There's an odd movement on the right to tarnish the current administration as racist. Listen to Fox "News" and the conclusion is pretty clear: Barack Obama, his appointees, his staff are racist. This is Newspeak at its finest. What could the point possibly be except to stir up white racism and fear?

First we have the story about "Black Panthers" intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. The Justice Department investigated but did not prosecute. "Racism!" screamed the foxy ones. Perhaps, though, there wasn't sufficient evidence to make a case, given that the Fox reporter stirred up all the commotion. Now, I don't think people should show their billy clubs (or guns) at a polling place, but this little Fox story doesn't make the administration racist.

Then the NAACP, quite independently of my last column, no doubt, asked a batch of tea party leaders to repudiate (Ah! That's the word Sarah Palin kept looking for!) the racist elements of their movement. They did NOT say that the tea party was racist. But the squawking on the right began.

I watched the Memphis tea party leader being interviewed along with an NAACP leader. The black guy kept saying, "The NAACP asks that the tea party reject the racist elements within it." The white guy kept saying, "The tea party does not embrace racism."

Look it up: rejecting is different from not embracing. "Elements within" are not the same as the whole. The two sides were speaking different languages. But the racist signs and language are there for all to see at media-filmed tea party gatherings. If the tea parties don't embrace racism, then they should adamantly repudiate it.

Finally, the Shirley Sherrod story shows us what happens when sound bites are tossed into the whirlpool of television. Apparently, Andrew Breitbart, right-wing blogster and storymaker, cut up bits of a speech that Sherrod gave to a local NAACP group in March and made a little film. Bill O'Reilly picked up the story and called for Sherrod's resignation.

In those remastered bits, Sherrod appears to tell the group that because he was acting superior to her, she failed to help a white farmer as much as she could have. In fact, though, when we heard the rest of the speech, we learned that Sherrod was talking about how she overcame the fury that gripped her when her father was murdered by white supremacists and the collective farm that she worked so hard to sustain was sold in failure.

She linked up the white farmer with a white lawyer whom she thought could help him best. The lawyer, however, did nothing. When the farmer frantically called her again, seven days before his farm was to be sold on the courthouse steps, she swung into action and worked overtime, above and beyond, found him a lawyer who would do what was needed - and the farm was saved. Sherrod and the farmer became lifelong friends.

Sherrod had learned, to her surprise, that white farmers were losing their farms too, and she realized that race wasn't the all-encompassing factor that she had thought it was as a child. She told the NAACP, "It's not about black people and white people; it's about poor people. We have to work together." Her speech was about her personal growth, her ability to forgive, and her resolve to do her best for ALL disadvantaged people.

Amen, sister.

The White House and Tom Vilsack have both apologized to Sherrod for demanding that she resign. They were so wrong to leap into action on a Fox report. And the Fox crowd owes us all an apology. If it's not the "war on Christmas" or "the evil conspiracy of the left," it's "Obama and his people are racists." George Orwell's dark vision of the future has come to pass. "We have always been at war with ..." name your own enemy.

(56) comments

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Wow...apparently Ms. Woods doesn't feel the need to fact check anything.

In her haste to make the Sherrod firing the outcome of the "racist" Fox News Channel promoting the story, she doesn't acknowledge the FACT that Fox News Channel did not air the story (or the video) until AFTER Sherrod was fired! There is no causal relationship between Sherrod's firing and FNC's airing of the video. Period.

Too bad the Courier can't find an honest liberal to grace the editorial pages.

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]thebigguy128 said: "Wow...apparently Ms. Woods doesn't feel the need to fact check anything. In her haste to make the Sherrod firing the outcome of the "racist" Fox News Channel promoting the story, she doesn't acknowledge the FACT that Fox News Channel did not air the story (or the video) until AFTER Sherrod was fired! There is no causal relationship between Sherrod's firing and FNC's airing of the video. Period.Too bad the Courier can't find an honest liberal to grace the editorial pages."[/quote]

Does Fox and Friends count? That's where I first learned of the story, which was shown several days before the truth came out! LOL!

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

[quote]reojoe said: "Does Fox and Friends count? That's where I first learned of the story, which was shown several days before the truth came out! LOL! "[/quote]


LOL on you. Several days?????? Let's see...Breitbart posted the video and story on Monday, July 19. Sherrod resigned/was fired on the afternoon of July 19. O'Reilly called for her resignation during the taping of his show on the afternoon of July 19 (which aired later that evening, after she had been fired). The Fox and Friends segment you refer to was on July 20...AFTER the firing.

O'Reilly later apologized to Sherrod.

You can lamely try to make Sherrod's firing a Fox-driven "scandal" but the FACTS prove otherwise.

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Even the vaunted LA Times disagrees with your timeline Joe..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/07/bill-oreilly-apologizes-to-shirley-sherrod-for-not-doing-my-homework.html

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

And if you didn't like the times, how about Mediaite?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/examining-the-myth-that-fox-news-drove-shirley-sherrod-to-resign/

timbrackett
timbrackett

[quote]thebigguy128 said: "Wow...apparently Ms. Woods doesn't feel the need to fact check anything. In her haste to make the Sherrod firing the outcome of the "racist" Fox News Channel promoting the story, she doesn't acknowledge the FACT that Fox News Channel did not air the story (or the video) until AFTER Sherrod was fired! There is no causal relationship between Sherrod's firing and FNC's airing of the video. Period.Too bad the Courier can't find an honest liberal to grace the editorial pages."[/quote]

I'm not a huge fan of media matters, but it was the first link I found after googling the story.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007290006

McKinley
McKinley

I wonder if Obama would consider Dr. Wood "a typical white person" and if Shirley Sherrod would advise Dr. Wood if she needed a lawyer to seek one of them, one of her own kind to take care of her.

