Both sides of the political spectrum are pots calling the kettles black in this current "you're a racist" tug-o-war. On the right, while aggressively condemning NAACP's resolution repudiating racial elements in the Tea Party; one of the Tea Parties prominent leaders Mark Williams sent an embarrassing and racially charged so-called-satire post from the perspective of a "colored man". Mark Williams and his entire organization, Tea Party Express, was expelled from the National Tea Party Federation. On the left, while pointing the finger at the Tea Party, they refuse to include in their resolution, the new Black Panther Party's leaders who are asking for the "killing of cracker babies". [Now enters Shirley Sherrod].
Shirley Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod typifies this artificially created racial battle between the right and left. A right-biased website powered by Andrew Breitbart, BigGovernment, posted an incomplete video of a federally appointed USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, Shirley Sherrod, speaking at a NAACP dinner in March. In her speech, she recounts a story which takes place 26 years ago, while she was working for a nonprofit rural aid group, where she did not help a white farmer to her complete ability because he was white. End of sound-byte.
The NAACP quickly put out a statement condemning her remarks, without contacting her for verification or explanation says Sherrod. Almost as quickly as the incomplete video hit the air waves, the USDA Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called Sherrod while she was driving, and informed her "the White House wanted her to resign because her comments were generating a cable news controversy" naming Glenn Beck specifically. She resisted. In the final of the three phone conversations, "they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that's what I did." She told CNN that "it hurts [her] that [the administration] didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care."
Who is coming to Shirley Sherrod's defense? The NAACP who has done a quick 180, the specifically named by the administration Glenn Beck, and even the white farmer she was speaking of! "We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner, the wife of farmer Roger Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you." Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak defended his call for her resignation, even as more of the story poured out vindicating Shirley Sherrod's reputation, saying "the controversy surrounding her comments would create a situation where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her bring jobs to Georgia." The term “rightly or wrongly” suggests that the truth does not matter -- only perception, the politics of the situation.
The Shirley Sherrod drama illustrates that every organization, NAACP, Black Panthers, Tea Party, even government agencies, are full of humans. Humans who make mistakes, have prejudices to overcome or succomb to, learning lessons we are all faced with. The sad irony in the case of Shirley Sherrod, is the entirety of the video shows that she overcame her prejudices, and she eventually came to work closely with the white farmer and that she was trying to impart a lesson about how important it is to get beyond the issue of race.
“I went on to work with many more white farmers,” she said. “The story helped me realize that race is not the issue.”
“I went on to work with many more white farmers,” she said. “The story helped me realize that race is not the issue.”
8 comments:
In fairness to Sec. Vilsack, he manned up and was genuinely contrite and regretful in his apology to Shirley Sherrod. And when he said "rightly or wrongly," yes it's the perception, the politics that makes it untenable for someone in government to continue on the job. Once Limbaugh, or Beck, or Fox gets their claws on someone it's usually bye-bye. I can just see their internal calculations: We know it's BS, but better to cut our losses than go against Fox and their relentless, daily smears.
It's called a WITCH HUNT. It's what Joe McCarthy did in the Red Scare of the 50s, and it's what Breitbart, Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, and all the rest of the toxic right wing do today. If they can destroy the career of someone, anyone (preferably a black person) within the Obama Administration on trumped-up, manufactured charges, they will do it. And never look back. Because they can get away with.
Not many Fox viewers watch Rachel Maddow. Yesterday she juxtaposed the 180 Fox did from one day to the next. Day 1: Obama administration fires USDA official for making racist remarks; she's racist, this won't do, etc., said Fox. Day 2, after the honorable media (guess who they are) said, "wait a minute ..." Fox comes back and says: Obama administration acted in haste; they DIDN'T SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE. Well, who showed the heavily edited and DISHONEST tape excerpts to begin with? FOX! They didn't even do their own reporting or due diligence (why would they; they're NOT a news organization); they literally cut-and-pasted what Breitbart spoonfed them. That's the right wing. They're liars. They're hypocrites; they have no honor whatsoever, and they never think twice about destroying lives.
