Breitbart to Bashir: 'You're Insinuating I'm Racist Which is What MSNBC Does to Conservatives Every Day'
MSNBC's Martin Bashir did an extremely contentious interview with Andrew Breitbart Wednesday wherein it was clear from the get-go the goal was to paint the conservative publisher and the Tea Party he's affiliated with as racist.
This became obvious to Breitbart after Bashir asked his opinion of a truly offensive picture of Barack Obama leading Breitbart to fire back, "You're trying to insinuate that I'm a racist here, which is what MSNBC does to conservatives every single day" (video follows with commentary and full transcript at end of post):
Before we begin the analysis of this lengthy segment, readers are reminded that Breitbart told NewsBusters his termination as front page contributor to the Huffington Post last month was part of a larger liberal media scheme to depict the Tea Party as racist.
Less than a month later, MSNBC's Bashir was clearly doing the same thing.
Wednesday's interview began:
MARTIN BASHIR, HOST: He calls himself a reluctant cultural warrior, but Andrew Breitbart has always seemed ready to rush to the front lines. And depending on your view, he's also been described as a conservative propagandist and a Tea Party loyalist. His new book is called "Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World." Not a very modest title.
In the book, you will find scarcely a word about one of his most infamous episodes involving Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA official fired after a video of her was posted on a Breitbart Web site. Sherrod is now suing Breitbart for accusing her of racism after showing, quote, "a deceptively edited clip."
That's some bedside manner, wouldn't you agree? In his introduction of his guest, Bashir called him "a conservative propagandist," deceitful, and conceited while in an interview supposedly about Breitbart's book began by talking about something that's not in it.
Despite the fact that Breitbart told me by phone that he had no idea this was going to be a topic up for discussion, it turned out much of this almost fourteen minute segment was about the Sherrod episode including this heated exchange:
BASHIR: Did you watch the entire video of Shirley Sherrod’s speech before you posted what were 136 seconds of it online?
BREITBART: No.
BASHIR: Was that a responsible thing to do, as a journalist who is concerned...
BREITBART: I guarantee...
BASHIR: -- to excavate the truth?
BREITBART: -- I guarantee you that every single day, MSNBC does that all the time. I -- in fact, MSNBC was the place that cut off a black person’s head and said that the Tea Party was racist because they were coming to Tea Parties with guns on them. And MSNBC cut the actual head off of that...
BASHIR: I -- I...
BREITBART: -- and the guy was...
BASHIR: I...
BREITBART: -- and the guy was black. Is that true...
BASHIR: Andrew, I...
BREITBART: Is that truthful journalism?
Of course not, but nobody in their right mind would equate MSNBC with truthful journalism.
Continuing with his racially driven narrative, Bashir next brought up Breitbart's esteem for conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh:
BASHIR: In the book, you say that one of the biggest influences on your intellectual and social development is a man you call Professor Rush Limbaugh. Is that right?
BREITBART: Yes. He was very influential.
BASHIR: OK. Now you know that Mr. Limbaugh, quite recently, did a, some would call humorous, others would say offensive, impersonation of the prime minister of China.
You could see where that was going from a mile away: Breitbart reveres Limbaugh; Limbaugh because he did an impersonation of the Chinese prime minister is racist, therefore; Breitbart must be racist as well.
But Bashir wasn't done. He next brought up a Dr. Kevin Pezzi who had contributed to Breitbart's Big Government for a few days last August before it was discovered that some of his previous work was rather racist. At that point, his articles at BG were pulled along with his biography, and the following comment was published by BG editors:
Earlier this week, we read an on-line column which provided one of the most thorough and well-researched examinations of the many controversies surrounding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. We asked the author of the column for permission to reprint his article. Since publishing the articles, we have been made aware of other writings from this author which do not reflect the principles and values of this site. Because of this, we have removed the articles from Big Government. While we stand by the information contained in the articles we published, we do not wish to see the underlying issue confused or diminished by other work the author has done. We regret the error.