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

[quote]timbrackett said: "I'm not a huge fan of media matters, but it was the first link I found after googling the story. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007290006 "[/quote]


Tim....

Please quote the relevant parts of the MMFA story to rebut my statements. I parsed my words carefully in my rebuttal to Ms. Wood.

Please remember, FoxNation is NOT Fox News Channel. When people say "Fox News," I, along with the rest of the english speaking world, make the assumption they are talking about Fox News Channel.

If, as implied by MMFA, the White House bowed to comments on FoxNation, then this country is totally bereft of leadership in the Executive Branch.

BTW, I didn't "cross-ize" Ms. Woods screed against all things conservative....there are not enough pixels in cyberspace to point out all of her false or misleading statements.

timbrackett
timbrackett

[quote]thebigguy128 said: "Tim....Please quote the relevant parts of the MMFA story to rebut my statements. I parsed my words carefully in my rebuttal to Ms. Wood.Please remember, FoxNation is NOT Fox News Channel. When people say "Fox News," I, along with the rest of the english speaking world, make the assumption they are talking about Fox News Channel. If, as implied by MMFA, the White House bowed to comments on FoxNation, then this country is totally bereft of leadership in the Executive Branch.BTW, I didn't "cross-ize" Ms. Woods screed against all things conservative....there are not enough pixels in cyberspace to point out all of her false or misleading statements."[/quote]

Fox Nation is Fox News. It is owned and operated by Fox News. The distinction you are trying to make is akin to saying msnbc.com is not msnbc. Speaking of which, foxnews.com ran the story before she resigned. So getting caught up on the small "technicality" that Fox News didn't "air" the story on their television channel until after her resignation when Fox News (through their official website and the propaganda arm--Fox Nation--they own and operate) is rather disingenuous.
All par for the course with extreme ideologues though. They are so caught up in proving that their way is "right" that they can never admit to being wrong.

ronbow502000
ronbow502000

Let us not get are panties in to big of a wad about a few hours timeline differential. Of course O'Reilley might have only taped his show asking her to resign and it MIGHT not have quite aired until after she did. Boy! You guys sure are being wronged! Drudge sure ran it, as did all major nutwig sites, as Breitbart is a MAJOR player in the right wing blogosphere. Two days later, after the Sherrod story was fixed and she was asked back, I went to the story on Yahoo and read MANY letters from right-wingers calling her the N word and saying that Obama asking her back was ABSOLUTE PROOF of his racism.

On the subject of the Philadelphia "intimidation of voters by black militants" that HAS been running on every right-wing show for the last two years: Go to youtube.com and you can watch the whole incident from start to finish. You will see a wimpy Fox reporter following a rather lost looking black guy in a field jacket around and pointing out the "dangerous weapon he is using to "intimidate voters."This is a 98% democratic district, and the guy had apparently been sent by "someone", we don't know who, to provide "security" because in the recent past republican operatives had gone to that polling place telling voters that if they had EVER been arrested for ANYTHING they would be charged with a felony if they tried to vote. William Renquist, when he was a republican operative in AZ before his Supreme Court duties was famous for the same tactic. That tactic was also used in Fla. for Bush in 2000. The Fox reporter screams at everyone "aren't you frightened!" and they all ignore him. The guy is asked to leave and immediately does. THIS is the great racist Obama scandal the networks have been running for a VERY long time. They want Holder to bring major terrorists charges. If you do not believe me, go to the site and watch the episode from start to finish and then tell me it is not a joke. I believe that the Sherrod incident is different only in that someone actually DID look at the tape. If everyone looked at the Philly tape it would be the same.

You folks who love Fox should remember you live in Iowa. Conservatives here tend to be far more rational than those in say, Utah or Alaska. You think that the like-minded really think deeply about issues. I think you are naive about the depth of idiocy you are dealing with. Right wing crazy people have taken over what was once an important and viable party. My friends who are VERY conservative will not even go to a Republican caucus anymore because it is lie a snake-handling revival meeting. The Dems have some extreme liberals, but not that many. Your primaries are now controlled by crazies. That, by the way, is a compliment to the real Iowa conservatives.

Phil
Phil

Good points ronbow502000. I have pointed out a number of times the solid, common sense conservatives that Iowa has produced like Bob Ray and Jim Leach (among others) who were a valuable part of the public debate and served their constituents well. Yet according to some here conservatives like them are RINO's and should be purged from the party.

How far they have fallen.....

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Really Tim...you are being disingenuous. If I said to a buddy, "You should see this story they're running on Fox News," he is going to turn on the television. He's not running to Foxnation.com or foxnews.com. Foxnation is the conservative version of HuffPo...a lot of chatter from the wonks, but the general public barely know they exist.

Also, I notice Ms. Woods didn't mention Beck at all in her story. Did his response not fit her meme? Becks first public response was to support Sherrod and take her side.

Ronbow...if nothing happened, why did the civil division of the DOJ get a judgment against the 2 "gentlemen?" And why did the Holder DOJ then walk back that judgment? And why, in sworn testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, did two of the lead prosecutors say they were ordered NOT to prosecute voter intimidation when the victims were white and the agressors were black? Why did the career prosecutors say they had a slam dunk criminal case while the political appointees say there wasn't enough evidence?

And Phil...Jim Leach is a conservative? Only if you define conservative as "not as liberal as the Daily Kos."

