Andrew Breitbart is a one-eyed trouser snake, and so is Ben Jealous (I’m looking at you too, Vilsack)

By Cato the Elder

8516admitting-you-re-an-asshole-postersOK, I’ll admit it.  At times I’m quite amused by Breitbart sticking it to the lefties, sort of like a modern day Lee Atwater. My amusement notwithstanding, this doesn’t make him any less of an asshole, he just happens to be our asshole, if you know what I mean.

 
This time he’s gone too far, and it really isn’t amusing at all. By now most of you have heard the tale of one Shirley Sherrod, who up until yesterday was USDA’s Georgia Director of Rural Development. Breitbart did a little hatchet job on Ms. Sherrod earlier in the week, which resulted in her forced resignation of yesterday. Breitbart posted a highly edited video clip in which Sherrod is giving a speech at an NAACP banquet and relates a story where she recounts an instance where she may have discriminated against a white farmer. Basically, it’s (well deserved) hit piece on the NAACP (more on the well deserved part later). Here’s the language that caused the uproar:

 

“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me — I knew what he was doing.  But he had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I assumed that the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me; either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture — and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had attended some of the training that we had provided ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I’d take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.”

 
So, after seeing this, everyone starts screaming RACISTRACISTRACIST™ at the top of their lungs, Ben Jealous (who, incidentally, had the entire unedited footage) of the NAACP condemns her, and Vilsak has her fired.  But wait, there’s more (not that Breitbart is going to show you this). She concludes her speech as follows:
 

“I couldn’t say 45 years ago, I couldn’t stand here and say what I’m saying — what I will say to you tonight. Like I told, God helped me to see that its not just about black people, it’s about poor people. And I’ve come a long way. I knew that I couldn’t live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we’d probably be dead now.  But I’ve come to realize that we have to work together and — you know, it’s sad that we don’t have a room full of white and blacks here tonight ’cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point as Tony Morrison said race exists but it doesn’t matter. We have to work just as hard — I know it’s — you know, that division is still here, but our communities are not going to thrive — you know, our children won’t have the communities that they need to be able to stay in and live in and have a good life if we can’t figure this out, you all. White people, black people, Hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.”

 
Got all that? Basically, the woman was admitting her own prejudices and describing a life-changing experience where she discovered that it’s not all about skin color. She was admitting an error. In essence she said “I was wrong.” How often do we hear that?

 
The quick reaction from the NAACP was, I think, quite instructive in the sense that it demonstrates that they’re far less about protecting African American interests and far more about being tools of the Democrat machine as the administration had already decided to throw the woman under the bus.  Plus, Ben had the entire tape so if he’d just bothered to watch it he’d have seen a lady with the huevos to stand in front of a crowd, confess to bigotry and admit she was wrong.  Also, never mind the fact that she saved that farm and the farmer and his wife consider her a “friend for life.”

 
Assholes abound in this story, starting with Breitbart. Ben Jealous says he got “snookered.” Gee Ben, ya think?  In fact, you got snookered twice, once by Breitbart and once by the administration. You had the entire tape, but never bothered to look at it since you already had your marching orders from the West Wing. That makes you an even bigger asshole than Breitbart, and I didn’t consider that possible…

 
Embedded is the unedited version of the video.

 


Comments

  • Being an actor or a failed oil company executive is more of a real job than teaching college? Really?

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    As a business man, George W. Bush was an abject failure:

    http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

  • I’ll gladly run a Reagan Republican vs. an Obama, Pelosi, Reid Democrat any day of the week.
    *
    As a President, Barry Obama is horrific failure.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    If IBOB was a Republican he would be a birther…

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    If I were a Republican, Cato, I would commit hari kari.

  • FedUp says:

    “Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before…”
    *
    Could that be because of the prosperity this country enjoyed after Reagen cleaned up the mess Carter made? Prosperity = higher incomes = more tax revenue.
    *
    Who will be the next great Republican president to clean up the mess Carter 2.0 will leave behind?

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    *
    *
    *
    “Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before…”
    *
    Fed said; “Could that be because of the prosperity this country enjoyed after Reagan cleaned up the mess Carter made?”
    *
    Ummm…No.
    *
    1) The average annual growth rate in real income-tax receipts per working-age person was only 0.2% from 1981 to 1990, hardly stellar.
    *
    2) Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980, the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77% under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. The unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%).
    *
    I know how fond of revising history you wing-nuts are, but in actuality Reagan’s economic performance was middling at best.

  • FedUp says:

    An impressive array of stats, IBOB, but there’s one I remember that pretty much sums it up – the misery index, which was the highest ever under the Carter 1.0 administration. 12.72 when entered office to 19.72 when he left. Ron had it down to 9.72 when he left office.

