Breitbart's Sherrod narrative unravels
Based on what appears to be selectively edited footage, Andrew Breitbart falsely suggested that Shirley Sherrod said that, in her former position with the USDA, she had discriminated against a white farmer. In fact, Sherrod's statements in the video corroborate her statement that the story she was discussing is 24 years old. Moreover, Sherrod says that the video took her remarks out of context to omit that she was actually telling story about her work to get "beyond the issue of race."
Breitbart strongly suggested Sherrod was discussing actions she took as a federal official
Breitbart: Sherrod's "federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions." In a July 19 blog post on Big Government, Andrew Breitbart strongly suggested that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her capacity as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development:
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.
Video proof: Sherrod's interaction occurred 24 years ago
Sherrod to AJC: Encounter happened 24 years ago and was "completely misconstrued" by Breitbart because she was discussing "getting beyond the issue of race." In a phone interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution on July 20, Sherrod said the video was "completely misconstrued" and "excluded the breadth of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with him and his wife." From the AJC:
But in a phone interview from her home in Albany early Tuesday morning, Shirley Sherrod told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution that the
video posted online Monday by biggovernment.com and reported on by FoxNews.com and the AJC completely misconstrued the message she was trying to convey.
[...]
But Tuesday morning, Sherrod said what online viewers weren't told in reports posted throughout the day Monday was that the tale she told at the banquet happened 24 years ago -- before she got the USDA job -- when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.
[...]
Sherrod said the short video clip excluded the breadth of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with him and his wife.
"And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."
Sherrod made similar comments during a July 20 appearance on CNN's American Morning.
Video producer confirmed that "the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described...she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression." Talking Points Memo reported that, "The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release" the video until the national NAACP gives him "permission" to post it. However, Wilkerson told TPM "that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm."
In the video, Sherrod says "Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm," - in 1986. Statements Sherrod made while she recounted the relationship she had with a white farmer during the NAACP dinner corroborates her claim that she made those statements 24 years ago. In the video, Sherrod can be heard saying that "Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm," when she had the encounter with the white farmer:
SHERROD: I did enough so that when he - I assume the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me - either that or the Georgia Dept of Agriculture - and, uh, he needed to go and report that I didn't help him.
So, I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm.
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy was enacted in 1986. In a June 2009 press release touting Sherrod's appointment to USDA, the Federation/LAF states that Sherrod had worked for them "Since 1985."
Conservatives have raised questions about Breitbart's editing of tape
The Anchoress: "I am uncomfortable with this 'get' by Breitbart." In a July 19 post on The Anchoress, blogger Elizabeth Scalia questioned Breitbart's selectively edited video of Sherrod's comments (emphasis in the original):
Nevertheless I am uncomfortable with this "get" by Breitbart.
[...]
But the video ends so abruptly!
Sherrod, who is not an impressive public speaker, says she did not do all she could for the "poor white farmer" who she perceived to be somehow both asking for her help and simultaneously "trying to show me he was superior to me; I knew what he was doing..." She admits that she did just "enough" for the farmer so as to cover her own sense of accountability and then: "I took him to a white lawyer . . . I figured if I took him to one of them, then his own kind would take care of him."
Yes, there is a bit of paranoid projection, there, and some shocking language-language that has been rightly rejected by society-that seems to play well to the audience. But then Sherrod apparently has a revelation. She begins to understand that "it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white-it is about white and black-but you know it opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own."
Yes? AND?
[...]
Doesn't it seem like, after all of that sort of winking, "you and I know how they really are" racist crap wherein Sherrod-intentionally or not-indicts her own narrow focus, she was heading to a more edifying message? What did it open her eyes about? Was she about to say "I took him to one of his own, but it shouldn't have mattered about that; my job was to serve all the farmers who needed help."
Was she about to say, "I learned about myself and about how far we still have to go?"
Was she about to say "it's not poor vs those who have, because we are not at war, we are just in the same human reality that ever was?"Was she about to say, "poor is poor, hungry is hungry and the past is the past when a family can't eat?"
I want to know. Because it seemed like Sherrod was heading somewhere with that story, and the edit does not let us get there. I want the rest of the story before I start passing judgment on it.[...]
I want to see the rest of the tape. I cannot believe Sherrod ended on "I took him to one of his own." Either she said something much worse after that (which we would have seen) or she said something much better.
If it was something "better" then we should have seen that, too.
Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Doesn't it sound like Sherrod was building to a 'but' before the clip cut out?" In a July 19 post on prominent conservative blog Hot Air, Allahpundit echoed Scalia's concerns about Breitbart's editing of Sherrod's statement, despite his "assum[ption]" that "Breitbart's edit is fair to the spirit of her remarks":
Here's Ed's post on the vid in case you missed it this morning. It's a great write-up, but The Anchoress adds an important wrinkle: Doesn't it sound like Sherrod was building to a "but" before the clip cut out?
Breitbart has not released the full video. As Media Matters has noted, Breitbart has yet to release the full video of Sherrod's speech.
Farmer's wife said Sherrod is a "friend" who "helped us save our farm"
Farmer's wife said Sherrod "helped us save our farm." In an interview with CNN on July 20, Eloise Spooner - the wife of the farmer who Sherrod helped - came to the defense of Sherrod, calling her a "friend" who "helped us save our farm." The Atlanta-Constitution Journal similarly reported that Spooner considered Sherrod a "friend for life" and said that Sherrod "worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986." From the Atlanta-Constitution Journal:
But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.
"Her husband told her, 'You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the AJC."She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."
Breitbart has a history of promoting "heavily edited tape[s]"
California attorney general: ACORN videos were "severely edited by [Breitbart protégé James] O'Keefe." According to the California attorney general's office:
Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."
Breitbart repeatedly published O'Keffe's videos on his BigGovernment.com website.
Law enforcement sources criticize O'Keefe and Giles' editing ACORN tape "to meet their agenda." A March 1 New York Daily News article reported that "a law enforcement source" said of O'Keefe and Giles: "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." A March 2 New York Post article, headlined "ACORN set up by vidiots: DA," reported of O'Keefe and Giles' ACORN tapes: "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said."
Breitbart and O'Keefe released "heavily edited tape" of Philly ACORN office. On October 21, 2009, Fox News reported that O'Keefe and Giles released "a heavily-edited video on Wednesday depicting their visit to ACORN's Philadelphia office." Fox reported that a "new eight-minute video depicts O'Keefe and Giles entering ACORN's Philadelphia office and meeting with [ACORN employee] Conway-Russell. O'Keefe and Giles are seen speaking with Conway-Russell, but audio portions of the video are missing or edited in some portions." Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn stated, "They played that heavily edited tape but did not show the ACORN worker's audio for legal reasons." O'Keefe later wrote: "We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN's legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees' oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn't they do so?"
In video promoted by Breitbart, O'Keefe falsely claims he sought advice from DC ACORN on establishing brothel for "prostitution of a dozen underage girls." In a voiceover at the beginning of his Washington, D.C., ACORN video -- which was promoted by Breitbart -- O'Keefe claims that in Washington, he and Giles "sought housing assistance from ACORN in order to establish a brothel where we could profit off the prostitution of a dozen underage girls trafficked in from El Salvador." In fact, at no point in the transcript of Giles and O'Keefe's visit to the Washington, D.C., ACORN office does either Giles or O'Keefe clearly state that they are planning to engage in child prostitution.
Breitbart-promoted doctored video falsely claimed community organizers were "praying" to Obama. On September 29, 2009, Breitbart.tv embedded a YouTube video under the headline: "Shock Discovery: Community Organizers Pray TO President-Elect Obama." The video included captions reading "Deliver Us Obama" and "Hear Our Cry Obama," suggesting that the crowd of people -- members of the faith-based group The Gamaliel Foundation -- featured in the clip was "pray[ing] to" Obama. Breitbart.tv subsequently updated the original post with an editor's note acknowledging that "there is a debate over what is actually being said" and that the crowd may, in fact, be saying "oh God" rather than "Obama." The Gamaliel Foundation subsequently stated that "at no time have we prayed to President Obama" and that in the video, the organizers "can be heard saying, 'Hear our cry oh God,' 'Deliver us oh God,' etc."