Dave88
Dave88

Why was it ok for Shirley Sharrod to use fraises like "one of their Kind" in her speech? had that been reversed and a white person from the administration used fraises like she did everyone would be up in arms. She should have been fired and Fox owes no apology. It is too funny how upset the liberals get at Fox. NBC can slam the right and thats ok. But turn it around and the Dem's are crying. Clearly a case of being able to dish but can't take it. It's good at least one station continues to point out the Democrates Hypocracies. The case of the Black Panthers should be reported. Those thugs should be removed and not intimidating people at voting stations.

reojoe
reojoe

thebigguy...Looks like someone's been snookered again by Fixed News! Here's a cavalcade of links. Care to place on bet on these new facts? $1,000 sound good? http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201007220004
http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007280075
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270047

reojoe
reojoe

I would SURE think that Geln Beck would take Sherrod's side! If, in fact, he initially thought that she was a racist, that's all that the guy has ever done has back and apologized for racists and racism, most noteworthy, his own.

timbrackett
timbrackett

[quote]thebigguy128 said: "Really Tim...you are being disingenuous. If I said to a buddy, "You should see this story they're running on Fox News," he is going to turn on the television. He's not running to Foxnation.com or foxnews.com. "[/quote]

Like I said, you are an extremist ideologue who is going to wiggle and squirm away from the truth as much as possible so that your mouthpiece (fox news) isn't tarnished so you biased opinion on the matter doesn't hold any weight.
Thankfully, this nation is growing more independent and I pray that the trend continues because the two-party system (governed largely by extremists ideologues) has nearly brought this nation to her knees. I dream of the day when Fox news-type "news" organizations go bankrupt because the nation sees through the b.s. (It probably won't be until after the baby boomer generation has passed on, because they seem to be embroiled in a bitter battle that started decades ago so fox/msnbc can continue to profit from the boomers 40-50 year old fight).

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]Dave88 said: "Why was it ok for Shirley Sharrod to use fraises like "one of their Kind" in her speech? had that been reversed and a white person from the administration used fraises like she did everyone would be up in arms. She should have been fired and Fox owes no apology. It is too funny how upset the liberals get at Fox. NBC can slam the right and thats ok. But turn it around and the Dem's are crying. Clearly a case of being able to dish but can't take it. It's good at least one station continues to point out the Democrates Hypocracies. The case of the Black Panthers should be reported. Those thugs should be removed and not intimidating people at voting stations."[/quote]

Still trying to grasp onto a case of black "racism," even though Fixed Noise has even conceded? I guess I'm wondering why you are still trying to hold onto that?

wcf reader
wcf reader

i think the only thing it is racist is the simple notion that specific "groups" of people require specific advantages over others...

i mean, this in a nutshell is racism. making decisions soley on the concept of one's color of their skin. yet, donna writes how the fox news is racist...its nonsense, as the assertions of joe and phil that conservatives are racist.

yet, is exactly what the left is so great at doing...labeling people. racists...greedy...etc. etc. of course they will be the first to marginalize a group of people and tell everyone how they will fix their "shortcomings"...because we all know, liberals know whats best for everyone...ha!

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Does Fox and Friends count? That's where I first learned of the story, which was shown several days before the truth came out


Joe....I'm still waiting for proof of your above statement....you can send the $1000.00 to Habitat for Humanity.


Phil
Phil

wcf reader,

Some one might have labeled conservatives as a group racists, but it wasn't me. Specific individuals, yes - but as a group - no.

But you're still good at using that code language like "advantages". Ironic isn't it that insuring a class of people - who for decades were shut out of jobs, schools, etc. - is represented proportionately to their numbers in society is giving them an "advantage". While I won't call that type of thinking racist or bigoted - I think that's overstating things - it certainly isn't the view of someone who is open minded.

Even if it WERE an advantage - which it isn't - amazing how those whose ideological ancestors were willing to look the other way when people were discriminated against suddenly find their voice when the shoe is on the other foot.

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

[quote]reojoe said: "thebigguy...Looks like someone's been snookered again by Fixed News! Here's a cavalcade of links. Care to place on bet on these new facts? $1,000 sound good? http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201007220004http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007280075http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270047 "[/quote]

Your 3rd link...from Eric Boehlert. Here is Johnny Dollar's reply...
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100801fhwir.php

Again...send the grand to Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity.

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]thebigguy128 said: "Does Fox and Friends count? That's where I first learned of the story, which was shown several days before the truth came outJoe....I'm still waiting for proof of your above statement....you can send the $1000.00 to Habitat for Humanity."[/quote]

I provided link after link, and even links to the original sources. Fixed Noise, themselves, conceded.

No, when I bet I bet CASH. I have a paypal account. $1,000 bucks good, Rush?

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]wcf reader said: "i think the only thing it is racist is the simple notion that specific "groups" of people require specific advantages over others...i mean, this in a nutshell is racism. making decisions soley on the concept of one's color of their skin. yet, donna writes how the fox news is racist...its nonsense, as the assertions of joe and phil that conservatives are racist.yet, is exactly what the left is so great at doing...labeling people. racists...greedy...etc. etc. of course they will be the first to marginalize a group of people and tell everyone how they will fix their "shortcomings"...because we all know, liberals know whats best for everyone...ha!"[/quote]

Just a quick list: Party boss/comedian Rush Koresh Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Dogg the Bounty Hunter, Jake Knotts, George Allen, Mark Fuhrman, Sean McVeigh Hannity, and Ronald Reagan.

Just a quick list off the top of my head. Gee, I wonder why the racist tag still hounts them? Rather than deny it, why not look into why it keeps surfacing amond the republican party?