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    Hmmm…The Misery Index? What the heck is that?
    *
    Oh, the inflation rate times the unemployment rate (btw, no one even mentions this “economic indicator” anymore. How old are you, anyway?).
    *
    Well, the unemployment rate was higher all of Reagan’s eight years than it was under any of Carter’s four, so…score one for Reagan: Inflation went down during his administration.
    *
    Still, we’re not talking economic miricles with Reagan

  • Cato the Elder says:

    I don’t know where you get your data from but real GDP grew an average of 3.5% under Reagan.
    *
    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=354&page=2&count=100
    *
    Slick Willie clocks in at 3.8%.

  • local gop says:

    like I said, LL, supply outweighs demand….

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    The Bizarro world of IBOB. Now we understand why he bleeds that way…

  • BlackOut says:

    I am not really that into looking at Reagan’s numbers. There is little doubt he lead this country out of a funk, and re-energized national pride. There are intangibles that he had that caused a whole lotta good to happen in most sectors of our society.

  • Alter of Freedom says:

    So all this nilly by the liberal media has down nothing but elevate Brietbart even more as well as the big government site…when will they ever learn that the more that cry foul the more they direct people to the very source they despise. In fact, IMHO when you have the so-called professional media looking to the blogoshere for breaking news it should telling you that the reality is the print media is dieing and along with it some cable news networks it would seem. What you have is a bunch of elitist entrenched in the past. Their self imposed self importance is vanishing before their very eyes and in fact they risk damaging their legacy as well. Watch as you will see the media feel it is their duty not to report but to chose just who it is that will represent the GOP in 2012. I think it starts right after November. Through this whole episode with Brietbart I have seen the liberal media take shots (along race lines it seems) at the supposed major contenders in the GOP already. I give credit to Romney for being smarter than Palin, Newt, and others for being baited by the media for comment on this whole thing.

  • Tom Seeman says:

    “The Soviet Union was collapsing from within. The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office. We didn’t have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn’t care. He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets…”
    *
    The level of ignorance here is astounding. So many untruths in the whole thing I’ve only time to address some of it. The liberal line that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway is fundamentally false. In fact, the Soviets were on a roll and gained strength during the Carter years. They had economic problems, but so did we (remember stagflation?).
    *
    The U.S. military buildup was quite necessary given the damage that Carter did (we’ll have to do the same once Obama is gone in two years). Reagan’s arms buildup achieved several things. One, it helped stop Soviet expansion, especially in the Third World. Two, it bankrupted the Soviets. Three, it allowed us to negotiate from a position of strength, instead of the position of weakness that liberals prefer.
    *
    Oh and let’s not forget Central America. Democrats wanted to hand the region over to the communists, but Reagan stood tall. He made hard decisions, and in the end we have countries that at least are headed in the right direction and are not communist totalitarian states.
    *
    Reagan didn’t meet with Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko for the very good reason that it would have done no good to do so. Unlike liberals, who like to talk just to talk and negotiate to make themselves feel good, Reagan knew from his days as head of the Screen Actors Guild that you only negotiate when there is something to be gained. Meeting with fossils is pointless. He did meet with Gorby, and ran circles around him at Reykjavik. Gorby desperately needed to kill SDI, but Reagan wouldn’t let him do it. The Soviets knew they couldn’t compete with us in high technology and this demoralized them greatly.

  • FedUp says:

    Great point, BlackOut. I remember the Carter years when this country was pretty beat down – a lot like what’s going on now with Carter 2.0! Reagan turned it all around. Intangibles count. Clinton had good numbers, but it was only because of a Republican Congress that held his spending in check and that he was lucky enough to be president during the technology boom, but I’ll always remember him as the one who defiled the presidency.

  • Elder Berry says:

    The idea of Reagan standing tall (by invading Grenada) is awfully hard to swallow. Nor did he stand tall by (to give him the benefit of the doubt) being complaisant while his appointees broke US laws to make deals with terrorists. Anyone who treated classified docs the way Col. North allegedly did should still be in Leavenworth. Shall we remember it was Iran those good Republicans were making deals with. Our own military/CIA overinflated estimates of Soviet strength for decades, and anyone who spent any time in Russia well knew that the whole system was hollow inside, and the Afghan war crippled them once and for all (hint, hint). They had no consumer economy at all. Russians were still using mustard plasters as a cold remedy, and it wasn’t because they liked the smell. Reagan was in the right place at the right time to get credit when it all fell apart, but not a lot more.

    Breitbart is an unprincipled political mercenary, nothing more. He set out to step on media coverage of Obama’s financial regulation package and the extension of unemployment benefits, and he did it by knowingly trashing the reputation of a dedicated civil servant who was undeserving of being thrown under the bus. Fox then jumped in and blasted the story and its biased opinionating all over its “news” shows.

