Patterico's Pontifications

7/20/2010

Shirley Sherrod (Updated x3)

Filed under: Government,Race — DRJ @ 5:04 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Updates on the Shirley Sherrod story:

  • The Washington Examiner explains why we shouldn’t be so quick to forget about Shirley Sherrod.
  • NAACP and Glen Beck agree: People rushed to judgment on Sherrod.
  • The [EDIT: or maybe A] white farmer and his wife strongly defend Ms. Sherrod.
  • How did the white farmer know Sherrod’s anecdote was about him? Maybe he wasn’t the one … but if he is, did he recall “acting superior” or was he the only white farmer she helped?

    – DRJ

    UPDATE: My thanks to Dustin who provided a link to the NAACP website that posted the full Shirley Sherrod speech. As Dustin notes, this section at 21 minutes is most relevant and evidences Sherrod’s racial reconciliation theme:

    “Working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t. You know, they could be white, they could be black, they could be Hispanic … and it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people, those who don’t have access the way others have.”

    She also discussed the history of slavery that impacted poor whites and poor blacks, which she said led to racism created by elites to divide the poor.

    UPDATE 2: Dustin watches the rest and summarizes it here and here. Like Dustin, I’d like to know what was in the edited section of the NAACP video.

    UPDATE 3 — The AP reports President Obama agrees with the decision to oust Sherrod:

    “A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President Barack Obama was briefed on the matter after Sherrod’s resignation and stands by the Agriculture Department’s handling of it.”

    95 Responses to “Shirley Sherrod (Updated x3)”

    1. DRJ – Rarely do I question your judgment, and by rarely I mean almost never. But I do not think that “the” as a modifier for white farmer is appropriate. A as a modifier for white farmer seems more appropriate. But, I am also dummerer than a burnt 2×4, so there is that.

      JD (0ce0dc)

    2. You may be right, JD. The report I read suggested “the white farmer” had come forward but jimboster’s interview link suggests this couple supports Sherrod but it’s not clear he claims to be the farmer in her example — although it sounds like the wife thinks it’s possible.

      DRJ (d43dcd)

    3. well, the farmer and his wife claim to be close friends with Sherrod, so presumably they are in touch.

      Mike (b7ef2e)

    4. I’ll show some interest in what Ben Jealous and the rest of the NAACP think or say when they disavow providing a stage and microphone to Louis Farrakahn, Al Sharpton and the rest of the crazy race-baiting racists.

      GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

    5. DRJ – There is very little what tracks between the story she told in front of that NAACP crowd and her new white friends what have come forward. Having helped A white family does not absolve her from her racist actions against the whites in the story she told. Their people. Their kind. White lawyers. That would not be tolerated by anyone on the non-left.

      JD (0ce0dc)

    6. I updated the post with a link from Dustin to the full Shirley Sherrod speech.

      DRJ (d43dcd)

    7. The NAACP whining about being “snookered” is completely hilarious. Stupidity, dishonesty, and hypocrisy all rolled into one.

      Breitbart brought more evidence to the table of their racism than they brought to their lie about the Tea Party.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    8. That whole link makes it very clear that she’s complicit in playing the racist card like the other NAACP losers where all she can think to do in her vapid and deranged vile little head is to accuse her political opponents of racism.

      This devalues for real actual racisms and she should be ashamed of herself.

      What a disgusting human being and I defended her. I feel dirty.

      happyfeet (19c1da)

    9. happyfeet is an exponentially better person than any of the people involved in this, and the people that lied about the context like JEA, timmah, and their ilk.

      JD (0ce0dc)

    10. If the issue is about racism as the NAACP uses it against the Tea Party, then the video is entirely appropriate. How about NOT rushing to judgement about the Tea Party, NAACP? I’m not sure the NAACP gotten this particular message.

      Debatable (bcf6a9)

    11. that’s just kinda her dumb luck she didn’t foreshadow her racial reconciliation theme more clearly, huh?

      good news is her fired ass will have plenty of time to figure out how to tell the story more better next time

      happyfeet (19c1da)

    12. which she said led to racism created by elites to divide the poor.

      She still doesn’t get it, does she.

      Racism isn’t a tool of the ‘elites,’ it’s a tool of the Democrats.

      EW1(SG) (edc268)

    13. “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

      – Mary Frances Berry (Former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission; appointed by Carter and Clinton) on July 20, 2010

      GeneralMalaise (11870b)

    14. I don’t know. it seems like she came out of her tailspin a little but… but then the tape jumped. so what was billed as “the full video” is nothing of the kind. its just the NAACP’s edit.

      And it doesn’t erase that the audience is laughing and clapping as she describes her initial mistreatment of the man. As brietbart himself just said on Tv, they didn’t know she would turn it around.

      And that settlement is crooked as hell.

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

    15. I think people should point out that allowing racism to influence her decision making, even if she later changed her mind, shows a lack of the integrity that every public official should have–although I suspect very few public officials have that sort of integrity in any case.

      kishnevi (44b1e1)

    16. I think a lot of people have that sort of integrity, kishnevi, although I agree it doesn’t help that her defense to judging people based on race is that now she judges them based on class.

