The latest Harry Reid debacle has me pondering a few things, and some of them have been nagging at me for a while.
Harry just can’t seem to keep his feet out of his mouth, and sooner or later, this needs to become a problem for the Democrats. You see, the leaders of the party in the House and Senate are elected by their fellow representatives and senators. Among their duties are speaking for the party, being its face, and representing its values to the public. And nowhere in recent years have the pitfalls of being a public face shown more than when the topic of race is involved.
Not too many years ago, a Republican Senate Leader, Trent Lott, toasted Senator Strom Thurmond at a birthday party “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
When this statement became public, it was immediately taken as an endorsement of the segregation that Senator Thurmond fought so hard to preserve against federal encroachment in southern states. In other words, Lott was a racist! At least, that was the conclusion of so many Democrats, who admonish others for jumping to conclusions when they feel they “are taken out of context.” Yet this simplistic conclusion was soon enshrined as the only possible conclusion. Not being omniscient, I don’t know what is in Lott’s heart, or that if he meant the comment as a racist conclusion. However, I do know that the Dixiecrat Party, which Thurmond represented in his bid for the Presidency was firm in its support for state’s rights. You liberals reading this might have heard of the concept. The idea that some functions are specifically set aside for the federal government, and those not delegated to it or prohibited by the states are reserved to the states, or the people. I know I have read about that extensively somewhere. Give me a minute, I’m sure it will come to me. Yet, once condemned by his Democratic counterparts in the Senate, the sin was deemed unpardonable, and atonement had to be made. Lott gave in to pressure to resign from his leadership position, and then later from the Senate.
Compare this to the latest instance of Harry’s mouth being a problem.
In 2008 he said he thought that Barack Obama could win the presidency because he was “light-skinned” and did not use a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Let that sink in for a moment. Trent Lott made a favorable remark in favor of the candidacy of a man whose agenda included segregation, as a component of states making their own decisions about matters, and it was immediately interpreted as an unforgivable manifestation of a racist mindset, but Harry Reid makes an overtly racist analysis of a specific person, the man who is now the President, but yet with apologies made to the right people, his party wants to consider the matter closed and move on. There seems to be no serious consideration on the part of the Democratic Party about how this continued sanction of this man and his “leadership” reflects upon them. Poor Harry has inserted his foot in his mouth so often that he has to brush his teeth with Tinactin, but no matter how inappropriate, whiney, or racist the remark, the Dems still want him as a standard bearer. When the evil Booooosh was still in office, they might have better luck with spinning this and not having the real scrutiny turned where is should be directed, but in the wake of the Tea Party movement and under the gaze of an already enraged public, to simply act as if this foolish statement, one of a long line of foolish and revealing statements is forgiven because he immediately apologized to the President (which is correct) and black leaders (which is questionable) is tone-deaf at best, and politically dangerous at worst. Pretending that this is not indicative of a larger problem with Harry Reid, and in the wake of continuing Democratic support, a much larger problem with the party itself, is as revealing as it is wrong.
None of this comes as a surprise to many conservatives. The Democratic double-standard has been a feature and not a bug of partisan politics for at least forty years now. The part that is galling is that in the age of America’s First “Post-Racial” President, our noses keep getting rubbed in it by the very same people who have declared it to be true. From Eric Holder’s scold that we are a nation of cowards who refuse to have an honest conversation about race, or the President himself who in the same breath recognizes that he did not have all the facts regarding an encounter between a black professor of his and the Cambridge Police, but concludes nonetheless that the Police acted stupidly.
Memo to the President who supposedly came to heal the holes in our souls and his Attorney General seeking an honest discussion about race: Looking to the actions and statements of those in your own party would be an excellent start. When someone is your leader, and they can’t seem to stop themselves from committing gaffe after gaffe, and tops it off with undeniably racist statements, it reflects badly on you, too. Especially when you keep wagging your crooked fingers at us about what you perceive to be racist behavior by us.
My final thoughts on this are probably more provocative, but again, as long as I have been admonished about not being willing to have an honest conversation about race, you’re going to get one from me. Who are these “black leaders” that people not of color keep having to make amends to when they have been declared of some sort of racial transgression? Who elected them? Do we all get to choose? And if not, how is that equality? How did Harry know who to call? Do they publish a directory? I realize that this may sound somewhat ridiculous, and I might be making too much light of what should be serious questions, but I think it is long past time to have an honest conversation about race on this particular subject. Who are these individuals to accept an apology for racist remarks about one person? And if it were about more than one person, the question remains the same. I don’t remember taking part in any decision to elect white leaders to accept apologies from members of other ethnic and racial groups who make racist remarks about white people. Oh yeah, that never happens anyway. The apologies, I mean. And maybe that’s how it should be.
There certainly is enough trouble with people we elect continually trying to take more and more power from us that is not theirs to take without us voluntarily giving up even more of it to select people so they can accept (and with the passage of time, begin to demand) apologies from members of other races and ethnicities for things that are clearly racist and those that we choose to take as racist, because this is where such people draw their power. And of course once, empowered, these people will do whatever it takes to retain this power. The sad but inevitable result is that an honest conversation about race becomes impossible, because power is dependent upon finding something to be offended about. At some point, it simply becomes impossible to have any discussion about race, because in an environment where more people consider what they say, and re-examine their beliefs, there will be less to criticize, which means that the criticism of the remaining, more neutral remarks increases, until any mention of race at all will be racist. And the party of identity politics, the Democratic Party, knows this. Eric Holder, who is many things, but is not stupid, knows this. And yet we still hear it, but only when it applies to the rest of us. The last I looked, the Dems were the majority in the House and the Senate, and held the White House. Maybe its time for them to stop talking and start leading. By example.
