad faith argument. They pushed for ending restrictions on buying insurance state-to-state, giving greater rights to create insurance pools, tort reform, and a host of other things that we believe would actually lower costs. They were dismissed summarily. Maybe there would good policy arguments for rejecting Republican ideas but they were never allowed to see the light of day because Nancy and Harry shut them out completely.
And per the above discussion, it’s also plainly obvious that Democrats, not Republicans use race as a weapon. For all the talk about it being Republican, there hasn’t been an example provided. It usually ends up being the code words talked about.
I recall the media saying Sarah Palin was sending a secret message at one campaign stop when she wore a white blouse. Another time, it was racism for her stay that Obama “palled around with Bill Ayers.” Give me a break. Argue the merits of her claim, don’t impugn racism to that. But again, Spencer Ackerman speaks for a lot of liberals – we can’t let this issue be discussed (in his case Jeremiah Wright) so just find a white guy and call him a racist and then smash his face through the plate glass. When the other white guys see his bloody face, they won’t bring up the issue.
That’s why any criticism of Obama is called racist. That’s why greeting cards are called racists when they show black holes in outer space. That’s why Congresswomen from Houston say the national hurricane center is racist for using too many white sounding names for hurricanes. That’s why racist quotes are made up and attributed to Rush Limbaugh. That’s why Jeremiah Wright accuses whites in government of creating AIDS to kill blacks. The list can go on and on.
Trent Lott was drummed out of office by Republicans for saying something inarticulate but not racist. Unrepentant Klansman Byrd was senate majority leader and later president pro tempore. Racial fraud master Al Sharpton is a Democratic king maker. Which is the party of race?
— Sean · Jul 26, 01:36 PM · #
Another chapter in revisionist history.
— Scrooge McDuck · Jul 26, 02:07 PM · #
“Trent Lott was drummed out of office by Republicans for saying something inarticulate but not racist.”
Strom Thurmond ran for President as a segregationist. Trent Lott said America would’ve been better off if Thurmond had been elected. Even in the kindest possible explanation of Lott just trying to say something nice about Thurmond…HOW IS REMINDING THE WORLD OF PROBABLY THE MOST EVIL AND DISGUSTING THING STROM THURMOND EVER DID SUPPOSED TO BE “NICE”?
If Lott wasn’t endorsing segregation, he was at the very least waving it away as not a very important or significant thing. He was diminishing the evils of segregation and the responsibility of those who promoted and enforced it.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 26, 02:47 PM · #
“But Ma, all the other kids in the neighborhood do it.”
But the other kids don’t have a politcal strategy predicated on attracting voters by stirring up their zenophobic instincts.
— cw · Jul 26, 03:01 PM · #
This has gotten way off topic, but all you have to do is scroll to the top of the page and see Levin’s disgusting lies and that screenshot of Breitbart’s obsession.
I understand that race-obsessed conservatives like the ones commenting here have their litany of every time someone black did something wrong since the 80s memorized, but to go through that litany in this thread is deeply obtuse.
Nope. I would say you ought to read it again, but it wouldn’t help.
I don’t think this was intended as a serious history of racism or slavery, only to illustrate the long-standing dynamic that racism divides the white and black poor to the advantage of the white elites. But even taking her words literally, she neither said nor implied a “group” or “conspiracy”. You are simply mistaken. People are capable of writing a narrative that benefits their class without actually working in a secret conspiracy.
No. I just think they don’t care.
Your reading of the events of the last decade is utterly disingenuous (the best is that Clinton and Kennedy’s willingness to vote along with Bush is used against them), but that’s been discussed to death all over the internet. Way off topic.
If conservatives were now campaigning to replace the current health law with conservative reforms instead, that would at least demonstrate that they still had souls—that they recognized that the status quo was intolerable but they had a better solution than the current plan. And to their credit, some Republicans and conservatives plan to do exactly that, and maybe I’ll actually like some of their ideas.
But not the Tea Party. They demand Repeal. Nothing to replace it, just Repeal. For them, it’s not about policy—it’s entirely about denying the Other a victory.
— Consumatopia · Jul 26, 07:41 PM · #
You know, we really shouldn’t be talking about racism, ideology, or partisanship in general. Breitbart, Levin, and defenders like Sean are provably wrong about what Shirley Sherrod said, and they refuse to apologize. I apologize for any part I had in discussing anything but this slander on an innocent person’s good name.
— Consumatopia · Jul 26, 09:14 PM · #
The Reticulator, you do realize Media Matters was started by a former Republican operative who was a frequent guest of Rush Limbaugh’s, right?
Right?
Idea: Google search David Brock.
— Derek Scruggs · Jul 27, 01:37 AM · #
Mark Levin is painful to listen to. He has no sense of humor or irony.
Rush, on the other hand, purposely says stuff to really piss people off (like Connor). And it works. Yes, it’s immature. But it’s also fun if you don’t take it too seriously (which I don’t think most Rush fans do).
— thehova · Jul 27, 02:11 AM · #
“But the other kids don’t have a politcal strategy predicated on attracting voters by stirring up their zenophobic instincts.”
As far as I can tell, both the Democrats and Republics try to stir up xenophobic instincts. The Democrats do it when they refuse to enact a trade agreement with Columbia, or when they don’t want those swarthy Mexican truckers to be driving their rigs on our roads, or when they think we shouldn’t be outsourcing jobs to some other country where people need the work and are willing to do it. Democrats are no slackers when it comes to xenophobic jingoism.
— The Reticulator · Jul 27, 02:56 AM · #
For them, it’s not about policy—it’s entirely about denying the Other a victory.
That statement would go really good with a black helicopter and a tinfoil hat.
