Archive for July 23, 2010

It’s one thing to be angry over a situation, it’s another to decide to demagogue:

SHERROD: I know I’ve gotten past black versus white. He’s probably the person who’s never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it.

I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again.

COOPER: You think — you think he’s racist?

SHERROD: … I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do.

And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president, you know. He would go after me. I don’t think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president.

So. I’ve gotten by black and white but the person I don’t like is a racist who wants to return us to slavery and hates the administration because Obama is black. As opposed to the actual administration that fired her which by her interpetation did so due to an attack by a racist, or the NAACP that backed said firing even though they had full context of the videos available.

It’s one thing to be angry for a day but once you decide you are going to be part of the national debate then you are a legitimate target for comment, and if she thinks Breitbart wants to bring back slavery then yup she has lost any credibility she had and deserves any ridicule she gets from it.

As Hotair puts it:

One of the lessons of this week, supposedly, is that we should beware of caricatures in racial matters, not only because people are more complicated in practice but because the fallout from misjudgment is culturally poisonous. See, e.g., the initial clip of Sherrod versus her full NAACP speech. But here she is pushing a caricature of her own — with no evidence to support a charge this incendiary — and Cooper the journalist lets it slide, presumably because he’s squeamish about siding with Breitbart against someone who, to his audience, is a sympathetic victim..

Some people handle attention different ways. I think she is in real danger of letting this stuff go to her head. Quite a shame really.

Of course this might be the media trying to bait the right too, keeping the story alive to take copy space from Journolist. We’ll see.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Ed Driscoll puts it much better than I did complete with Airplane Gag.

I actually watched all the Clinton Hearings and fully supported and still support the impeachment of Bill Clinton, I trace the decline in democratic honor from the moment of the disgraceful press conference after the initial vote.

That being said, Tancredo’s case for impeachment of president Obama is just off, it has no more justification than the left’s nonsense of the same toward George W. Bush.

I think this president has been disastrous domestically and adequate at best on defense (which was way ahead of my expectations for him) but certainly not impeachable. Most of what this president has done is bad policy, bad decisions, based on a bad philosophy but you don’t impeach that. (The virtual ceding of parts of Arizona to the Mexican Cartels has potential in that direction but we are nowhere near there yet).

Clinton directly lied to a grand jury, this is an actual crime, and he used the power of the presidency to cover that, he was disbarred for this.

There is nothing that Barack Obama has done to this point that rises to that level, being wrong or mistaken is not an impeachable offense and both legally and politically we waste our time going in that direction.

Memeorandum thread here.

Oh and one note, I’m not arguing that Clinton was a worse president than our current one or was worse for the country, I’m arguing the legalities and the purpose of impeachment as a constitutional tool. It should be used sparingly for actual crimes not as a political club.

Update: And of course here are the democrats also talking smack in the other direction, pure hogwash.

…which didn’t have much to say to Byron York now has something to say:

But there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans — including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist.

This is in contrast to Tuesday where they said:

The Post’s response was brief. “We do not discuss personnel matters,” Coratti responded. “The Post has standards for its employees and we expect all personnel to follow them.”

I asked whether the Post could add anything to that short answer. After all, this is a serious issue involving at least one high-profile Post journalist, and it is unlikely to go away in the near future. Does the Post really have nothing to say on the matter?

“I’m sorry,” Coratti wrote. “That is all I have to offer.”

It’s looks like the story has progressed to the point where it can’t be ignored, but the wait until friday plan worked, but since Howard Kurtz covered it then it will be on Reliable Sources on Sunday.

Meanwhile here is the memeorandum thread

Director Blue has a history lesson on race

Posted: July 23, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

in this post. With one exception it’s pretty good, but lets take a look at the exception because it deals with the future of race in America.

DB hits Shirley Sherrod Maybe it’s just me, but if I had my father murdered in my teens by the Klan I might just have a chip on my shoulder for a bit. The fact that the chip is in any way off her shoulder is the amazing thing. Yeah her actual positions are wrong but I’m inclined to give her more of a pass.

More importantly it explains why in terms of race it will be another 60 years at least before conflicts concerning it are nipped in the bud. Consider:

To someone like me born in ’63 I look at this country and see us way past these things, but to those born just 10 years earlier who lived though a fight, this is not only something they experienced in their youth but their parents and grandparents told them about it and that will stick with them. That’s human nature, as long as the stuff of the 60’s and before is in living memory there will be people who carry it (and for some like Jackson, Sharpton and unfortunately the NAACP will make their living off of it) and let their opinions be shaped by them.

It will not be until the living memory of those times are gone that the next generation will be able to advance. The real danger here is that the race hustlers manage to keep the ball rolling or revive it in the same way that Griffith’s Birth of a nation did for the Klan.

Oh and if you want to understand how that can be done, read Roger Ebert’s review of the Birth of a Nation, it should be read by anyone who wants to understand film and history. (Ebert’s political views are nutty but he knows film)