Cripus BisW, you should have watched the Sunday morning apologists today…..”no big deal” , “an inappropriate remark”, “offensive but Reid has bigger problems”
Geeez, shakedown Al Sharpton even forgave him…..
it just shows that ideaology and agenda trump real racism every time……they must think we’re really stupid.
but no matter how inappropriate, whiney, or racist the remark, the Dems still want him as a standard bearer.
Good. As Sun Tzu said, when your opponent is beating himself, do not interfere.
I would hate to see Reid leave too soon, as opposed to being voted out of office.
And the race-hustlers gving foot-breath a pass on this is not surprising, considering how the feminists continue to give Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, the late Ted Kennedy, etc. a pass on their…ummm…. little slips of the ..ummmm… tongue.
Don’t forget when Chris Dodd (D)-CT praised the life and times of Robert Byrd (D)-WV, a former grand kleigal of the KKK. Again, calls and comparisons were made of the Lott episode but, as usual, for the Dems it is do as I say, not as I do.
You’re analysis is spot on though, the premise of equality of a liberal is shallow in deed…
I grew up as PC nonsense did, until by the time I was an adult, I felt like it was coming out my ears. Harry Reid is a real piece of work. This sort of discussion is one that really gets my blood a boiling.
1. Screaming ‘Hypocrite!’ is death in politics, but it has been rendered as meaningless as ‘racist.’ Reid probably won’t suffer any consequences, but it’s certain some of his co-workers will die on that cross. It’s an infuriating double standard.
2. All of these yahoos are Bureaucrats-in-Chief. They aren’t representing anything other than their own self-interest. I’m fairly certain at this point, that they simply rubber-stamp whatever paperwork their aides put in front of them.
I would like to see the Tea Party become important; I won’t hold my breath.
Petty, it may be, but I like to see liberals do stuff that marginalizes them. I like that a lot.
[…] It wasn’t an elevator? I had always thought Lott’s comments to Thurmond were made in an […]
I’m so used to being the minority opinion that it is not funny but here goes.
BiW I am disappointed to see you buy into the Harry Reid – Trent Lott equivalency. The overwhelming implication of Lott’s endorsement was that Thurmond would have sent us down a path of a segregated nation and we’d all be better off that way. The comment left the door wide open that Lott embraced much more than the man but everything the man stood for back in 1948 (or thereabouts). I’m not familiar with the Dodd comment that Gorilla mentioned but I will agree that the Dodd endorsement of Byrd has similar problems to the Lott statement.
Reid is another can of fish altogether. First, on the one hand, his statement sounds a lot like the Biden “clean and articulate” statement. It falls in that category of comments that some dumb white people make thinking they are complimenting a black man. Second, if we look a bit deeper, there was undeniable truth in his statement. As my co-host Sandi Behrns pointed out on my internet radio show, Reid tapped into the reality that skin color in this country matters. Have we forgotten the brouhaha that resulted from Time Magazine (possibly) darkening OJ Simpson’s face on its cover a few years ago? As evolved as we are, we still view very dark men as menacing, more menacing than lighter complexioned men. And sadly, even within the black community there is color discrimination.
The same goes for diction. One major problem Jesse Jackson has is that he sounds like he has marbles in his mouth. Let’s not be PC here and deny it. Reverend Al, SOUNDS like a hustler. Please don’t pretend that we don’t associate certain speech patterns with certain levels of intellect, or even levels of criminality. Reid was completely on the money that Barack Obama was the perfect “racial compromise” candidate to break the racial barrier in the White House. He was a mixed race man who soft-core bigots could accept based on white family background.
Sorry but Reid gets a pass on this one from me. Now, if I discover a pattern of remarks from him that suggest racial malice, then I will revisit my position.
Not unexpected from you, R.
However, this is hardly an isolated incident from Dirty Harry, and given his penchant for saying things that demonstrate all the depth of a sidewalk puddle, and all the respect and sensitivity for the people who actually pay the taxes that he and his cadre so dearly love to spend on those that don’t that one witnessed from Joe Stalin to Soviet Jews. The longer you leave him in a position of authority, the more the Democrats will (and should) fall in the estimation of all but the most afflicted party faithful. The only reason he is still in the Senate is because incompetence and stupidity that great simply cannot survive in the private sector.
I think I can leave it at that. What is more interesting is your avoidance of the closing thoughts, which constitute the truly honest part of the discussion on race that Eric Holder was so concerned about us not having. But then, I never expect you to finish the analysis, only to take the easy and predictable defense that is painfully and predictably consistant with the “its different when we do it” mantra that is the hallmark of the modern Democratic Party. Hey, avoiding responsibility has worked this long for you guys. Why change? I bet if Axelrod and Rahm put their heads together on this, we’ll soon be hearing about how this was an attitude “inherited” from the previous Senate Majority Leaders. It’s worked for Mr. Obama so far.
First, on the one hand, his statement sounds a lot like the Biden “clean and articulate” statement. It falls in that category of comments that some dumb white people make thinking they are complimenting a black man.
I would say that they are entirely in the same category, but that you are still too generous. What clearly underlies both remarks is a general belief that someone whose skin color is darker than their own and appears to be a viable candidate is the exception rather than the rule. If they believed otherwise, there would have been no reason for them to say what they did. The difference between you and me is I can see this clearly, and I’ll call it what it is, and even if you see it clearly, you’ll forgive it after putting the best face possible on it.
