"Tea Party" implodes & divides: buh-bye, racist Mark Williams

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Obama Administration obviously disagreed with the assesment of the website you provided the link to. The Obama Administration demanded that the woman resign. I guess they didn't buy your argument that the video was taken out of context.

Because they're spineless sacks who are for some ungodly reason, afraid of professional liar and sack of sh*t Andrew Breitbart, which shouldn't be surprising given the lack of a pair that they've shown in anything else.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess I would have to hear the whole speech to really make an accurate determination but the two minutes of the speech that I heard don't sound too good.

Yea, I guess you would. That sentence is absolutely laughable and the exact M.O. for you. "Well, I guess I would have to hear the whole thing, right? But since I didn't bother to, she's a racist. But yea, you're right, I should hear the rest so I know more about it. But until then, she's a racist."

For Christ's sake, Rupert, the entire story she told was about her having held prejudices and overcoming them and realizing that nobody wanted to help a poor person regardless of their color. The white farmer she speaks of would certainly disagree with your lazy assessment, considering that they call Sherrod a good friend and have since then.

Also, where is Princess Doreen to defend Sherrod? You calling Sherrod a racist is as bad as calling her the N-word when it's unsubstantiated, which it clearly is if you bothered to do your homework rather than believing f*cking Andrew Breitbart. Are you kidding me? The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

Glennie? Probably.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

Glennie? Probably.

I wouldn't disagree with that. At least he has some good intentions, even if they're misguided, in my opinion.

Breitbart trades in sleaze, lies, and deception, and the fact that the Administration fired someone based on what he showed without getting the full story is a disgusting disgrace.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

the fact that the Administration fired someone based on what he showed without getting the full story is a disgusting disgrace.

It is. It has to be Axe, not Rahm, in this driver's seat. Where are their balls when it comes to the GOP? Can you imagine what LBJ would have done with this?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is. It has to be Axe, not Rahm, in this driver's seat. Where are their balls when it comes to the GOP? Can you imagine what LBJ would have done with this?

I've been becoming less enamored with the Obama administration as time goes on (for very different reasons than Nascar, Rupert, joeydb, etc), but this is shameful.

They're letting a sack like Andrew Breitbart dictate their personnel decisions?! They're terrified, they've got no spine, and I'm sick of it. They've spent a year and a half letting dishonest blowhards from the other side run their ship.

Brian I said a week or two ago he needs to clean house.

He will wait until November but he should start sending some of them home right now.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Brian I said a week or two ago he needs to clean house.

He will wait until November but he should start sending some of them home right now.

Do you remember in what context you said that? At least when you're not making fun of people you're legitimately spiteful of all things political from both parties, and I am legitimately interested in elaboration on this, if you care to.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

They're letting a sack like Andrew Breitbart dictate their personnel decisions?! They're terrified, they've got no spine, and I'm sick of it. They've spent a year and a half letting dishonest blowhards from the other side run their ship.

I agree with that assessment. They tried the post-partisan crap and it blew up in their faces. Take off the cup and run the freaking country the way the majority of the electorate elected you to do so.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with that assessment. They tried the post-partisan crap and it blew up in their faces. Take off the cup and run the freaking country the way the majority of the electorate elected you to do so.

Exactly. If you're going to get voted out, at least get voted out after doing the things you promised to do rather than getting voted out for doing everything in a half-assed way because you're scared.

[Riot]

Here we go: Jason Linkins reporting today:

So, yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the USDA's rural development director for the state of Georgia, was sacked because she dared to appear in a video truncated to make her appear to be some racist land-reform zealot. The video was subsequently blasted around the world by Andrew Breitbart, who wanted to mislead people just as fast as he could.

Later, it was reported that Sherrod was about the furthest thing from a racist -- which means she wasn't fired for cause, she was fired because everyone panicked in the face of a media scandal that turned out to be non-existent and which unraveled the moment people began the work of diligent verification.

Since then, my cynical heart has been tickled to watch the Obama administration frantically back away from the stupid decision to fire Sherrod. I've been led to believe that this was all Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's call.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation in a statement, saying the department has "zero tolerance" for discrimination. Sherrod told CNN that Cheryl Cook, deputy undersecretary for Rural Development, called her three times on Monday to eventually demand her resignation on behalf of the White House.

And, via Ben Smith, here's how the White House sees it:

A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack's decision -- but that it was Vilsack's alone. The official said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Department to fire her.

I can easily understand why the Obama administration wants nothing to do with this decision, seeing as how it would look for all the world that the White House serves at the pleasure of Breitbart's agitated humors, but this is just silly: it cannot be Vilsack's decision "alone" if it has the backing of the White House.