      DRJ (d43dcd)

    17. Off topic, but this is a fun unintentional turn of phrase. Why drink sake? To refuse the future!

      http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/to-refuse-future.html

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

    18. I think a lot of people have that sort of integrity,

      A lot of people, sure. For instance, most of the people who comment regularly here.

      But public officials–I have less confidence there.
      (Just to be clear, I’m thinking more of the bureaucrat type public official who inhabits the DMV or the Dept. of Agriculture or the FDA than I am of the type who inhabits, say, the LA District Attorney’s office.)

      Racism isn’t a tool of the ‘elites,’ it’s a tool of the Democrats.

      She’s harking back to a common historical formulation which depicts 19th/20th century Southern elites as using racism to manipulate poorer whites for the sake of maintaining the elite’s political power, and avoid a possible alliance between poor whites and blacks that might attack the elite’s economic and political power.

      kishnevi (fbc22c)

    19. I added Update 2.

      DRJ (d43dcd)

    20. Overall I feel that I am reminded again not to believe anything unless it has been said in deposition under cross exam by Patterico and confirmed by Jack Bauer using whatever techniques he sees fit.

      Did Breitbart have access to the entire tape and did the editing himself? The NAACP thinks it can divert attention by blame-shifting onto Fox and Breitbart. The Examiner link opens an entirely different line of thinking that needs to be looked at (if you don’t read the link, you are uninformed).

      The NAACP first tosses her under the bus, then they back-track with the presentation of the entire tape.

      I haven’t listened to the “whole tape”. The additional quote above is very similar to what we saw before, which she then backed off of and reaffirmed it was about race.

      No matter what she says later in the tape, she gave an interesting evaluation of the white farmer and the crowd agreed with her disperate treatment of a white.

      Perhaps in the entirety it is a speech by a woman with some strong prejudice who has in the past acted on those prejudices at times and has then learned to act beyond them. As such it is an honest account of a real human being with a mixture of virtue and fallen nature. It is also a lesson King communicated in the 1960′s which those who have followed have not kept at the forefront.

      Unfortunately the “powers that be” don’t have much use for honest people, for they are more interested in power than truth or honesty. Honesty brings the realization that prejudice is common, and that the good in people rises above it, and no race has a monopoly on prejudice or of being a victim of it; and that the challenge is to strive to be just now. Paybacks don’t work, keeping things unfair doesn’t work. Being unfair to someone is never a just compensation for someone else having been treated unfairly.

      But just as I would like to think she is just as she seems to be, admired for her virtue and understood in her prejudice, the link in the Washington Examiner raises the issue whether or not there is a bigger something behind the scenes.

      And yes, Breitbart’s main contention still stands, the NAACP needs to be a bit more circumspect about throwing the “r-word” around.

      I guess I’m left with waiting for the Grand Jury report and the tell all books from several angles, and I’ll still want the results of Patterico’s and Jack’s evaluations.

      MD in Philly (3d3f72)

    21. Yes just like what Obama told “Joe the Plumber”

      ian cormac (d407d8)

    22. Aaron–better yet, let’s refudiate the future.

      (I think everyone should start to use that word, if only for the enjoyment to be gotten out of annoying Andrew Sullivan.)

      kishnevi (fbc22c)

    23. the people that lied about the context like JEA, timmah, and their ilk.

      God, you’re a tedious little fool of a man, jd. I showed the context: a woman who tells the story of how job as head of a co-op of African American farmers felt badly about turning away a white farmer, who she was no obligation to help. She learned why she needed to overcome her own tribalism, embrace others in need, and went on to 20 more years of helping farmers for her co-op, the state of Georgia, and the USDA.

      You on the other hand are a moron who is as dumb as burnt 2×4 (about the only thing you ever said I thought made sense). In your partisan hackery you just can’t admit that Breitbart screwed this woman in a dishonest manner.

      Me, Charles Krauthammer, and Glen Beck….who would ever thunk that Beck could more honest than little jd?

      timb (8f04c0)

    24. she didn’t overcome her tribalism though tim… that’s precisely what is involved when you paint your political opponents with the racist brush just cause they have different ideas about health cares than you do… and it’s a very very deeply wrong thing to do cause what she wants to do is leverage imagined racisms what exist only in her head for political gain.

      Sick hoo.

      did you watch the whole video?

      happyfeet (19c1da)

    25. I added Update 3 reporting President Obama supports Sherrod’s ouster.

      DRJ (d43dcd)

    26. To me the whole point of Breitbart’s segment was the NAACP audience’s reaction.

      LukeHandCool (fa3b23)

    27. wow. He’s really not as all eaten up with the nuance as advertised is he?

      happyfeet (19c1da)

    28. I have to say, happyfeet was willing to torture himself with this video (it’s such a poor speech), and he was willing to admit at least some error.

      Because, while he jokes around, there is a honorable human being in there. I can’t stand some of his cracks on Palin, but I really appreciated how feets was stand up.

      You can say she wasn’t the most extreme racist in the universe. Frankly, no one ever really made the claim she was, lease of all Breitbart. She isn’t sorry for how she treated this white farmer far worse than a black farmer would have been treated. She doesn’t get why that was wrong. She finally helped him, and I think she feels really good about herself for this.