As long as you are willing to accept that from them, you’ll never get equality on its own terms. It will always be defined by what the Democrat (and the “Black Community’s” unelected) Leadership thinks you can handle, and as a result of this compromise, race relations will always be hampered because you’ll have candidates that were acceptable to the Party first, and the voters second.
Rutherford, good grief.
Sandi Behrns got it half right. Race matters in this country if you’re black or your lefty – and then used as a club to silence and intimidate. Speaking for me and the Conservatives which I hang, a discussion of race is almost meaningless unless used as a ball bat to manufacture some supposed “guilt” we are supposed to feel, plus reparation of course, though us egregious racist sinners all are removed from the sins at least two generations back.
The fact most blacks have been hoodwinked by pandering white, leftist shills like your friend Sandi, who no more understand the real issue than an amoeba understands physics, is pathetic. The sanctimony demonstrated by leftist hacks pandering for acceptance (and votes) is retching and phony as hell.
Though only my opinion, there is absolutely nothing pious about Sandi’s observations like she so badly wants the world to believe. It’s mealy-mouthed horse crap said by shallow souls who have no idea what the “black” experience is, generally too dumb to recognize they continue to feed the racial division with their own hideous form of racism – that of low expectation.
The fact that people like Sandi can’t understand or accept this fact doesn’t change the truth. The fact people like Sandi use it as a tool to gain advantage unacceptable, and the minute Obama was elected will now be challenged and exposed.
The Democratic double-standard has been a feature and not a bug of partisan politics for at least forty years now.
Naw. It’s a bug.
The overwhelming implication of Lott’s endorsement was that Thurmond would have sent us down a path of a segregated nation and we’d all be better off that way.
What a load of fabricated hysteria. The overwhelming implication was that Lott had an (R) next to his name, and Dems could capitalize on taking his words far beyond their intended meaning.
No, actually not avoiding at all. I had a point to make and I made it.
As to your “black leaders” analysis, I was toying with writing my own piece about that on my blog rather than answering it here. Once I figure out my timing and priorities today, I’ll decide where I will respond. 🙂
Unlike you, I feel that racism is so integrated (poor choice of word) into our social fabric that one must differentiate between malicious racism and relatively benign racism … otherwise one will be angry 24/7 and that is no way to live.
My mother-in-law still says “colored people” a good 30 years after that phrase went out of style. It irks me every time I hear it, but I know she is a loving kind soul and I give her a pass. People who are not comfortable with folks that differ from them, betray their discomfort with dumb comments. Being uncomfortable is not the same as being hateful.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, anyone outraged by Reid’s comment is in denial about the prejudices still alive in this country. Hell, I actually found myself agreeing with Pat Buchannan, who essentially said what I said … Reid spoke the truth.
I don’t know enough about Reid to know all his other faux pas and I agree with you that if they are frequent and frequently embarrassing then the Dem party could do without him.
Unlike you, I feel that racism is so integrated (poor choice of word) into our social fabric that one must differentiate between malicious racism and relatively benign racism … otherwise one will be angry 24/7 and that is no way to live.
There you go with those “feelings” again. The difference between you and me is that I had the benefit of law professors who went out of their way to get me to understand that emotional cases make bad law. Something that I have seen played out time and again, whether it is “compassion” that leads to modern-day enslavement by government entitlements or “hate” crimes legislation that make criminal activity more criminal, by presuming the offender’s intent based on the minority status of the victim.
As long as the African-American “community” embraces victimhood, there will be racism. I understand that it is easier than simply being, and overcoming, but there is ample evidence the old taboos no longer hold the sway that they once did…unless you have (D) after your name, in which case skin color, dialect, and cleanliness are all criteria for potential candidates.
Ahhhh Geoff, you a buddy of Trent? You know what he really meant to say? Well granted, I’m not a buddy of his either so your conjecture is just as good as mine. The bottom line, if you can read English, is that Lott made a comment about history, not just about Thurmond. He said, without reading between the lines, that history would have been different had Thurmond been elected President. Different in what way? I guess only Lott and his God know that. But I’m entitled to my guess that the historic path Lott had in mind didn’t include integration. 😉
My buddy Tex …. I would truly like to believe otherwise but I have to tell you Obama’s white mother helped get him elected. I actually don’t consider the man all that fair skinned so I find that part of Reid’s comment a bit absurd. Dude looks pretty much like a black man to me. BUT, his being bi-racial was right out front. AND anyone who says that they would buy a used car from Al Sharpton before they’d buy one from Barack Obama is a liar.
Well, perhaps it is because your mother-in-law hears the black talking heads, the black race pimps, the black pols, the new black panther party constantly using the descriptor “people of color” to differentiate by race and she gets confused. It’s so hard to be politically correct.
You know Rutherford, black scolds who are dependent on using race as a club in their ongoing battle of semantics and political correctness to enrich themselves with the shakedown? Yesterday Afro Americans, today African-Americans, tomorrow perhaps negro makes the big comeback, or maybe the switchback to trans Africa that proved popular for a time.
There is one thing that Obama’s election guaranteed. No longer a free pass for the black man, many whom have been depending on the degree of melanin in their skin as excuse for bad behavior and failure for far too long. So something positive did come out of Obama being elected…
There is one thing that Obama’s election guaranteed. No longer a free pass for the black man, many whom have been depending on the degree of melanin in their skin as excuse for bad behavior and failure for far too long. So something positive did come out of Obama being elected…
Tex, I had two reactions when I read this.
