many times can anono-blogger @allahpundit write same piece in which he
raises specter of me falling on face while I stand in end zone? - Andrew Breitbart on Twitter
(By American Zen's Mike Flannigan, on loan from Ari)
Marshall of the Vikings also danced in the end zone. Only, in his
famous wrong way play in 1964, he scored a couple of points for the
opposing team because, after recovering a fumble, he ran into the opposing team's end zone.
In that respect, We are Marshall. It can happen to any of us. This time
around, it's Andrew Breitbart's turn to wipe the yolk off his face.
Marshall's blunder was an honest mistake. Breitbart's was the more
egregious because it was patently dishonest, needlessly changed the
face of our government and it certainly wasn't a mistake. And there are
many lessons that we could and should take away from this latest fuckup
of Breitbart's, the MSM's and the Obama administration, once again
asking, "How high, massa?" every time some vacuum-skulled, right wing
douchebag like Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck snap their
First off, we need to ask ourselves why Breitbart
settled his crosshairs on Shirley Sherrod, a low-level USDA bureaucrat
in charge of rural development for Georgia, someone who had 49 other
counterparts, over a speech given a quarter of a century ago when Obama
was half his present age, a previously obscure bureaucrat who just
happens to be African American?
Indeed, it seems every time
Breitbart, James "Superfly" O'Keefe, Beck or someone wants to prove
racism or a stereotype (such as black ACORN workers giving sympathetic
advice to a pimp and his ho'), the subjects of their baleful ken always
seem to be African American.
And if the white-dominated press
didn't have such a reliable track record for passive racism (missing
children grabbing headlines or lead stories are guaranteed to be
white), it would be as big a mystery as to why they're as easily and
gullibly led astray by right wing bloggers and media sites like the
Drudge Report as so many unwitting Adam Walshes.
The MSM are,
once again, unforgivably negligent and/or naïve for not sourcing its
material and for not openly wondering why these very same right wingers
consistently target people of color while, audaciously, charging them
with nonexistent instances of racism against the poor, persecuted white
majority. What were they thinking, or were they, in assuming that
Breitbart did his homework for them? And, after this debacle, I don't
want to hear any snooty, elitist dismissals of bloggers by this very
same easily-fooled mainstream media.
could the NAACP be so easily Klan hood-winked by a person with an
equally reliable track record for chicanery when its own top officials
were in live attendance for Ms. Sherrod's 1986 speech? Wouldn't they
have had the full tape and not have to rely on a fuzzy, carefully
edited version given to them by a Republican mainly noted for his witch
hunts of African Americans? Had they learned nothing since Larry
Johnson's phantom video of Michelle Obama's "whitey" speech?
why isn't President Obama himself apologizing for, once again, allowing
another fellow African American administration official to get thrown
under the wheels of his Bipartisan Express and how come he's content
with letting Robert Gibbs and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack do his
apologizing for him, in letting them keep him safely removed from the
PR fallout? Or did I just answer my own question?
Jones/Glenn Beck all over again, only with a more overt racist overtone
and impetus behind it all. In fact, mentioning the
Nazi-loving/Nazi-hating Glenn Beck is very appropriate at this time.
Profiles in Cowardice
"(Resign), because you're going to be on "Glenn Beck' tonight." USDA Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook to Shirley Sherrod.
The only reason I'm linking to the Wa Po's article is because they "privileged Breitbart's lie" according to Media Matters.
As Media Matters points out, it took Karen Tumulty and Krissah Thompson
15 paragraphs to get around to admitting that Breitbart's video was far
from a complete document of Ms. Sherrod's speech. It took them an
additional two paragraphs to admit that she did, indeed, help Mr.
Spooner, a struggling farmer. The speech was about owning up to
mistakes and prejudices and learning from making those mistakes. Still,
despite the Washington Post reporters coming clean, they never
took it upon themselves to mention that Ms. Sherrod went on to save the
family's farm but rather to let Mrs. Spooner say it for them. They
chose, instead, to focus more on her "inelegant" delivery instead of
how inelegant it was for a major metropolitan newspaper to trust that a
right wing douchebag with an axe handle to grind would kindly do all
their sourcing for them.
Perhaps it's too tempting to be seeing
too much into USDA Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook's incredibly
craven comments by way of justifying why Ms. Sherrod should've
needlessly fallen on a sword that was perhaps put into her hands by the
Obama administration, certainly by the USDA. But this wetlegged
attitude and almost atavistic, antebellum dread and terror of incurring
white, right wing wrath had been a hallmark of the Obama administration
since it was the Obama campaign.
Say whatever you want about the
Bush era government, but you've gotta give them this: They never gave a
rat's ass what the press or the people thought of their war crimes
agenda and they certainly didn't give a sh*t about what a liberal
blogger might write about them let alone a walking, talking bladder
like Glenn Beck.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).