      Hollywood is often showing us a racist who feels good for treating one of the ‘inferior’ better than the others. Gee whiz, Shirley, thanks!

      Ultimately, the story is about the NAACP’s amazing attack on the Tea Party. How little self awareness did they have? Very little.

      Some tried to make this about ‘the truth’ that Breitbart left out that would show the message was how horrible racism is. This wasn’t in that full video. Just a little something about helping poors too, even sometimes poors who aren’t black. Helping them despite racism.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    29. In your partisan hackery you just can’t admit that Breitbart screwed this woman in a dishonest manner.

      Breibart did not fire her, the government did. And Obama “stands by” that action. if you feel the need to go on a moral crusade, I can give you the address to the White House.

      Subotai (932423)

    30. Me, Charles Krauthammer, and Glen Beck….who would ever thunk that Beck could more honest than little jd?

      I guess Beck is more honest than Obama then.

      Subotai (932423)

    31. thank you Mr. Dustin that was nice of you to say… I definitely agree that the NAACP’s baseless and evil painting of the Tea Party as racist needs to remain at the center of this story

      happyfeet (19c1da)

    32. Happyfeet – people like the creepy one prefer to just make up their own realities.

      JD (803897)

    33. Timb,
      If a white Ag official had said “…the first time I had to help a black farmer save his farm…there I was faced with having to help a black person save his land, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do….I took him to a black lawye…I took him to one of them, that his own kind would tak care of him…”

      You, and the rest of the apologists wouldn’t be screaming “racist” from the top of your lungs, demanding he be fired, etc, rgardless of when the event occurred and the “context” of the story????

      OF COURSE YOU WOULD

      (except maybe if his name was Sen. Robert Byrd regaling a crowd with tales of his youth…) one who could help him…

      Mike (e71888)

    34. In the full video she is trying to be a motavational speaker for the all Black NAACP crowd she is addressing, especially the young people present. Is she racist? Yes, she admits she has been. Is she racist now? I would say less so as she has realized over time that racism hurts us all and that whites & blacks can work together. – The full video makes her look more balanced and also makes the Obama administrations rush to judgement appear to be “stupid” (to quote the President). –

      Only question I would have is why the “edit” in the “full” video at around the 21:00 minute mark where the tape jumps? Was something removed that the NAACP didn’t want known?

      lee (4d5587)

    35. did you watch the whole video?

      I assume this was said in complete jest, considering the respondent’s prior attitudes and actions.

      Dmac (d61c0d)

    36. The NAACP attendees CLAPPED in approval as Sherrod spoke of slighting the white farmer based on race.

      THEY did not know her point was that she was WRONG on being a racist, but still harbored class-warfare socialist biases.

      I suspect Sherrod has no clue that making decisions based on perceived class instead of law is as odious as the racism she had embraced.

      But the NAACP was still applauding the racism.

      RSweeney (8c99b8)

    37. “…partisan hackery…”

      Oh, my. I guess I don’t need any irony supplements for the week.

      Eric Blair (c8876d)

    38. Of course Barry backs the firing. It is a cheap and painless method, for him anyway, of demonstrating or dare I say refudiating his own reputation as a racist. Which in turn proves he is not a knee-jerk racist, ergo his criticism of Tea Partiers as racist, is valid. QED.

      Never let, etc, etc…

      Gazzer (800a42)

    39. ___________________________________________

      You, and the rest of the apologists wouldn’t be screaming “racist” from the top of your lungs,

      In the case of Sherrod, the NAACP and Obama, the shoe certainly is on the other foot.

      When political correctness — which makes people do back flips in order to conceal or deny the obvious — and a round of playing the race card are at the center of some controversy, in almost every instance it has involved a liberal trying to out hustle a conservative.

      The NAACP, which is more devoted to leftism than anything related to race and civil rights, and loudmouths like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have made a fine art out of exploiting modern society. They are experts at turning a situation that in reality is a broad shade of gray into nothing but 100% black and white—literally and figuratively.

      BS revolving around various types of political correctness, whether it’s from the left or right (or anything in between), irks me. And so with this case of Shirley Sherrod, I realize that I do sympathize with the person (or group) caught in the middle of such crap regardless of their ideological orientation.

      However, so much of the propaganda of “RACIST, RACIST!!!” “no justice, no peace!!!” that’s pertained to controversies similar to this one has emanated from the left over the past several decades. Therefore, it is quite a rare sight to observe the tables being turned.

      Mark (411533)

    40. Is she racist? Yes, she admits she has been. Is she racist now? I would say less so

      Lee, this is how it comes across to some extent.

      Part of the problem is that she is not clear. She seems to be arguing for racial unity (of blacks alone) while arguing that it’s about poors, not race. She bounces around and I don’t know what the hell she really thinks (this is the first half of the video).

      One thing is clear: she isn’t sorry for racial discrimination against the white farmer.

      Was Breitbart’s initial reaction to this perfect;y accurate? While I think he was clearly basing his summary on the best evidence he had available, I also think a more complete picture has emerged.

      NAACP President Jealous says “we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.”

      That’s an astonishing lie, when the video had so much excellent material, especially just after the Breitbart video, that would have been used.