When Bashir brought up Pezzi's name, the discussion got really heated:
BASHIR: Mr. Pezzi, as you know, likes to use racist epithets...
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: -- like Jacks and Chinks.
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: He also maintains that African-Americans should be grateful for being subjugated...
BREITBART: Yes, that`s deplorable.
BASHIR: Here's...
BREITBART: It's deplorable.
BASHIR: Here's the point...
BREITBART: It's deplorable.
BASHIR: Andrew, here's the...
BREITBART: -- Martin. Why are you doing guilt by association?
Indeed. And that's what bringing up Pezzi was all about. But Bashir wasn't done:
BASHIR: This week, Marilyn Davenport, a Republican official in Orange County, sent an e-mail to a number of colleagues featuring President Obama dressed and in a family of apes.
BREITBART: Are you asking me about this? What do I have to do with that?
BASHIR: I want to ask you, what do you think of that image?
BREITBART: It's deplorable. It's -- it's deplorable. It's reprehensible. And you`re trying to create...
BASHIR: When...
BREITBART: -- you're trying to insinuate that I`m a racist here, which is what MSNBC does to conservatives every single day. This entire context of this conversation is what the NAACP and what the Democratic Party has been doing to the Tea Party...
For those that missed this episode, here was the picture Davenport sent to some of her colleagues:

Bashir bringing this up was nothing less than deplorable.
Breitbart had absolutely nothing to do with this email, which means Bashir mentioned it to give viewers the idea his guest was somehow connected and to further the dishonest case being made that he's racist. Bashir's entire manner during this interview was more of a prosecutor presenting his case than a journalist discussing a new book with its author.
In the end, this was clearly nothing more than a hit piece designed to make Breitbart out to be a racist, and due to his association with it, the Tea Party as well.
Sadly, this is what now passes as journalism at MSNBC today.
Full transcript follows:
MARTIN BASHIR, HOST: He calls himself a reluctant cultural warrior, but Andrew Breitbart has always seemed ready to rush to the front lines. And depending on your view, he`s also been described as a conservative propagandist and a Tea Party loyalist.
His new book is called "Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World."
Not a very modest title.
In the book, you will find scarcely a word about one of his most infamous episodes involving Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA official fired after a video of her was posted on a Breitbart Web site.
Sherrod is now suing Breitbart for accusing her of racism after showing, quote, "a deceptively edited clip."
And I`m delighted to say that Andrew Breitbart joins us now.
Good afternoon, sir.
ANDREW BREITBART, AUTHOR, "RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION": Well, I don`t accept the promise.
BASHIR: But let me move forward. In your book, which I`ve read...
BREITBART: Um-hmm.
BASHIR: -- you write: "I`m not religious and I`m certainly no theologian. But if there`s one thing in religion that speaks to me, it is the idea of absolute truth."
BREITBART: Um-hmm.
BASHIR: "We start by uncovering the truth and telling everyone about it."
BREITBART: Um-hmm.
BASHIR: So that`s your -- those are your words.
BREITBART: Absolutely.
BASHIR: So let`s start, then, with establishing a single important truth.
Did you watch the entire video of Shirley Sherrod`s speech before you posted what were 136 seconds of it online?
BREITBART: No.
BASHIR: Was that a responsible thing to do, as a journalist who is concerned...
BREITBART: I guarantee...
BASHIR: -- to excavate the truth?
BREITBART: -- I guarantee you that every single day, MSNBC does that all the time. I -- in fact, MSNBC was the place that cut off a black person`s head and said that the Tea Party was racist because they were coming to Tea Parties with guns on them. And MSNBC cut the actual head off of that...
BASHIR: I -- I...
BREITBART: -- and the guy was...
BASHIR: I...
BREITBART: -- and the guy was black.
Is that true...
BASHIR: Andrew, I...
BREITBART: Is that truthful journalism?
BASHIR: I -- I wasn`t here and I...
BREITBART: OK.
BASHIR: -- and I don`t...
