Trashing Shirley Sherrod: opportunism and buck passing 8:58 AM Wed, Jul 21, 2010 | Permalink Jim Mitchell/Editorial Writer
I'm just so mad about the Shirley Sherrod story.
It was created by partisan hatred and fueled by media haste, a civil rights organization that acted impulsively and politically, and an Agriculture Department and White House that did the same. It's distressing but unfortunately further evidence of political and racial polarization.
It is easy to dismiss this as a misguided rush to judgment, and demand apologies all around. But that would be political version of belatedly capping the oil leak in the gulf. The damage has been done and nothing excuses or compensates for the rash and callous behavior that in this case so eagerly trashed the reputation of a woman who had spoken honestly about her personal struggle with race to illustrate a larger point.
Her story bore considerable evidence of redemption and healing, not hostility and racism. Yet, she became a pawn in an ugly cultural war that has had numerous earlier clashes: the professor vs. the police officer; the vile racial imagery at some tea party rallies; and dare I say the disturbing propensity of Glenn Beck , Rush Limbaugh, FOX News and some fringes of the blog world to fan America's racial fears.
Facts, honesty, due process and fairness all took a holiday in the past 48 hours or so, and I can't say these departed as the result of a series of good faith errors. To the contrary, every step of this was coldly calculated, from the editor of the video who wanted to misrepresent the truth, to the NAACP, Ag officials and the White House, who didn't give this woman what they most assuredly would have wanted had they been in the same position --- the opportunity to explain.
It's embarrassing and very disappointing. Unfortunately, this is America in 2010.
She's the black USDA official who was caught on video apparently talking about withholding aid from a white farmer. The media (mostly conservative types) jumped on the story. As soon as that happened, Obama immediately threw her under the bus and had her fired. Then it turned out that the video was incomplete and she hadn't really discriminated against the white guy. So the White House apologized and now wants her rehired.
Yeah the administration was wrong. They at least are trying to make up for their mistake. A truly dumb mistake since this isn't the first edited video from that shitbag Breitbart.
She's the black USDA official who was caught on video apparently talking about withholding aid from a white farmer. The media (mostly conservative types) jumped on the story. As soon as that happened, Obama immediately threw her under the bus and had her fired. Then it turned out that the video was incomplete and she hadn't really discriminated against the white guy. So the White House apologized and now wants her rehired.
She did in fact discriminate against him, and "did not use the full force of what [she] was capable of to help him" , and instead sent the white farmer to "one of his kind" [someone white] to help him. And while that was 24 years ago, and she describes having a "redemptive" end to her racism, where she later abandoned her hatred of whites, replacing her racism with a marxist class-warfare bigotry, where she no doubt discriminates against rich farm owners, if not both rich and white farm owners.
Up until the day she was fired, anyway.
And will be re-hired into a different position.
That re-hiring will no doubt be a thorn in the side of the Obama administration, because while she may not have been guilty of racism in the incomplete video, she is clearly a woman with a lot of weird marxist ideas, re-hired by a marxist administration. And despite the verbal bombs she may throw, the Obama administration will be very reluctant to fire her and look like even greater idiots than they already do by reversing themselves yet again.
She did in fact discriminate against him, and "did not use the full force of what [she] was capable of to help him" , and instead sent the white farmer to "one of his kind" [someone white] to help him.
Yeah, but she wasn't actually a government employee at the time. And, while I think her politics stink, they don't really differ from the rest of the crypto-Marxists in the Obama regime.
What I find a little weird is how Obama threw her under the bus so quickly, especially given how long he stood up for worse guys like Van Jones.
There hadn't even been any broadcast coverage of the Sherrod video prior to her firing. I think Fox had a couple of web links (along with a few blogs) and there was a fear that Beck might grab onto the story. But that’s it. That’s what spooked (no pun intended) the president of the NAACP and that’s what forced the White House to act so quickly.
Now, once she was fired, that’s when the coverage picked up, and why wouldn’t it? This would have probably been a non-story if Obama's people hadn't thrown her under the bus.
As even the Obama-friendly Washington Post writes, most of the blame lies squarely on the White House here.
Basically, once again, Obama preemptively surrendered. But instead of the Muslims, the Russians or the Chinese, this time it was to Glenn Beck.
She's the black USDA official who was caught on video apparently talking about withholding aid from a white farmer. The media (mostly conservative types) jumped on the story. As soon as that happened, Obama immediately threw her under the bus and had her fired. Then it turned out that the video was incomplete and she hadn't really discriminated against the white guy. So the White House apologized and now wants her rehired.
She did in fact discriminate against him, and "did not use the full force of what [she] was capable of to help him" , and instead sent the white farmer to "one of his kind" [someone white] to help him. And while that was 24 years ago, and she describes having a "redemptive" end to her racism, where she later abandoned her hatred of whites, replacing her racism with a marxist class-warfare bigotry, where she no doubt discriminates against rich farm owners, if not both rich and white farm owners.