      The NAACP goes on: ““The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech,” ”

      Did she help them as much as she would have helped a black farmer? According to Sherrod’s speech, no. She waited months and until desperation set in and the ‘white’ lawyer gave up. That’s racial discrimination she is unapologetic for, and the NAACP would agree if the races were reversed.

      You can’t say Breitbart was wrong that her actions were racism just because she did help. You can say he was wrong insofar as he suggested she oppressed this farmer at the federal level (I think the intro to the Breitbart video suggests it, but I think that’s a reasonable assumption). She’s just not sorry for it, all these years later, while in a senior role of Dept of Ag.

      She’s preaching a confused message combining some kind of race based motivational speech with class warfare.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    41. Ms. Sherrod directed the farmer to a white lawyer who could help “his people”. Racist statement as it is, it also points out……when is Obama going to help “his people” whose unemployment rate is still near 20% and some of whom still live in sub-standard housing projects owned by Valerie Jarrett’s pals. Obama’s no Teddy Kennedy, that’s for sure.

      John Strauss (1d2d4b)

    42. Regardless of the contents of the whole video, it’s still strange the WH fired her so fast.

      Maybe the mega-million lawsuit is the answer.

      Follow the money…

      Patricia (358f54)

    43. Also of interest: the CNN story about her originally noted: “A Georgia woman who said she believes her husband is the white farmer referenced in the clip told CNN on Tuesday that Sherrod was helpful”.

      That part has been now been omitted from the CNN story, as far as I can tell, but that important caveat qualifier phrase can easily be found in many places in the context of this story via a quick search of Google.

      Ron R (2ce45a)

    44. The NAACP attendees CLAPPED in approval as Sherrod spoke of slighting the white farmer based on race.

      THEY did not know her point was that she was WRONG on being a racist, but still harbored class-warfare socialist biases.

      I suspect Sherrod has no clue that making decisions based on perceived class instead of law is as odious as the racism she had embraced.

      But the NAACP was still applauding the racism.

      Exactly. The point of the video clip was to demonstrate the racism of the NAACP members, not that of Sherrod.

      Subotai (932423)

    45. From a commenter over a Salon (of all places):

      Too blind to seeYou can call Breitbart a liar but he is playing them like a fiddle. He knew how the White House and the NAACP would react. He knew they would throw her under the bus. How do Alinsky’s rules feel when they are used on you.

      Watch the liberal media go after Breitbart with a vengence when all he did was point out the hypocrisy of this administration and the Dems plot to inject racism as a tool to distract from their ineptness.

      Rovin (363536)

    46. Here in Connecticut we had the New Haven fire fighter case. The city, believing that blacks would do poorly on the written test, insured that the written portion of the test would count for just one third of the final score. Believing that whites would not judge minority applicants fairly they made certain that 2/3 of the panel judging applicants oral boards were minorities. Identical study materials were given to every applicant, every one of which had the same period to study and review. And when, despite these extreme, deliberate efforts to forestall such a result, the majority of the passing grades were obtained by white applicants the city threw out the results.
      Courts (thankfully not the Supreme Court but unfortunately Sotomeyor (sp?)) stated, not that the direct efforts to insure minority representation, which of a necessity harmed the chances of white applicants, but that the outcome, regardless of the efforts in their behalf proved that the minority applicants were the victims of disparate impact. Despite the plain record that the reverse was the actual case.

      Sherrod states she believed, with no articulated evidence, that this farmer was trying to “prove he was better than her” so she denied him the assistance she was compelled by law to give him. The assistance for which was the only justification for the existence of the job she held. She failed, not only in morality, but in the minimum effort her employment required.
      And has no defense but that the person asking for her to carry out her responsibility was the wrong color.

      Have Blue (854a6e)

    47. Breitbart.com is having something of a ‘greatest hits’ of Sherrod series, for those who don’t want to endure 40 minutes. I haven’t seen one about the money money money for 100% loans, thank Obama segment. That one would be my fav, so I hope to see it.

      I honestly don’t think she knows any better, even though if you hired a white person to say what she did, she’d clue in real fast.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    48. Obamshevik is a blithering buffoon. This latest snafu is just another prime example of how the obamunist government is guided by politics and only politics. Reason and integrity are not even so much as an afterthought. What about her govt employee due process rights? Ridiculous decision. but consistent with this ridiculous hideous excuse for a leader.

      drone (b77179)

    49. DRJ: She also discussed the history of slavery that impacted poor whites and poor blacks, which she said led to racism created by elites to divide the poor.

      – So it wasn’t just greed on the part of the elites? it was greed mixed with hate?

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    50. It’s not about Sherrord. As others have pointed out, it’s all about the NAACP members signals of approval when Sherrod made her “full force” statement. Sort of like wildly folks cheering if a speaker says “At first, I felt more should have died on 9/11″ then goes on to say “But I was wrong” amid funeral like quiet. It’s the NAACP that should be “fired”. Sherrord can keep her job. After all, What’s one racist, more or less, in the USDA anyway given we have Holder in the DOJ?

      cedarhill (5470e3)

    51. I would add that last night on hannity, breitbart said that he knew of this video for months. he didn’t have it, but he had a guy who was telling him about it. But he really didn’t pursue it until the naacp’s idiot anti-tea party resolution. So his reason for showing it was pretty clearly to pillory the naacp for honoring this woman and supporting her racism generally.