It is THEY who should be outraged, not us.
He's generating propaganda that will be repeated endlessly by every righty bigot at a keyboard or behind a mic and/or in front of a camera.
There'll be ten million repetitions of this crap and less than ten retractions or corrections.
The duped will stay that way.
But why didn't those who employ her see that, or are they so spineless and weak-kneed that they just wanted her out so they wouldn't have to deal with scum like Breitbart? Not much backbone there.
In part, yeah. But they also understand how impossible it's going to be to change the mind of anyone who was swayed by Breitbart's video, much like it's impossible to tell any of them that ACORN didn't actually cooperate with the fake pimp 'n' ho, or that action was taken against the New Black Panther with the nightstick. Their prejudices and negative emotions have determined the facts for them, and correcting the facts won't mean a thing because those prejudices aren't going anywhere.
This is how much of the right wing media operates. They have been operating like this with greater boldness and disregard for consequence over the last two decades or so.
I'm glad you can see this was an overblown witch-hunt operation, but don't blame her superiors for reacting this way. She was fired quite simply, because anyone on the outside knows full well how the conservative media are capable of turning anyone into a villain, it's what they do, this is the culmination of the Karl Rove school of attack dog politics.
Consider for a moment that this might not be the only instance of overzealous right wing media making someone into a demon-of-the-week on false pretenses or questionable editing practices.
I'm not telling you to go ahead and jump over to the liberal side and buy a "Ted Kennedy lives" T-shirt, but I hope this acts as a catalyst for you to more closely examine the people and agenda who you believe to have your best interests in mind. At the very least I hope you will start to notice who is really running the republican party and join in the small but long overdue effort to start cleaning up the mess it has become and return it to it's honorable roots.
Nor do I ever defend these people or their tactics, if you have read anything I have written you should know that, instead of some knee jerk reaction that we all march to the same drummer and I am somehow waking up now and will become a liberal, or whatever watershed moment you think this is for me. It ain't.
And you can excuse her superiors for caving, I don't. Another elitist heard from. This woman deserved to have bosses who are more concerned for fighting the good fight and doing what's right by her - instead she got screwed. And you tell me not to blame them? They are to blame.
If you want the mess cleaned up, then start by letting this administration know that this mess will continue more empowered than before if people like Breitbart know they can cripple them to their knees with edited video and smearing lies. Wow, that will sure help clean up this mess you talk about.
Sue, you elitist snob. This woman be damned, it's all about the moneyed elites in Washington for you and others here. This woman is of no consequence to you. More phoniness from you.
Please explain how being appalled at Breitbart's slimy ,disingenuous, and disgraceful actions to destroy politicians he doesn't like by using a mid level bureaucrat is elitist?
I don't think she should have been fired. I think they should have stood up and fought the good fight. In the pre-Fox news and clear channel days it would have been a totally different story with totally different rules.
Conservatives have unleashed a horrid monster upon this nation in the form of a sleazy, win at all costs media machine. You refuse to see the consequences of this monster because they target people you don't like and often do severe political damage to them on pretenses just as flimsy as this one.
If longing for the days of real journalism and integrity make me an elitist, then I guess being an elitist is a good thing by your standards.
Pathetic.
If I tell my friend that his boss slept with his wife in front of a group of our peers (and it was all a lie), and then she denies it, but he is suspicious because I made such a big deal of it in front of everyone, it's really HIS fault if their marriage hits a rough spot, and not mine for being a lying backstabber to him?
Ok, wow....I would hate to live in your neighborhood. Guess I'm an elitist for thinking the MANIPULATIVE LIAR is actually the one responsible for the MANIPULATIVE LIES that created the mess in the first place.
RO doesnt like to be called on to fully explain his lunatic statements. Instead he just resorts to name calling and lying.
It's a word that right wingers have been trained to reflexively spit out any time they're confused. It doesn't really mean anything close to the English definition of the word.
I said long ago that I thought that she should NOT have been fired - that people who make mistakes should be given second chances.
Yet you try to portray me as some elitist snob?
Yeah, you tried to behave like a reasonable person - that lasted about 6 hours.
Vilsack elaborated later Tuesday, saying that the decision to fire Sherrod was his and he did not confer with the White House
He said in a statement: "I asked for and accepted Ms. Sherrod’s resignation for two reasons. First, for the past 18 months, we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices. Second, state rural development directors make many decisions and are often called to use their discretion. The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia."
In another similar statement, he's quoted as saying
"When I saw the statements and the context of the statements, I determined that it would make it difficult for her to do her job as a rural development director, and compromise our capacity to close the chapter on civil rights cases, I didn't want anything to jeopardize her job in terms of getting the job done and getting people to work in Georgia," Vilsack said.
"I made this decision, it's my decision. Nobody from the White House contacted me about this at all."
Must be nice to have such a flexible conscience.
Leaving work a little early, aren't we??
"Vilsack is keeping a woman in a position of power in his agency with an admitted history of racism. How many others are there in the department we DON'T know about?"
The agency is in the position of having to avoid even the appearance of condoning discrimination.
Sadly, her employers probably figured letting her go was politically expedient. The Democrats are apparently still scared sh*tless by the power of FOX to manipulate public opinion.
And that's the sad part of the whole thing. Guys like Breitbart are hateful goons, but when their crap gets essentially validated that is also pretty damn scary.
---------------------------------------
Well said. Good on you.
And the crap gets validated because of the media establishments lazy journalism. the same media establishment that right-wing kooks say claim liberal media cabal/conspiracy.
In fact I lamented their culpability. I said:
"in this case the problem is less about spineless beaurocrats (disappointing for sure) . . ."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200047#926702
"the establishment recoils in the face of right-wing info-terrorists like breitbart."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200047#926669
I ascribe culpability to them, just less than you. They dont push the media narrative, info-terrorists like Breitbart do.
I find that very troubling.
This is about doing the right thing by a woman, yes, a civil servant in government who I am defending and you are dispensing with like yesterday's garbage, who got the shaft. You are the textbook definition of an elitist because you don't give a damn about this woman, for you will use her unfortunate job termination to make your point about what you say is the liberal media bias myth. If you can dispel that myth, then this woman be damned.
She is just collateral damage to you.
Now you are just lying about me, so I will dispense with this conversation with one final statement.
The victims here are the USDA who lost a qualified employee, Tom Vilsack and the administration who are forced to respond (poorly) to lies, the American people who are less served by the loss of Sherrod and a distracted USDA, and most importantly, Sherrod herself, who has been damaged by Breitbarts lies.
You blame the victims.
You lie about my intentions.
He understood the context of her statements, and it appears that, once again, I was right - she was fired because of what she had done years ago.
Vilsack elaborated later Tuesday, saying that the decision to fire Sherrod was his and he did not confer with the White House
He said in a statement: "I asked for and accepted Ms. Sherrod’s resignation for two reasons. First, for the past 18 months, we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices. Second, state rural development directors make many decisions and are often called to use their discretion. The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia."
Only you would accept such a load of crap from Vilsack. It reads like something some PR firm worked on all night to give them more cover. It makes Vilsack look ridiculous.
the naacp..at least had the sense (abeit late) to correct their initial reaction..apologize to the woman..correct the statement they made..appear on every media outlet they could to express what a mistake they made(except fox i presume because i won't even watch more that 5 secs of them)and post the full video so all can see the actual purpose of Ms Sherrod's story..
it made me angry when these thugs attacked acorn and van johnson..this time i'm enraged..
i sincerely hope the president makes this right..i am sick of these info-terrorists trashing this country with their slimmy slanderous crap
sorry you got this one wrong DD..Vilsack clearly reacted without knowing the full context of her statements..and when you consider that he reacted to the sources like breitbart(the info terrorist) AND Faux noise..without getting a better handle on the facts..his actions are even more egregious..