"If they can destroy the career of someone, anyone (preferably a black person) within the Obama Administration..."
Name names. Van Jones. Any other "preferably black people" that are within the Obama administration that the nut job right media has "forced out"? Anita Dunn. Melissa Hathaway. Yosi Sergant. Susan Crawford. Steve Rattner. None of those are "black people". And every single one of them is linked to extremely progressive liberal ideology. Net Neutrality. Communist organizations. Or even in the case of Rattner, a pension scandal. Give me a BREAK. If you don't properly vet the people you appoint to the administration, or continue to surround yourself with advisors that have questionable ideologis or connections, you should only expect pressure from the opposite side of the media spectrum.
So the question is, is the Obama administration just a bunch of spineless, cut your losses, political gamists that would rather see someone else take a fall for "trumped up charges". OR is there something to the accusations, that they would rather have them quietly "resign" than have more digging into possibly damaging information? I don't know. Either way, it isn't a positive scenario for Pres. Obama.
Names, indeed. Van Jones' character was assassinated by Glenn Beck, a sick conspiracist demagogue. In this country NO ONE should be disqualified from public service for expressing a thought or an ideological position, as long as no law was broken. Van Jones had an excellent record of service, and it's unfortunate that in this country reactionary clowns and narrow-minded people have the power to deny us the benefit of an excellent public servant. I doubt Jesus would be acceptable by the wingnuts if Obama appointed him to a WH position; not after they started perusing all his communistic activities in the New Testament.
You speak as if the history of government appointments began with Obama. Compared with the Reagan-Clinton-GWB administrations, these withdrawals and resignations are nothing, in terms of actual malfeasance, criminal investigations, not to speak of indictments. By comparison, the Obama appointees look a lot better than their predecessors.
Incidentally, you made our point. There were more black appointments, but on what basis did that rat Glenn Beck call the President "a racist."
And no, the question is not if the Obama administration are a bunch of "spineless, cut your losses, political gamists." As liberals who support the President, we can make this critique CONSTRUCTIVELY. We understand that, as the first African American president, Mr. Obama has to take a tremendous amount of flak from the right wing, on questions of race, in particular. Just imagine how your heros, Beck and Limbaugh -- RACISTS OF THE FIRST ORDER -- would feast with daily smears if the President ever responded AS A HUMAN BEING to some of the Teabagger excesses: The man's cool is one of his most impressive qualities -- it will serve the country well in a crisis. In his place, I would not turn the other cheek to pictures of a witch doctor or Hitler -- I'd blow my top and give the Teabaggers a piece of my mind. It's a NATURAL reaction. But Noooo, the President can't do it, otherwise he'll come across as that primal white racists' fear: THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.
The President knows it. So he lets the attacks and hideous racist insults slide away, like water off a duck's back. He couldn't be milder and more understanding, saying 'people have a right express themselves,' her understands their fears and anxieties, etc.
Don't misunderstand. Progressives would like to see President Obama come out swinging -- against Limbaugh, Breitbart, Beck, and Fox News. No, there's nothing at all to your heros' sick and paranoid accusations. Only that to an administration under assault because of the color of the President's skin, they don't see an upside to standing up to the wingnuts; because wingnuts don't tell the truth, and people believe them.
It took a long time before President Eisenhower finally came out against Joe McCarthy. And only after that famous confrontation: "Have you no shame, sir. At long last, HAVE YOU NO SHAME?"
Maybe the President's right. Maybe the better angels of our nature will win the day and crush racist rats like Limbaugh, Beck, and Breitbart. But from where we sit, watching this toxic garbage day-after-day, progressives aren't so sure.
I still am confused why you believe that just because I am a conservative in principles that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are my "heroes". The beautiful thing about the internet, is it is easy to debunk much of the propagandist material from both sides. And as I have said on MANY issues, I don't form an opinion until I have all the facts.
Don't use that inaccurate statement as an argument anymore.