      As for the NAACP, they are claiming now they were tricked. Mmm, yeah, so they are saying they jumped to conclusions without all the evidence. Okay, let’s pretend for the sake of argument that this is true. So why did they assume it was true?

      See for instance, when I came home from the D.C. Tea Party protest and read on althouse where some people claimed that they had called a congressman the n-word and spat on him, I immediately doubted it. I hadn’t been there at that moment, but I had been around those people for a good 5 hours and it just struck me as out of character. These people were positive, overflowing with patriotism, talking substantively about serious issues of government power and I might add, generally not rowdy enough to do that sort of thing even if so inclined. And I might add there was no sign of any bigotry there, and there was a surprising amount of diversity there giving lie to Olbermann’s claim that only white people supported the movement. In other words, the allegations struck me as out of character. So I immediately said I didn’t think it happened, and these days I am sure it didn’t happen.

      But the powers that be at the NAACP didn’t have that reaction, now, did they? They believed very readily that there was racism in their organization. Why would that be the case, unless they already knew that there was racism in the NAACP, and figured that this was just but one example of it?

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    52. Boehlert and Breitbart were just going at it on GMA.

      #37 was right on – yet it didn’t stop Boehlert from screaming “race baiting.”

      We need to change the pot/kettle color to pink or something, or I’m going to come off sounding like the racist that I supposedly already am.

      em (ae4747)

    53. Hahaha, it gets even better. Let’s recall the letter written by Mr. Jealous. He says a lot about how discrimination against anyone is bad (agreed), that they concur with her forced resignation (so do I), and then he says:

      > “We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers…

      And: “The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.
      We thank those who brought this to our national office’s attention.”

      Now Jealous is saying, “I have been snookered, bambozzled,” and so on (that’s not a literal quote). Only there is only one small problem with that story.

      Ben Jealous was there. As gateway pundit points out, she thanks the president of the NAACP, and its board of directors for being there.

      So their story is… “we were misled, about a speech we attended.” Well, okay if that’s the story you’re going with…

      http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/breaking-naacp-president-was-in-attendance-when-audience-cackled-at-plight-of-white-farmer-video/

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    54. Was Ben Jealous at the speech?

      jimboster (fe0b27)

    55. The comedy continues.

      If the woman is innocent of being “racist”, then what does that tell us about Vilsack and Obama? Incompetence? Wow, never noticed before …

      SPQR (26be8b)

    56. jim

      gmta

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    57. btw, i blog about these fun revelations, here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-story-gets-more.html

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    58. Hello Mr. Dustin you will have to take back the nice things you said as I have slept on it and have decided that Mr. Breitbart was flagrantly dishonest in his persecution of Shirley. He owes her an apology for his actions were bereft of honor as well as basic human kindness.

      Until this week no actual black people had been harmed in the name of the Tea Party.

      This is not auspicious.

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    59. Well, I think that we all could see this one marching down Broadway — whoops, that’s in hymie-town! — 110th St from a mile away:

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson is calling for an apology from the Obama administration for ousting an Agriculture Department employee now at the center of a racially tinged firestorm.

      Jackson said he talked to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack late Tuesday night before Vilsack said that he would reconsider his department’s decision to ask Shirley Sherrod to leave her job.

      Vilsack issued a short statement early Wednesday morning after Sherrod said she was pressured to resign because of her comments that she didn’t give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago. Until Tuesday, Sherrod was the department’s director of rural development in Georgia.

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    60. I asked this question at another blog & I’m curious about the ideas here.

      “it’s not white versus black — it’s haves versus have-nots.”

      Why does it have to be “versus” all the time?

      Who are the “haves” in the story? The only “have” anywhere in her story that I can see is Mrs Sharrod herself.

      Why is it OK to reduce this to an “us against them” mentality. She made a very slight modification to who “them” is and suddenly she is not a bigot? Who are the people that it’s OK to hate?

      quasimodo (4af144)

    61. Mr. quasimodo I think it’s essentially just a rehash about how poverty is a great equalizing force. Dirty socialists have been telling that story forever and ever.

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    62. Happyfeet,

      I guess we’re just operating under a few different assumptions. I just don’t see Breitbart’s behavior as malicious.

      Consider the possibility that Breitbart decided to distort the video to maximize how bad it was: why did he leave out so much good material? The comments just after the short video show Shirley Sherrod calling millions of people racist for opposing health care reform (because Obama’s black).

      I could go on listing the juiciest bits, but you can see at Breitbart.com he has now actually done this: taking the sections that have more impact and posting them. It’s because of this that it’s reasonable to say he probably didn’t have the full video.

      And another reason that he probably doesn’t have the full video is the same reason a lot of people are critical of Breitbart: the short video may not be making the strongest case available against Sherrod and her audience, but it’s making a case that isn’t perfectly accurate.

      She’s unapologetic for racial discrimination she practiced in 1987 (even satisfied with her much lesser treatment of whites because she finally helped a white at all). But in the short video, unless you know when Chapter 12 bankruptcy passed, it sounds a lot like she’s currently screwed people over from her federal post. Breitbart is smart enough to know that the NAACP has the full video. He claims he tried to get the whole thing and I just don’t think he would have made these errors. They have provided some cover for the claims he got right (and the ones he didn’t know about that the full video establishes).

