NYTimes's Evidence of Perry's Racial Insensitivity: Mentioning Jesse Jackson in an Ad?
Following in the shameful steps of the Washington Post, the New York Times on Monday again tried to use the long-standing racially offensive name of a hunting camp leased by Texas Gov. Perry's family to imply that Perry, a Republican presidential candidate, was guilty of racial insensitivity: “For Perry, Texas Roots Include Racial Backdrop – Hunting Camp Name Has Put Focus On the Other Side of His Origin Story.”
The text box was not exactly a smoking gun: “An early life in which exposure to diversity was not a common feature.”
Reporters Deborah Sontag and Manny Fernandez's anecdote-heavy, evidence-free report even managed to wring some guilt-by-association out of Gov. Perry having graduating from Texas A&M:
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who often waxes nostalgic about his small-town roots, grew up in an almost all-white rural area where many referred to slingshots as “niggershooters.” One elderly black resident recalls being introduced by her boss at a party decades back as “my maid, Nigger Mae Lou,” while just four years ago, a black high school student found a noose in his locker.
In 1968, Mr. Perry left home for Texas A&M, a deeply conservative university whose yearbooks early in the century included Ku Klux Klan-robed students and a dairy group called the Kream and Kow Klub. The school, having just graduated its first two black undergraduates, was in the early throes of desegregation; at the end of Mr. Perry’s four years there, blacks still made up less than 1 percent of the student body.
It’s not the first time the paper has singled out Texas A&M for criticism. In October 2009 reporter Michael Brick filed a naive, condescending report on "fearsome" anti-Obama protests on the Texas A&M campus, as if posters of George W. Bush as Hitler weren’t a requirement at any decent campus protest during the preceding eight years.
While the Times admitted “Mr. Perry appeared to have moved well beyond his racially sheltered background” by appointing a black justice and signing a hate crimes bill before once again tarring "affirmative action bake sales" protests by campus conservatives as racist.
Black enrollment has inched up now to 3.4 percent of the student body, and racially charged episodes -- a blackface video, an anti-affirmative action bake sale to protest the hiring of a vice president for diversity -- occur from time to time, Professor Jewell said.
The Times rehashed a meaningless Jesse Jackson anecdote from the Washington Post hit piece:
In his early political career, Mr. Perry occasionally offended African-Americans and Hispanics. In his 1989 race for agriculture commissioner, for instance, he emphasized his opponent’s endorsement of Jesse Jackson for president, running a commercial that many perceived to be aimed at white voters in East Texas.
In 1992, he attacked Bill Clinton for accepting donations from trial lawyers by saying, “Every Jose in town wants to come along and sue you for something.” In 2000, as lieutenant governor, Mr. Perry, whose great-great-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy, ardently defended Confederate symbols on display in the State Supreme Court building.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Pardon me, but is this the same Jesse Jackson who uttered . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:19pm.
. . . "I'm going to cut his (Obama's) nuts off" over a hot microphone?
Wasn't Jackson also caught referring to New York City as "Hymie-town?"
Who exactly is the racially insensitive individual in this?
This is typical of the MSM
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:29pm.
They LOVE the guilt by association theme in their character assassination pieces.
It is "perfectly OK" to them, except when it is a liberal, and then associations don't matter.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Or guilt by NON-association.....
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:34pm.
An early life in which exposure to diversity was not a common feature.
This, from the newspaper that endorsed Al Gore and John Kerry.
The hypocrisy needle is spinning like the one on Clark Griswold's electric meter in "Christmas Vacation."
Well, they are trying to think out of the box
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 2:48pm.
This is more like "guilt by contrived association".
I mean really? His great-great-grandfather (who he couldn't possibly have met)? Really?
I've also heard that he doesn't drop his "Gs" when pronouncin' words that end in "ING". That is pretty insensitive too.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Gore is the classic "Senator's Son"
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 3:24pm.
. . . who's daddy not only voted against the Civil Rights Act, but on their drives back to home in Tennessee, would stop at whies-only eateries that wouldn't let their black nanny/maid in the dining room -- she had to eat in the car.
But no one suggests that Prince Albert was raised in a 'racially incentive' household.
Galvanic...daddy Gore voted against the '64 Act,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:46pm.
which he later called a terrible mistake. However, he was, in general, a supporter of Civil Rights legislation and was considered at least a "moderate" on racial issues--a stance which damaged him politically in Tennessee during that era and contributed to his eventual senatorial defeat in 1970. "Prince Albert's" mom was even more liberal than her husband. The notion that Al Jr. was a racist or raised in a racist household is sheer nonsense.