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Gee Joe...I post a link to show your last MM link is baloney...and you still won't pay. Just another typical progressive...wanting to spend OPM.

On a serious note....MM and Eric Boehlert have been proven liars on so many occasions...not mistatements or unvetted sources..but liars that their veracity is now actually lower than Obama's.

reojoe
reojoe

thebigguy...I find it funny that you aren't REALLY insisting on taking me up on my bet! After all, you have proven that I am wrong. You know why you aren't taking me up on it? Because you haven't even read the links that I've provided. Tell me where this story is wrong. It is DIRECTLY from the mouths of Fixed News executives (unless they are wrong to you for the first time ever!).

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004

BIL
BIL

[quote]Dave88 said: "Why was it ok for Shirley Sharrod to use fraises like "one of their Kind" in her speech? had that been reversed and a white person from the administration used fraises like she did everyone would be up in arms. She should have been fired and Fox owes no apology. It is too funny how upset the liberals get at Fox. NBC can slam the right and thats ok. But turn it around and the Dem's are crying. Clearly a case of being able to dish but can't take it. It's good at least one station continues to point out the Democrates Hypocracies. The case of the Black Panthers should be reported. Those thugs should be removed and not intimidating people at voting stations."[/quote]

Now here's a good example of a well-informed Fox News viewer. LOL

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]BIL said: "Now here's a good example of a well-informed Fox News viewer. LOL"[/quote]

Yes, I couldn't help but notice "voting stationS," yet there is only video of one station, let alone the fact that the video does not provide evidence of actual intimidation.

timbrackett
timbrackett

[quote]Dave88 said: "Why was it ok for Shirley Sharrod to use fraises like "one of their Kind" in her speech? had that been reversed and a white person from the administration used fraises like she did everyone would be up in arms. She should have been fired and Fox owes no apology."[/quote]

I'm assuming you haven't watched the video in its entirety.

BIL
BIL

[quote]reojoe said: "Yes, I couldn't help but notice "voting stationS," yet there is only video of one station, let alone the fact that the video does not provide evidence of actual intimidation."[/quote]

No doubt. Pretty much every statement in that comment is wrong. Let's run through it, xdfred-style!

Dave88 said: "Why was it ok for Shirley Sharrod to use fraises like "one of their Kind" in her speech?

She said that in the part of her speech about her old, wrong way of looking at things.

"had that been reversed and a white person from the administration used fraises like she did everyone would be up in arms."

Everyone was up in arms until the whole story came out. She got no special treatment.

"She should have been fired and Fox owes no apology."

That's not what Papa Bear said.

"It is too funny how upset the liberals get at Fox. NBC can slam the right and thats ok. But turn it around and the Dem's are crying. Clearly a case of being able to dish but can't take it."

Both sides' media criticizes the other. Seems pretty even. Don't Beck and O'Reilly spend a lot of time crying about what the left is saying about them? Rachel Maddow can have a sane, respectful conversation with someone like Rand Paul, but get a liberal in front of a Fox host and they yell over them or cut their mic.

"It's good at least one station continues to point out the Democrates Hypocracies."

Was Democrates a friend of Socrates?

Now all Fox has to do is report the hypocrisies of Republicans, then it will be fair and balanced.

"The case of the Black Panthers should be reported."

First, it's the New Black Panthers, which is a different organization that the real Black Panthers condemns.

Second, I'm pretty sure it was reported...?

"Those thugs should be removed and not intimidating people at voting stations."

The police came and made the guy with the stick leave. He is now prohibited from being at polling places for some amount of time. Problem solved!

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Joe...since you obviously didn't go to the link I provided about how Eric Boehlert/MMFA were dead wrong...I'll post the article here...full text can be found at
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100801fhwir.php


"After we called out Eric Boehlert for alleging that Shirley Sherrod was asked to resign as a reaction to a 'smear campaign' from 'Fox News', he responded that he wasn’t talking about Fox News Channel, but about one post on foxnews.com. We pointed out several problems with that explanation, the main one being that--contrary to his claim--the article didn’t appear on foxnews.com until after she was told to resign. Boehlert’s dishonest comeback was to lie about what we wrote and claim we were agreeing with him!Yesterday, I patiently pointed out that "Fox News," in the form of FoxNews.com, did in fact "peddle" the Sherrod story long before she resigned with a report that was picked up by right-wing bloggers. And yes, Johnny Dollar was forced to concede that I was factually accurate on that point. ("Yes, there was a post on foxnews.com.")
Au contraire. We did not concede Boehlert was ‘factually accurate’. We proved he was dead wrong because the foxnews.com post did not appear 'long before she resigned', but in fact after. Boehlert’s quoting of seven words from our post, ignoring everything else to change the context, is so very Breitbartian.

Politico and others confirmed what we first reported: the article wasn’t posted until around 6:00pm. Boehlert was forced to confront that inconvenient fact. Rather than admit he was wrong about the article, he just changed the timeline by claiming that Sherrod 'resigned shortly before 8:00 pm'. Where did he get that from? How quickly Eric forgets (or sweeps under the rug) Sherrod’s own timeline. She was told to pull over and resign because she was going to be on Glenn Beck that day. Glenn Beck airs at 5:00 pm. Does Boehlert ever tell the truth?

Boehlert’s bosses at Media Matters didn’t seem too impressed by the fact that the foxnews.com article wasn’t posted until 5:58 pm. You recall their fake timeline, the one that placed the article’s appearance between 11:18 am and 12:13 pm? It still does! There are thousands of links to that timeline on a ton of websites, but hey, why correct a falsehood if it can be used to smear Fox?"