      Breitbart didn’t fire this woman, and perhaps he didn’t even know the administration would react like this. If he had really been distorting any major claim, he would have expected some kind of wagon circling. It’s just hard for me to accept that he knowingly got those details wrong.

      So that’s why I conclude that even though my understanding of happened in the short video is substantially different from the full speech, Breitbart was probably doing he could with the material he had.

      Some are saying that he should have tried harder to get the full story, and I think that could be a very legit criticism (how much he tried is something I don’t really know). In his partial defense: it’s freakin’ obvious that something extremely wrong was done in the short video. There never was going to be a satisfactory explanation for that degree of racial discrimination, and much more importantly, the obvious crowd pleasure. They were actually pleased with racism, from an organization that is attacking others with that charge (and many saying it’s so cool how that wastes the Tea Party’s time, true or false). Hypocrisy doesn’t justify some tit for tat dishonest smear campaign, but like I said, this was a completely indefensible wrong.

      the very, very best that could be said, before we saw the full video, was that Sherrod was admitting her racism was a terrible thing to do, and using as an example to warn others not to do something she is sorry for. If we pretend that’s what happened, she’s still describing a major act of racism, to me, corruption, and shouldn’t be in senior leadership. I think that justifies calling attention to it when the full video isn’t yet available to explain her context. At best, she’s sorry she did something that still ought to remove her from any power. I guess that’s not an opinion all share.

      But consider: she doesn’t apologize her racial discrimination. On CNN yesterday, she claims she never has committed racial discrimination, and that was in reference to this specific discrimination. How can she be telling about redemption when she doesn’t even recognize what needs redeemed?

      And the whole speech is relentlessly racial. As I said before, she confusingly interjects how poverty cuts across her mental white/black divide, but more often just thinks in sheer terms of black vs white. She builds up to a huge attack on Obama opponents… she’s practicing greater and greater scopes of racialist politics as she goes. The fact that she is dealing with the tension between her racism and poor whites in need shows that she isn’t an absolute 100% inhuman racist… But almost no racist is Hitler-level, and the clues were plain that she was discussing this tension while not treating blacks and whites the same.

      So, a) I don’t think Breitbart was actually carving up a video. I grant the strong possibility he could have been more careful and slow about investigating the story (that was still obviously about a major wrong no matter the context). b) Sherrod’s new context makes clear she is not sorry for or even aware that her actions are racism c) the crowd you can judge for yourself. That’s the most important aspect of the video and I think it speaks for itself.

      Room for improvement? Absolutely. I don’t want to see this kind of approach become the norm. Is Breitbart a liar, or dishonorable, or responsible for this woman’s current problem, or Obama’s decisions? No, of course not!

      anyway, I respect intellectually honest people even when they disagree with me. And usually a lot of them do.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    63. Dustin

      you’re also glossing over something else.

      We have never seen the whole, unedited video.

      Now Ben Jealous did see the whole speech. And his initial reaction was to call her a racist. And then she started arguing and he claimed he was snookered by breitbart, despite the fact he was there.

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    64. Happy

      Mr ABB hopefully has a large enough unbrella policy that will cover any damages he might incurr

      Last night on Hannity he said he could give a flip about Sherrod

      This morning after his lawyers and handlers skidded to a halt in his hydrengias and rushed his door – ABB’s backtracking and appearing on liberal media now saying that it wasnt about her and he feels sorry for her – hope people buy that new story

      eveyone feels sorry when they do a faceplant – but this one was at someone else’s expense (expensive)

      Are the liberal media a bunch if dishonest crooked – should be prosecuted turds for not filing campaign donations in kind disclosures for all the manure they have been shoveling since Uncle Walt went to nam – yes

      Does that mean we should try to use bigger shovels than them

      no

      EricPWJohnson (cedf1d)

    65. AW, you have a great point. This is one of those cases where, because I expect a lot out of Breitbart, I’m putting a lot of thought into what led him to release a short clip the way it was.

      Ben Jealous was right, of course, to call her behavior racist initially, (and note, again, Sherrod has actively denied this behavior was racist, so she’s still in the nutcase category) but Jealous’s a race hustler. I know that he’s just playing some political game. That and the admin’s instant dismissal of Shirley were strictly political decisions. I give Breitbart a lot of credit, but I doubt he expected this.

      That they then go back and say Breitbart was deceptive about material the NAACP always had is just more strictly political crap I would never be able to explain in terms of right and wrong.

      I would love to know what was cut before the 21 minute mark. She seems to have been discussing the ‘white!’ lawyer of the ‘white!’ farmer’s ‘own kind’. The crowd is laughing… I think it’s the loudest audience reaction of the video.

      My guess is that she was pointing out how awful she knew this lawyer would be (like Chris Rock in Die Hard 4 promising the state will provide dumbest attorney on the planet when reciting a Miranda warning), which syncs extremely well with her earlier and later comments.

