Limbaugh sub host claimed Obama-McCain incident shows "how Democrats treat African-Americans" officeholders: "[T]hey get put back on the plantation"
Substituting for Rush Limbaugh on Limbaugh's radio show, Roger Hedgecock said that the dispute between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain shows "how Democrats treat African-American" officeholders. According to Hedgecock, "[T]hey get put back on the plantation."
Filling in for host Rush Limbaugh on the February 8 edition of the nationally syndicated The Rush Limbaugh Show, radio host and former San Diego mayor Roger Hedgecock stated that the recent dispute between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) over what they had agreed on regarding a bipartisan approach to lobbying reform shows "how Democrats treat African-Americans who happen to be officeholders in their party." He then added: "[T]hey get put back on the plantation." During Hedgecock's conversation with a caller about the dispute, Hedgecock asserted that the incident involving an exchange of letters between Obama and McCain illustrated that Obama was getting "yanked back into line" by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). On January 18, Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled their lobby reform legislation, titled the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
The dispute reportedly began when Obama released a February 2 letter endorsing the Honest Leadership Act, which he said he hoped could be considered as the basis for a "bipartisan solution" that was preferable to McCain's call for "creating a task force to further study and discuss" lobby reform and said that he supported allowing the legislation to be shaped via the normal committee process (which is controlled by Republicans). In his reply, McCain called Obama's suggestions "self-interested partisan posturing," claiming that Obama had displayed "disingenuousness" in his earlier conversations with McCain. In his discussion about the exchange, Hedgecock, who also hosts his own radio show on San Diego's radio station KOGO, asserted that Obama's initial letter and subsequent correspondence with McCain about the reform was "at the instance [sic] of [Democratic leader] Harry Reid" and was "going back on his promise" to work with Republicans on the matter.
From the February 9 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
CALLER: Thank you, Roger. I was just curious about your comments earlier about the whole Obama-McCain situation. I was just wondering why you omitted Obama's retort letter to McCain, which basically said, "What the hell are you talking about?" in poli-speak, and also the fact that McCain and Obama have made amends on this whole altercation.
HEDGECOCK: Well, I don't know whether they made amends. I was looking at the -- Hardball, last night, and, I guess [host] Chris Matthews was going into this whole thing, and McCain said that he was moving on. I don't know whether that means they've made amends. Here's the crux of the thing: Obama, at the instance [sic] of Harry Reid, instead of going bipartisan with McCain's thing, wanted to come up and support the -- the Democrat proposal, which is a nine-member congressional ethics commission, which would have the authority to keep this in the front page of The New York Times until at least election day on the culture of corruption charges against Republicans only.
McCain said, "Look, this thing is broader than that; covers both parties; needs to be attacked on a systemic basis; and we've got to work on a bipartisan basis to do it." Obama had promised him he would do it. He went back on his promise, and as far as I'm concerned -- let's get back to the thrust of my comment. What this shows us is how Democrats treat African-Americans who happen to be officeholders in their party. They toe the party line. They get yanked back into line. They get, you know, they get put back on the plantation, [caller].
CALLER: I'd have to object to that, quite honestly. I mean, granted, Obama's a Democrat, and he's going to side more with the Democrat Party line than the Republican line. But, if you look at his voting record --
HEDGECOCK: No, in this case that's not what happened. No, no, no, no, no, no, [caller]. Don't mischaracterize it. What happened was, after promising to do a bipartisan effort on ethics, he was yanked back by Harry Reid to the purely partisan position -- Democrats only, we're going to define ethics. We're going to make it a campaign issue. And he yanked -- and he yanked himself back to that partisan position after promising a bipartisan approach with McCain. McCain called him on it, and that's the fact.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
When Hillary Clinton used the "plantation" analogy to describe actual conditions in Congress, she got lambasted by Hedgehog, Limbo, and all the other wingnuts . . . who LOVE to use the same word . . .
When Hillary Clinton used the "plantation" analogy to describe actual conditions in Congress, she got lambasted by Hedgehog, Limbo, and all the other wingnuts
Hillary Clinton is an elected official, a statesperson, Hedgecock and Limbaugh are radio personalities. BID DIFF. Statespeople are expected to maintain a higher level of decorum. Radio announcers and other media types are looking for ratings, and sometimes bizarre SELLS. Hillary Clinton, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi or any other ELECTED statesperson should choose their words more carefully. Amazing that isn't apparent to you.