Again..donate to HFH.

thebigguy128
thebigguy128

Since cross apparently doesn't see any factual errors in Ms. Woods article, I'll Cross-erize it for him:


First we have the story about "Black Panthers" intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. The Justice Department investigated but did not prosecute. "Racism!" screamed the foxy ones. Perhaps, though, there wasn't sufficient evidence to make a case, given that the Fox reporter stirred up all the commotion. Now, I don't think people should show their billy clubs (or guns) at a polling place, but this little Fox story doesn't make the administration racist.

Answer: Wrong. The DOJ Voting Rights division investigated, filed a civil case, and Won judgments against King Shabazz, Malik Shabazz, Jerry Jackson and the New Black Panther Party. Political appointees in the DOJ had the judgments against Malik Shabazz, Jackson and the NBPP dismissed AFTER they had won. Career attorneys in the Voting Rights Division were preparing a criminal case against the 4 parties. This was also shot down by political appointees. This is still being investigated by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. See http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm

Then the NAACP, quite independently of my last column, no doubt, asked a batch of tea party leaders to repudiate (Ah! That's the word Sarah Palin kept looking for!) the racist elements of their movement. They did NOT say that the tea party was racist. But the squawking on the right began.

I watched the Memphis tea party leader being interviewed along with an NAACP leader. The black guy kept saying, "The NAACP asks that the tea party reject the racist elements within it." The white guy kept saying, "The tea party does not embrace racism."

Look it up: rejecting is different from not embracing. "Elements within" are not the same as the whole. The two sides were speaking different languages. But the racist signs and language are there for all to see at media-filmed tea party gatherings. If the tea parties don't embrace racism, then they should adamantly repudiate it.

Answer: Every organization has fringe elements. The NAACP's resolution is nothing more than the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Much of the "racism" claimed to be at Tea Party events is non-existent. The Cross Rule (as I have dubbed it) says "He who proposes must prove." I saw one report on MSNBC about the "racist" at a tea party...unfortunately the entire report failed to show the reaction of those in attendance. They were shouting him (the "racist") down and telling him to leave..they didn't want him there. Another one on CNN showed a man with a rifle strapped to his back at a Tea Party event. CNN was going on and on about "racists" at Tea Parties. What the didn't show was the man with the rifle, whom they were implying was a racist, was actually black. They had to crop the video so the viewer couldn't see his skin color.
I note Ms. Wood is bending over backwards to make sure we know the Tea Party person in the story is white.

Finally, the Shirley Sherrod story shows us what happens when sound bites are tossed into the whirlpool of television. Apparently, Andrew Breitbart, right-wing blogster and storymaker, cut up bits of a speech that Sherrod gave to a local NAACP group in March and made a little film. Bill O'Reilly picked up the story and called for Sherrod's resignation.

In those remastered bits, Sherrod appears to tell the group that because he was acting superior to her, she failed to help a white farmer as much as she could have. In fact, though, when we heard the rest of the speech, we learned that Sherrod was talking about how she overcame the fury that gripped her when her father was murdered by white supremacists and the collective farm that she worked so hard to sustain was sold in failure.

She linked up the white farmer with a white lawyer whom she thought could help him best. The lawyer, however, did nothing. When the farmer frantically called her again, seven days before his farm was to be sold on the courthouse steps, she swung into action and worked overtime, above and beyond, found him a lawyer who would do what was needed - and the farm was saved. Sherrod and the farmer became lifelong friends.

Answer: So Ms. Sherrod did NOT do her job and sent him to "one of his own kind." When that didn't work, he came back to her and she then did her job and saved his farm...hip hip hooray. Perhaps if she would have done her job the first time, he wouldn't have had to come back.

Sherrod had learned, to her surprise, that white farmers were losing their farms too, and she realized that race wasn't the all-encompassing factor that she had thought it was as a child. She told the NAACP, "It's not about black people and white people; it's about poor people. We have to work together." Her speech was about her personal growth, her ability to forgive, and her resolve to do her best for ALL disadvantaged people.

Amen, sister.

The White House and Tom Vilsack have both apologized to Sherrod for demanding that she resign. They were so wrong to leap into action on a Fox report. And the Fox crowd owes us all an apology. If it's not the "war on Christmas" or "the evil conspiracy of the left," it's "Obama and his people are racists." George Orwell's dark vision of the future has come to pass. "We have always been at war with ..." name your own enemy.

Answer: They did NOT leap into action because of a Fox report...FNC did not run the story until after her resignation. She had to resign, according to her own words, before 5 p.m. eastern. Really Ms. Wood, 2 weeks after the incident should have given you enough time to fact-check your article.

Phil
Phil

Here is an excellent interview of a conservative congressman (93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union - Chuck Grassley's lifetime rating is 83.5) who was defeated this year in his Republican primary.

Now I know I would not agree with this individual on policy - but I do agree with him on his view of how congressmen and government should work. I suggest all read it.

How does it apply to the topic of racism? He brings up a good point - one I had heard before but forgot - this idea that the CRA caused the housing crisis is bogus. The foundation of that "theory" is racism. Government giving loans and money to poor people of color caused this national calamity. Therefore programs like this, welfare, etc. are "bad" because "these people" can't be trusted with the responsibility of spending tax dollars wisely. A subtle form of racism and class warfare.

A great read.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty?page=1

reojoe
reojoe

thebigguy...Sorry, but you still lose. Can we agree that factcheck is a valid source to analyze this question? Certainly, anyone reasonable would say yes. In fact, your source is from, you guessed it, a conservative blogger.