But we have no idea that he didn't have a better grasp of the facts. In fact, he's repeatedly said that he understood the context of the cropped comments, and Sherrod says that she had at least 3 telephone conversations before she actually resigned, and so she had the opportunity to tell them the context.
She exhibited racism. She thought the highest priority was to help black people, since they were overwhelmingly disadvantaged and poor and had been discriminated against for so long. She gave the white farmer the minimum help initially. She then learned that her job was to help poor people, whatever their color, that it wasn't about the amount of melanin in one's skin, but that it was about how poor and disadvantaged one was at the time she was asked to help.
She did wrong. She learned from that decision and clearly became a better person, and it was dishonest for that metamorphosis to not be included in that clip that was shown, but that doesn't mean that she didn't exhibit bad behavior at one time.
For you to say that he needed a better handle on the facts before he reacted isn't supported by the info we currently have.
well i just watched him admit to exactly that..and express deep regret..
i've agreed with a lot of your points of view in the past..but sorry DD you got this one wrong from the start..like a lot of folks did..is it really so hard to admit a mistake..?
I listened to his speech and the press conference AND read the transcript too. Here's a link!
Vilsack said he acted with too much haste. He said he could have and should have done a better job, and talked with her directly.
He did NOT say that he needed more facts before he reacted. He needed to not react so quickly, but he didn't say that they didn't know the context of her comments!
And, amazingly enough, guess what Obama said? It was exactly what I said right from the beginning!
Obama tells ABC News in an interview that Vilsack acted in part because the current media climate requires everyone to scramble when something goes up on YouTube or a blog.
So when the conservative media machine with all it's wealth and power and influence decide to make an everyday citizen and mid level bureaucrat into a new monster-of-the-week, we should blame the people who fired her? Don't you see the how...distorted and wrong this concept it?
The mainstream media follows the money and power and influence too. That is the sad, simple fact. There is very little integrity left in our national media.
A story about racism sells more papers and glues more eyeballs to the screen then a series of apologies or retractions forced by ethical journalists upon the irresponsible culprits.
With Fox news basically having won a court case setting precedent that a major cable news network is allowed to lie to their viewers, you can bet the other national media outlets are taking full advantage of this as well.
DUH, YES! If her bosses can't stand up to them, they have no business being in any positions of power. Who is going to bust their balls next? Maybe some foreign covert operation bent on...what?
If this doesn't scare the beejeebees out of you, nothing will.
Now that this story has come out, how is she supposed to do her job?
It's like if a powerful community group decided to attack a member of any clergy with phony child molestation charges. From then on, even if that member of the clergy is vindicated by their congregation and the courts, it will always be a black cloud hanging over them. All it would take is one malicious parent to have their child lie about that clergyman, and the whole nightmare starts over again.
By the same token, it would take little more then a new complaint by a farmer who doesn't like Vilsack, or Obama, or just listens to too much Glenn Beck and hates the government on principle for the whole mess to spring right up out of the ground like a zombie in a bad horror film.
Like I said in other posts on this thread, the blame lies in the monster created by right wing media and their supporters and apologists for letting it get to this point in the first place.
Welcome back, RightOn.
------------------------------------
*sigh*
Welcome back, RightOn.
------------------------------------
*sigh*
As opposed to your protection of Breitbart by shifting the blame to those who fell for his trick yet again?
Yes, the bureaucrats who asked her to resign are stupid and should probably lose their jobs.
BUT - Breitbart is the one who created the edited tape. HE is the one Sherrod should sue for defamation of character. HE is the one who bears the brunt of the blame for all of this.
The pathetic wimpy bosses could stand behind their employee and deal with this made up issue for days/weeks/months, instead of getting actual work done; or, they can let her go and get back to work sooner.
It isn't right but; it happens all the time.
OMG! So instead of doing the right thing and defending one of their own from a hacked up edit job by a known smearer, you say get rid of her, who cares, so they won't waste their precious time on her?
I have never read anything so pathetic.
MOST of the culpability lies with the attacker and the media which enable him.
If you were so concerned with holding anyone accountable you would start with those in positions of power and responsibility who should not be cowering to these people who you say are culpable. For when they do, they only empower the Breitbarts even more. That should sicken you the most for it only emboldens them even more.
Your concern is at best misplaced, and at worst phony.
First off, please don't conflate civil servants with a bureaucracy.
Shirley Sherrod--the only victim in the all this--is a civil servant, so the idea that RO "hates" them is nonsense and hyberbole. He is clearly criticizing the head of a dept. (the bureaucracy) for being so quick to throw an employee (civil servant) under the bus before all the facts are in, for fear of media scrutiny.
Yes, Breitbart is partly to blame for this whole mess, but the dept. is ultimately responsible for sending her packing. I'm sorry, but they acted like spineless cowards in this case, and now that Mrs. Sherrod had pretty much been exonerated, they look incompetent. I don't give a flying crap if that makes the bureaucracy look bad.
Unfortunately, situations like this happens too often in BOTH the private sector and the public sector, but that doesn't make it acceptable in either case.
You're like a mob that beats up someone, only to find out it was the wrong person, or that the crime they are being hunted for was trumped up and false, and then standing back for a moment, looking at the carnage and blaming everyone but yourselves for creating the mob mentality in the first place.
So eager are you to have your scapegoats and demons and witches, that when one who is truly innocent of the attacks is fired by people afraid of this electronic age version of villagers with torches and pitchforks, you blame THEM for being afraid of the mob?
I'm sorry but the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the electronic age lynch mob mentality that wouldn't wield so much power and fear and influence if it weren't for the supporters and apologists who buy into their vitriol because they misguidedly think this helps the political agenda they want.
It's all about protecting the moneyed suits in the positions of power in Washington, the ones who really make the engines run. This lowly civil servant is petty change.
Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. This is another example of RO just being a liar. I smell burning pants . . .
This elitist leftist line is such nonsense and you know it. You always return to tried and true talking points when you get refuted for making outlandish statements.
So...let's just be clear, do you think any of this mess would have occurred without Breitbart and his minions attempting to create a monster of the week in Sherrod? And if so, don't you think they bear the brunt of the responsibility for her being put in such a precarious position for dragging her name through the mud in the first place?
Also, do you think a private corporation would have defended a mid-level employee that became the target of a political witch-hunt like Sherrod has become?
No they wouldn't. I made the same observation in my post, which was defending much of RO's criticism of Tom and the top brass at the USDA. I assume he agreed with it.
What I won't defend is when puts an emphasis on this being related to a government dept. and makes contrarian comments like "Nothing but a bunch of phony governmental bureaucratic CYA!", as though nonsense like this is unique to the public sector. Let him explain why he feels the need to do that. =)
But I am not at all surprised by what some of the snobbish liberal elitists are saying in this comments section. This little woman civil servant is of no use, her plight is her own affair, who cares about her, she is expendable.
I wrote THIS
However, I believe that one error 24 years ago, even a pattern of errors, that one later learned from, shouldn't penalize someone today. It's too bad that so many people, mostly rightwingers, think in black and white, and so to avoid the screeching from the right, they likely decided that they couldn't give her a pass on this.
So no, his accusation is wholly inaccurate, yet he continued to make it.
Point taken.
"Shirley Sherrod--the only victim in the all this--is a civil servant,"
I disagree that Sherrod is the only victim in this. That minimizes the scope of collateral damage caused by Breitbarts lies. I wrote about that specific issue here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200047#926954
I also think some here are overstating any lasting damage that would have occurred if they had simply waited for her explanation and any exonerating evidence to come up. It isn't necessary for them to blindly defend the person, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Situations like this hit close to home, and makes me roll my eyes when employers demand so much loyalty from their workers but will easily can them in the blink of an eye.