BREITBART: Well, I`m just saying...
BASHIR: -- I don`t know the details of that...
BREITBART: -- I go, well, look...
BASHIR: -- issue.
BREITBART: -- and the thing is...
BASHIR: (INAUDIBLE)...
BREITBART: -- the thing is that the story...
BASHIR: Can I just go back to the point, though?
BREITBART: I will go...
BASHIR: Just...
BREITBART: -- I`ll go back to the point.
BASHIR: Just back to the point. The actual speech was 43 minutes long.
BREITBART: Right.
BASHIR: Was it remiss -- was it remiss, on reflection, to post 136 seconds of that speech?
BREITBART: People put clips up all the time and that clip explained something very important that even include her -- included her -- her narrative of realizing that it`s not about blacks versus white, it`s about rich versus poor. And do you know who came to my defense during that period of time?
And I still, to this day, haven`t thanked him for that -- it was Chris Matthews. And he flummoxed Howard Dean and Salon`s John Walsh.
And included in the piece that everybody took selectively edited out of context, in the piece that went with two videos, I wrote, eventually her basic humanity informs her to help the white farmer.
What happened is, is that other media took it and cut off that part and talked about it on TV...
BASHIR: OK.
BREITBART: And so I ended up being a captive to the fact that other people selectively edited out my entire 1,400 word...
BASHIR: At...
BREITBART: -- argument...
BASHIR: At the time...
BREITBART: -- it`s an -- yes?
BASHIR: At the time that you posted the excerpt...
BREITBART: Yes?
BASHIR: -- the 136 seconds, you wrote: "Shirley Sherrod had, quote, `racially discriminated against a white farmer`"...
BREITBART: Read the whole -- why are you selectively...
BASHIR: Can I...
BREITBART: -- editing out...
BASHIR: Sorry. Can I...
BREITBART: -- the entire piece?
BASHIR: Can I just...
BREITBART: Yes?
BASHIR: Can I just finish?
BREITBART: Yes. Sure.
BASHIR: `And that the NAACP audience approved with murmurs of recognition and agreement,` quote.
Now, we have you saying something similar on camera.
Let`s take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREITBART: I think that the clip, as it exists, proved precisely the news point that needed to be made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASHIR: What was that news point?
BREITBART: I had been battling the NAACP against the false allegation that the Tea Party is racist. The entire 1,400 word piece makes that argument. That I hit the target, the NAACP, is affirmed in Shirley Sherrod`s -- in Shirley Sherrod`s day one statement, where she said, this is the NAACP`s fault and she said -- and the NAACP apologized for the audience`s reaction.
It`s significant that they apologized for the audience`s reaction, because the NAACP`s head, Ben Jealous, for the week before, attacked the Tea Party based upon the false promise that it yelled the "N" word at Congressmans Carson and Lewis.
I have four videos that show that it didn`t happen and...
BASHIR: Let`s get...
BREITBART: -- and...
BASHIR: -- let`s...
BREITBART: -- NBC will not show those videos...
BASHIR: Sorry...
BREITBART: -- and...
BASHIR: Andrew...
BREITBART: Yes?
BASHIR: Let`s -- let`s just stay focused.
You said in your original text in that video, "Miss. Sherrod" -- I`m quoting you -- "admits that she discriminates against people due"...
BREITBART: Yes, precisely.
BASHIR: -- "to their race."
BREITBART: Read it precisely -- yes...
(CROSSTALK)
BASHIR: That`s what I...
(CROSSTALK)
BREITBART: In...
BASHIR: Now, hang on...
BREITBART: -- the video...
BASHIR: Hang on...
BREITBART: -- she did.
BASHIR: Please...
BREITBART: And the audience...
BASHIR: Please...
BREITBART: -- reacted.
BASHIR: -- please allow me to...
BREITBART: OK.
BASHIR: -- to explain what I`m going to put to you.
That was the diametric opposite truth of what she said. What she actually said was that she went on to go out of her way to assist and her experience was in -- was an example of not discriminating...