Factcheck shows that you are wrong, and I am right. Copied and pasted below, including the link.
______________________________________________________________
This week’s Replay starts off with a dust-up about Fox News’ handling of – what else? – the Shirley Sherrod story. We also found misleading statements about unemployment and New Jersey’s budget.

Dean: Fox ‘Absolutely Racist’

On "Fox News Sunday," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean accused Fox News Channel of an "absolutely racist" action by playing the now-famous edited clip of Shirley Sherrod’s remarks. Host Chris Wallace indignantly countered by saying Fox News didn’t play the clip until after officials in the Obama administration forced Sherrod to quit her job.

Wallace was correct, but there’s more to the story.

Dean started by accusing Fox News of racism:

Dean: I think Fox News did something that was absolutely racist. They took a — they had an obligation to find out what was really in the clip. They had — they had been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this business and Sotomayor and all this other stuff. You — I think you’ve got to be very — I think the — look the Tea Party called out their racist fringe, and I think the Republican Party’s got to stop appealing to its racist fringe. And Fox News is what did that.

You put that on.

At that point, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace corrected Dean:

Fox News’ Wallace: The fact is that the Obama administration fired or forced Shirley Sherrod to quit before her name had ever been mentioned on Fox News Channel. Did you know that, sir?

Wallace is correct, as far as he goes. As reported by The New York Times and others, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly had recorded a program in which he called for Sherrod to resign, but she submitted her resignation before the show was broadcast. The liberal Media Matters organization, which monitors and records Fox News and other television news outlets in search of what it considers conservative bias, called O’Reilly’s airing "Fox News’ first on-air mention of Sherrod." In a well-documented timeline, it put the time O’Reilly aired the clip at 8:50 pm on Monday, July 19, about an hour after the first news of Sherrod’s resignation had begun to circulate on the Internet.

However, Fox News had posted stories about the video on FoxNews.com (which included a link to the video on YouTube) and on the Fox Nation site (which included the video itself) before the resignation. The Fox Nation site also linked to Andrew Breitbart’s conservative site, where the video first appeared earlier that same day. The Fox Nation headline: "Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer." Both of these posts were updated after the resignation, and they no longer appear online. However, a cached version of the Fox Nation posting was still available as we wrote this, and the FoxNews.com story had been copied and re-posted on other sites, where it still appears. And the current version of the story on the FoxNews.com site, posted July 20, states that Sherrod resigned "shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video."

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/sunday-replay-14/

Phil
Phil

thebigguy128 said on: August 2, 2010, 8:22 am

"Also, I notice Ms. Woods didn't mention Beck at all in her story. Did his response not fit her meme? Becks first public response was to support Sherrod and take her side."

-- By the way, no Beck did NOT support Sherrod in his FIRST public response. On his daily radio show - which airs before his TV show is taped - here is some of what Beck had to say:

"We have videotape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers. And she says 'I just stood there and looked at this white farmer. And I sent him to one of his people.' Excuse me? Have we suddenly transported into 1956, except that it's the other way around?

"Does anybody else have the sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way? That there are some, and I believe we are talking about a minuscule amount -- I don't think African-Americans buy into this at all -- but the people like the Black Panthers, and whites like the Weather Underground ... it goes to what we were talking about, this collective salvation. Make them pay. Make them pay. That's not what salvation's all about. ... You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that?"

Go listen to it on Beck's website, or alternatively at mediamatters.org/research/201007210055.

Beck fell for the charade hook, line and sinker. Only when he realized what a scam it all was did he change his tune.

cubbies08
cubbies08

If we are now done playing the he said she said game, the real question I have is why did Obama leap before getting the facts? Is this the type of decision making you want in the POTUS?

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]Phil said: "thebigguy128 said on: August 2, 2010, 8:22 am"Also, I notice Ms. Woods didn't mention Beck at all in her story. Did his response not fit her meme? Becks first public response was to support Sherrod and take her side."-- By the way, no Beck did NOT support Sherrod in his FIRST public response. On his daily radio show - which airs before his TV show is taped - here is some of what Beck had to say:"We have videotape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers. And she says 'I just stood there and looked at this white farmer. And I sent him to one of his people.' Excuse me? Have we suddenly transported into 1956, except that it's the other way around?"Does anybody else have the sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way? That there are some, and I believe we are talking about a minuscule amount -- I don't think African-Americans buy into this at all -- but the people like the Black Panthers, and whites like the Weather Underground ... it goes to what we were talking about, this collective salvation. Make them pay. Make them pay. That's not what salvation's all about. ... You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that?"Go listen to it on Beck's website, or alternatively at mediamatters.org/research/201007210055.Beck fell for the charade hook, line and sinker. Only when he realized what a scam it all was did he change his tune."[/quote]

Like we should have even had to wonder about Beck!? I'm not sure that one solitary moment goes by that this guy isn't trying to race bait whites into rages by pointing out how they are the only ones being cheated today.

Chester11
Chester11

I agree, cubbies. The administration was much too quick to call for this woman's termination. After all the speculation, I'm pretty sure most people agree they were afraid they'd be seen as reverse racists by neoconservatives if they didn't act swiftly.

The lesson to learn from all this - don't cave to idiot right wingers again. No matter what childish threats they whine and cry with.

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]cubbies08 said: "If we are now done playing the he said she said game, the real question I have is why did Obama leap before getting the facts? Is this the type of decision making you want in the POTUS?"[/quote]

Fair enough question, but do you REALLY care which decisions that our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military makes? I ask because you likely (a) don't support him or our military anyway and/or (2) you are already deeply invested in seeing our country fail under our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military's leadership anyway.