The first is that you haven’t been paying attention. You and I both understand that the election of the first African-American to the highest office in the country should have truly put us into a “post-racial” age in this country, but already, reality teaches us otherwise. Biden, Reid, and Obama himself (remember that special “shout out” to the Cambridge Police?) show us that race and racial prejudices are still very much in the forefront of modern Democratic thinking, but the way that Obama campaigned showed that. I’d like to share your optimism, but events continue to take me to a different address.
Second, based on the leadership shown thus far by Obama, there will always be an excuse for failure, real or imagined. In his case, it is a particularly freightening boogey man named George W. Bush. [Seriously, is it just me, or does Captain Awesome do a lot of whining for someone who agressively sought the job?]
My mother-in-law still says “colored people” a good 30 years after that phrase went out of style.
I find this to be something of a misnomer, since everybody has a color, but given the existence of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and its narrow scope of focus and clientele, I’m having a hard time trying to figure out just why anyone who is black has a problem with the term. Or could it be that this is another example of something that is ok for black people to say, but no one else?
BIC,
Even Rutherford and I agree on this one – the silliness of catch phrases like “people of color”, a favorite of people like Rev. Al, Shakedown Jesse and the black caucus.
“R” and I were always taught that “white” was a color. And Rutherford told me once that like my box of crayons, his had a white crayon too.
If Al and Jesse are really concerned about “people of color”, perhaps they ought to go out to the city of the Angels and ask the Hispanics and blacks in the local ‘hoods how they like each other during one of the drive-by gigs?
Regarding the NAACP, as Tex correctly pointed out, the “appropriate” descriptor changes from time to time so the NAACP probably figured it was a waste of time to change to the NAABP or the NAAAAP. 🙂
I truly love this notion that our country has so arrived that the only racists left are blacks and white Democrats. LOL. That is one friggin’ news flash! 🙂
Regarding the NAACP, as Tex correctly pointed out, the “appropriate” descriptor changes from time to time so the NAACP probably figured it was a waste of time to change to the NAABP or the NAAAAP.
And yet if I were a person of influence and power, I would fail to recognize and take seriously these “colored persons” if they showed up at my office at my peril. Funny that. You’ll accept the bennies just fine, though.
I truly love this notion that our country has so arrived that the only racists left are blacks and white Democrats. LOL. That is one friggin’ news flash!
And I truly love the fact that a person who sees racism so integrated into our society has only this to say in response. Snarky, and 100% content-free. Keep it up, and maybe you can get Gibbs’ job when the press corp starts to treat him with the some contempt he has for them.
Actually the NAACP enjoys its history as it should. (DuBois et al) On the other hand the C was meant to extend its power base to everything not white.
I’m not familiar with the Dodd comment that Gorilla mentioned but I will agree that the Dodd endorsement of Byrd has similar problems to the Lott statement.
Lott (and Dodd) made nice, innocuous comments about a couple of old guys at dinners honoring them. What did you expect them to do, be obnoxious and and insulting?
Yet, Lott was run out of office by Outraged Dems™, and Dodd continued to serve (and screw up) until he decided it was time to retire.
Hmmm, what could possibly be the differentiating factor that would somehow explain how these two people were treated???
It’s really great that you will now condemn Dodd for his comments, Rutherford. Seriously, that’s really open-minded and fair of you.
Maybe next time, you can step up to the plate when it really counts.
Ahhhh Geoff, you a buddy of Trent? You know what he really meant to say?
I know what he said that he really meant. I know that segregation wasn’t the sole plank in Thurmond’s platform. I know that he was just saying nice things about an old guy on the occasion of his 210th birthday (that might not be quite right).
Tell you what – show me one other piece of evidence that Lott supports segregation and I’ll raise you from “partisan tool” to “thoughtful partisan tool.”
The response of the leaders of the African-American community reminds me of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, where the feminists threw away their principles to support Clinton (and where several of them even compiled a book of sexual fantasies involving Clinton).
where the feminists threw away their principles to support Clinton
Would those be the same feminists who ran Bob Packwood out of town on a rail for things he had done 20 years prior?
The same feminists who somehow never seemed to notice the shenanigans of Ted Kennedy or his relatives?
Hmmm… I’m almost sensing a pattern here……
Wiserbud, I’m taking Gorilla at his word and have not researched the issue. Interestingly, if I’m not mistaken both Byrd and Thurmond mellowed in their old age.
However you conveniently want to ignore Lott’s comment. He did not say Strom Thurmond is a great guy. He did not even say Strom Thurmond has served his country well. He made a very specific comment about how the election of Strom Thurmond to the presidency in 1948 (again I’m fuzzy on the date here) would have changed the course of history for the better. That is a far reaching statement that goes well beyond “Strom is a good friend of mine and I wish him well”.
You ever give any thought that Lott thought a States Rights platform would’ve truly had many positive impacts on the country NOT including Jim Crow? I pose that to the thread as well since it is the seemingly lost concept in a discussion at least one side is hyper focused on.
He made a very specific comment about how the election of Strom Thurmond to the presidency in 1948 (again I’m fuzzy on the date here) would have changed the course of history for the better.
Which he specifically clarified after the fact as meaning conservative principles would have changed the course of the country, not segregation.
Someday someone will have a birthday party for John Kerry, and they’ll say “we were proud supporters of his candidacy for President, and we would be better off if he had won.” But they won’t have the foggiest recollection as to what his platform actually was.
Or of the fact that his election would have covered the country in goober sauce.
But they won’t have the foggiest recollection as to what his platform actually was.
Particularly if they were 7 years old in 2004, like Lott was in 1948.
However you conveniently want to ignore Lott’s comment.
I’m not ignoring anything. I know exactly what he said. I heard it about a thousand times in the news, unlike what Dodd said, which never really got the same attention for some strange reason.