They DID hear her explanation! You saying that they didn't is simply dishonest and contrary to the known facts.
There's no evidence she was fired. She was told that she should resign, based upon that behavior, and eventually she did.
Sherrod was appointed to her post in July 2009 by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who accepted her resignation on Monday.
"There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person," Vilsack said in a statement. "We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously."
It's undeniable that for some period of time, she did discriminate against this guy.
However, I believe that one error 24 years ago, even a pattern of errors, that one later learned from, shouldn't penalize someone today. It's too bad that so many people, mostly rightwingers, think in black and white, and so to avoid the screeching from the right, they likely decided that they couldn't give her a pass on this.
Spineless elitist snobs, that's why.
Spinelessness in the face of right-wing info-terrorism is nothing new and is yet another piece of reality-based evidence that disputes the liberal media myth.
We don't know that the Dept of Agriculture had the whole tape.
And I already EXPLAINED why I suspect she was forced out - because at one time she DID feel that way.
It was my first sentence - how could you have possibly read my post and missed it?
Well, that even makes them look worse.
Or do they really not give a damn and just like their plum little government job? As I said, elitists.
And, guess what? The latest statement from the Secretary of Agriculture backs me up 100%.
She was told that she should likely resign because of the behavior she exhibited years ago. They understood the context of it, not because they saw the tape, but because they had 3 conversations with her in which she was able to explain what she had done.
She did discriminate against the white guy. Eventually, she realized it was the wrong thing to do, and eventually she helped the guy, and eventually she became good friends with the family, but initially, she didn't want to help him - her inclination was to not help him. It's THAT exhibition of THAT attitude that got her in hot water.
That's the kind of stuff I would say to my siblings when I knew I was losing an argument...of course I was around 6 years old when I said that kind of stuff.
And Sherrod herself has said that she had at least 3 conversations with the undersecretary before she submitted her resignation, and so she clearly had the opportunity to tell them the context.
Like I wrote hours ago, it was her behavior from years ago that got her in hot water.
I wish that, as a nation, we were more forgiving. But that doesn't erase her problematic behavior from years ago.
If your gullibility were snowflakes, you'd be buried in an avalanche.
We are very forgiving, if it's the right wing and their heroes. Iran Contra? Tom Delay on "Dancing with the Stars"? All of Sarah Palin's embarrassing comments and her "telepalm-ter" after making a fuss about Obama using a teleprompter? Joe McCarthy is now a hero? Limbaugh's years of railing against drug addicts?
Oh! You meant rational people with ethical standards, not foaming at the mouth ideologues. my mistake.
I finally have to ask, DD; what is the statute of limitations on stupid acts? We regularly have to put up with the trollin' teabaggers who never cease to delight in bringing up "BYRD WUZ UH MEMBER OF TEH KKK!!!1!!1!" when the man made up for that stupidity many times over in the years since he recantes his membership thereof. Now all of a sudden an attitude from more than a quarter-century in the past is an automatic disqualifier? Should someone be fired for peeing their bed when they were six? How far back do we go?...
I think you need to read my comment in context.
I don't think that behavior like she exhibited should be a problem today at ALL.
But it was that problematic behavior that got her asked to resign.
The issue I was trying to address was that it's not true to say that she did nothing wrong. She did something wrong.
What Byrd did was wrong. I don't think it should have been held against him in today's world, and I chastised those who did try to hold it against him today. The fact that I don't think that, in a perfect world, she should have been penalized doesn't mean I don't understand why she WAS forced to resign.
How do you define elitist? Anyone in government, by political party, by educational level?
If you find that endearing or no biggie, I disagree.
And what do "lies and info terrorism" have to do with Secretary Vilsack?
The woman DID discriminate against a white farmer during her initial interaction with him! She didn't go full bore for him, because she had only made a pledge to herself to help poor, disadvantaged black farmers. It was only after she saw that the white lawyer wasn't really going to give his all to the poor, disadvantaged white farmer that she realized that she had to give her full bore support to ANY and ALL poor, disadvantaged farmers. Luckily for the white guy, her delay in giving him her all didn't hurt him in the end! And she learned a wonderful lesson, and she changed the way she behaved, and that's terrific, but it doesn't mean that she didn't discriminate once upon a time.
And as I have repeatedly said, I think that having a zero tolerance policy is stupid - that people should get AT LEAST a second chance after most errors, but especially when they show the learning and regret that this woman displayed!
Gee, what a wierd definition of elitist.
Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with, intellect, wealth, etc
Somehow I think you are just throwing words around in your haste to condemn a person you don't know who took an action that you don't agree with.
Eventually she DID help them quite a bit. But that wasn't her initial inclination.
I think it's YOU who didn't actually watch the video snippet (I did).
Her initial actions were suspect. She quickly realized that she was not behaving well, but doing just enough to get by, treating him differently than she would have treated a black farmer, was wrong.
She DID do wrong. She later corrected that wrong.
But to deny that she did wrong is ridiculous. She thought that it was her mission to help black people, because of the way they'd been and were being disadvantaged.
She learned that her mission SHOULD BE to help poor people - to help anyone who was disdvantaged, regardless of their skin color!
It wasn't JUST her thought processes. It WAS the way she behaved! She didn't go all out for him - she sent him to a white attorney, not really caring if he got sufficient help there, but doing it so that she could assert that she did 'enough'. She wouldn't have treated a black farmer that same way!
And, when she later found out that the white farmer wasn't getting the help he needed, she DID do more. Because she had had a change of mindset in the intervening timeframe.
Again, I think it's YOU who hasn't watched the video closely enough. INITIALLY she erred. It's undeniable.
The snippet only provides PART of the picture, it's true. But that part of the picture is her problematic behavior.
I fully understand, unlike many on the right, that looking at only one facet of one's behavior doesn't give one an accurate view of someone, but it DOES let one see examples.
If a parent were a really good parent, but one time got mad and hit their kid with a plate they let fly, what would you do? Would you say that them learning that they had that propensity and learning how to NEVER do that again ERASED that plate-throwing episode? Of course not. I would give that parent another chance, and so would virtually any child welfare agency. But that episode wouldn't be excised from their file - it was still a bad thing to do!
She did the wrong thing - she didn't give someone her all, and she refrained from giving him her all because of the color of his skin and her attitude that she was in that role to help black people. She later learned that she was in that role to help poor, disadvantaged people, no matter their color.
I don't understand HOW you can't understand this, but I've thoroughly explained it multiple times. Any further confusion on YOUR part is ALL on you. This isn't rocket science.
as for this:
you seem to not be able to fathom that she went to that attorneys office with them..and when he basically gave them lip service SHE acted as their advocate..followed up numerous times and spent an inordinate amount of time on their problem.. which resulted in them saving their farm from the bank..
my god the woman's father was murdered by a white farmer when she was 17 years old...and somehow..as she states very clearly her experience with the Spooners opened her up to an deep understanding that race was not the issue..and set her course of service to overcome the hatred..
i again encourage you to take the time to watch the full video..
At first, she just SENT him there.
LATER, when he got into deeper trouble, and the farmer called her, she THEN went to the attorney's office with the farmer.
Are YOU not aware that she didn't go with him at first? Really?
I KNOW that eventually, she really went to bat for this guy. I've written this over and over again. I have ALWAYS qualified her initial lack of full bore help as "INITIALLY" or some other similar word.
How can you be so ignorant as to have missed that? Really, I want to know how you could STILL possibly be confused about this?
The think that OPENED UP HER EYES was the fact that a white farmer hadn't been getting the help he needed from the white attorney! She was willing to discriminate against him, because she thought that she only needed to give her full force to black farmers. She learned from that mistake, but she MADE THAT MISTAKE! Initially, she was unwilling to do for that white farmer what she would have initially done for a black farmer.