So, what does it matter?

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]Chester11 said: "I agree, cubbies. The administration was much too quick to call for this woman's termination. After all the speculation, I'm pretty sure most people agree they were afraid they'd be seen as reverse racists by neoconservatives if they didn't act swiftly. The lesson to learn from all this - don't cave to idiot right wingers again. No matter what childish threats they whine and cry with. "[/quote]

You would think that people would eventually learn. How many more "slam dunk" cases of false alarms do we need from those America haters?!

cubbies08
cubbies08

reojoe said: Fair enough question, but do you REALLY care which decisions that our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military makes? I ask because you likely (a) don't support him or our military anyway and/or (2) you are already deeply invested in seeing our country fail under our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military's leadership anyway.So, what does it matter?

Reojoe you are so clueless it isn't even funny. You are so right. I want our country to fail. I want my family to live in hardship. I want people like Donna Wood running this country. Taxing me up the you know what so that people who choose not to work for a living can get a piece of my hard earned money. I will guanranty you I care more about this country than you or a Donna Wood ever has or will. That is why I am concerned. The POTUS can even make the right decision on hiring or firing anyone. Let's entrust him with our military and the decisions that go along with that power.
You are right..I am deeply invested, deeply invested in paying taxes and working my rear off to pay for people like you to sit around all day and blog on your computer.

cubbies08
cubbies08

Chester11 said: "The lesson to learn from all this - don't cave to idiot right wingers again. No matter what childish threats they whine and cry with. "

Do you really believe he caved to right wingers? That really doesn't make him much of a leader then does it? If that was the case then why didn't he cave with this abomidable health care plan that the right wingers and the american public did not want. He didn't cave. He is just a poor leader that continues to make bad decisions.

Phil
Phil

Glenn Beck now compares Obama's rhetoric to Lucifer.

I'm sure this isn't an attempt at code language that would spur any type of bigoted backlash. Right.

What a bigot. Incredible.

jeroze
jeroze

Now Greta vanSustrend is apologizing for the Fox News "slipup" in showing a picture of Shirley Sherrod while the news article was about Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

A few years ago Fox News was claiming the legislator who was in a OWI accident and caused the death of a pedestrian a Democrat when he was really a Republican. Fox News has been very erratic through the years...Sloppy on the facts....

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]cubbies08 said: "reojoe said: Fair enough question, but do you REALLY care which decisions that our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military makes? I ask because you likely (a) don't support him or our military anyway and/or (2) you are already deeply invested in seeing our country fail under our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military's leadership anyway.So, what does it matter?Reojoe you are so clueless it isn't even funny. You are so right. I want our country to fail. I want my family to live in hardship. I want people like Donna Wood running this country. Taxing me up the you know what so that people who choose not to work for a living can get a piece of my hard earned money. I will guanranty you I care more about this country than you or a Donna Wood ever has or will. That is why I am concerned. The POTUS can even make the right decision on hiring or firing anyone. Let's entrust him with our military and the decisions that go along with that power. You are right..I am deeply invested, deeply invested in paying taxes and working my rear off to pay for people like you to sit around all day and blog on your computer. "[/quote]

No you don't. We all learned about 8-9 years ago that to criticize our government during a time of war shows that you hate America and want it to fail. Why would those principles change now?

As for deeply invested in seeing America fail, of course you are. Party boss/comedian Rush Koresh Limbaugh has instructed all of yout to hope that our Commander in Chief of the U.S. military fails at his job. Consequently, America then fails. Of course that's what you're hoping for.

As for your taxes, when have they gone up in recent years? In fact, unless you are in the top 5% of workers, your taxes and tax burden have gone down.

Finally, who are these folks who are getting something for nothing from your tax dollars? That's news to me! The laws regarding social welfare (assuming that is who you are directing your rage at today) changed in 1996. Tell us how it works today, being that you are such an expert at the welfare requirements today.

cubbies08
cubbies08

Phil said: "Glenn Beck now compares Obama's rhetoric to Lucifer.>I'm sure this isn't an attempt at code language that would spur any type of bigoted backlash. Right. What a bigot. Incredible. "


That is incredible Phil..kind of like on 9/5/06 when Keith Olberman referred to Bush and his administration as Nazi's.
So what is your point? Oh I forgot you don't have one.

Phil
Phil

[quote]cubbies08 said: "Phil said: "Glenn Beck now compares Obama's rhetoric to Lucifer.>I'm sure this isn't an attempt at code language that would spur any type of bigoted backlash. Right. What a bigot. Incredible. "That is incredible Phil..kind of like on 9/5/06 when Keith Olberman referred to Bush and his administration as Nazi's.So what is your point? Oh I forgot you don't have one."[/quote]

-- He did? Could you provide a link to that please?

My point, to go with the theme of Ms. Woods column, is that Beck uses code words and images to tie Obama (and others) to figures, groups, individuals that stir racist and bigoted reactions in people. Comparing Obama to Lucifer is another way of making Obama look like he's not a Christian - he's not one of us - an outsider - etc. Bigotry, in this case, not so subtle.

cubbies08
cubbies08

Phil that is your interpretation of Beck. For the site you can Google I am sure can't you?

RPS
RPS

Joe its honestly getting quite tiring to read non-stop how you seem to believe anyone who is conservative or right of center in any way or is critical of this administration is a George Bush neo-con and/or a Limbaugh fanatic. Lots of conservatives were critical of Bush especially during his second term. Unfortunately the Dems didn't put up a quality candidate and we have a lousy two party system.