Here's some Real Talk: if we can accept that the dudes aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig who made a bunch of bad decisions that led to the destruction of the Gulf coast are part of the "Tony Hayward administration," then Tom Vilsack is definitely a part of the "Obama administration." And responsibility accretes along similar lines. Full stop.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Because they're spineless sacks who are for some ungodly reason, afraid of professional liar and sack of sh*t Andrew Breitbart, which shouldn't be surprising given the lack of a pair that they've shown in anything else.



Yea, I guess you would. That sentence is absolutely laughable and the exact M.O. for you. "Well, I guess I would have to hear the whole thing, right? But since I didn't bother to, she's a racist. But yea, you're right, I should hear the rest so I know more about it. But until then, she's a racist."

For Christ's sake, Rupert, the entire story she told was about her having held prejudices and overcoming them and realizing that nobody wanted to help a poor person regardless of their color. The white farmer she speaks of would certainly disagree with your lazy assessment, considering that they call Sherrod a good friend and have since then.

Also, where is Princess Doreen to defend Sherrod? You calling Sherrod a racist is as bad as calling her the N-word when it's unsubstantiated, which it clearly is if you bothered to do your homework rather than believing f*cking Andrew Breitbart. Are you kidding me? The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

You can't blame me for having not heard the whole speech at the time I made the post. The whole speech was not out there at the time. I had the same opinion as everyone else who had heard the 2 minute clip.

By the way, I wouldn't be shocked if Breitbart hadn't even heard the whole speech.

You go on and on about what a liar Breibart is. Tell me about all the things he has lied about over the years. I doubt he is any worse than any patisan with an agenda, which includes many in the mainstream media. Most of these partisans (whether from the left or the right) just give you half the story.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You can't blame me for having not heard the whole speech at the time I made the post. The whole speech was not out there at the time. I had the same opinion as everyone else who had heard the 2 minute clip.

By the way, I wouldn't be shocked if Breitbart hadn't even heard the whole speech.

You go on and on about what a liar Breibart is. Tell me about all the things he has lied about over the years. I doubt he is any worse than any patisan with an agenda, which includes many in the mainstream media. Most of these partisans (whether from the left or the right) just give you half the story.

breitbart has had the entire speech since march. he did selective editing and then released it in response to the racist charges levelled at a teaparty member.

and yes, both sides have partisans who selectively use what they see fit to further their agenda, doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate it.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/

Amen Canard
Breitbart lied about Shirley Sherrod. Now he's lying about the NAACP.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010, at 7:38 AM ET


Andrew Breitbart made a mistake. Based on a two-minute video excerpt of Shirley Sherrod's speech at an NAACP dinner last year, he accused her of practicing racism as a federal employee. He neglected to mention that in the excerpt, she was clearly talking about events in a different job 20 years ago. And when the rest of the video turned up, it proved that her story was about transcending her old racial resentment.

and the end of the article:

So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:

When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.

Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.

Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.

The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I watched most of the video and I don't think Ms. Sherrod said anything bad. If you want to nit-pick, you could say that she had some racist attitudes 24 years ago and she was an adult at tht time. She was 38 years old at the time.

But that was 24 years ago and from listening to her speech it sounds like she has totally changed. She seems like a decent woman. I don't think she deserved to be fired.

This is one of the few cases where you can legitimately say that a person's words were taken out of context.

I admit that my initial take on this woman and this story was totally wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it when I'm wrong.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I admit that my initial take on this woman and this story was totally wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it when I'm wrong.

Rup, the White House was jumping off the cliff right with ya. That's the biggest story here, IMO.

Edit: But Rush isn't backing down! LOL Go, Rushbie!

Rush Limbaugh criticized Shepard Smith and Fox News for their backtracking on the Shirley Sherrod story, saying they had "caved" by admitting that the tape of Sherrod had been taken out of context.

On Wednesday, Smith tore into his own network, saying it had failed to check whether or not the Sherrod story was true. That night, Bill O'Reilly also apologized for his role in pushing the story.

This did not sit well with Limbaugh. On his radio show Thursday, he said that conservative media "cowards" have wrongly abandoned the story:

"I have to go after it, because even Fox caved on this. Even Shep Smith. Even poor old Shep Smith went down there and said that everybody's wrong on this, that Breitbart is wrong and so forth. There's only a handful of us that have the guts to put this story straight. If we don't hammer back, nobody will."

He also said that the video was actually about the "smearing of great patriotic Americans" in the Tea Party, and not about Sherrod herself.

Here's the audio/video of Rush saying that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_657546.html