After she LEARNED what was happening to the white farmer MONTHS later, AFTER the injunction was lifted and he was faced with foreclosure, she realized that white farmers could be poor and disadvantaged too and could need her direct advocacy just like a black farmer who was poor and disadvantaged.
You've been wrong over and over again here with your depiction of what I've said and you're wrong by saying that she did NOTHING wrong. She sure did!
You were wrong about what Ms Sherrod did.
She was told to resign because they had a zero tolerance for any discrimination, past or present.
Now, I think a zero tolerance policy with no exceptions is stupid! But considering how obnoxious the right has been, I can understand him deciding in haste that he had to get rid of her as quickly as possible to limit the duration of the distraction. Jonathan Alter tonight told Rachel that one of the main things the Obama Administration is interested in doing is NOT letting distractions like this derail anything.
Now, again, despite that fact that she initially behaved badly years ago, I don't think that she should have gotten fired. But that IS why she got told to go.
And Vilsack now says that he should have thought about it more, instead of having a kneejerk reaction that their zero tolerance policy had to be enforced without exception!
Sherrod's unedited story is one of compassion and reason overcoming prejudice and carries a lesson of redemption. She never stood a chance against this firestorm.
She exonerated herself 24 years ago and again today. Now the media, the Whitehouse, and NAACP all look like fools. And they deserve it --not for what they did--simply because they all chose to accept a Breitbart "hoax" at face value and react accordingly. They heard a loud band and saw a smoking gun and opened fire. Case closed. The casualty is Sherrod. The media did this. Fools all.
Fox News and the right wing will wash their hands by blaming the Whitehouse for the outcome, while ignoring their own complicity.
This is so depressing!
This certainly would imply that the leadership in the White House are not micro managing an acorn like racist campaign. It seems like all of this stuff is new to them, probably because they are too busy with the real issues facing are nation.
Rather, the administration, as well as the NAACP are in damage control mode with an irrational reckless attack media machine that for the most part acts unchallenged. This is why it is important for the adult grown up media to do the kind of work that MMFA has been doing. These lies and smears need to be dissected and criticized publicly. These conservative media celebrities are going to continue doing what they've been doing until it no longer works for them. There is no embarrassment or shame in the current media environment in being debunked because its so marginal. Lies can be repeated without consequences.
I saw the clip late last night and thought, OMG, she's out. So I'm as guilty as the Whitehouse, NAACP and others for not waiting for the facts.
I want to sincerely apologize to Mrs. Sherrod for ASSuming (I'm the a**)the worst without taking the time to find out the complete story. And I'm extremely grateful to CNN'S Tony Harris and the White older couple who publicly set the record straight.
I think both the Whitehouse and NAACP owe Mrs. Sherrod a PUBLIC apology.
I've personally had enough of the race baiting from the right-wing loonies and Fox Noise.
It's easier to fire someone who people are "complaining" about than it is to try to convince the "complainers" that there is no controversy.
Of course, Fox News will hype the "story" regardless....
I should have known better. These Troglodytes have no shame.
I should have known better than to think the mainstream media would actually do their jobs.
To their credit, at least CNN tried to find out the facts.
Here's a new motto for the Ailes/Murdoch/RNC propaganda outlet:
FOX NEWS - All the news that's fit to clip.
I suspect that it is easier and more lucrative to have a conservative attack media program. It seems like advertisers have no problem attaching their names to such extreme programming and the audience for it seems preprogrammed to accept the conservative message without criticism.
I have never had access to Air America but most lefty media I have been exposed to has been more about issues and investigative and less about attacks. It seems like the viewership of lefty programming is quite different in non-ideological ways.
There is more "journalistic integrity" in the residue on the "Z" key of Edward R. Murrow's typewriter than there is in the majority of people at the Corporate Controlled Media outlets and more than there ever has been or ever will be at FOX NEWS.
Will Breitbart, finally, at long last, apologize for the damage he has done to a good person's life?
This needs to be exposed for what it is, a systematic political attack with the backing of a well financed media network. Its beyond just a matter of sloppy lazy journalism. It is a well financed champaign that will do whatever it can get away with doing.
The media celebrity figures behind this need to be put on the spotlight and asked some tough questions. Smearing reputations and making baseless charges should damage your credibility. Instead these smear mongers and attack hacks seem to intimidate the wider media and get a pass. We definitely need more checks and balances within our journalistic discourse.
Fox viewers need to realize that they have been taken advantage of by powerful people who know how to effectively push their buttons. It seems like Fox knows the formula to rile them up.
My guess, these is something going on here that none of us know about yet.
Find me racism ANYWHERE and I'll condemn it.
Now what is the motive of the person who showed the edited video? Has this person done this before? Why weren't these questions asked by the disseminators of this video? Why don't you ask those questions?
So, why did the admin. want her resignation over some editted/discredited video? Didnt this video happen at an NAACP event? Wouldnt the NAACP or one of its members have the entire video? Why wont they release the whole video? Why was the NAACP so quick to condemn this woman if the context of her story was that she was talking about a turning point in her life?
Just reported the NACCP is going to release the whole video and has said they were snokered by Andrew Brietbart.But we have the the words of the wife of the family she helped that said she helped them avoid bankruptcy,helped save their farms and worked tirelessly for them. Ms. Sherrod has helped 100's of white families. I'am betting that the NAACP wouldn't not say they were snokered without evidence. I can't wait for your apologies and questions to Faux and Brietbart about why they pushed such lies.
Sherrod was treated the way she was because YOUR SIDE has poisoned the national debate so badly that someone who makes an error like this can't be allowed to be given a second chance.
"tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for democrats. there is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other republicans, and indeed many other americans. but getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help democrats win in november. having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."
mary frances berry
And he COULD recover from it, if he showed remorse and showed that he understood his error.
And there's plenty of evidence that current Tea Party members are much more racist than other groups, and that Tea Party members are much more likely to express that racism in an "outside voice", even than the general population of the Republican Party from which they sprung.
And yeah, holding people accountable for their racist behavior IS more productive than discussing something that's not the fault of the Dems WRT the upcoming election!
Yeah, they like all kinds of white Christian folks!
(hehe, just thought that was funny, I know a sizable portion of the teabagger movement people aren't racist, though a sizable portion have demonstrated that they are)
Any thoughts on that?
And I wonder why Sherrod is not being held to the same standards that O'Reilly was in his Sylvia comments.
Any thoughts on that?
Perhaps it is the same reason why most of these Conservative attack hacks go unchallenged. They are bullies who get away with bullying. Damage control mode kicks in among the leadership, who fear a derailment of whatever else they are doing and don't feel they have the luxury of sorting things out.
Lets be honest - swift boating Kerry worked and that is just one example.
It was that your side has poisoned the national discourse so much that Vilsack didn't think, given her undeniably wrong behavior initially 24 years ago, that he could continue to employ her without significant consequence to his cabinet department's goals.
You can now view both the full length video and Breitbart's edited version. As I far as I'm concerned this matter is all over except for the lawsuits.
Honestly, NOONE should have accepted this video at face value in the first place. Even in the edited version, it was screamingly obvious that there was a "but" coming in Sherrod's speech. As mediamatters has documented, even many conservatives could see it. Furthermore, Breitbart tried to make it seem as though the experience described by Sherrod took place recently, rather than 24 years ago, something Breitbart no doubt knew, but tried to hide.
Try to think about what happened to this woman, how she lost her job and how she was demonized by many media outlets based on slander. Think about what kind of person Breitbart would have to be to pull something like this on an innocent person. Think about these things the next time you feel tempted to be whipped into a frenzy by one of his edited videos.
Yeah...didnt think that you would.