Up until the day she was fired, anyway.
...
What's weird about the message she was trying to give in her speach. It boils down she learned that race didn't matter if somebody needed help. When the white farmer called her to say that the lawyer wasn't helping him she helped the couple save their farm.
Breitbart took that video and maliciously edited it out of context to make her a villian. Now everyone knows what he did WB.
What's weird about the message she was trying to give in her speach. It boils down she learned that race didn't matter if somebody needed help. When the white farmer called her to say that the lawyer wasn't helping him she helped the couple save their farm.
Breitbart took that video and maliciously edited it out of context to make her a villian. Now everyone knows what he did WB.
Yeah. She abandoned discrimatory racial hatred for discriminatory class hatred. She abandoned her previous black vs. white discrimination mindset, for a marxist rich vs. poor prejudicial rationalization.
That's so much more enlightened and mainstream. She's a saint, really. Why are those evil hateful Republicans persecuting her with the facts?
Maybe the Journo-list website can collaborate reporters together on an effective smear campaign to cover up her biases. They can combat her actual racism by slandering Fred Barnes or Karl Rove, or BETTER YET ALL REPUBLICANS with baseless allegations of racism.
After all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with slandering factlessly all Republicans, to cover up the lies of Obama and his appointees, because anyone who opposes Obama's ideology and legislative policy is evil and deserves to be slandered and discredited in order to protect Obama and the liberal cause. Because liberals are on the side of the angels, despite that they are lying and Republicans are simply reporting and exposing their lies.
That was sarcasm, by the way, parodying Obama's pure Saul Alinsky. An ideology that Obama is marinated in, and used to teach to activists as a community organizer.
And before Alinsky said it, these guys also expressed the same tactic of political slander, harassment and intimidation:
Quote:
Members and front organizations must continually embarass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind. --Moscow Central Committee, 1943
Again: it's not a mystery where the Left developed their ideology and tactics.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Here's the portion of Glenn Beck's program yesterday that is relevant to the Shirley Sherrod story.
Plus you'll enjoy the time he devotes here to Weiner and his attack on Goldline, a major sponsor of Beck's. An attempt to deprive Beck of sponsor support. Part C And about 6 minutes in, Beck details the inconsistent chronology of how the Sherrod story broke. How the timeline she, the liberal media, and the Obama administration offer doesn't make any sense, because she was already fired before FOX News first reported it. And how this appears to be an orchestrated trap that was sprung on FOX News and Breitbart, by providing them with a fragment of the full story, from a still-anonymous source.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Bill O'Reilly's last two opening broadcast editorials likewise deconstruct the smear job done to FOX News by the liberal media, by Ms. Sherrod and by the Obama administration:
She admitted she denied someone help based on the color of their skin. She changed her mind later and helped them. The fact remains she violated the law. If you break the law in office and make amends later, then we should act like it never happned? What the hell has happened to this country.
She didn't deny him help. She took him to lawyer that she thought would help him. When the farmer called back and said the lawyer wasn't helping him, she stepped in and helped the couple.
Trying to lynch her now Arthur when everyone knows Breitbart only showed parts of the video isn't going to work very well.
She didn't deny him help. She took him to lawyer that she thought would help him.
Did she take him to a lawyer she thought would help him or to "his own kind" as she said. Would you approve of a USDA official denying you help and taking you to a lawyer of "your own kind"? She clearly admitted she didn't give the white farmer the full force of help that she could. She sent him to "his own kind" for the help. Don't sweep her racist comments under the rug.
You're the one confused, she was a USDA official at the time she was dismissed. There should no one in an official capacity that has done that ever, regardless of the fact that it was before she was a official. You can try and confuse the issue or have a rational discussion. So would you approve of someone sending you "to your own kind" or not?
Secondly and often over looked is the fact that when she said she didn't give him the full force of help and when she said she "sent him to his own kind". The audience cheered and applauded. Should the Obama administration allow racist organizations like the NAACP into the White House, and seats in policy meetings? Should a administration official such as Sherrod be speaking at political functions? Non elected officials are supposed to stay away from these kinds of engagements.
I look forward to you making this about Brietbart again and not answering any questions.
She didn't deny him help. She took him to lawyer that she thought would help him. When the farmer called back and said the lawyer wasn't helping him, she stepped in and helped the couple.
You're the one confused, she was a USDA official at the time she was dismissed. There should no one in an official capacity that has done that ever, regardless of the fact that it was before she was a official. You can try and confuse the issue or have a rational discussion. So would you approve of someone sending you "to your own kind" or not?
She was clearly telling a redemptive story about herself before she became a USDA official. She's not only somebody who recognized she was wrong but is willing to openlly admit it. Furthermore she corrected her wrong and helped the couple save their farm. I would have no problem with her now.