And since you haven’t yet seemed to find the time, here’s a small synopsis of what Dodd said from Neil Boortz:
“Byrd is a “man for all seasons.” He said that Byrd would have been right during the formation of this country, and that he would have been “right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.” Dodd went on to say that he couldn’t think of a time in the history of this nation when Robert Byrd wouldn’t have been right for the country.”
You want to try and tell me how these remarks are not as or more offensive than what Lott said? Yet, for some reason, you and your mighty intellect are completely unaware of this entire story. How can that be?? Is it possible that Dodd’s comments were ignored by the media while Lott’s were elevated to a level of national importance? Why would that be? Wouldn’t it be rather hypocritical of the media to ignore this, less than one year after destroying Trent Lott’s career over similar comments?
(Interestingly enough, it is actually quite difficult to find links to any news stories about Dodd’s remarks. Again, I wonder why that is?)
My point was that both Lott and Dodd made almost exactly the same type of comment in order to say nice things about an old guy that they knew. Yet Lott was pilloried and Dodd was given a pass.
If you wish to ignore that reality, fine by me. But most intelligent, open-minded people who are not blinded by partisanship can see what the deal is here.
Wiserbud, thanks for doing the research. Dodd’s statement was at least as offensive as Lotts. Shame on the media for not covering it (no sarcasm intended).
With that said, surely you can see a material difference between what Dodd said and what Reid said.
P.S. Apparently Bubba Clinton is back in the news for “unwise comments”. Looks like it’s gonna be race week in the USA, unless of course we get another underpants bomber. 😉
At least as offensive? Again, as I stated at your place, there’s a big difference between a Dixiecrat and a founding member of the W.VA. KKK. Can you show me an instance of the Dixiecrats lynching people?
Government sanctioned discrimination is ten times more vile than some criminal enterprise. At least with the KKK there is some hope of protection from them. But a government that sanctions segregation leaves no recourse for the victims of segregation. Thurmond and Byrd were “birds” (pardon the pun) of a feather.
Dodd’s statement was at least as offensive as Lotts.
But in context, neither of them were offensive. As Wiserbud originally pointed out:
Lott (and Dodd) made nice, innocuous comments about a couple of old guys at dinners honoring them. What did you expect them to do, be obnoxious and and insulting?
And that’s all there was to it. They weren’t thinking of those gentlemen’s racist pasts – they thought they were just making bland statements about what great guys they were.
Shame on the media for not covering it (no sarcasm intended).
…and on the double standards of leaders of the African-American community and the Democratic Party.
With that said, surely you can see a material difference between what Dodd said and what Reid said.
And what does that have to do with anything?
Again, the point here is that, had a Republican said what Reid or Clinton said, the media and the left would have crucified that person until they were driven from public life and, if appropriate, public office.
In fact, Reid made his comments TO REPORTERS!
And not one of them thought that maybe, just maybe, this might be of interest to anyone at the time. Nope, they didn’t want to cause any problems, while their Chosen One was racing towards the Presidency. Better to keep this under their collective hats. (It’s also rather telling that the entire press corps, every single one of them, all came to the exact same conclusion about keeping this out of the public eye. Interersting that, doncha think?)
So, Rutherford, where’s the outrage? Where’s the moral preening? Why is it that, all of a sudden, instead of Race Hustlers, Inc. rushing to find a camera to get in front of to demand their pound of flesh from Harry, they are so willing to just forgive and forget? What, exactly, is providing Harry with this awesome protection?
The only reason anyone on the right is making an issue out of this is because it exposes the blatant hypocrisy of the left.
And your continued attempts to ignore that aspect of the story and make apologies for Reid is a perfect example of this hypocrisy.
Well, at least he didn’t say (in public, while being recorded), “Hang that fucking nigger!”
Or maybe he did… Or maybe it was Mel Brooks. I forget which.
test
What the heck? You have this set at Americano Standard Time?
[…] forced to resign. Former Republican Senator Trent Lott is used as the example. My fellow blogger Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere argues this point much to my dismay. But he asks another question in his post that deserves further […]
BiW-
Did you see this in the NYT?
“A federal judge in Manhattan was asked on Monday to dismiss an indictment against a terror suspect whose lawyer argued that his nearly five-year detention in secret C.I.A. prisons and later at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was “perhaps the most egregious violation in the history of speedy-trial jurisprudence.”
I just wrote on it at my place but I think he makes a valid point. How can you say you want to use the system and not apply the standards of the system? God I wish these people would think, just for one minute…
I hadn’t seen it yet, but anyone who managed to stay awake in a high school civics class sould have seen it coming.
Don’t worry, though. When Dhims declare Obama King, he’ll be able to dispense with such pesky notions and simply have the terrorist scum executed.
Of course, when that happens, the terrorist scum will be us.
Under the Bush years while we tortured, the terrorist scum were already us.
Under the Bush years while we tortured, the terrorist scum were already us.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
What a sublimely innocent and completely childish remark.
Under the Bush years while we tortured, the terrorist scum were already us.
Tell that to the Cantor-Fitzgerald employees, or Daniel Pearl. Oh wait! You can’t, because people with the same goals and mindset of the ones we allegedly “tortured” killed them…with extreme prejudice and malice aforethought.
Hmmmm….
Rutherford, swing by my place and let me hold your head underwater for a few minutes, or at least til you turn blue.
Being a liberal, the blue indicator may not work so well. I’d suggest riggor…
LOL this reminds me of the good old days in ChenZhen’s Chamber where Tex used to devise ways of killing me. Ahhh, the memories!