Of all the decisions made by Senator Gore [Sr.] during his long career in Washington, one dramatic act of rejection established his reputation as a supporter of civil rights. It came on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1956, when colleague Strom Thurmond of South Carolina approached his desk with a copy of a segregationist document opposing the federal effort to desegregate southern schools and said, "Albert, we'd like you to sign the Southern Manifesto with the rest of us." The entire southern press corps had been alerted ahead of time and looked down on the scene from the balcony. Senator Gore, his voice rising so loud that he was certain he could be heard in the press gallery, grandly declared "Hell no!" and brushed Thurmond and the document away. He later called the Southern Manifesto "spurious, inane, insulting" and "the most unvarnished piece of demagoguery" he had ever encountered. It does not lessen the importance of his denunciation of the manifesto to point out that Gore was joined in opposition by his colleague from Tennessee, Kefauver, and that the senator's most powerful friends back home, including the editors at the Nashville Tennessean, also opposed the racist proposition and would have criticized him had he done anything else.
With every gesture Gore made in support of civil rights came a mailbag of angry letters from segregationists. One year after denouncing the manifesto, he voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and further enraged some constituents by nominating two young black students from Memphis for appointment to the Air Force Academy. "I was literally astounded to read that you had appointed two Negroes" to the academy, wrote one voter who called himself the senator's friend. "It appears that some of your staff must have slipped up very badly to make such a mistake as this." While politely thanking the letter writer for "calling this matter to my attention," Gore noted that Selective Service boards did not take race into consideration when calling young men for the draft and so "it had not occurred to me that I should do so" in the case of the Air Force Academy.
The above is an excerpt from "The Prince of Tennessee" written by David Maraniss and appearing in the NYT.
Jer
Al Gore, Sr.---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:48pm.
Pfffft.
A lying, self-serving politician.
Just like his pos son.
MD
Outstanding rebuttal, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:04pm.
Incisive, compelling, profound-ly vacuous...clearly the product of several seconds of intensive research and objective analysis or a lifetime of honing your mastery of the mindless knee-jerk retort.
;-)
Jer
So, that makes 2
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:20pm.
Thumbs up!
Merely mirroring, Jer, the knee jerk reaction ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:29pm.
you feel obligated to respond with every time Gore Sr. is mentioned but not lauded as you feel is his due.
He was a racist pos and nothing you can say will ever change that.
I would cut him some slack, given he was no more than a product of those times, but someone has to counter your tendency to go too far in the opposite direction by implying not only that the man was NOT what he actually was, but rather, almost a saint.
Tip: Sr. is dead - and polishing his apple will not likely result in a thank you note from Jr. :o)
MD
A baseless smear, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 12:28am.
You claim that I...
"...feel obligated to respond with [a knee-jerk reaction] every time Gore Sr. is mentioned but not lauded as you feel is his due."
Wrong. I don't expect him to be lauded, but I'm also disinclined to stand idly by while he is smeared with falsehoods...
He was a racist pos and nothing you can say will ever change that.
...like that one for example. The facts and his record speak for themselves, and nothing I say and nothing you say will or can ever change that. However, inasmuch as he was my senator--and I followed his political career pretty closely--I believe it is quite likely I am more familiar with his record and political views than are you and am more acquainted with how he was perceived by the voters in TN during his political career--and especially during the 1970 campaign when he lost the seat.
As far as implying near sainthood: Baloney. Please refer to first response.
Jer
Baseless smear, my ass,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 2:02am.
Gore Sr. was a racist.
Refer to Galvanic's post.
The fact Gore was YOUR senator impresses me not at all.
You are a liberal Democrat; - NONE of your politicians impress me and your desire to be the final arbiter of all things Gore because you are politically linked and you "followed his career pretty closely" impresses me even less.
MD
I'm not impressed by your just pulling nonsense out of your
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:19am.
butt and claiming it's fact simply because of your oft-stated loathing of liberals.
I had already read Galvanic's unsourced post. I have tried to track down its origin and thus far have come up with Drudge and some website entitled the 21 lies of Al Gore [without a single link.]
Jer
Odd, Jer, that---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:18pm.
things I "pull out of my butt" have an identical odor to your claims aimed at exonerating the racist Gore as being 'not a racist'.
