Dr. Laura returns to CNN to defend her indefensible racial remarks
August 19, 2010 12:56 am ET by Matt Gertz
The day after she engaged in the racially charged rant which eventually led to her deciding to step down from her radio show, Schlessinger apologized for having "articulated the "n" word all the way out - more than one time." But as the Rev. Al Sharpton pointed out, the repeated use of a racial slur wasn't the only problem with her comments - the "whole line" of her remarks "was extremely disturbing."
Tonight on CNN, we found out why Schlessinger neglected to apologize for some of those additional comments - she doesn't think there's anything wrong with them.
During an interview, John Roberts pointed out that while much of the media attention devoted to Schlessinger's comments has revolved around her repeated use of a racial slur, "there were some other things that you said during that broadcast that other people found even more troubling than the n-word." Rather than apologize for those comments, Schlessinger kept digging:
Roberts brought up her comment that "I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown, and I don't get it," and noted that "some people thought that was really a racist point of view." Schlessinger replied, "I don't. I think that was an observation."
Roberts then raised Schlessinger's remark that "without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black... it was a black thing." Roberts raised a Columbia University professor's statement that Obama did not receive a substantially larger portion of the black vote than John Kerry got in 2004.
Schlessinger did not respond to Roberts, instead attacking her original caller for her purportedly "racist statement that whites are afraid of the black man taking over America," and pointing out that she had responded to that statement by pointing out that whites had been responsible for Obama's election since blacks make up such a small percentage of voters. She then attacked Roberts for not having played the caller's statement. Incidentally, the exchange Schlessinger was describing came on the other end of the commercial from the one that Roberts brought up.
Defending indefensible statements wasn't all Dr. Laura did on CNN.
Roberts opened the interview by repeatedly challenging Schlessinger's contention that her First Amendment rights had been violated:
ROBERTS: You said that you're leaving your radio show to regain your First Amendment rights. How did you lose them?
SCHLESSINGER: Well, I think everybody in the media risks that. I'm not the only one. I don't see myself as a victim in particular. It's the atmosphere in America today where there is very little debate and just the attempt to silence voices that somebody disagrees with.
ROBERSTS: But does this go beyond being disagreed with? You said something that was very offensive.
SCHLESSINGER: Well, yes. And I was trying to make a point about the hypersensitivity of racial issues. And I made it the wrong way. I instantly realized I had blown it.
ROBERTS: But you seem to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Schlessinger, saying that you've taken yourself off your radio show because other people are not allowing you your First Amendment rights even though you were wrong to have said what you said.
Roberts also caught Schlessinger in a falsehood when she tried to defend herself by attacking Nancy Pelosi. Schlessinger was forced to apologize "for being inaccurate":
SCHLESSINGER: My decision was not based on this incident. My decision has been percolating for about a year when I realized more and more that -- like Nancy Pelosi saying we should investigate people who have a problem with the mosque being built at Ground Zero. Investigating these people?
ROBERTS: That's not what she said.
SCHLESSINGER: And I'm just pointing out --
ROBERTS: Well, what she said it would be good to have the same transparency --
SCHLESSINGER: You know, it would be good if I could finish a sentence.
ROBERTS: I'm sorry. You're being inaccurate in what you're saying.
SCHLESSINGER: All right.
ROBERTS: I'm just trying to correct the record.
SCHLESSINGER: Well, I apologize for being inaccurate.
ROBERTS: She said in the same way that there should be transparency behind the mosque funding, there should also be similar transparency behind the people who are opposed to the mosque.
She feels Cornered & Trapped, i'm surprised she didn't do most of her interviews by Phone.
What is really Surprising is Sarah Palin & The Extreme-Right eagerly coming to her Defense?
"I Don't Get it", The only thing Worse is a Pedophile, is The Extreme-Right really that Dense?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
But here's the quote i notice: "You know, it would be good if I could finish a sentence." Wasn't this also a phrase from that call?
What comes out more than anything is that she is basically a self-important fraud. A hypocrite. And soon, we hope, gone.
So, all those "demands" made by mmfa aren't true?
I can "demand" a thousand times that conservatives shut their ignorant mouths.
But that's not the same as forcing them to do so.
Do you really not understand the difference?
They can't quite grasp the idea that it's just an attempt to give the other side a chance to speak.
If one side knows that the other side is going to be guaranteed a venue to rebut their claims, both sides are less likely to make outrageous statements.
I understand you are one of the resident trolls on this site, but could you please read this and tell me who it is exactly that is violating Dr. Laura's 1st Amendment rights and forcing her to make her own choice to quit her radio show?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pressor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
She has the right to say the N-word as much as she wants. And people have the right to complain about it. I don't see Congress infringing on either sides rights to speak their minds, do you?
