Sherrod!
if you're going to fight Chicago style, you need to be really, really right. Otherwise, you fall not just into an ends-justifies-the-means situation but into an even more perverse means-justify-the-ends situation. In other words, saying we need to fight like Alinskyites out of some principle almost certainly guarantees that we will lose sight of what we're supposed to be fighting for. -- Jonah Goldberg
I don't get Rush's point at all. I think Breitbart made a mistake, reacted badly to its exposure, and ought to apologize. Maybe that set of views is wrong, but how is it cowardly? -- Ramesh Ponnuru
I am the only one who finds this whole Shirley Sherrod imbroglio too surreal to process? Is there any reason at all why we all shouldn't just affirm what Goldberg and Ponnuru say here and get on with our lives?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
I'll tell you why. Watch Breitbart on Good Morning America with the weasel from Media Matters. Then go to the Media Matters web site and look at the things they clip and take out of context. To apologize when they don't and continue to play dirty? Short answer: No. Long Answer: Hell, no!
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
No apologies needed from Andrew Breitbart although it would have been better if the entire speech had been available from the beginning to avoid this kabuki.
A wiser woman would have gone away quietly but now she's exposed herself as someone who has deeply ingrained prejudices.
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
I haven't been a Breitbart fan for some time, and I believe he know exactly what he was doing.
Once again he only published the information that HE wanted people to see. That’s the third time that I am aware of; the moveon.org sting, and having the guy dress like a pimp for the cameras after the sting, in other words the pimp get up was not worn in the actual sting. 2. The “too good to be true memo” supposedly from the House Democratic leadership asking Democratic Congressmen not get involved media discussions because they had purposely not had the CBO vet portions of the HCR bill. That was never vetted, and as someone said, and I thought when I read it, “it was just too good to be true.”
As someone else said.. “I worry about his effect on our side. He's just too mischievous sometimes. Doesn't mind trimming the story to make it more provocative.”
Re: Sherrod!
Many reasons, James. Sherrod is a race-baiter. I've seen the supposedly exculpatory version of her speech. In it she states that citizens opposing ObamaCare do so because we have a black president. For Sherrod, failing to support the President is explainable only by racism.
Just two days ago, in an interview on CNN's AC360, Sherrod exposes Breitbart's inner soul: "I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery." She then sidesteps back to the Democrat's Racialize-the-Vote-2010 electoral strategy: "I don't even think it was the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president [emphasis Sherrod's]." The surreal thing to me is that Ms. Sherrod tosses around the "R" word without challenge, escalates to accusing a journalist she doesn't care for of supporting slavery -- SLAVERY! -- and rather than mildly asking her to cite some supporting evidence, Breitbart is supposed to apologize.
Re: Sherrod!
George Savage: Sherrod is a race-baiter. I've seen the supposedly exculpatory version of her speech. In it she states that citizens opposing ObamaCare do so because we have a black president. For Sherrod, failing to support the President is explainable only by racism.
[...] Ms. Sherrod tosses around the "R" word without challenge, escalates to accusing a journalist she doesn't care for of supporting slavery -- SLAVERY! -- and rather than mildly asking her to cite some supporting evidence, Breitbart is supposed to apologize.
I enjoy a little mischief; clearly Sherrod played this moment to her own revealing disadvantage. But that doesn't make the strategy that put her in the limelight good. It's like using an arrest to get a warrant instead of the reverse, isn't it? That's a dangerous habit to get into. Next time it might not work out so well.
Re: Sherrod!
A crucial point that is getting lost -- probably with an assist by whatever the JournoListers are calling themselves nowadays -- is that Breitbart didn't start this. Posting Ms. Sherrod's speech was a response to the NAACP's attack on the Tea Party movement. Breitbart had a lot more supporting evidence of Sherrod's bias at the outset than NAACP has today for it's serious charge that tea partiers were hurling the "n-word" and other despicable slurs at African-American Members of Congress during the healthcare debate.
So how about this solution: NAACP repeals its partisan resolution and Breitbart simultaneously apologizes for publicizing Ms. Sherrod's remarks?
Jun '10
Re: Sherrod!