I also have a challenge for you. It is inspired by a friend of mine's challenge. He challenged me to only watch MSNBC for an entire week, and I had to pick Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann and watch them nightly. (I picked Maddow, obviously!) I do have to say, I went in with a completely open mind, which made all the difference. And I did learn a lesson. MSNBC had stories that I wouldn't hear else where. Points of view that ARE VALID, although I disagreed most of the time, it gave me perspective to where someone would come from. And after that I didn't dismiss a news story just because it came from MSNBC.
I challenge you to watch nothing BUT FoxNews and you can pick between Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly for an entire week. HA. I think hell would freeze over!
Hahaha ... Sorry, I shouldn't generalize and assume that you watch Beck and listen to Limbaugh.
I'm glad you watched Maddow for a whole week, and that it made you see things from the other side. She does the best Tea Party stories because she lays out all the astro-turf connections of the various organizations.
My problem with Fox is that they LIE; THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH.
But if I had to pick between Beck and O'Reilly, I'd pick Beck, only because he's so comical, I'd try to keep my temper in check and laugh from beginning to end, hoping to catch one of his cry-baby episodes every so often ...
Mostly, I form my politics from a reading of history. I finished a book on Lincoln's first election, and now I'm reading about his second election. Also reading Game Changer, re: 2008 election. My political heros range from Jefferson to Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to FDR to Truman to Bobby Kennedy.
I don't have any contemporary political heros, although I admire some. Bernie Sanders, for instance, socialist independent of Vermont. Thom Hartmann calls him "America's senator." Very apt description. I saw a list of the biggest recipients of Big Oil money in the Senate, top to bottom, and Senator Sanders was at the very bottom with $500. Must have been a socialist mole working for Exxon or BP who wants more regulation of the industry! I also admire Sherrod Brown of Ohio. He's always rumpled, looks like he hasn't had enough sleep, working hard for his constituents. He was also right at the bottom of the donations list.
I'm a little disappointed in the President, but I'm pulling for him. Next book on my list is Jon Alter's "Hope" about his first year in office.
I did have favorites in American political history, obvious conservative picks. But as I've learned more, and put more into context, I hate to say I keep becoming disappointed. I have had to realize that although I believe that our country was founded for divine purposes, the Lord works through VERY imperfect people. And power corrupts even the best. Which I'd love to get your take on term limits, I'm moving more and more in favor!
So do you accept the challenge? And you picked Glenn Beck, I'm a little surprised. You are a glutton for punishment.
Not so much ... maybe a plunge into the paranoid world of Beck's alternate reality might be relaxing, as long as I'm in the right frame of mind ... this is delusional political paranoia ... I mean, Jon Stewart gets some of his best material from Beck.
Anyway, better a clown than a pompous ass.
I'm not philosophically opposed to term limits, except that some very good people might get tossed out, along with the bad.
What I think we need to do is get the money out of politics -- ALL money. I favor public funding of campaigns, and I'd be willing to pay $5 in my tax return for it. If you watch legislation, just follow the money and you'll understand how it gets perverted, once the lobbyists get their claws on it. The corporations rule; they've got enough legislators in their pockets to get things their way.
That's why I like Bernie Sanders; not because he's a socialist, but because he's literally beholden to no one.
Entities that contribute millions to campaigns get a seat at the table; they get heard, corrupt senators (Ben Nelson, D-NE, for one) do their bidding, and when they retire they make their millions as lobbyists.
That's the corrupt cycle we need to break.
Term limits, I agree we'd lose some good ones. But maybe it would attract people didn't want to become career politicians who would be even better.
Here's an idea that I find interesting. Why not move all of the representatives home, and have more of the work done through telecommunictions/Skype, etc. Here are some of the benefits: keep them closer to their constituents, more difficult for the lobbyists to bribe them (going from state to state as opposed to door to door), save money on travel, to name a few. We have enough technology that it would be easy to transition. Why not?
I don't know enough to jump 100% with you on public funding for campaigns. I know I am tired of lobbyists buying votes, and great candidates not making it because of not enough funding. Hmmm, I will have to get back to you on that. It sounds great in theory, I just need to work through the con's. Government funded campaigns, doesn't sit well with me.
Post a Comment