It's deeply unfortunate that I find myself having to explain things that should go without saying. But alas, there it is.
And no, I don't think that Beck saying, "she's not racist, she's a Marxist" constitutes standing up for her. Although, I suppose he deserves a tiny bit of credit for not buying that what she said was racist.
She exhibited unfair racial discrimination back then. She learned from it.
But her initial feeling is what doomed her.
She DID have an obligation to help them. She didn't WANT to, but she did have an obligation to help them, and her initial reaction was that because he was acting superior to her, she wasn't going to do it - had he been a black man in a similar circumstance, she would have helped him. If she would have helped a black farmer in similar circumstances, then she DID have an obligation to help the white guy.
She learned that she was wrong. She learned pretty quickly, but she had been wrong!
And you're wrong about why she was asked to submit her resignation - it was, as I've said, because of that bad behavior, however short-lived it might have been. Perception is everything.
I TOO think that she shouldn't have been told to resign, but it's not because I am deluded into thinking that she didn't do anything wrong. It's because I think that people should be given credit for redeeming themselves after doing something wrong, which she undeniably did.
She didn't do everything she could at her first opportunity.
That's undeniable.
Pretty quickly, and when it was necessary, she did what was right. The end result turned out okay for the white farmer, but she went into this thing thinking that she was supposed to help black farmers, not poor, disadvantaged farmers of any race. She later learned that she was supposed to help poor farmers.
How can you IGNORE that she had to LEARN that she wasn't only supposed to help poor, disadvantaged black farmers to her fullest extent?
She preceded the edited comments with references to her state of mind after her father's funeral (he was reportedly killed by a Klansman) (The beginning of her story even illuminates and mitigates the crowd's questionable reactions shown in the edited portion.)
She then followed the edited comments with the story of her awakening and how she reached out to help that same white family. It is an inspiring and very human story. Her mistake was sharing it in on videotape where it could be used to indict her with minimal edits.
Even Charles Krauthamer (of all people) agrees. She deserves an apology from virtually everyone.
She didn't do everything she could at her first opportunity.
That's undeniable.
I don't think she should have been fired. I don't think that people who make errors like she did (and she UNDENIABLY made an error by not going all out for that guy in the beginning like she would have for a black farmer) should be forced to resign.
But the reason she had to be forced out was because of the current political atmosphere.
None of that changes the fact that she did make an error in her initial response to helping the farmer.
I KNOW that eventually she went all out for him.
If I enter a store and slip an item into my pocket with the intent not to honor my obligation to pay for it, where does my "error" begin and end? If I think better of it and stop at the door, then return the item to the shelf or take it to a cashier am I a thief? What if I take the item out to my car before I listen to my better angels? Or if I take it home and wait until the next day to do the right thing? Or am I a thief the moment I formulate my intent to shoplift?
My moral error was obviously my conscious intent to steal, however brief. Legally it is theft the moment I leave the store, and not before.
If you have decided that Sherrod crossed that kind of line between harbored prejudice and active racism, I would like you to elaborate on how you reached that judgement.
Today at TPM David Kurtz commented on the "moral ugliness" of this affair of prejudging and interpreting Sherrod.
Maybe I am wrong, so forgive me if I confess to sensing just a whiff of that in your just facts ma'am position, in this instance.
If you think better of it, then you're not a thief, but you DID the wrong thing when it put it in your pocket intending to not pay for it!
This isn't rocket science, and isn't a very good analogy either.
She admits that she didn't go full bore for the white farmer, and that's because she thought it was her mission to help poor, disadvantaged black farmers. Shortly thereafter, she realized that it was her mission to help all poor, disadvantaged farmers, regardless of their skin color to her best ability, not just black ones. For what period of time she thought that black farmers deserved more of an effort than white farmers did, she was behaving badly!
She ACTIVELY didn't help him to the full extent of her abilities. She admits that. It's undeniable, based on what she HAS told us. She SAYS that she didn't fully extend herself for him at first. She SAYS that she pawned him off on a white lawyer, and she implies that she hoped she'd never see him again.
Of course he did.
Given the actions of Byrd later in his life, no one should come to the conclusion that he was a person who still thought that membership in the KKK was defensible!
But that doesn't erase that chapter from his life!
Senator Byrd was a wonderful senator through much of his life, but that doesn't magically make that bad behavior of him joining the KKK disappear!
She clearly redeemed herself. But that doesn't mean that she can erase the wrong she did.
Well, that is what you get when you filter a thought through your thougth process. Fail again.
The administration was afraid of bad press, more of the "this scary Black man, take your pick; hates America, hates White folks, plans to payback White folks for slavery, hates America, hates White folks, on and on and one.
And YES, the administration was dead wrong for their response to ANOTHER NON-STORY, given to us by race baiting right-wing loonies and right-wing Fox Noise.
Now WHAT could possibly be the "something going on" that you're referring to?
That the right-wing loonies and Fox Noise CHOOSE NOT to show the COMPLETE tape in order to lie about ANOTHER Black official? That the right-wing loonies and Fox Noise want to paint President Obama and his administration as angry Black folks who want to pay back White folks for past deeds.
If that's the "something going on" you're referring too, you're absolutely right!
The legitimate story should be:
1. What actually happened 24 years ago.
2. Why was this deemed newsworthy when it may have been based on edited video.
3. Why did the USDA administrators (as per the statements of Sherrod) demand an immediate resignation without any sort of due process. Is this a standing policy withing the USDA and other parts of this Administration?
The back story could involve:
1. Who is Breithbart and what history does his group have with releasing incomplete videos?
2. How do MSM outlets report and deal with such press-releases from incomplete sources?
3. How as this Administration dealt with past charges from conservative site?
4. How has the traditional and non-traditional media impacted how Politics is done over the last 10 years?
See... a complete series of stories that can be spun off from this issue. Do I think any media source such as the NY Times will actually do any of this?
Nah...
Never believe anything Breitbart says.
His entire enterprise is the manufacture of fake videos slandering the Obama administration and anyone connected with them in any way, shape, or form. If he pushes it, its absolutely a fake. Anyone who believes anything he says is a fool and a tool...
David Kurtz over at TPM writes about additional comments made from USDA secretary Tom Vilsack about Sherrod's resignation, and his reaction mirrors mine:
It's easy to pop Andrew Breitbart in this whole mess, but Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack isn't exactly covering himself with glory. Vilsack was on CNN earlier essentially saying that it doesn't matter whether Breitbart's video turns out to be a bogus smear of Shirley Sherrod. No, Vilsack demanded Sherrod's resignation because the whole episode could open her up to charges of racism in the future and impair her ability to do her job.
So I guess if I were to write that Tom Vilsack doesn't have his people's back and won't even do a cursory investigation before throwing his employees to the wolves, then that could open him up to charges that he doesn't have the confidence of USDA employees and impair his ability to do his job.
Dangerous logic.
"It doesn't matter that Vilsack believed he was making the right decision, by firing Sherrod Mr. Vilsack gives the impression of charges of racism and so he must go..."
I'm sure Vilsack completely understands....
What does the fact that she was driving home have to do with anything?
There's no evidence that they didn't do more than a cursory examination of the evidence.
They may rethink their CONCLUSION that keeping her in their employ is more of a negative than a positive, but that doesn't mean that there were missing facts they ignored.
David Kurtz over at TPM writes about additional comments made from USDA secretary Tom Vilsack about Sherrod's resignation, and his reaction mirrors mine:
It's easy to pop Andrew Breitbart in this whole mess, but Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack isn't exactly covering himself with glory. Vilsack was on CNN earlier essentially saying that it doesn't matter whether Breitbart's video turns out to be a bogus smear of Shirley Sherrod. No, Vilsack demanded Sherrod's resignation because the whole episode could open her up to charges of racism in the future and impair her ability to do her job.