    Even if you say Breitbart was only doing what a typical dirty tricks operative usually does (lie and cheat and steal or worse so long as it accomplishes the goal of getting media coverage)I have to fault Fox who should never have aired that clearly edited tape before obtaining and verifying the original. In journalism this is called checking your sources. You don’t go out commenting all over a story until you verify you there is a story to begin with. If you follow the process that Fox does (create a false story by propagating unverified or known to be false trash, then endlessly extend it by massively editorializing about that same trash and its aftermath), you’re not a journalist you’re a propagandist. Fox has done that very thing so often that there is no question as to what they are.

    One more thing for LL, If you’re talking about presidents and deficit and debt, there better be an asterisk next to it that stands for Republican. It hasn’t been Democratic presidents who’ve spiked the national debt, it has been Republicans, namely Reagan and Bush II.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    elderberry, I see that some in the media are finally noticing that at the recent NAACP meeting where Ms. Sherrod’s speech occurred, there was cheering and approval for the remarks shown in the truncated video.

    Perhaps one of the takeaways is that maybe the NAACP (and others!) should not be so quick to call other groups racist?

    I agree on checking sources, and that should have been the first thing the White House should have done before jumping to conclusions and demanding Ms. Sherrod’s head.

  • RWN says:

    EB – Obama’s reckless spending is a clear and present danger to the fiscal solvency of the United States of America.
    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/debt-and-deficits

  • Alter of Freedom says:

    We will continue to muddle through and never reach our true potential as a Republic if we continue to spend more time debating the past versus focusing on our future. Why we spend so much time arguing over Reagan is beyond me. Its like everything else divided amongst partisan lines. The bounty of Reagan has long been lost. The bounty of the bubbles of the Clinton era have long been lost. We are an ever evolving economy now tied to globalization (unforntately)contributing to our lost manufacturing base of our past. It really matters not where you come down on Reagan in truth given back then in the 80′s we were are producing economy and now lets face it folks we are more of a consuming economy. Economics are not the only issue appearing to be thrust upon revisionist history. Apparently in an effort to prop up Obama now you have some media outlets attemtping to attack Reagans results by addressing this economy as the worst ever in history as a means of praising Obama for any light at the end of the tunnel….well just so they do not get to far ahead of themselves I recall having to park the car at the gas station line over night as a kid and walking home with my dad and I also recall what had to have been a 20% unemployment rate then something we are not even close to so excuse me for not bying into the notion that these are the worst times of my life.

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    *
    *
    *
    Remember also the recent abortive attempt of Breitbart’s protégé James McKeefe to install wiretapping devices in the office of La. Sen. Mary Landrieu (a la the 1972 Watergate burglary of Democratic Party headquarters by Nixon’s “dirty tricks” squad).
    *
    Breitbart and his ilk are scum.

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    *
    *
    *
    Alter –
    *
    “Apparently in an effort to prop up Obama now you have some media outlets attempting to attack Reagan’s results by addressing this economy as the worst ever in history as a means of praising Obama for any light at the end of the tunnel….”
    *
    To what “media outlest do your refer?
    *
    “…I recall having to park the car at the gas station line over night as a kid and walking home with my dad…”
    *
    That would have been in 1973 or 1974, during the oil embargo.
    *
    “I also recall what had to have been a 20% unemployment rate then…”
    *
    Sorry, but no. Unemployment has not been that high since the 1930s. According to the BOLS, the highest unemployment rates since World War II, occurred under Reagan in 1982-83 (9.7% and 9.6% and Gerald Ford in 1975-76 (8.5% and 7.7%). The highest unemployment under Jimmy Carter was in 1980 (7.1%).

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    “Slick Willie clocks in at 3.8%.”
    *
    Clinton was Pretty damn lucky he followed Reagan, not Carter – in office.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Clinton followed Bush I (the good Bush), LL. Unless you are suggesting EVERYONE after Reagan followed Reagan. Which, in a sense, is right.
    .
    I know he probably makes your teeth itch, but he was a decent, smart guy, and a good president. The last realist Republican in the White House.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    I didn’t think much of Bush Sr when he was President, and nothing has changed. He was a good Commander in Chief in the Gulf War.
    *
    What I meant to say was given the economic outlook after Reagan, the drastic tax cuts and an economy that was fully functioning again – it was a stark difference to when Reagan came into office. I don’t care to argue with you about how effective Reagan’s tax cuts were, because you are an advocate of “taxing the rich” and rates that are probably more in line with Carter’s era – which is where we are headed now.
    *
    We had 20 years of economic growth thanks to Reagan, and Clinton benefitted from it enormously.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Reagan raised taxes too, LL.

  • I bleed Obama Blue says:

    *
    *
    *
    And gave amnesty to undocumented workers and spent like a drunken sailor and virtually created Muslim extremism.
    *
    It is truly ironic how the current generation of wingnuts worship St. Ronnie when, considering his record as Governor and President, they’d never actually vote of him today.

  • G.Stone says:

    What do you think cost her her job, LL?

    Her boss(s) are knee jerk nitwits.

Leave Comment