Come on, dude. You have to read between the lines when you're a strict Constitutionalist.
Or the 14th Amendment only gives the rights to slave babies to become citizens, but not "anchor babies?" If I read between the lines of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens," I have to read between the lines to see it means only "desireable, white, Christian persons." Now I understand!
*smacks forehead*
Ha ha ha, that's funny. She (and you) have SO MUCH RIGHT to say that word, you can't even spell it out! So much for your defense of the 1st amendment. Where is her right to say it, when you can't even spell it?
I have enough common sense, decency and respect NOT to use the N-word because I understand its origins and meaning. I choose not to say it or spell it, not becuase I feel duty bound by the racist overtones of that word but out of courtesy. I have used it before, I may use it again, but never in anger or spite.
I also have the right to swear, but I choose not to do it most times because it is uncouth and offensive to some. So why drop an F-bomb when its not polite or necessary to do so?
And its just like you have the right to bear offspring, but it would be offensive to most if you did reproduce. Get it now?
You're the one doing the presuming.
She can continue saying whatever she wants-it's just that people will choose not to listen or not to sponsor her.
And no, Sherrod WAS a racist MANY, MANY years ago for a short period of time, and when she realized that she had to be an advocate who gave her all to ANY poor, disadvantaged farmers, not just black farmers, she stopped discriminating against white farmers, and luckily there was time to help the white farmer in question before he'd been permanently disadvantaged.
No "racist" was given a job by the Obama Administration.
But you aren't looking to actually have a conversation on ANY of these topics. One person should debunk you fully, and then warn others to NOT feed you any more.
Please don't feed this troll and/or any of his troll posts.
dell, when you learn enough to debunk my statements, you will have learned to speak in a civil manner. Until then, all you do is whine about a right-winger posting on a left-wing site. You NEVER actually address the issues, you just whine about right-wingers posting.
(1) Sleazinger's a racist, and that's self-apparent to anyone who does share this personality flaw with her.
(2) Sherrod WAS a racist - 30 years ago - and got over it. LEARNED from her shortcomings, and FIXED THEM. Something you and Dr. Laura Sleazeball are appraently incapable of.
(3) Finally, she's not "having her freedom of speech rights denied and being gagged by the PC-police." Show where in the Constutuion it says that I'm require to buy products for her sponsors, to help pay her salaray! She p!ssed off a whole lot of people and the market punnished her. End of story. Her first ammendment rights are as intact as yours and mine. It's not my fault that she chose to USE those rights to expouse racism and bigorty - for going on 30 years now, not just that one broadcast - and then try to DEFEND that racist claptrap after she was called out for it.
You're a fool to defend her. And probably a racist fool, whether you know it or not. But I put nothing past you (or beneath you) you're the least of the conservtaive posters here, and your absolute cluelessness on this shows either your blind partisanship or your own inherent racism.
-------------------------------
IMHO
She wasn't racist..she had very good reason to want to stay away from the Whites in her time. That's what makes the Sherrod story such a great one. She overcame more than most, when she definitely had a reason to continue the circle of hatred.
Just wish more people could see the other side, instead of PRETENDING to be victims (Beck, Limbaugh, Dr. Schlessingheizingerberger, etc). Then they'd have a different outlook on life.
Personal opinion: there is no such thing as a good reason to hate. I think that was one of the things Ms Sherrod discovered, and why we admire her.
What she had was a reasonable excuse to hate.
This is an attempt to move the goalpost so to speak,to push the boundaries of what is acceptable for white people to say about people of color on a whole range of social issues and issues pertaining to jobs,healthcare and the economy. Lazy,looking for government handouts,playing victim,not paying taxes but "expecting" something in return Bill O'liely said as much a few weeks ago. Look at how the healthcare debate evolved. Hard working people paying for the underserved lazy poor. Look at how Faux has ramped up the image of Obama as some South American communist/fascist/muslim/christian/socialist dictator bent on destroying America by catering to the underserved poor and black masses. Limbaugh has said Obamas presidency is about reparations.
They the cons want an environment that any protest and complaint from a person of color who is not alligned with them is seen as irrelevant while the most vile things are said and acted out on poor and working people and now we have finally arrived at the n-word being used openly and without shame.
Actually, Sherrod herself admitted that she had racist tendencies and thoughts way back when. That's not really in dispute; that's from her own admission.
The reason that IT'S OK, is that she realized this and made a conscious decision to change her viewpoint, and IMPROVE herself as a human being, and STOP thinking that way. Which was the WHOLE POINT of the video that got her in touble (which was b*ll$h!t) in the first place.