— The Reticulator · Jul 27, 03:00 AM · #
“The Reticulator, you do realize Media Matters was started by a former Republican operative who was a frequent guest of Rush Limbaugh’s, right?”
Is this factoid supposed to matter in any way or somehow keep Media Matters from being a wacko extremist group? (Heh. Matter, get it?) It’s the easiest thing in the world for a Republican to become corrupt and turn DemLeft. Dog bites man. Becoming uncorrupt, on the other hand, is a far more difficult thing. Those are man-bites-dog stories worthy of mention.
BTW, back when I could stand to listen to my hero Rush Limbaugh, he would point out that he didn’t often do guests. And it was best that he didn’t, because he’s a lousy interviewer. I doubt that he’s gotten better at it the last decade or so.
— The Reticulator · Jul 27, 03:56 AM · #
“Is this factoid supposed to matter in any way” — Why should facts start mattering to you now.
— reticulated · Jul 27, 04:25 AM · #
“Democrats are no slackers when it comes to xenophobic jingoism.”
I agree that there are some instances, but promoting xenophobia is not a structural part of their political strategy.
— cw · Jul 27, 04:26 AM · #
Fdorf,
C’mon, you know it’s a fun beat, scoring against Levin’s stupidity. You savor it the same way most of us pounce with replies on silly, superficial arguments— much easier to fillet— than we do nuanced commentary with which we happen to disagree. Just look at the various, thoughtful Millman posts of late. The reply threads tend toward combative bickering over calcified positions. But at least there’s that much. With Walker Frost, it’s even worse: “Leave a reply: 1.”
I’m not knocking this tendency. A serious primitive gratification, not easily dismissed, comes from chopping into cheap, flimsy, self-serving remarks. So, why not be honest about it and enjoy?
— warren oates · Jul 27, 04:28 AM · #
You know what would be even scummier than the nihilistic cries for Repeal? To just start making as many non sequiturs as possible so people don’t notice Breitbart, Levin, or Sean slandering an innocent person.
Forget about whether Republicans or Democrats are worse. The real lesson is that you trolls, personally, are without integrity or decency.
— Consumatopia · Jul 27, 04:29 AM · #
“The Party of Lincoln is the party that voted in greater percentages for the Civil Rights Act.” Ah, the percentages canard. This is true, technically, but irrelevant. It was Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who was the major advocate and one of two driving forces (the other being Martin Luther King, Jr.) whose moral advocacy resulted in the eventual passage. What you want is the breakdown by party and region:
By party and regionNote: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) * Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) * Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) * Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) * Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) * Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) * Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)Now, you’re right that Northern Republicans deserve credit for helping LBJ and the Democrats pass the bill. But pretty much the entire opposition in the Democratic party came out of the Southern Democrats, who were a breed unto themselves.
Yeah, Robert Byrd was a Klansman and a racist. He gave a heartfelt speech in the 1970s acknowledging he was wrong, and by all accounts meant it. Republican Senator Jesse Helms never repented for his racism (here’s a helpful list: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/conservatives-a.html ), and—unless I’m mistaken—was never called out for it by sitting Republicans. Same with Strom Thurmond (not sure what you mean by “repent,” given that he had an actual African-American daughter out of wedlock who couldn’t come forward while Thurmond was alive because she was terrified for her life if she did so), and let’s not forget Ronald Reagan’s infamous visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi in the 1980 campaign, where he made a point of praising “states’ rights“… the name of the single-issue segregationist party formed by Strom Thurmond in 1948 when he left the Democratic party, sickened over Truman’s integration of the military. As for your questions about speaking in code or specific examples (Helms’ many are readily available on google), well here’s a Lee Atwater quote. I’m not quoting it directly here because of his multiple uses of a racial slur:
(the indented quotation in the section called “Evolution”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Modern_appraisal_in_the_Republican_party
Make you a deal. You condemn Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Lee Atwater, and Ronald Reagan all exploiting racism for political gain, and I’ll condemn Robert Byrd’s past choices that he apologized for.
— G · Jul 27, 06:11 AM · #
“I agree that there are some instances, but promoting xenophobia is not a structural part of their political strategy.”
If you’ve been able to detect a Republican political strategy, it’s more than anyone else has been able to do.
— The Reticulator · Jul 27, 07:01 AM · #
“Why should facts start mattering to you now.”
If I told you, you would be the last person to know. Nyah.
— The Reticulator · Jul 27, 07:04 AM · #
like it
— durable medical equipment · Jul 27, 07:08 AM · #
How does this change the fact the White House “demanded” and “harassed” Sherrod for her resignation, branding her a racist and jumping to conclusions without having all the facts, despite her insistence otherwise, at least three times prior to receiving her pulled-to-the-side-of-the-road-and-texted resignation by close of business Monday, July 19, 2010?
— JustFor · Jul 27, 10:14 AM · #
Warren,
Tune in to Mark Levin everyday for a week. And then try to tell me again how fun it is.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 27, 10:39 AM · #
“If you’ve been able to detect a Republican political strategy, it’s more than anyone else has been able to do.”
It’s been a pretty succesful strategy up until recently. But now the Xenos are beginning to outnumber the phobes, especially when you add costal urban elites to the list. A lot of people live in cities on the coasts.
But anyway, I understand you were being facitious. Your politics are interesting. You seem not to like anyone.
— cw · Jul 27, 01:42 PM · #
JustFor, it doesn’t. I think we all agree that the Administration screwed up shamefully in this situation.
— Consumatopia · Jul 27, 03:04 PM · #
cheap watches
— fadewatches · Aug 2, 03:21 AM · #
I am a fanatic watch collection, especially the well-known watches, you also can do, just click on my name!
— fade watches · Aug 6, 07:32 AM · #