Too many liberals to waste time 'loathing' them all; it is much easier to loathe their policies, beliefs, and what the fools have done in the way of lowering standards in this country under the guise of being "helpful, humanitarian, sensitive, caring, fair-minded, benevolent", and other such obvious BS canards.
MD
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 2:29am.
I remember Al Gore Sr. He was a worthless racist POS. He had direct connections to the Soviet Union through Hammer Enterprises. Like father like son his money was very dirty. He was most definitely a racist.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning, cocodrie. Since you and Matthew say so...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 3:13am.
I guess that settles it.
Jer
cocodrie---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:22pm.
an interesting persona, indeed, that Armand Hammer.
MD
Yes, Matthew and cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:47pm.
I'm well aware of Gore's ties to Hammer. As I said, I'm not attempting to establish sainthood here. Now, can we stay on topic?
Jer
BTW, Matthew...please check PMs.
BTW Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 9:27pm.
A mutual friend is concerned that my suggesting you are "intellectually dishonest" was the equivalent to calling you a liar. Well, I dont define it that way, and apologize if it was taken that way.
Well, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 11:47pm.
I don't put a charge of 'intellectual dishonesty' in the same category as being called a 'liar', but when it came right on the heels of this accusation by you:
"I am not, one of those who thinks Jer is a solid dealer, because he ain't." [italics mine]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/messages/view/56515#ixzz1aXDc9H2v
...I considered your comments to be an unwarranted slam on my integrity. That's what bothered me. But, to the extent you are apologizing, I appreciate it and accept it.
Jer
Link dont work,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 7:39pm.
?
Sorry, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 7:52pm.
This is the correct link.
Jer dont care,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 10/07/2011 - 11:46pm.
As long as he can make the Repubs sound AS bad as the dimwits, his job is done.
I am not, one of those who thinks Jer is a solid dealer, because he aint!
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/07/herman-cain-asks-m...
So I am guessing you deny
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:40pm.
My assessment? OK, what now?
But either way, you make a pretty good point of making comparisons when anyone criticizes a dimwit, even when your comparisons pale to the current event, as if it should justify it. And this was the type of comparison I replied to.
Look, I just want to make sure you dont think I was calling you and out and out liar, as I was not.
What now, Boudin?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
I guess a good start would be explaining exactly what you meant by the Jer ain't a solid dealer comment.
Jer
OK
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:31pm.
Not that I will understand how this will help?
Thanks for your service, Jack...but you don't really wish to get into a comparison of the notable Democratic and Republican politicians who served or didn't serve in Vietnam, do you? Jer
Why not, ? Go ahead and tell us the feats of the Leftist in war. Boudin,
I believe I addressed the question to Jack. Jer
So obviously you think this is fine, I think your bluff got called and you took your deck and left. You clear now?
Not really.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:41pm.
I personally don't care for the 'our side is more patriotic than your side' game which Jack appeared to be playing. So, unless he really wanted to press the issue, I saw no reason to pursue it with someone else. And apparently Jack didn't care to go forward with it, which was fine with me.
So what does that have to do with my not being a solid dealer as well as intellectually dishonest?
Jer
Well this post is a perfect example
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:59am.
Anyone who has had more then a cup of coffee here know the first part of your post is nonsense.
I personally don't care for the 'our side is more patriotic than your side' game which Jack appeared to be playing.
Everyone here knows you do care, very much in-fact. This is the type of thing you love to make comparisons to. This is the type of thing you love to use for your equivalency games. This is just the type of thing you use to justify bad behavior with. Besides, the heavy lifting from your point of view was already done, giving you this little jump start. Intellectually dishonest, could be.
So, unless he really wanted to press the issue, I saw no reason to pursue it with someone else.
I think you should change that to "anyone else". You did not want to pursue it at all. With so many on the Right already named as offenders. You threw your little bluff out there, hoping no-one would answer it. Then you used the ol, "I was not talking to you" ploy, to keep from backing it up. Not the first time for you either, you often refuse my questions. But look at me jumping through your hoops. Solid dealing, I dont think so.
Jer, I have explained myself, as much as I am going to. Notice I have not asked you to explain the names you call myself, because I just dont care Jer. Besides, I will come around time to time, to point out more of this type of thing, dont worry.
Boudin swings. Boudin misses.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:26am.