Quote:
Secondly and often over looked is the fact that when she said she didn't give him the full force of help and when she said she "sent him to his own kind". The audience cheered and applauded. Should the Obama administration allow racist organizations like the NAACP into the White House, and seats in policy meetings? Should a administration official such as Sherrod be speaking at political functions? Non elected officials are supposed to stay away from these kinds of engagements. ...
Even Beirbart doesn't go that far in describing the audience reaction. He says something about some heads nodding in approval. There was cheering and applause but most of it came at the end of her speech. (y'know the part where everyone knows her message was that the farmer's race wasn't important, he still needed help)
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2010-07-2510:56 PM.
Breitbart is clearly the most powerful man in the world. Obama is so chickenshit scared of him that he fires his staffers just on the fear of Breitbart's stories being picked up by other outlets.
Breitbart is clearly the most powerful man in the world. Obama is so chickenshit scared of him that he fires his staffers just on the fear of Breitbart's stories being picked up by other outlets.
Breitbart is clearly the most powerful man in the world. ...
He certainly had a good run but he doesn't have any credability anymore. I'm sure he'll always have his angry white fans but the next time he tries peddling an edited video even FOX might give it a pass.
Good luck with that. It's almost impossible for a public official or public figure to win a slander or libel suit, especially after the Larry Flynt-Jerry Falwell case. If it was as easy as she seems to think, half the Bush administration could have sued Michael Moore and George W. Bush could have sued CBS and Dan Rather over the forged national guard records.
I'm willing to bet, however, that Sherrod's attorney will have some sort of tie to either the DNC or the Obama administration and she won't actually have to foot the bill for this. So maybe she'll get a settlement just because it will end up more expense for Breitbart than her to try what should be-for her-a losing case.
Does Shirley Sherrod Have a Solid Legal Case Against Breitbart? In a speech Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Shirley Sherrod said that she would "definitely" sue Andrew Breitbart, who posted a video of her remarks given to a local NAACP group that were taken out of context and made her appear racist.
Does she have a good case to bring against the conservative blogger and publisher?
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said that the most obvious legal path would be "false light and defamation."
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:
652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Turley offered this further analysis of a suit based on "false light":
"This would certainly seem to be a case of intentional or reckless act. It could also be claimed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. However, the editor can claim that the tape was meant to show not just the racially loaded comments of a speaker but the reaction of the audience to that portion of the speech. Moreover, Sherrod is still admitting to pretty disturbing racial views in her earlier view of white farmers from the 1980s or 1990s. That is not an entirely complete defense, however, because it still does not explain why the editor would cut out the point of the story."
He also noted that as a public official or public figure Sherrod could be held to a different standard, which could make it more difficult for her to succeed in a "false light" suit.
Breitbart claimed that he posted the edited video to prove his assertion that the NAACP has racist elements. He took issue with the NAACP demand that the Tea Party renounce bigoted elements. Breitbart subsequently amended his blog post, calling the action an "expression of regret."
Turley points out that in just bringing the case, legal discovery efforts could expose emails and other communications that shed light on Breitbart's motives and agenda. ...
It's almost impossible for a public official or public figure to win a slander or libel suit, especially after the Larry Flynt-Jerry Falwell case. If it was as easy as she seems to think, half the Bush administration could have sued Michael Moore and George W. Bush could have sued CBS and Dan Rather over the forged national guard records.
I'm willing to bet, however, that Sherrod's attorney will have some sort of tie to either the DNC or the Obama administration and she won't actually have to foot the bill for this. So maybe she'll get a settlement just because it will end up more expense for Breitbart than her to try what should be-for her-a losing case.
Another point I forgot to mention: if the case went ahead, Breitbart would probably be able to use the discovery process to uncover new information about Sherrod and about his other adversaries whose conduct is relevant to the case, namely the NAACP and the Obama administration.
Breitbart was pretty evil with just what we already know. I doubt the discovery process will be of much help to the pile of crap but just expose more of Breitbart's ickyness.
It's almost impossible for a public official or public figure to win a slander or libel suit, especially after the Larry Flynt-Jerry Falwell case. If it was as easy as she seems to think, half the Bush administration could have sued Michael Moore and George W. Bush could have sued CBS and Dan Rather over the forged national guard records.
I'm willing to bet, however, that Sherrod's attorney will have some sort of tie to either the DNC or the Obama administration and she won't actually have to foot the bill for this. So maybe she'll get a settlement just because it will end up more expense for Breitbart than her to try what should be-for her-a losing case.
Another point I forgot to mention: if the case went ahead, Breitbart would probably be able to use the discovery process to uncover new information about Sherrod and about his other adversaries whose conduct is relevant to the case, namely the NAACP and the Obama administration.
Sherrod led a class action suit that netted over a billion dollars in settlement money for 85,000 black U.S. farmers. The only problem is that there are actually only 39,000 black farmers in the U.S. at the time of the case !
So Shirley Sherrod is involved in even more corruption. Revealed only because she opened the door to investigating it.
And yeah, M E M, I guess it is pretty "evil" of Breitbart to simply report the truth.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