Interestingly Dick, I recall a major believer in water boarding (I think his stage name was MadCow, a radio host) changing his tune when the procedure was inflicted on him.
The real issue here has always been what level will we stoop to to defeat our “enemies”.
Sorry … for some reason link to ChenZhen’s Chamber didn’t work.
I left out the http:// DOH!
The real issue here has always been what level will we stoop to to defeat our “enemies”.
Since our enemies (cute scare quotes there. It’s almost as though you think the people who have declared war on us are NOT our enemies! How precious.) don’t seem to have the same qualms about killing innocent people, including women and children, using such humane techniques as beheading and flying airplane into office buildings, I think your question is meaningless, until you can show that our techniques are anywhere near as inhumane.
And by the way, your Mancow story is a joke. He was not waterboarded. He was almost drowned by some idiot who didn’t know what he was doing. So your point there is meaningless.
What’s really funny is far more people have subjected themselves to waterboarding to “prove how horrible it is” than honest-to-goodness captives.
Silly liberal. More concerned about playing nice than playing to win. I guess that’s all that matters, when you think of this war as just a game. Luckily, some of us actually take it a little more seriously and are not afraid of doing what it takes to win.
Under the Bush years while we tortured, the terrorist scum were already us.
What a juvenile statement. And a disgusting one, as well.
You ought to choose your words more carefully.
Here’s the short version of the torture rebuttal:
Stress positions, temperature changes, loud music – not torture.
Waterboarding is at the borderline. We waterboard our own people in training because it is the most extreme interrogation technique we have short of torture. Yes, many years ago people decided that this was an acceptable training exercise because it was not torture.
By now, far more journalists and TV/radio personalities have been waterboarded than terrorists. Christopher Hitchens decided that he thought it was torture … after he tried it a second time. That fellow from Playboy tried at least twice, as well. I think having to experience it twice before making your judgment pretty much defines it as not torture.
By now we’ve heard all the lame arguments:
“Enhanced interrogation doesn’t work” – But it did
“Normal interrogation would have worked” – But it didn’t
“It makes us the moral equivalent of the terrorists” – I think any of our people who were captured by terrorists would have been delighted to be waterboarded rather than experience the genuine and sadistic torture to which they were subjected. And, of course, they didn’t have to worry about “fear of death,” at least not for very long.
Waterboarding was used for a brief period of time on 2 (I had thought it was 3?) individuals who had high-value, time-critical information. And it was never used again, even well before the controversy in the press.
Actually Rutherford, that Madcow douchebag’s a pussy liberal apologist, so don’t bother in comparing him with me.
I’m also a huge fan of skinning people alive, power tool usage, and working broken bones just so, until I score a novel of wealth.
Torture rocks, and is a huge hit at the family get-together.
It’s always good to have the class clown add some humor to the proceedings. Many thanks. 🙂
Like Obama, I think people like Rutherford call “water boarding” torture because Rutherford does not feel threatened concerning the war on terror. And like most libs, it gives them the warm fuzzies to feel like they are being humane. Turn the other cheek, so to speak.
It’s been my experience when a liberal finally feels threatened, you’ll never find a bigger cheerleader to pull out all stops.
Perhaps one day, if by chance Rutherford does feel endangered, he may make a useful voice concerning fighting the war on terror. In the meantime, Rutherford will continue to be a useful idiot for our enemies.
It’s another indicator of the basic tenet of self-servitude of liberalism.
Geoff, wow and you call me juvenile.
Time critical info? BS … I have never seen any documentation of the ticking time bomb scenario you’re alluding to. You’ve watched too many episodes of 24.
I’ve got too much going on right now to get all my names straight but one of our prisoners was happily spilling his guts UNTIL we started enhanced interrogation and then he either clammed up or gave us foolishness. Common sense ought to tell you people will say anything to get the “discomfort” to stop.
It was so effective that it was used, what, 83 times on one suspect? Either sadism or not terribly effective.
In the lame department … we waterboarded our own people so it’s not torture. One of the most idiotic or perhaps disingenuous arguments in the whole bunch. We waterboarded our own people to train them to withstand TORTURE. Next thing you’ll be spouting the newest talking point that there were no domestic acts of terror under Bush (thank you Dana Perino, Mary Matalin and Rudy, America’s Mayor).
But you know what? I will give you points for at least classifying it as “borderline”. That’s more than most conservatives will acknowledge.
Tex, the last thing I want while I feel threatened is to have some dude being interrogated in an “enhanced” way, screaming total garbage leading to wild goose chases. I feel protected by having the most effective methods used and there are countless experts who will tell you enhanced interrogation ain’t it.
By the way… the last thing that works on a dude willing to die for his cause is torture. Just another bit of common sense the Jack Bauer wanna-be’s conveniently ignore.
And notice …. the above two paragraphs haven’t even scratched the surface regarding what kind of country we want to be. But maintaining our moral standing seems to fall on deaf ears so let’s stick to the practical stuff.
By the way… the last thing that works on a dude willing to die for his cause is torture. Just another bit of common sense the Jack Bauer wanna-be’s conveniently ignore.
Yes, because agony or the threat of a not-so-sudden death certainly is equivalent to the courage it takes to go out in a blinding flash. Especially if they’ll make me eat bacon along the way.
I know! Let’s give them the rights of a citizen and try them in Article III courts. That’ll learn them!!!
Rutherford,
You know how you always require empirical evidence, fact checking, lefty links, and the like in order to sound important and informed when posting on your blog?