So I guess if I were to write that Tom Vilsack doesn't have his people's back and won't even do a cursory investigation before throwing his employees to the wolves, then that could open him up to charges that he doesn't have the confidence of USDA employees and impair his ability to do his job.
Dangerous logic.
She is a Picture of redemption!
I condemn that. Since you have no mission statement, condemn the WH please. Same to you, forthelove.
Van Jones is another. Maybe Obama didn't ask him to resign, but he certainly does not step up to defend them.
Now Vilsack has painted himself into a corner in which he cannot come to Sherrod's rescue, even if it turns out to be nothing.
If the Administration doesn't fight some of these, people like Breitbart are encouraged to do more.
Oh for the love of...do we really have to run out all the pictures of all those posters at all those teabaggin' rallies again? No, not one little teeny-tiny little speck of racist bigotry in the whole entire Gawd-Furrin' Tea Party(tm) movement, you betcha...
The numbers are inflated, especially if you count all of us that came to them in order to counter-protest.
You guys cannot engage with the actual debate I put forth - that racists attend the rally at minute rates and that it is either disingenuous or ignorant to equate the entire movement with racism as the NAACP and MMFA has.
Sounds like an interesting position you're taking up. Now as soon as you start to provide some facts to back this up, maybe somebody will "debate" you.
Or were you expecting people to debate an opinion you just pulled out of your wazoo ?
The fact that 50% of the people who show up at the rallies (not millions) carry signs that have a decidedly racist slant and the other 50% of the people are giving them a thumbs up, obviously really doesn't prove anything.
If they want to lose the racist label maybe they should filter out some of those people who are given others the wrong impression of the organization.
On 4/15/09, nearly 270,000 attended Tea Party rallies over 200 cities. That was one day and early in the movement.
Further, Your text to link here... helps to paint the picture.
With thousands and even tens of thousands attending major rallies as the year has worn on, the aggregate attendance easily hits a million.
But thanks for harping on the minutia. My argument is that a small fraction of a percent of attendees are promoting racism and their motives are unclear.
Sounds like a challenging one. I can't wait to see you get started.
GO !
This article was considered for deletion, and requires cleanup according to the discussion. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2010)
This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links or by converting links into footnote references. (April 2010)
The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article. (April 2010)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)
Oh yeah, THIS CRAP really "helps paint the picture" of BOTH the link and the person who thinks this CRAP is truthful and relevant!
The Tea Party doesn't wish "us" happiness and prosperity, they want to keep anybody who doesn't submit to their hard line view of the world away from government and the public.
Was I talking to you?
Your myopic view of the world prevents you from actually seeing what Tea Party people stand for. They don't want you to goose step like good commies like your liberal buddies want. You need to go to a Tea Party meeting and meet the people or are you chikin'. You only get second hand information from people leading you to believe half baked lies and untruths about a group of people of whom you have no actual knowledge of their ideology. You sound like a mindless follower. Please open your mind and try to accept that most people wish you the best.
Peace out
So the Tea Parties wish happiness and prsoperity for liberals as long as they shut up, keep their opinions and beliefs to themselves and stay in the kitchen. And what's completely ironic is that you call me a mindless follower despite you obviously being a dittohead.
He wanted negative attention, and you gave him what he wanted.
He won. You lost.
You're 100% wrong, and you're trying to justify the fact that YOU didn't recognize that he was making a troll post.
He was.
How does the Tea Party relate to this thread at all?
It doesn't. But you let him repeatedly rope you in.
By the way the NAACP is releasing the whole video with remarks to the effect they were snokered by Andrew Brietbart. Carry on Spaced out.
Sherrod resigning at Williams getting the proverbial boot are two sides of the same coin - these morons expose their own racism and not that of the agencies for which they work.
Fixed it for you.
You cannot have it both ways and be honest, which I believe is Breitbart's main thrust with this one.
You actually linked honesty and Breitbart in the same statement.
Wow, if that doesn't stretch reality to the limit.
You believe posting a deceptively cropped video of a persons speech and then pushing it as a racist rant/evidence somehow equates to honesty???
We are certainly reaching new levels today.
Like I said: Reaching new levels.
I pretty much figure you are thrashing about in the pool of your own making here but; I never said anything about her remarks. Part of my post was intended to point out that she isn't a racist. (based on the full video of her statements)
Yes, she was indulging in a racist viewpoint, when she originally interacted with the farmer, but later learned from her mistakes and learned to overcome her own faults.
Racism is based on prejudice, prejudice if based on fear/lack of knowledge.
Sherrod should be celabrated for the fact that she overcame her own narrow views. Breitbart took a telling of this story and twisted it to meet his agenda.
Why don't you tell me who you think is more "wrong" in the parable of modern times???
Nice try.
Do you read the first chapter of a book andthen decide you know the whole story also. No wonder your're a Space Pedestrian you don't know the whole story.
Uh, she did. If you actually read the transcript or watched the video you would understand that. She even went with them several times to help present their case and help them keep their farm. (sheesh)
So tell me, who is more "wrong" here.
Sherrod for admitting to her earlier racism and how she overcame it, or Breitbart's use of a cropped video used to push his own personal agenda???
Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.
The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.
Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more that 20 years before she went to work for USDA.
Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about “haves and have nots.” "It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people," says Sherrod in the speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter.”
This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists.
The video were sliced and diced and you gobbled them up because they were what you wanted to believe. This is a teachable moment unfortunatley one thats lost on you and you want us to believe that the tea-party is not racist? Not by the example you are providing.
Just like Brietbarts hyped phony stories of O'keefe's videos of ACORN you continue to repeat the same old lies about this women. You can either go on repeating them looking like a bigot or you can be honest and really go look at the whole video.
You keep bringing up Ms. Sherrods racism. What are you unable to absorb information from too much space dust or something what don't you understand about this statement and the release of the whole video. By the way I can learn better grammar and spelling but how will you fix your stupidity?
http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-statement-on-the-resignation-of-shirley-sherrod1/
"...With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.
Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.
The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.
Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more that 20 years before she went to work for USDA.
Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about “haves and have nots.” "It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people," says Sherrod in the speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter.”
This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists..." statment by the NAACP
Why do you keep saying people I'am saying the whole tea-party is racist? Why do you have to draw on a distortion to make your point? What I'am saying and others is that we saw the signs heard the stories of spitting and some ion your whatever you call it shout ni@#ers at black congressmen. When you don't stop it from happenning,when you don't tell someone to take down that sign calling Obama a monkey it gives the impression you condone it. Mark williams is still part of the Tea-Party Express they obviously suppoprt his racist statements and letter because they still associate with it. Like you said you can't have it both ways.
You keep repeating that Sherrodcwas a racist despite the incident hapenning over 24yrs. ago. She has grown in her views since then and even during that period thec women whose family she helped defends her. Oh thats right you smeared her also. You can live in your fantasy spaced out world Pedestrian but your continuing to close your ears or open your eyes only makes you look studpid particularly as this story continues to evolve. No doubt you will continue to yell racism about Ms. Sherrod because thats all you have to hold onto. What a pity building your castle made up of only sand.
Then again I believe in redemption even for some of the tea-baggers maybe you should tzke the NAACP's word to heart:
The NAACP has a zero tolerance policy against racial discrimination, whether practiced by blacks, whites, or any other group.
The NAACP also has long championed and embraced transformation by people who have moved beyond racial bias. Most notably, we have done so for late Alabama Governor George Wallace and late US Senator Robert Byrd -- each a man who had associated with and supported white supremacists and their cause before embracing civil rights for all.
http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-statement-on-the-resignation-of-shirley-sherrod1/
The whole tape has been releashed by the NAACP before you continue calling Ms. Sherrod a racist you need to view it. You are only making yourself out to be a close minded bigot with no appetite for the truth.
Please cite my words in proof of your claim that I am bigoted - I will not tolerate you saying as much without any proof for it is slander.