However I would also argue you're ignorant of some history considering several presidents have signed laws that made it illegal to be critical of the president, military, or country. From Bush to FDR to Wilson to Lincoln all the way back to John Adams. So don't make it sound like Bush was the first president to terrorize free speech and the ability to be critical of the government.

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]RPS said However I would also argue you're ignorant of some history considering several presidents have signed laws that made it illegal to be critical of the president, military, or country. From Bush to FDR to Wilson to Lincoln all the way back to John Adams. So don't make it sound like Bush was the first president to terrorize free speech and the ability to be critical of the government."[/quote]

You can argue it, but you'd be wrong. Your key word here is "illegal." Being that I'm ignorant about this history and you know all about it, why don't you edurcate us on how many of these Presidents/"president" made free speech illegal.

You'll wish that you hadn't used the word "ignorant." LOL!

BIL
BIL

[quote]cubbies08 said: "kind of like on 9/5/06 when Keith Olberman referred to Bush and his administration as Nazi's."[/quote]

I went and watched his "special comment" from that day, and he's talking about Bush comparing Al Qaeda to the Nazis and basically insinuating that anyone who questioned his war on terror policies was the same as a Nazi sympathizer.

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

So what was your point again?

RPS
RPS

Alright Joe how about the alien and sedition acts of 1798 which made it illegal to speak or publish material that was critical of the president and congress

Lincoln was notorious for his acts against free speech from closing several newspapers critical of him to even arresting and deporting a congressman. As well as being the first president to suspend habeas corpus.

Wilson was the president who signed the sedition and espionage acts which prohibited you from interfering or speaking out against the military or war effort.

FDR besides the interment of thousands of Asian-Americans, arrested or detained people who spook out against the New deal the war effort or the against the government.

The only good thing that occurred because of any of those was that the sedition and alien acts of 1798 brought out the Jefferson and Madison argument of nullification which is about the only way states can fight back against usurptions of power by the federal government you love so much joe. Especially since several states are using nullification to stop the health care reform bill (assuming the supreme court doesn't throw it out).

I assume your probably a history teacher so I'll be accused of being a revisionist or something like that which is fine. Whatever makes you fell better about yourself and hate republicans, conservatives, libertarians or anyone else that loves liberty and freedom and the right to be left alone.

cubbies08
cubbies08

BIL said: "I went and watched his "special comment" from that day, and he's talking about Bush comparing Al Qaeda to the Nazis and basically insinuating that anyone who questioned his war on terror policies was the same as a Nazi sympathizer. So what was your point again?"

BIL again left wing error. It wasn't a video, it was his blog. Ball is back in your court.

reojoe
reojoe

[quote]RPS said: "Alright Joe how about the alien and sedition acts of 1798 which made it illegal to speak or publish material that was critical of the president and congressLincoln was notorious for his acts against free speech from closing several newspapers critical of him to even arresting and deporting a congressman. As well as being the first president to suspend habeas corpus.Wilson was the president who signed the sedition and espionage acts which prohibited you from interfering or speaking out against the military or war effort.FDR besides the interment of thousands of Asian-Americans, arrested or detained people who spook out against the New deal the war effort or the against the government.The only good thing that occurred because of any of those was that the sedition and alien acts of 1798 brought out the Jefferson and Madison argument of nullification which is about the only way states can fight back against usurptions of power by the federal government you love so much joe. Especially since several states are using nullification to stop the health care reform bill (assuming the supreme court doesn't throw it out). I assume your probably a history teacher so I'll be accused of being a revisionist or something like that which is fine. Whatever makes you fell better about yourself and hate republicans, conservatives, libertarians or anyone else that loves liberty and freedom and the right to be left alone."[/quote]

Free speech is the only issue here. Yes, the alien and sedition act is the ONE and only case where this has happened, but the rest is nonsense. Free speech was not prosecuted or treated as criminals by any other Presidents/"president."

My comment was based on the chorus of cheerleaders for stifling oppositon to government during the years 2000-2008. The Patriot Act, although a BIG, BIG, BIG act of government (big governemnt stinks, eh, Rush)did nothing about free speech.

BIL
BIL

[quote]cubbies08 said: "BIL again left wing error. It wasn't a video, it was his blog. Ball is back in your court."[/quote]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

I don't see anything like that here on the entry for that date. If you have something else please link it up.

RPS
RPS

Joe the Espionage acts of 1917 had a profound effect on freedom of speech as wilson was able to arrest and detain those who spoke out against the government or were pro-socialism or communism.

If you don't want to believe that lincoln and roosevelt arrested some who spoke out against the government then don't believe me. I could point you to some literature that would prove you otherwise but you'd say its rightwing propaganda or something of the like.

In all honest the patriot act had tons to do with free speech (even though I never specifically mentioned the patriot as bush did control freedom of speech through the press on the iraq war in its beginnings) The patriot act allowed the government to listen into communications without warrants which deters free speech, it also allowed federal agents to write their own warrants or NSLs that you couldn't tell anyone about if you recieved one which also stops freedom of speech.

The fact is lots of presidents have done things to either criminalize aspects of freedom of speech or have gone above and beyond that by just locking people up for saying things they didnt like. its happened on both sides of the isle and the average person doesn't care if their partys in power.

However many conservatives and libertarians were anti-bush especially during his 2nd term. Should more have been? Yes! but quit assuming that everyone that is anti-obama was necessarily pro-bush.

xdfred
xdfred

It's easy to see who the real racists are....
Yes, progressives who are totally convinced that certain minorities are so inept that they need liberal progressive help to get anywhere in life. Those are the real racists.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.