And I say, "THAT'S ADMIRABLE."
Floyd, OTOH, seems to think that haveing racist feelings 30 years ago, that you now disown and disavow, is somehow just as bad (or worse?) than having racist feelings TODAY that you stridently DEFEND.
-----------------------------------------
IMHO
The point of her story was about overcoming her notions about white people, about her notions of revenge, about viewing people as colors rather than as people. And to do THAT, there had to BE something to OVERCOME.
Fine, she didn'r CALL herself a racist. But that's the only word for the feelings hse had AT THE TIME. (Again - past tense!) She realized this was WRONG and got past them. And ended up doing her damnednest to help that white farmer keep his farm.
If the point of her story was not about moving beyond personal feeligns about race, then what WAS the point?
--------------------------------
IMHO
She learned from the way white society was treating this farmer who she helped that he was basically in the same boat as the black farmers and that is where(remember she said God will put you in situations to help you grow)she came to the understanding that this was not only a race issue but one of class and she grew,but her initial growth was not one from being racist.
---------------------------------
IMHO
And, as I said above, while it's not the feeling that I initially walked away with, what you present here is certainly a fair interpretation.
I'll have to listen to it again, with THIS context in mind, rather than the one that I may have subconsiously picked up from the media. Not that I ever accepted the [RW] media's interpretation of what she was saying, but it certainly may have pejudiced the context of my own.
-----------------------------------
IMHO
Being the victim of racism does not make racist feelings on the part of said victim NOT racist. Would she be justified in hating ME because of the (unexcusable, criminal and altogether awful) actions of OTHER white people?
No. She wouldn't be.
She's justified in hating the PEOPLE THAT DID THAT TO HER FAMILY and anyone else who ENABLES IT. She's NOT justified in hating ALL WHITES, and SHE REALIZED THAT. That's the whole point of the story she was telling: That she REALIZED she was doing the same thing as those people who hurt her and her family!
So SHE CHANGED. And that's ADMIRABLE. And she deserves full credit for growing in a way that Floyd and Schlessinger seem incapable of.
--------------------------------------
IMHO
You're so blinded by rage, you can't even admit she admitted to being racist early in her life. She never apologized for her early racism, so I have to assume she is still a racist. Do you have any evidence she isn't a racist?
That's how an interview should be conducted! No fluffy Larry King pandering to the guest. Ask the tough questions get to the point and let us decide! Awesome!
"Dr. Laura" caller responds to N-word rant: "That's what she honestly feels, and she just got caught saying it"
Adds: "The tape disappeared, and I had to try to find the tape"
The interview is here on this site look for it and stop playing dumb. Oh, I forgot your're not playing.
You've got to be kidding me.
If someone who works with Dr. Laura is reading this, please explain to her that she needs to correct her perspective substantially before speaking in public again.
As soon as this happened you know faux noise hired her I bet within the month that hag will be over at faux.
And now GLENN BECK trying to co-opt MARTIN LUTHER KING?! These are not good people.
Thanks, zeeeej, I thought I was the ONLY one who thought the same thing about Beck. As a guest on a FOX morning show, he out and out called the president a racist, but he has NO PROBLEM capitalizing off MLK, Jr. How incredibly shameful!
1) Freed slaves = racism gone
2) Ok, Jim Crow laws gone = racism gone
3) Ok, schools integrated = racism gone
4) Ok, ok, black president = racism gone
The similar theme I find deplorable is the freedom/bootstraps/opportunity rant. Because we know all schools are equal, all youth experiences free from trauma, everyone starts the race from the same starting point.
Racism Gone =loss of campaign money
Racism Gone =Loss of huge voting block
Racism Gone = No way to debate since Dims cans simply resort to screaming racists.
Apparently, he had a list of questions that he wanted to be able to ask, and a VERY limited amount of time to ask her those questions, because he had 2 other people scheduled for another segment right after hers, and so he chose to ask the additional questions rather than challenging her when she didn't answer the quedstions he had already asked.
But man, was Dr Laura grasping at straws throughout that interview. She has no defense for what she did, and she has no defense for how she didn't even TRY to help that woman, although she tried to claim last night that she DID offer advice to her, and she has behaved terribly since the event happened, and she never really apologized for the worst things she ended up doing.
So, ya know, that has to count for something.
Tell CNN that this was the right kind of interview but they should push even harder! The press needs to do this more often.
Really 7 % isnt a suvstantially larger portion? Up 26% from Gore.
She also said we should look in to how the opposition is financed. Look in to and investigate MEAN THE SAM DAM THING!