BREITBART: OK, now...
BASHIR: -- on the basis of...
BREITBART: -- now what...
BASHIR: -- race.
BREITBART: -- Martin...
BASHIR: Why do you put...
BREITBART: Martin...
BASHIR: -- "Miss. Sherrod"...
BREITBART: -- Martin...
BASHIR: -- "admits that she discriminates against people"...
BREITBART: Discriminated...
BASHIR: -- "due to their race?"
That`s a deliberate...
BREITBART: -- discriminated (INAUDIBLE)...
BASHIR: -- misrepresentation of the truth.
BREITBART: No. I wrote in the piece that eventually her basic humanity informed her to help the white farmer...
BASHIR: Andrew, I`m quoting...
BREITBART: -- and I kept...
BASHIR: -- your words.
BREITBART: -- I -- yes. And read the rest of the piece.
BASHIR: How can you claim in your book to be so committed to truth- telling...
BREITBART: I just told you the truth.
BASHIR: How can you do that...
BREITBART: I just told you the truth.
BASHIR: -- when you publish something...
BREITBART: You don`t want to hear what I just told you.
BASHIR: I -- I don`t -- I`m listening to you, sir.
BREITBART: I told you, eventually, her basic humanity informed her to help the white farmer and I kept in the part of the arc. The whole point was to show that the NAACP has no right to judge the Tea Party on racism if it can`t keep its own house...
BASHIR: So...
BREITBART: -- in order.
BASHIR: So if you`re...
BREITBART: That was the point of it. That was the point of the clip.
BASHIR: So if your work...
BREITBART: And...
BASHIR: -- was so balanced, why was she forced to resign?
BREITBART: Who said that it was balanced?
BASHIR: That`s what you were just (INAUDIBLE).
BREITBART: I`m not -- I -- I -- I came with a point, to show that the NAACP was in no position to judge the N -- the -- the Tea Party. That is exactly what happened. And listen to me, the -- nobody went after...
BASHIR: Even...
BREITBART: -- nobody went after President...
BASHIR: -- Andrew...
BREITBART: -- Obama...
BASHIR: -- Andrew, even...
BREITBART: -- even after...
BASHIR: Can I -- can I just (INAUDIBLE)?
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: Even Glenn Beck -- even Glenn Beck...
BREITBART: Yes?
BASHIR: -- who happily believes the notion that an Islamic caliphate is being constructed, in his words, from New Zealand to Nairobi, even he says that you deliberately misrepresented...
BREITBART: Well, he`s lying and the reason...
BASHIR: -- Shirley Sherrod.
BREITBART: -- the reason why he did, he...
BASHIR: He`s right, isn`t he?
BREITBART: He insinuated on the...
BASHIR: You misrepresented her.
BREITBART: -- do you want me to answer the question?
BASHIR: Please do.
BREITBART: He went -- he went on...
BASHIR: Did he misrepresent her?
BREITBART: -- he went -- I`m answering -- listen to me. Glenn Beck said Andrew needs to apologize. He insinuated that he didn`t touch the story. They had said that the reason why the White House fired her was because they were worried that she was going to -- that this was going to be on "The Glenn Beck Show".
Glenn Beck, in fact, ripped into Shirley Sherrod in his morning radio show. He was the one that diverted the attention away from the context, which was the NAACP angle, and made it about Shirley Sherrod. And he...
BASHIR: That`s an...
BREITBART: -- and...
BASHIR: -- interesting argument.
BREITBART: -- and -- and in his -- and on the air, he cut out the part where she said -- that I kept in the video, that said it`s not about black versus white, it`s about rich versus poor, which is her redemptive arc, which compliments -- which was in the piece -- that said eventually her humanity informed her to help the white farmer.
Answer me, why the president of the United States, when he was told that she helped the white farmer, did not rehire her?
It took another day for that to happen. The reason why this happened, MSNBC told me. They said Andrew Breitbart was responsible...