I'm willing to accept that long ago, Ms. Sherrod had a personal epiphany, and overcame some racist tendencies in her personal and professional interactions, to her benefit and the benefit of others. She was sharing that positive insight in her speech, the complete speech. But now, maybe she can work on overcoming her Marxist hatred of the wealthy. That still needs work. Breitbart did jump the gun, but Breitbart is also probably the best thing that ever happened to Sherrod, career-wise. If the World was sane, the story would be old news by now--a big if.
Re: Sherrod!
George Savage
A crucial point that is getting lost -- probably with an assist by whatever the JournoListers are calling themselves nowadays -- is that Breitbart didn't start this. Posting Ms. Sherrod's speech was a response to the NAACP's attack on the Tea Party movement. Breitbart had a lot more supporting evidence of Sherrod's bias at the outset than NAACP has today for it's serious charge that tea partiers were hurling the "n-word" and other despicable slurs at African-American Members of Congress during the healthcare debate.
So how about this solution: NAACP repeals its partisan resolution and Breitbart simultaneously apologizes for publicizing Ms. Sherrod's remarks? · Jul 24 at 5:53pm
Sold, George!
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
And just what are we supposed to be fighting for? Conservative principles won't get you Congress or the White House. You have to have more. Left has taken the fight to the back alley, not the boxing ring. Everyone plays dirty to get elected and stay elected. Republicans in power aren't slaves to principles. Obama's policies have put us on a dangerous, and quite possibly, irreversible path. And I don't have much confidence in the beta-male leadership in the GOP doing much about it. If Sherrod doesn't have the good sense to choose her words more carefully, than she's not ready for prime time. Breitbart has nothing to apologize for.
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
These defenses of Andrew Breitbart would make a lot more sense if American culture and media were a mere battleground for the right and the left to fight one another, always using ever more scurrilous tactics to match whatever it is that the other side is doing, and worrying nothing about collateral damage. That seems to be how a lot of political junkies see the United States, and our public discourse, but it's not how I see it, nor is that the impression of most people in America, including some people who read Mr. Breitbart's Web sites expecting a good faith effort at accurate information and a basic minimum of context.
These misled readers would hardly satisfied to hear, "Oh, sorry to have misled you about the actual nature of that speech, it's just that I was waging a battle against this group that treated my ideological comrades unfairly, and I had to involve you in it because putting carefully spun stories before as many eyeballs as possible is how I derive my power."
Of course, Big Government would never tell its readers that it treats them that way, but it's basically what is going on.
Re: Sherrod!
James Poulos, Ed.
I enjoy a little mischief; clearly Sherrod played this moment to her own revealing disadvantage. But that doesn't make the strategy that put her in the limelight good. It's like using an arrest to get a warrant instead of the reverse, isn't it? That's a dangerous habit to get into. Next time it might not work out so well. · Jul 24 at 5:19pm
Maybe Andrew should offer a deal: he'll apologize for the misleading video, in exchange for a one-year moratorium on the use of the word "racism," "racist," and "slavery" by Democratic Party hacks and officials?
May '10
Re: Sherrod!
Yes, James, there are reasons.
1) The "facts" on what Breitbart did are not correct and both Goldberg and Ponnuru are working from bad information. He didn't hold back the whole interview -- the NAACP had it the whole time. He said very openly in his very first blog post on the matter that Sherrod had a change of heart and that she did find some help for the farmer, though is was not as all as much as she could have done, because the farmer was white.
2) Breitbart has always maintained that the point of the video is not Sherrod but the audience's agreement with her blatant racism. He said that right up front, yet that point has been pooh-poohed by those who would defend both Sherrod and the NAACP.
3) The White House, to use the President's words, "acted stupidly". Then it acted more stupidly. Then it attacked Breitbart. Why? Well, I think that's a question we ought to look into.
4) Sherrod has, in subsequent interviews, has revealed that she didn't have such a large change of heart about her racism at all. Yet she's working for us. Why?
Jul '10
Re: Sherrod!
Conor,
The USA is a battleground for political partisans. It's not only that of course. Anyway, you're right that Mr. Breitbart screwed up. Not nearly as badly as the White House, but still, he erred.
Much as I hate to say it, the competent actor here is CNN. Oh well, a stopped clock and all that.