What??? I ask you this - is the Tea Party racist?
Is the Tea Party racist? You forgot to answer.
Talk about intellectual gymnastics.
She talks about an incident where she displayed racist behavior and how it helped her to overcome her own inherent racism and yet, as far as you are concerned she is still racist.
You then take the statement that she didn't help them as much as she could, at first, and then ignored the fact that she did go out of her way to help them save their farm and actually became friends with them.
And by the way:
Please cite my words in proof of your claim that I am bigoted - I will not tolerate you saying as much without any proof for it is slander.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
I'm pretty sure you meet that definition.
Normally I don't get into it with teenagers, but in your case I must implore you to cite anything I have posted that is bigoted - anything disparaging about anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
YOU CANT because I have never done it. So you continue to hurl insults and names without backing it up.
In general, no.
I try to maintain an open mind on all subjects.
Just because I was told, taught, or heard that something worked a certain way or meant a certain thing doesn't mean that the information that I have recieved isn't wrong.
For all I know Sherrod is a racist but; based on the information that I currently have, she isn't and this whole issue is based on a lie pushed by a certain person in order to promote his personal agenda.
All claims that I am a bigot are pure obsfucation - I have said nothing disparaging about anyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or religious affiliation. congero please back up your claim I am a bigot.
You swallowed and are still spouting the Andrew Brietbarts lie that Shirley Sherrod is a racist. Anyone listenening to the 43 min. speech she gave would know that not to be true unless they were a bigot themselves.
You even went so far yesterday on another thread of calling the couple who defended her integrity into question, by baselessly alleging that they didn't care about Ms. Sherrod because they got what they wanted. You attacked a couple married over 60yrs. and the husband a veteran from the Navy who served on the Yorktown, needing no proof nor providing any for no other reason that I can see, other than it fit what you wanted to believe,and that was that Ms. Sherrod is a racist. You like Brietbart picked and choose what you wanted in order to make your point that Ms. Sherrod was racist and by association the NAACP because the NAACP called on the Tea-Party movement to criticize and expunge the racist elements in it's movement. That was the motivation and any means necessary to accomplish that was ok even if it meant editiing a 43 min. speech calling for blacks,whites,latinos to put aside differences and work together for their common good(this wasn't the first time this type of lying was attempted ,see O'keefe/Brietbart phony ACORN videos).
Today despite the backtracking and phony apology of Andrew Brietbart and the wave of outrage over the edited videos you show up here still alleging that she is racist. A position that to me shows you are just a bigot as you align yourself with one. By the way whats up with that wiki. post? You lie down with dogs you get fleas pass that on to your tea-party.
To you I am a bigot because I believe the NAACP's resolution about purported Tea Party racism is a ploy to racebait. That's not good enough and just doesn't stand up.
Where did you see the whole tape?
Look at the 17 minute mark or so for the beginning of the edited version.
But I am not sure why everyone thinks that this version clears her. She eventually really helped this guy - but her first inclination wasn't to help him to her fullest ability for the white farmer as she would have for a black farmer!
And it's that first inclination, to help him, but not too much, that doomed her. It's that attitude, an attitude that she clearly no longer has, but DID have at one point in time, that was her downfall.
And I HATE that we live in a world where people ARE treated the way she's being treated.
But that doesn't change the fact that we live in a world where people are treated that way.
Did YOU even bother to read what the NAACP actually said or did you just rely on the right-wing loonies and Fox Noise to tell you what THEY think the NAACP said?
Seriously.
"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate.
Now nowhere in that statement did the NAACP call the ENTIRE Tea party racists, NOWHERE!
The NAACP ask serious members of the Tea Party to STOP tolerating racists and bigots because accepting racists and bigots gives the impression that the entire Tea party welcomes them. The NAACP wanted Tea party members to stop the asinine, racists behavior of folks like Mark Williams and others.
You folks on the right might want to take your own advise, especially when the issue is race.
Neither the Tea party nor the Republican party are in ANY position to lecture ANYONE on the issue of race. In fact, based on the complete lack of diversity in both the Tea party and the Republican party, in Congress and in the actual makeup of the parties themselves, you need a long, long lesson on the issue of race.
No one says you can't criticize President Obama, but you folks on the right can't seem to do that UNLESS you mention his race!
PS - I'M WHITE!
It's not about getting money, but forcing them to release the full tape.
Break them!
I know I know you can be trusted to be clear on these and other aspects of this devious plot and its ramifications. That basicly civil rights organizations are at base evil and unamerican.
<snark off>
I've noted three uses of your talkingpoint so far today. I expect to see it in further use.
I also expect further efforts against all civil rights organizations as November approaches. Its a theoretically usefull distraction. Keeping people away from information about republican positions in this election cycle.
The plot thickened as Andrew Brietbart screamed "The NAACP is racist" and the whole right-wing joined in and said this goes to show you that the POTUS and his administration is out to get white folks and destroy the "real" Americans in the tea-party. Then when the trap was set the NAACP comes out with the whole video making allllllll those journalist,Faux News(notice how I didn't include them as journalist),Andrew Brietbart and the NAACP themselves look foolish and weak. Yep, I like it when a good plan comes together. What a kook !!!
Fox Noise is a tool of the loony right. Fox Noise is not ANY type of a "news" organization. NEVER was and NEVER will be!
After months and months of the "scary Black man, hates White Folks, going to pay you back for slavery" Fox theme regarding ANYTHING President Obama, the Whitehouse and NAACP jumped the gun.
They were flat out WRONG for firing Mrs. Sherrod and the NAACP has apologized and the Whitehouse will as well.
What's next is WHEN will the loony right own up to their part in this mess. When will the loony own up to the fact that they have been race baiting White folks since Obama decided to run for President.
This didn't start yesterday, it's been going on for a long, long time and YOU know it!
No one gets off the hook in this case, but 2 of the parties have accepted responsibility for their actions.
STOP coming up with excuses for the actions of the loony right and demand THEY apologize for their part!
breitbart doesn't care about sherrod... he's pointing out the culture of hypocrisy at the naacp, in light of ben jealous calling out the tea party as racist with zero evidence... oh, i forgot, they do disagree with obama and thus are racist...
nevermind...
Her audience UNDERSTOOD where she was coming from.
Her audience UNDERSTOOD the dilemma between having suffered racism and fought AGAINST racism, dealing with the possibility of their own racism was ironic.
Her audience UNDERSTOOD, as she did, that we cannot be better than they are if we do the same things they did to us.
Her audience UNDERSTOOD!
Breitbart ONLY cares about degrading ANYTHING Obama.
And once AGAIN, Ben Jealous DID NOT call the Tea Party racists. He asked responsible members of the tea party to remove the racists bigots, like Mark Williams from their movement.
"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate.
The NAACP was founded in 1909 by Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling and Henry Moscowitz.
The NAACP, unlike both the Tea party and the Republican party is a diverse organization, NOT limited to just African Americans.
I and many, many other who voted for President Obama have criticized him but we DO NOT mention his race. The loonies on the right CANNOT seem to criticize him WITHOUT mentioning his race!
I'd also love to see her take on FoxNews as well and anyone else in the media participating in this heinous act...viral, venomous type of crucifixion and vilification that is becoming all too common in our country and the world today.
These people slandered her and libeled her all over the place and they must be made examples of in front of the entire nation...to at least the degree that they slandered and libeled her...or at least until each and every person in the world who is only remembering the "before" is totally clear on what really happened and WHY.
Breitbart really screwed up the video, but the accompanying text mentioned Sherrod's context.
If she should sue anyone it's the administration. How irresponsible can this administration be to fire someone because of an unverified internet blog story? And the Ag Sec is lying about him being solely responsible. Sherrod herself said she was called three times by the White House and asked to resign.
The other thing I think most people are missing is that this story was not about Sherrod but the NAACP in the first place.