BASHIR: Oh, really?
BREITBART: -- for black farmers in the...
BASHIR: Let...
BREITBART: -- "Pigford" lawsuit...
BASHIR: Let`s go back to your book.
BREITBART: You don`t want to know the truth.
BASHIR: Of course I do, Andrew.
BREITBART: You don`t.
BASHIR: Let -- let`s go back to the book.
In the book, you say that one of the biggest influences on your intellectual and social development is a man you call Professor Rush Limbaugh.
Is that right?
BREITBART: Yes. He was very influential.
BASHIR: OK. Now you know that Mr. Limbaugh, quite recently, did a, some would call humorous, others would say offensive, impersonation of the prime minister of China. You also have asked Kevin -- Kevin Pezzi to write for BigGovernment.com.
BREITBART: Oh my gosh, you really are getting...
BASHIR: Can I...
BREITBART: -- your Media Matters...
BASHIR: Can I...
BREITBART: -- talking points.
BASHIR: Can I just go with you to this?
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: Then you also...
BREITBART: Once I found out about...
BASHIR: Sorry.
BREITBART: -- who Kevin Pezzi was...
BASHIR: Yes?
BREITBART: -- he had submitted a piece...
BASHIR: Can I just...
BREITBART: We...
BASHIR: Sorry...
BREITBART: -- he...
BASHIR: -- Andrew...
BREITBART: -- he submitted a piece...
BASHIR: Can I just...
BREITBART: -- the second we found out about him...
BASHIR: Allow me -- allow me just to finish.
BREITBART: -- we got rid of him.
BASHIR: Allow me to finish.
Mr. Pezzi, as you know, likes to use racist epithets...
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: -- like Jacks and Chinks.
BREITBART: Yes.
BASHIR: He also maintains that African-Americans should be grateful for being subjugated...
BREITBART: Yes, that`s deplorable.
BASHIR: Here`s...
BREITBART: It`s deplorable.
BASHIR: Here`s the point...
BREITBART: It`s deplorable.
BASHIR: Andrew, here`s the...
BREITBART: -- Martin.
Why are you doing guilt by association?
BASHIR: Because here`s the point I`m trying to make...
BREITBART: You`re selectively editing out the...
BASHIR: Look...
BREITBART: -- the fact that I got rid of him once I...
BASHIR: I -- I`m trying to...
BREITBART: -- found about that. I had never met him before...
BASHIR: Andrew...
BREITBART: -- and he submitted an article. And you are selectively editing...
BASHIR: No.
BREITBART: -- history right now.
BASHIR: I now need to take you back to what I was just saying.
BREITBART: Um-hmm.
BASHIR: You take 136 seconds and post it.
BREITBART: Um-hmm.
BASHIR: You then employ an individual who takes views like that or use an individual...
BREITBART: I didn`t employ him, he was a...
BASHIR: -- who has views that some...
BREITBART: -- he was a blogger that...
BASHIR: Sorry. Forgive me.
BREITBART: -- (INAUDIBLE).
BASHIR: You use his views and now you just said...
BREITBART: Why are you...
BASHIR: -- you fired him.
BREITBART: -- using...
BASHIR: You just said...
BREITBART: We didn`t -- I didn`t fire him.
BASHIR: That`s what you just said.
BREITBART: He was a -- he was a blogger...
BASHIR: Right.
BREITBART: -- who posted something at my site. Once I found out what this guy was about, I got rid of him...
BASHIR: Right.
BREITBART: -- immediately. And I took the -- the piece off of the site.
BASHIR: I`m trying...
BREITBART: But you want to do guilt by association...
BASHIR: No, I -- what I`m trying to do is...
BREITBART: -- right now.
BASHIR: -- I`m trying to follow the narrative of your own book...
BREITBART: Yes?
BASHIR: And what I`m saying is we have...
BREITBART: What have I not...
BASHIR: -- Shirley Sherrod...
BREITBART: -- told the truth about?
BASHIR: -- we`ve had...