      Just lame speculation on my part. It’s obvious something significant was said, and it never made it to the so-called ‘full’ video.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    66. This just feels wrong Dustin. We need to get status quo anted up as soon as possible and Mr. Breitbart owes this lady an apology and personally I think he owes the Tea Party an apology. And he should buy me breakfast.

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    67. Breitbart strikes (out) again! Anyone see a pattern here of releasing highly edited, misleading videos to the public as news? Still trust that nutjob as much as you used to?

      Chris Hooten (337c10)

    68. pancakes wif bacon and sausage and I want him to unwrap all the butters for me that’s such a pain in the ass

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    69. Dustin

      I am worried you are still glossing over the fact that Ben Jealous was THERE. As in, he heard her make those statements when she originally made them. He was in the audience.

      And indeed, so was the entire board of the NAACP.

      So he can’t plausibly claim any deception. Even if Brietbart did unfairly edit it, he should have known that from the beginning. I write it out in more detail on my blog, but its impossible to reconcile these three elements:

      1) His initial condemnation
      2) The fact he was there when she made that speech and thus always knew its full context.
      3) His suddenly backpeddling.

      There’s no way he escapes this looking like an honest man, that is for sure.

      Anyway, I run him over the grills here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-story-gets-more.html

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

    70. Last night on Hannity he said he could give a flip about Sherrod

      Don’t lie, Eric. He wasn’t saying he feels no sympathy: he was saying the issue for him was the audience tolerance of racism from an organization that is condemning people who are far less tolerant of that crap.

      I don’t know what you mean by Breitbart backtracking. I think maybe you’re just crazy, but breitbart.com… go there. There is a ton of backtracking, but Breitbart is simply covering the White Houses amazing attempt to run itself over with the bus. Of course he feels sorry for her… she’s a sorry individual on many levels.

      I guess you’re deliberately making up some nonsense about Breitbart being sued and having all these struggling lawyers because you want people to point out your relentless and discredited attacks on Breitbart with regard to the ‘wiretap’ BS. I didn’t understand why you did that then, and I don’t understand it now. As you’ve said, you’re Breitbart’s #1 fan and would contribute hundreds of dollars to his legal defense.

      Once again, I don’t think you should be too worried. It’s really damn hard to get in trouble for posting accurate video of someone’s public speech. The things ‘breitbart’ accused her of came right out of her mouth, after all.

      What it really looks like you’re doing is shilling for the democrat party yet again, while pretending to be a concerned conservative. Obama is responsible for her firing. Sherrod is responsible for the words she said.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    71. I would add, and maybe this is the lawyer in me, but I tend to actually believe that Jealous said at first as his honest assessment of the situation. I don’t remember if you are a lawyer or not, but in law we have an exception to the hearsay rule called the “statement against interest.” The idea is simple. If you say something that harms your interests, its much more reliable as truth. His initial reaction was to condemn her and the audience, and even to thank Breitbart for bringing it to everyone’s attention. The lawyer in me recognizes he conceded a lot of damaging stuff to the NAACP’s reputation, thus statement against interest.

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

    72. This just feels wrong Dustin. We need to get status quo anted up as soon as possible and Mr. Breitbart owes this lady an apology and personally I think he owes the Tea Party an apology. And he should buy me breakfast.

      Comment by happyfeet

      I kinda resent that this story has overshadowed the amazing democrat corruption story of Journolist. Breitbart knew about that. Wouldn’t have killed him to spend a week asking for the full video from NAACP (which would have been denied, since it makes the NAACP look a lot worse), and then releasing what he had with the caveat that he tried to get more.

      The apology to the Tea Party doesn’t make any sense. He wasn’t claiming to speak for the Tea Party, and he successfully undermined one of the most nasty attacks on the party. No one but the crazies takes the NAACP seriously on racism today.

      What should be apologize to Sherrod for? She IS the person the original video says she is, in the most important respect. Does the video give the wrong impression of when the farmer incident occurred? Yes. Or if she was a fed official at the time? Yes. That’s a shame. He should (and has) updated his readers with the best version of the facts he can once these corrections are possible. But she was a racist yesterday on CNN, a few months ago, on this speech, 20 years ago, in this farmer’s case. She is exactly the character both videos say she is: someone who treats one race better than the other.

      #

      Breitbart strikes (out) again! Anyone see a pattern here of releasing highly edited, misleading videos to the public as news? Still trust that nutjob as much as you used to?

      Comment by Chris Hooten — 7/21/2010 @ 12:35 pm

      It’s the same attack. “highly edited” That’s a lie. Obviously a lie. What did he edit out? Her apology for being a racist? Some fact that shows she wasn’t one? Nope! He would never have bothered to manipulate the video to distort things like her speaking positively of racism she did a while ago, in a different job. That doesn’t relate to his point that the NAACP has racist speakers and a racist applauding audience.

      You guys keep insisting he ‘highly edited’ every video. It’s an appeal to the paranoid. You’ve seen the NAACP’s full video. IT’S edited. Are you concerned about that? Of course not, even though it appears to actually be an attempt to conceal something. The idea that Breitbart did that too doesn’t make sense. It didn’t help make his case (in fact, he could have left in the left few minutes for a drastically more powerful case), and it left him open to predictable and distracting criticism.