Well here it is! Their ticket to hypocricy!
Did you forget about him? /And how about George W. Bush? Decorum out the wazzoo, right?
(If all my html works here I will feel pretty good!)
Thank goodness this administration finally brought some dignity back to the White House.
Hedgecock is a former politician, including a stint as Mayor of San Diego. His fans still call him "Mayor" on the radio there, maybe because they like all that decorum he brought with him from the Mayor's office to the radio booth.
Then you feel Gingrich should have been treated as Hillary was when he made his plantation remarks years ago?
Well the word "Plantation" seems to be getting a LOT of usage lately. Of course I'm NOT sure WHY MMFA is jumping in HERE-- considering Hillary Clinton is ALSO guilty of adopting the "plantation" analogy recently herself. Mmmmm I don't recall MMFA OBJECTING to that...oh well.
Perhaps BOTH sides ought to cease using it?....p>
Even IF Obama got yanked back by Harry Reid, WHY make it a racial thing? If a Senator of Italian ethnicity got "yanked" back into line by Reid would anyone suggest that : * Godfather Harry Reid yanked Senator (fill in name) back into "the family"* ::wink wink:: (BTW I'm Italian so I can get away with writing that)
How about Harry Reid "yanked" Senator (fill in a name) back into line...period. No need, IMO, to make it racial or ethnic by using terms like "plantation". I wonder IF we'll ever get past that??
You perhaps don't remember Chris (Tweety) Matthews beating up the Democrats for opposition to Alito, and saying that they were opposing him because he was Italian. Tweety said Democrats were aligning Alito with organized crime.
They weren't. Not even close.
Boy did THAT nonsense blow over quickly. Cracked me up.
made some very intelligent remarks on "This Week" (I think it was) last Sunday, basically saying the D's need to have a message in order to win elections and set the agenda. I believe this man will be shining star in the D party in the years to come. He's young, articulate and is gaining experience as he grows in his current job. Give him 6 - 10 years and see what he might be capable of becoming.
...were able to escape the plantation, they did. somehow blacks today seem to realize that their best interests are represented by the democratic party. or they could join the republicans who have spent the last thirty years on their "southern strategy" of appealing to white racism in the south. also the party whose hero, ronald reagan, made his first official campaign speech in philadelphia, mississippi, where he called for "states rights". must have been a big coincidence that's where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.
I think this item is less about the "plantation" remark and more about the complete mischaracterization of the McCain-Obama incident.
McCain came off looking like a mad hatter and Obama was like "WTF?"
Obama was clearly the bigger man in the end.
And Republicans can't stand that. Ironic, when you consider that many Republicans would like to send McCain to his own little plantation.
"Of course I'm NOT sure WHY MMFA is jumping in HERE-- considering Hillary Clinton is ALSO guilty of adopting the "plantation" analogy recently herself. Mmmmm I don't recall MMFA OBJECTING to that...oh well."
Perhaps the meaning was entirely different? Context is important, ofcourse.
"Perhaps the meaning was entirely different? Context is important, ofcourse."...by mirkwood
=====
One (Hillary) is saying the Republicans run the House like a "plantation" the other (Hedgecock&the caller) are saying the Democrats run their party like a "plantation".
The "use" of the word "plantation" is RACIAL in BOTH instances. Now some may think Republican do run the House THAT way, while others may think Reid runs the Democrats that way. I fail to see how the usage of "plantation" is more applicable in one example than the other--and OTHER than race-baiting what's the point?....
Hillary compared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to a plantation while speaking during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event to a mostly black audience at a church in Harlem. She said:
"when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."...Hillary Clinton
Isn't THAT on the same idea as (Hedgecock&the caller ) saying Harry Reid runs the Senate Democrats pretty much the same way? =*Nobody With A Contrary View*= such a Obama in this instance, is ALLOWED to work in a bipartisan effort with Republicans.
I don't see much of a difference at all. BUT that wasn't even my point. I just don't think the word "plantation" should be used by EITHER party. Nor do I understand WHY one would be considered less insulting or incendiary. BOTH are "racially" charged rhetoric.
We obviously disagree, but that's ok.