Can you provide me the evidence that enhanced interrogation don’t work? Because everyone else in the world, Europe, the mafia, the military, Israel, Africa, Vietnam, and many other Islamic countries seem to be of the opinion based on historical fact, not only do enhanced interrogation techniques work, but work well.
I’ll make you a bet that won’t cost you a penny. I’ll pay for the bandages too when we are through. I’ll even be gentle.
I’ll bet if you let me pull a couple of your fingernails out with channel locks, with the threat that I’ll saw your head off if you lie to me, no matter how fanatical your cause and your belief, I can make you tell me about anything I need to know “voluntarily” and in complete honesty. 🙂
Can we put my bet to the test? And if I fail and you win, I’ll start a blog and admit to you that you’re right about everything. I’ll even compliment Obama as Great Leader and become his number one fan.
Blow me, sugarbritches.
I’ve killed people smarter than you.
Since this comment appeared outside of any logical response in the thread, I’m not sure who sugarbritches is. But for the record, that last comment was not only un-funny, it actually made no sense.
I commend you on your blog though. You do make an effort to entertain.
BiW … is Dick a regular here? Can you vouch for him? Does he ever comment seriously on anything? Just curious.
Yes, Dick is a regular.
He is always serious, except when he’s not, but figuring that out takes practice, and translating for someone without the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring would not just be cheating, it would be considered bad form.
Tssssk, tssssk, tssssk, completely unnecessary Tex.
Enhanced interrogations are about overwhelming your senses ability to differentiate between the real and the unreal. The person being waterboarded is never in any danger of actually drowning, but he thinks he is about to drown because his senses tell him he is about to drown.
Constant light, constant darkness, absolute silence or constant loud noise, all serve to overwhelm the senses ability to maintain internal psychological defenses, which are what terrorists hone to withstand interrogation.
No plyers needed, just the greatest hits of Barry Manilow and a strobe light…
Gorilla,
Of course, I was being facetious with respect to our good buddy Rutherford for his ignorant commentary, as I am sure you are right in that extreme pain generally unnecessary to extract required information.
That being, I am getting a little tired of the left’s tacit and baseless accusation that our interrogators are masochistic executioners is beginning to wear on me a little, especially being these same interrogators are risking their own lives for my sake with scum that would gladly kill my children.
I have never felt water boarding torture, for the simple fact there are no lasting physical effects. The fact that a suicide bomber’s mind might be screwed up after numerous doses of interrogation doesn’t concern me, being he wouldn’t physically have a head after completed, if I had my way concerning interrogation. 😉
I’ve never blamed the interrogators themselves. They’re following orders. I blame Dick Cheney and I’d love to see him prosecuted for war crimes and hanged in the public square. 👿
*clang*
And there is is…as it had to be. The irrational and idiotic hate for Dick Cheney.
*closes eyes, slowly breathes in, slowly exhales*
Good, my young padawan, good. Give in to your hate. Your hate makes the Cheney strong.
Sigh, I just read my last post. Somewhere, I got stuck on stupid. Make that sadistic executioners…
I’ll attribute that to a Freudian, or some other lame excuse. 😈
Time critical info? BS … I have never seen any documentation of the ticking time bomb scenario you’re alluding to
You’ve never heard the threats of KSM during his interrogation, saying that an attack was coming? Figures.
i>Common sense ought to tell you people will say anything to get the “discomfort” to stop.
This is one of the stupider liberal mantras. Common sense ought to tell you that all the normal methods of interrogation, questioning, cross-correlation of information, etc., are not suspended when you add in enhanced interrogation.
But let’s not speculate. Did the CIA say that it was useful, accurate info? Yeah, they sure did. So all of your “it doesn’t work” nonsense is just imagined fluff. The fact is, it worked. Period.
It was so effective that it was used, what, 83 times on one suspect?
As was clarified last April, KSM’s “183 waterboardings” were actually the number of times water was applied, not the number of sessions. KSM himself says there were 5 sessions in total.
We waterboarded our own people to train them to withstand TORTURE.
Yes. But we’re not allowed to TORTURE them to train them. Duh. Once again, waterboarding is considered the upper limit of interrogation techniques that are not considered TORTURE.
Are you aware that made absolutely no sense? Yes, we used the method to teach them to withstand torture, but it was not torture because it was in the context of training. Is that what you’re saying?
Oh …. and 5 sessions on KSM proves it’s effective. If your delusions help you sleep at night Geoff, more power to you.
Effective enough. The CIA used it until they got what they wanted, and then they stopped.
Once again, you’re avoiding the point that there is no question as to whether the CIA felt that the technique was successful – they certainly did. You are simply making things up to oppose that bald fact.
I’ve got too much going on right now to get all my names straight but one of our prisoners was happily spilling his guts UNTIL we started enhanced interrogation and then he either clammed up or gave us foolishness
Here’s a little addendum to Ali Soufan’s story about Abu Zubaydah. Said addendum casting a lot of doubt on Soufan’s version of events.
Yes, we used the method to teach them to withstand torture, but it was not torture because it was in the context of training. Is that what you’re saying?
No. We teach soldiers to avoid fire, but we don’t try to hit them with live rounds when we do it. We teach pilots to avoid SAMs, but we don’t try to shoot them down. We teach military members how to resist interrogation techniques and hopefully give them some resistance to torture, but we don’t torture them to build up that resistance.
Torturing our own service personnel would be immoral and counterproductive. We try to build up resistance to torture with techniques that are short of torture.
Well this blog has reached beyond my scope of politics. BIW I just wanted to say Hi and hope all is well! 🙂
Hey, waitress! No complaints.
