Archive for Tea Party-gate
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
by John Weckerle
It is perhaps an ultimate expression of Murphy’s Law that we were putting the finishing touches on a long article on people playing the racism card when the Shirley Sherrod story broke. That article will have to wait for now, as the current issue seems more pressing, and perhaps drives home a point we were trying to make in that article far better than we could have hoped.
Ms. Sherrod was subjected to national humiliation and loss of her job after administration officials viewed a video on biggovernment.com, published by Andrew Breitbart. That video purportedly showed that Ms. Sherrod, an African American speaking at a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) event, not only was a racist, but actually discriminated against white people in the course of performing her work for the United States Department of Agriculture. It turns out that the video was heavily edited and that the original speech was essentially the opposite of what was being portrayed. No surprise, there; it was, after all, Andrew Breitbart, and we’ve debunked him here before on the issue of phony claims associated with Senator Robert Byrd (here and here). In an interview with CNN, Mr. Breitbart angrily defended his actions stating that they were in response to the NAACP’s accusations that the “Tea Party” was tolerant of racism at its rallies.
As with the Byrd situation, conservative bloggers nationwide, including our friends at Gadabout-Blogalot.com, immediately and in some cases gleefully relayed the story, with embedded video “proof” that the NAACP was racist because one of its members made racist comments at one of their events. (The irony is hard to miss; the NAACP is racist because somebody made a “racist” speech at one of their functions, but it is outrageous to suggest that the “Tea Party” is racist because a number of their rallies have included people waving signs with racist overtones and some highly-visible organizers have made bigoted comments.) This has become a common tactic over the last several years – somebody makes an accusation of one inappropriate behavior or other, and the response is to accuse that party of the same behavior. Seldom does the response deal with the substance of the original accusation. It is, to most of us, rather transparent and more than a little childish – the phrase “I know you are, but what am I?” comes to mind – but there is a certain percentage of the population that seems to buy into this approach. I, myself, have been publicly denounced as a racist for criticizing Mr. Breitbart’s position that African American congressmen walking through a white crowd was race-baiting. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m accused of it again in response to this article. Regardless, we’ve taken issue with Mr. Breitbart’s distorted reporting in the past, and we hope that this incident will be a wake-up call to those who have been happily consuming and passing on the dreck that comes out of his mouth, or keyboard, as the case may be. But that is not what this article is about. »» The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
Baying For Blood
by John Weckerle
Returning from vacation, we were gratified to see that the Mountain View Telegraph shares our sentiments on political advertisements. In an editorial titled “Save The Venom For After Summer,” the link to which has inexplicably and disappointingly disappeared from the Telegraph’s web site, editor Rory McClannahan bemoans the tone – and the early appearance – of vitriolic campaign ads associated with this Fall’s general elections. We couldn’t agree more – we made some comments on the primary election ads ourselves – but we are not stopping with Ms. Denish and Ms. Martinez.
There are a growing number of people – your editor included – who are simply sick to death of the tone that the local, state, and national debates on critical issues have taken. The falsehoods, name calling, inflammatory language, hyperbole, and invective have reached a near-historic pitch, and I for one am tired of hearing it. Commentators are “Marxist-Socialist” for simply suggesting that the “Tea Party movement” might become a third major political party (Bob Steiner, letter to The Independent, 5/26/10). Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams decries Muslims as worshipers of a “monkey god” and “animals of Allah,” and refers to President Barak Obama as “an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.” Biggovernment.com bloviator Andrew Breitbart propagates a lie about Robert Byrd getting an earmark for a nonexistent company – a lie enthusiastically picked up and passed along by bloggers across the country (see our stories here and here). Demonstrations are held in which signs are proudly carried comparing Mr. Obama to Adolph Hitler and decrying anyone holding a different opinion as either Socialist, Marxist, or Nazi (none of which terms seem to be particularly well understood by those using them). A demonstrator at a Washington rally became so incensed over the pending passage of a health care bill that his saliva ended up on a Congressman’s face. (Note: After watching the video a couple of dozen times, we really don’t think he deliberately spit at the Congressman. However, the obvious alternative explanation – that he was foaming at the mouth over the issue – is only slightly less ugly, and perhaps just as absurd.)
And lest the folks on the other side of the debate get too complacent, here: we have not forgotten MoveOn.org’s contemptible “General Betray-Us” ad in the New York Times, or comparisons of Mr. Obama’s predecessor with the aforementioned ruler of the Third Reich.
To those flinging around the invective: We see little to be proud of in this behavior. Perhaps we should remember that the people we are attacking are our fellow Americans, our fellow citizens. Few, if any, on either side of the “fence” (whichever side that may be) are seeking to destroy America, or our “American values,” or our “American way of life.” They simply hold different opinions and have different ideas on how the country should be run and what direction we should take with respect to certain issues. A more polite and considerate discussion may not bring agreement on all issues, but it might bring at least compromise on some. We are calling on all parties to stop the shouting, and engage in more constructive dialogue.
John Weckerle: Racist? Race-Baiter? Racist-Baiter? False Accuser? Who Is This Guy?
by John Weckerle
It can be amazing how the same thing can mean different things to different people, and how easy it can be to get drawn into discussions of issues that one considers perhaps less than earth-shaking. Your editor has recently been in a discussion at Gadabout-Blogalot.com (thread here) regarding certain aspects of incidents in front of the Capitol Building leading up to the passage of the health care reform bill. The conversation begins with discussion of whether or not racial epithets are hurled, and sort of takes off from there. Unfortunately, there appears to be some disagreement as to the meaning of your editor’s writings, and Gadabout-Blogalot.com editor Chuck Ring has taken the position that it was my intent to “paint” him as a racist despite statements to the contrary. Mr. Ring declares himself the final authority on the meaning of my words in this regard – an assertion with which I might be expected to disagree. »» John Weckerle: Racist? Race-Baiter? Racist-Baiter? False Accuser? Who Is This Guy?