Everyone here knows you do care, very much in-fact. This is the type of thing you love to make comparisons to. This is the type of thing you love to use for your equivalency games. This is just the type of thing you use to justify bad behavior with. Besides, the heavy lifting from your point of view was already done, giving you this little jump start. Intellectually dishonest, could be.
No, Boudin. I don't care for the "patriot" card-playing [or the "race" card-playing or the "morality" card-playing] games which occur on and off this website, and it was precisely one of those cards (Democrats are less patriotic than Republicans] which Jack appeared to be playing. Now, I will occasionally make 'they do it too" arguments to expose the hypocrisy which lies behind many of the accusations related to those subjects [just as I expect it to noted when the Dems/libs fling the race card]. But, I NEVER have done so to "justify bad behavior". That's a pathetically misguided and demonstrably false charge, Boudin. Case in point: My multiple condemnations of Matthews' sorry treatment of Herman Cain on that very thread. If I "enjoy" engaging in those types of comparisons so much, why didn't I just immediately and eagerly fire away when challenged by you? The fact that I declined to do so further blows your contention to bits. Finally, I'm not certain what you mean by your statement that "the heavy lifting had already been done", but if you are referring to Irgon's list of Democrats and Republicans who had and hadn't served during Vietnam, you might note that it was posted fully two hours after my reply to Jack and the ensuing exchange between you and me. So much for your lame "intellectually dishonest" canard.
I think you should change that to "anyone else". You did not want to pursue it at all. With so many on the Right already named as offenders. You threw your little bluff out there, hoping no-one would answer it. Then you used the ol, "I was not talking to you" ploy, to keep from backing it up. Not the first time for you either, you often refuse my questions. But look at me jumping through your hoops. Solid dealing, I dont think so.
Jer, I have explained myself, as much as I am going to. Notice I have not asked you to explain the names you call myself, because I just dont care Jer. Besides, I will come around time to time, to point out more of this type of thing, dont worry.
Much of this was already addressed and debunked in my preceding response. But, you need to re-examine the timeline on the thread in question. There may have been some random names already thrown out, but Irgon's exhaustive list wasn't posted until well after my initial query to Jack. I used the "ol I was not talking to you ploy" because a. I wasn't talking to you and b. I am generally not interested in talking to you due to your annoying predilection for the quick, sarcastic--frequently personal--and snide quip as opposed to substantive diaglog and civil debate.
Regarding name-calling, you seem to care a great deal about the issue inasmuch as you frequently whine about it. And if I were the instigator of gratuitous, unprovoked name-calling, you would have every right to complain. However, I invite you again to recheck that thread (and scores of others). Yes, I did indeed refer to you as a 'stalker' [the horror!] but only AFTER you had attacked my integrity [Jer ain't a solid dealer no matter what others think]. In any event, when you follow me from thread to thread acting on what seems to be an obsessive need to take yet another substanceless potshot at me, then, in my book, "stalking" is hardly an inappropriate description of the behavior.
Having said all of that, I must concede you have raised some points in the present exchange which were cogent, well-taken and well-argued. More of that and perhaps we can have some interesting discussions in the future. But if you revert to your penchant for roving, belittling, incessant potshots, I'll respond accordingly. Maybe I'll ignore them. Maybe I won't.
Jer
Figures
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:41am.
Good grief, I guess I didnt make myself clear when I said I dont care, that includes what you think.
That's encouraging...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:37pm.
Maybe you'll leave me alone for a change.
Jer
those doing the perceiving,
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:29pm.
for instance, he emphasized his opponent’s endorsement of Jesse Jackson for president, running a commercial that many perceived to be aimed at white voters in East Texas.
Perceived? Perceived is in the head of the person doing the perceiving, it tells us about those doing the perceiving, if you look to be offended odds are your going to be offended.
Unbelievable.
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 3:18pm.
Someone in Texas once used the n-word decades ago so that is how Perry is a racist.
I need to take a look at the
Submitted by TerryWest on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 3:45pm.
I need to take a look at the racial make up of the NYT Board of directors and executives before deciding if they should be the word on diversity and sensitivity.
Who said?
Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 4:00pm.
Who said the NYT's is the word on anything? It is just one voice in a field of many. I won't waste bandwidth by attempting to list all the networks,newspapers,websites..etc..the list just goes on and on.
You really going to look into the racial make up of the NYT board? (I'm guessing that was just rhetorical)
You obviously
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 2:24am.
don`t recognize sarcasm.
Is that a new symptom?
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 9:00am.
Should I go see Dr. House?
(You don't either)