You should stick around. The fun hasn’t really started yet. All the furniture is still intact.
They should have supported Obamacare.
Fuck Rutherford.
He’s just another psychotic liberal assclown who hates Cheney and Bush for saving his sorry inbred ass.
And Zipperhead, I wasn’t kidding.
Ah, finally someone who makes Elric and Tex look downright diplomatic.
BiW, I’m not sure I want that Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. Not sure I really want to decipher Dick’s messages.
Dick, Dick, Dick, why all the anger dude? Clowns (even ones with a gash on their heads) are here to make the world a happier place. You’re such a downer. 😦
R,
That clown wasn’t looking to make anyone’s day happier. He was looking for a meal.
http://tinyurl.com/ykgb6t3
I have often wondered why people like Rutherford won’t admit to the corruption of the Obama cabinet. I would love to have an honest debate with Rutherford about many issues, but it is impossible until he removes the blinders that excuse the double standard in judgment and corruption.
Case-in-point Eric Holder: I have asked him for a year now why the thugs in Philadelphia going by the name of the New Black Panthers have not been indicted for voter intimidation. There crime is clearly on film, it clearly is meant to intimidate, and the only thing holding up the charges is the Attorney General.
Now Rutherford is going to have a hard time convincing me that if the shoe were on the other foot, that it were liberal blacks being intimidated, and the Aryan Nation thugs had been brandishing night sticks in front of the precinct, Eric Holder would not be on the nightly news often condemning the actions with charges pending.
This is not only a classic case of reverse racism, but an absolute perversion of our established law demonstrated by America’s own Attorney General.
I can’t think off hand of another situation which demonstrates the utter contempt that liberals have for freedom.
Am I wrong Rutherford?
Tex you have me at a disadvantage in that I haven’t seen the film but perhaps Eric is having trouble finding sufficient cause to indict just cos a black man stands outside a voting station looking “mean.” Sounds like a hard case to prosecute if you ask me.
Right Rutherford – just protecting the little, old white ladies while holding a night stick.
Now you won’t be complaining in 2010 will you if some of the Klan stands around by the front door of the voting precinct with a rope in hand, will you?
I’m sure it will be alright with the valiant protector Holder.
Rutherford, you’ve now surpassed your pretentious quota for the week. Time for you to take Mom’s advice and get back to a little honesty.
And the film is easily found on YouTube…
It was actually easy to prosecute, and in fact, the DOJ lawyers had already won the case, R.
From the Washington Times:
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.
I understand that you aren’t a lawyer, so I’ll translate this for you. A default judgment means that the defendants did not even appear, or failed to answer the complaint after they or their counsel did appear, and therefore, the court found them guilty. It is an easy way to win a case, and is eminently preventable, so it is rare when it happens. What did Eric the legal genius Holder’s Justice Department do then?
A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.
Which is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I doubt members of the Aryan Nation would have received such light punishment for similar activities.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/
Read the article, R. Read how Holder talks about his respect for those career attorneys at Justice. Then read this article about what happened to one of those career attorneys who was prosecuting this case:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzE5NjcyNjM4MmQ4YjI3MzBlODBmN2M4MDllNmYwMzg=
Holder, like his boss, is a partisan hack with little respect for the law as written.
So Rutherford gives up on the torture (oops – that’s TORTURE) argument and just makes small talk instead. Then, having dropped it this time, he’ll start over with exactly the same discredited points the next time he brings up the issue.
Talk about your bitter clingers.
Geoff, it’s hardly giving up. I just don’t see the point to cluttering BiW’s comments section with an endless ping pong match. It’s sad when we need comedians like Jon Stewart to prove points but his interview with John Yoo last Monday night shows how “fuzzy” the whole torture issue is. Yoo came very close to saying that in times of war the Pres gets to do whatever the hell he wants. Scary.
As for small talk, I’m just tryin’ to cheer old Dick up a bit. The only thing worse than a sad clown is an angry one.
Geoff, it’s hardly giving up.
Except that you’ve given up. You brought torture into the thread in the first place. Now you decide that maybe it’s cluttering up BiW’s threads? A little late for that. And as to “ping-pong,” it would be nice if you could have actually addressed the point being made, instead of fumbling the interpretation and arguing imagined points. You can’t have ping-pong if you don’t return the serve onto the table.
It’s sad when we need comedians like Jon Stewart to prove points but his interview with John Yoo…
That would be the interview where Stewart admitted that he was out of his league and couldn’t score any points on Yoo? That interview?
Yoo came very close to saying that in times of war the Pres gets to do whatever the hell he wants.
Now you’re bringing yet another topic into the thread. Presidential war-time powers is an interesting subject, but off-topic. Avoid the clutter.
Rutherford, diplomats are pussies, and so are you.
I never claimed to be a fucking diplomat, asshole.
On that last point, I cannot argue. You never claimed to be one nor do you want to. More power to you. Enjoy the rage!
LOL I never heard of ZombieLand but thanks for the vid link. Makes things so much clearer! 🙂
“I never heard of ZombieLand”
You might consider pulling your head from your ass on occasion.
perhaps Eric is having trouble finding sufficient cause to indict just cos a black man stands outside a voting station looking “mean.” Sounds like a hard case to prosecute if you ask me.
But parking a police car within sight of a polling place is unquestionably accepted as proof of attempted “voter disenfranchisement” in the 2000 Presidential election by the left .
One more example of the amazing hypocrisy and total lack of intellectual honesty of the average leftist and their media enablers.
But I’m sure Rutherford has never heard this story either.
For someone who considers himself so intelligent, R sure seems to be rather unaware of quite a bit of recent history.