One (Hillary) is saying the Republicans run the House like a "plantation" the other (Hedgecock&the caller) are saying the Democrats run their party like a "plantation".
The "use" of the word "plantation" is RACIAL in BOTH <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
When Hillary said the GOP runs the Houe like a plantation and “has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.”
That was speaking to the top down iron rule not about how blacks are treated in the House. However when Hedgecock spoke he was talking about how Obama was treated so specifically it WAS racial. Not in inferrence but directly racial. So NO I would not say they were the same.
Solon, Hillary spoke to a MOSTLY Black audience in a Harlem church. Let's be realistic here and figure the White folks in attendance were Hillary's staff and maybe other assorted Democrat "officials".
Hillary USES the word "Plantation"...adding "and you know what I'm talking about". What, if not Black Slavery, is she talking about? Ok, maybe she's not singling out "Black legislators" per say (BTW that doesn't make her remarks any less distasteful)...HOWEVER she is using a RACIAL analogy to get her point across. Do you SERIOUSLY think she's uses the word "Plantation" when talking to a MOSTLY White crowd?? So yes, it STILL amounts to a form of "race-baiting".
My point was that BOTH sides should knock off the usage of the word "Plantation" because no matter how it's used it does CONJURE up Slavery which conjures up RACE.
Are you honestly going to tell me that Hillary's "Plantation" analogy had NOTHING to do with race? ...If so, then please explain to me WHY she happen to choose THAT word? She was telling a Black audience that Democrats are treated (in her opinion) like slaves on a plantation. THAT'S still evoking "race" no matter how you try to slice it. It may be MORE subtle than Hedgecock&the caller's use of the word--BUT there's NO denying what Hillary was doing, unless someone is such a hard core partisan that they refuse to admit it even to themselves. I normally wouldn't put you in that category, so I'm a bit surprised by your response.
Solon, as I think/hope you know by now I am NOT a hard core partisan. Another words I have no dog in this hunt. I'm SIMPLY looking at the situation as fairly as I can and concluding that the use of the word "Plantation" is purely "Racial" no matter how you cut it, parse it, slice it and make excuses for it.
BOTH sides should REMOVE it from their vocabulary...Period.
The Repugs on this site take what is clearly hypocrisy on the part of commentators... and claim it's all right because they're not elected.
But at the same time takes a statement by Clinton that's not a hypocrisy... but criticizes her because she IS elected.
This is Bizarro World squared.
in the last.....30-40 years or so......the Blacks of this great country have (in the majority: Year by year 75%-95%) voted for the party (Democrats) they have known were and are on their side since those days of Civil unrest when they realized that the repubs/conservatives were actually the ones looking to, if not take away, then hurt or cut back everything that they and a majority of everyone else fought so hard to give what they deserved in the first place!!
So now....since they know full well that they can't appeal to the black community directly.......they are attempting at every turn it seems to make it look as if blacks can only get where they are only if the Democratic party "hoists" them up...
Not that I believe that to be the case.....but for what its worth....if I had to choose: I'd rather be proped up and have some resemblance of worth and power than be reduced to nothing more than photo-op fodder for the Republican party...... (how many of those blacks that we have seen during Bush speeches have we seen beyond those speeches??)(Not to mention all those Arabs? or any other minority?)
Sounds to me like a racially motivted argument that these right-wing talking heads are attempting here!! Only ditto-heads and Fox Opinion zombies would actually fall for this crap!!
But the truth is is that the black community is smarter than the neo-con base gives them credit for.....and this is why the black community votes for the side of equality and sanity year in and year out.....and that will never change as long as the figure-heads of the conservative base act the opposite of the name they have picked for themselves........ compassionate conservative!!
With control of both Houses, the Republicans have made it a very standard practice to leave the Democrats out of all important decision making committees or make sure they have little voice when they do participate. The Republicans now want to welcome them to equal blame for crimes that did not commit. What makes this even more interesting is to hear Limbaugh's substitute trying to take the "high" road by making it a factual insistence of the caller to accept the partisan claim that Obama had to put in his place by his plantation Democratic leaders. The reality that Democrats will not be charged for this episode of "lets take the Indian's money" has nothing to do with Obama's wake up call he may of agreed to give too much to the lying Republicans. Sure there will be a plenty of time to be bipartisan, I am sure when the Democrats take back the Senate this year they will be more than willing to make good of this bipartisan call. For now, the Republicans will have to face these charges of bribes from Abramoff, and hope there will be a few Republicans left to make bipartisan laws.
