A bit too late. Damage already done. The poor lady was ousted quicker by this Admin than Saddam was by the previous Admin on flimsy charges.
You all need to watch Robert Gibbs' briefing right now on Shirley Sherrod, this is way too funny and sad at the same time.
her words in the video belie that claim. but, if she (and you) genuinely want to step off the race-bait bus, now's your chance. [rquoter]Breitbart's Landmark Video And A Genuinely Post-Racial America An excerpt from the NAACP's statement on the resignation of Shirley Sherrod via Big Government in the wake of a potentially landmark video released by Andrew Breitbart. The USDA is now considering taking her back. If one is willing to step back from the now emotionally charged case, I believe the facts are clear. Racist, or not, Sherrod should in no way be taken back at the USDA. Also, in broader context, if we open our minds to it and remain strong, the video first exposed by Andrew Breitbart at Big Government may well serve as a landmark on the road toward a genuinely post-racial America. We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers. In both the full video and a 3 minute excerpt I produced, Sherrod labels the entire Republican Party racist, claiming they simply can't stand to see a black man in the White House. She also characterizes totally legitimate political opposition to ObamaCare from average citizens as mean and ultimately racist in the end. Had some previous Bush appointee called the Democrat Party a bunch of race-baiting hucksters, or poverty pimps - putting black citizens in that camp, too - there is no way said official would be able to keep their position. Yet, that is precisely what Sherrod did, only it was Republicans and her political opponents she so openly smeared. The standards are ugliness, ignorance and divisiveness. There should be absolutely no doubt that those are the standards to which a Bush appointee would be held. I see no valid reason to not hold Sherrod to the very same standards, as well. As far as the original video being a landmark on the road to a truly post-racial America, here is my argument. I believe many of us know where the real racially divisive force comes from in American politics today. Progressive Left Democrats and organizations like the NAACP thrive on racially divisive politics. What Sherrod accused the elites of, divide and conquer, is precisely what the Left in America has been doing for years when it comes to black Americans. While Democrats are quick to condemn Republicans for what was once called the Southern Strategy, they do nothing to shed light on their own racially divisive politics in play now consistently for the last fifty years. And they will not abandon it until it no longer works, or they are consistently and relentlessly called out for it. That seems to be a decidedly difficult challenge for many white Americans and especially Republicans on Capitol Hill. They have shown absolutely no real leadership on the cause of racial harmony in America. While certainly not racist, that much is true. Only a united, even if mostly white, majority of Americans forcefully speaking out against the constant race cards and racial divisiveness of the Leftist Democrats can begin to turn that sad state of affairs around. If we are willing to see Breitbart's original video in that larger context, I do indeed believe it, not Shirley Sherrod, not the NAACP, nor Barack Obama, could be a landmark, a turning point on the road forward to a more genuinely post-racial America. I believe most all Americans, white and black, would truly like to see that America one day. It will not be easy and it will not be for the timid. It takes courage to stand up and yell back when you know you are going to be shouted down and be falsely charged with racism yourself, as incredibly strong forces combine to undermine both you and your character at every turn. I believe shouting back against the same old racially divisive politics of old is precisely what Andrew Breitbart did in releasing this recent video. And I'm proud to stand solidly by him in the fight. I only wish more good people on the Right had the judgment and vision to understand the larger dynamics and ultimate worthiness of an admittedly very difficult battle. I believe it's a worthwhile fight, one it seems America must have if we are ever to get to the genuinely post-racial future every American should want.[/rquoter]
How about we leave the poor woman alone and admit that BOTH side of the political spectrum were wrong. One side edited a tape to make it look like she was a Black Panther hating whitey member and the other side moved to quickly without investigating. Now the WH is apologizing and the people who showed the 3 min footage are NOT. Well they were just as wrong as her bosses for jumping to "fire" without an investigation. Good lord what ever happen to the greatest country in the world, you know the one where you are innocent before proven guilty.
Only one "side" had the ability to force her to resign and the corresponding responsibility to treat its employees fairly. And the Dept of Agriculture is not one side of the political spectrum. It owed her proper process. The blowhards on the fringes bleat consistently...and should be ridiculed when they get too nutty, or sued if they cross into slander/libel territory. But there is no excuse for the Dept of Agriculture's response regardless of what the self appointed commentators say. It would be like Morely making personnel decisions base on angry posts in the GARM.
Breitbart was on local morning radio. He claims he was just asserting an analgous situation to the methods by which the MSM and the activist Dems try to convict all teapartiers as racist: take a slice and extrapolate....
yes, you spend 20 months demonizing your political opponents as racists, it tends to change the debate.
That's an unbelievably lame excuse. You buy that nonsense? There's nothing analogous about it. That argument only flies if you think Dems have a habit of purposely editing videos of political opponents to make them look like racists. Point out those examples. The notion that Dems unfairly generalize and therefore its ok to carry out a targeted, blatant deception is completely weak -- both sides unfairly generalize on all sorts of topics.
It's not lame and is completely plausible. Most of the threads on here about teapartiers end up classifying them as racist because they: 1) are racist or 2) don't do enough to combat racism. All it takes is one photo of any kind of placard with racial innuendo and it defines the whole gathering... according to some. Indeed there are black teapartiers. Even that fact just gets mocked and/or ignored. It's a no-win set up.
Well first I'd say I have no problem with targeting help to the poor in general but I don't favor such support at the expense of affirmative action. Politically, it's important to understand the conservative method of attack on civil rights and progress in this country. They fight it not with a full frontal assault but with lawsuits and popular rhetoric designed to limit the scope of civil rights legislation. They're always chipping away at the edges of legislation that people marched for and fought for in the streets of this country. They've most prominently done this with abortion but affirmative action is on their radar and believe me you will never see it again once conservatives have succeeded in marginalizing its importance the way they've marginalized civil rights organizations, leaders, unions, and the importance of government in general. So that's my first problem with this idea that we can actually have a real discussion on affirmative action. On the conservative side it's nothing more than an attempt to diminish it, distort it, and change the subject from what it was intended, a remedy to the history of racism against minorities, to the popular reverse-racism cry of conservatism since Reagan. Second of all, I urge you to look at the figures on education, incarceration, wealth, income, and look at the dramatic disparity between the races. Let's just take incarceration for example. Blacks are apparently seven times as likely than whites to serve prison time. There are laws that prevent people who have been convicted of drug related offenses from getting college loans for school. I read an NYT piece that said 53% of all those convicted for drugs in 2003 were black. What's the effect of that? There are also restrictions on convicted felons from voting. What kind of an effect do you think all of that has on a group of people that is seven times more likely to be affected? You can't get a job with a felony record, you have trouble getting an apartment with a felony record, you can't vote, you can't pay for college, and then what? How does that affect a person's ability to provide for his family, to be a parent, to be a productive citizen, to participate in his community? There's a huge ripple effect. So please let's stop pretending black people aren't targeted. Drug laws since the 80's have targeted the inner cities and now we see the effects. I really don't understand how anyone could claim these figures don't point to race based inequalities in our society.