      Is that all you’re doing, Hooten? Trying to distract? I really hope not. What Shirley Sherrod did was horrible. She’s never admitted it was racial discrimination, and it was deeply wrong. I would never make an apology for a conservative who did such a thing. It’s just indecent.

      Dustin (b54cdc)

    73. There is a need for an UPDATE x4 …
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation

      White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod an injustice and a mistake and said he was apologizing for the “entire administration.”

      cboldt (6df4b9)

    74. Dustin

      you said she was a racist on cnn yesterday–what did she say/do?

      Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

    75. here I can hear my new song they don’t block that… he should apologize to Shirley for misrepresenting her as a vile racist most foul when she was actually telling a story about how Racism. Is. Bad.

      He’s a big stupid deeply dishonest jerkface and he made the Tea Party look like lynchy idiots.

      Not helpful.

      But that’s a very cool song.

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    76. Comment by Chris Hooten — 7/21/2010 @ 12:35 pm
      68. Breitbart strikes (out) again!
      – Hoot-Owl whacks himself in the fungoes!

      Anyone see a pattern here of releasing highly edited, misleading videos to the public as news?
      – I don’t watch MSNBC.

      Still trust that nutjob as much as you used to?
      – Oh, don’t worry. We never trusted you.

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    77. and I want him to unwrap all the butters for me that’s such a pain in the ass

      – happyfeet, are you referring to the NAMBLA episode of South Park? I believe that one contained talk of “unwrapping” the character named Butters, and also made conjunctive reference to ass pain.

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    78. What Breitbart did was horrible. He is a professional liar and misleader. He does unfair hit-jobs on people and organizations. This is not a new thing for him. He will lead you to failure.

      Chris Hooten (337c10)

    79. no I just meant the butters

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    80. Breitbart is “leading” something? What is he leading, Chris? Are “hit-jobs” always unfair? or just the ones that he does?

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    81. I don’t know, icy, you tell me. He has a lot of “followers.” And of course hit jobs are always unfair. What kind of stupid question is that? Using the term “hit job” suggests that it is unfair, and based on false or misleading information. A hard-hitting news piece is not considered a “hit job” when based on facts.

      Chris Hooten (b6e72d)

    82. Hooten has to be a parody. Fess up. Who is doing that?

      JD (3399c0)

    83. I’m thinking of starting to answer my questions to him myself.

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    84. In post 79, Chris said: He does unfair hit-jobs on people and organizations.

      In post 81, I responded: Are “hit-jobs” always unfair?

      In post 82, Chris wrote: And of course hit jobs are always unfair. What kind of stupid question is that?

      – Well, sir, that “stupid” question was based on the fact that YOU used the qualifying adjective “unfair” in conjunction with “hit-job”; therefore implying that Breitbart conducts “unfair” hit-jobs, as opposed to the supposedly “fair” hit-jobs perpetrated by others. Are all journalistic sting operations “hit-jobs”?

      When that reporter got Van der Slime to confess to causing Natalie Holloway’s death, and captured the confession on a hidden camera in his car, was that a fair journalistic sting? or an unfair hit-job?

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    85. And the faked “hitjob” of faux racists of the Tea Party … Hooten condemned that where?

      SPQR (26be8b)

    86. SPQR – Hooten and his ilk are demonstrating their situational ethics for us.

      JD (3399c0)

    87. JD, not even “situational ethics”, Hooten is just making up stuff out of whole cloth.

      Hence, his failure to condemn Think Progress’ forged videotape of “racists” at Tea Party rallies. Not merely a “edited” tape, but a faked one. And not a word from Hooten.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    88. Are you kidding me, SPQR? They just kicked out Mark Williams, one of the leaders of the Tea Party Express for a racist email message. I don’t think tea partiers are racists, but I do think that racists are attracted to the tea party. It was smart to get rid of that numbskull Williams and be totally intolerant of racism.

      Chris Hooten (b6e72d)

    89. Icy, if I call something an “illegal crime” does that mean I am implying there are crimes that are not illegal?

      Chris Hooten (b6e72d)

    90. No. You’re just being redundant, unclear, and silly. Now answer the question: Are some journalistic sting operations “fair”, in the sense that they serve to uncover wrongdoing WITHOUT casting inaccurate aspersions upon their subjects? Yea or Nay?

      Icy Texan (fdba61)

    91. Chris Hooten, that was a pathetic attempt to avoid confronting the point: which was that Think Progress produced a faked video “hit job” and you fail to condemn it.

      So we know you for what you are have always been, another hypocritical troll.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    92. sting operations are not hit jobs unless they are based on false or misleading information. “Sting” does imply a form of dishonesty in a lack of full disclosure to the mark. It would still be considered fair, though.

      Chris Hooten (b6e72d)

    93. Crissy Hooten is constitutionally incapable of honesty.

      JD (3399c0)

    94. .

      The video of Shirley Sherrod released by Andrew Brietbart’s Big Government Blog on July 19 didn’t tell the full story. It was selectively edited to cast her in a negative light.

      EVEN IF THIS ASSERTION IS categorically TRUE –

      Gee, The Leftmedia have never EVER even thought of doing anything the likes of THAT… Nawwww…..

      .

      IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d)


    Powered by WordPress.

    Page loaded in: 0.5821 secs.