It's more than a little funny to hear the wing-nuts defending McCain. Remember the slime they threw at him in 2000?
Crazy guy - that Vietnam prison must have done something to him. He's against breast cancer funding, except he's the most liberal guy in the Senate! He's practically a Democrat! Hey, didn't I hear something about his kids?
On and on it went, as they propped up their boy king, George II.
But now, when they can take a swipe at Obama, they'll run to McCain's defense.
Well, of course McCain's telling the truth - we don't even have to hear Obama's side, 'cause John's a "Straight Talk" kinda guy! Anything he does about ethics has only the purest of motives - he wouldn't be calling this "task force" just so he can shine the spotlight on himself in anticipation of 2008! Obama's another Clinton!
See how it works?
I was raised repuke...and then I grew up and started THINKING for MYSELF, something way too many of the repukish neocons seem incapable of doing for themselves. I continue to see and hear the same ol', same ol 'pratings. I live in SC and encountered the slurring of McCain BY HIS OWN PARTY and thought it was disgusting then and their playing buddy buddy with McCain now continues to make me sick of the GOP and their Bushit tactics. HYPOCRITES. BTW.....I don't necessarily fly the democrap standard any more than I would consider the Repugnant flag. Both Partys are disgusting. But, by far, the lesser of the evils seem to be the Democraps. They aren't the elitest snobs of the repukes.
Roger Hedgecock is a perfect choice to sub for Limbaugh--he lost his job as Mayor because he took excessive contributions from the principals in a San Diego Ponzi Scheme back in the early 1980's. Jerry Dominelli who ran an arbitrage (money trading) scheme and Nancy Hoover, his girlfriend gave Roger H. an interest free loan to remodel his aged mansion. Hedgecock was convicted, but skated on a technicality. He has since made his fortune pandering to a talk show audience of right-wingers.
I understand your anger......you...like every other Conservative in this country has been decieved by this power hungry regime...of Bush & Co and the Corporate Media
Not that I'm presuming that the Dems/Liberals/Progressives are nescesarily the answer....but compared to the direction that the Republican party has decided to take (in the wake of all that sex in the WH that they are still mad about) is by far further than many (such as yourself it seems) thought was needed to get across whatever it was that they were looking to get across.....
Along the way I think the conservative talking-heads have become so hateful and spiteful to themselves that they have lost their ability to see straight and have decided to take it out on everyone else....
There are many deeply conservative people (in here too) that are not dead-set on following this direction.....but not exactly being or turning liberal either......just to simply have an open mind on the issues....
But it seems to be the modus operandi of these jokers to destroy the ability for many conservatives to have independant thought!!
Like you, I to don't exactly trust the Dems either......but like I said.....The repubs have taken a direction that is way to dangerous for a democracy!!
I implore everyone that considers him/herself a conservative to just take the time and read the difference between how I am posting and compare it to a defender of the direction the "leaders" of the conservative platform is heading...or even the way books are written!
Have you ever read an Ann Coulter book and then read David Brock (after his awakening from the darkside) or Rush Limboughs and then Al Franken....or Sean Hannity and then Gore Vidal
I have....and I have to tell you......one style makes you feel as if the book itself and its author is yelling / screaming / threatening you.....the other style mostly give you facts and is done in a way that allows you to think / contemplate / encourages you to look up other works to verify it...
Is being a Progressive Liberal like myself the best way? I think so......but I'm not trying to force you or even ask you to change.....but to have you think out the difference between my words and those of say....Any conservative talking-head!!
Cap'n
there isn't a single Black Republican in the entire Congress.
Now that's respect.
to keep saying that blacks are on the plantation? think about it. they're saying blacks are so foolish as to not recognize that the gop is their best chance. they're saying they've fallen for the democrats line. is that not what they're saying? blacks can't figure it out?
the Democrats MUST look to Republican leadership and determine exactly how they treat THEIR Congressional members who are black.
THAT will give Dems the guidance they need not to treat black folk differently, or single them out for exceptional or exclusionary treatment.
Now, who ARE those black Republican members of Congress we must look to, in order to see how Republicans "treat" them ? Some help here, please....