BREITBART: What have I not told the truth about?
BASHIR: We`ve had Rush Limbaugh. Let me just get...
BREITBART: What...
BASHIR: If I...
BREITBART: -- have I not told the truth about?
BASHIR: I must get...
BREITBART: What have I not...
BASHIR: I want...
BREITBART: -- told the truth about?
BASHIR: -- I want to ask you a question.
BREITBART: You started this off...
BASHIR: I want to ask you a question...
BREITBART: OK.
What have I not told the truth about?
BASHIR: Let me ask you a question.
This week, Marilyn Davenport, a Republican official in Orange County, sent an e-mail to a number of colleagues featuring President Obama dressed and in a family of apes.
BREITBART: Are you asking me about this?
What do I have to do with that?
BASHIR: I want to ask you, what do you think of that image?
BREITBART: It`s deplorable. It`s -- it`s deplorable. It`s reprehensible. And you`re trying to create...
BASHIR: When...
BREITBART: -- you`re trying to insinuate that I`m a racist here, which is what MSNBC does to conservatives every single day. This entire context of this conversation is what the NAACP and what the Democratic Party has been doing to the Tea Party...
BASHIR: No, I haven`t...
BREITBART: -- for the last...
BASHIR: I haven`t spoken...
BREITBART: -- year.
BASHIR: -- I haven`t spoken to any (INAUDIBLE)...
BREITBART: That is the entire context of this...
BASHIR: Why didn`t you...
BREITBART: -- the subtext...
BASHIR: -- why didn`t you...
BREITBART: -- of this interview.
BASHIR: Andrew, why didn`t you, when you published Shirley Sherrod`s comments, the 136 seconds and your voluminous article, as you rightly point out, why didn`t you stand up and defend her and say, actually, she`s not a racist?
Why did you write things like, she`s racely -- racially discriminated against a white farmer...
BREITBART: Because the rest of the video showed different things that - - that were -- that illuminated something that -- that was not as black and white...
BASHIR: Right. So what...
BREITBART: -- as you would like...
BASHIR: -- what we do is we...
BREITBART: -- life (INAUDIBLE).
BASHIR: -- some bits of the information...
BREITBART: -- and she said...
BASHIR: -- and we don`t use others?
BREITBART: No, no, no. She said that I...
BASHIR: That`s what we do.
BREITBART: Well, what -- why don`t you hold her accountable for saying that I wanted to bring black people -- black to -- back to slavery?
She, on day one, said this was the NAACP`s fault. A week later, she said this has nothing to do with the NAACP, this is about Andrew Breitbart. She got -- somebody told her, we need to target Andrew Breitbart at this point. She, on day one, the NAACP understood perfectly well what the context of this video was.
And I successfully stopped their waging the campaign, that MSNBC was party to, to try to falsely frame the race...
BASHIR: Andrew...
BREITBART: -- the part...
BASHIR: -- Andrew...
BREITBART: -- the Tea Party...
BASHIR: -- I wasn`t...
BREITBART: -- is racist.
BASHIR: I wasn`t -- I wasn`t there (INAUDIBLE).
BREITBART: I know. I`m not talking about...
BASHIR: Let me...
BREITBART: -- MSNBC...
BASHIR: -- let me...
BREITBART: -- you...
BASHIR: -- let me move on...
BREITBART: -- I`m talking...
BASHIR: -- to the book.
BREITBART: -- about MSNBC.
BASHIR: I`m trying to focus on your book. I`m pulling out material from your book.
In the book, you talk about bloggers, citizen journalists who have implied that the president`s autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," was actually written by, quote -- I`m quoting -- "the domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers."
BREITBART: Yes. I think that that`s -- I -- first of all, that`s...
BASHIR: Is there any evidence...
BREITBART: -- it is...
BASHIR: -- is there any evidence...
BREITBART: The Jack Cashill...
BASHIR: -- to support that?
BREITBART: -- the Jack Cashill articles on that are -- are very compelling. It`s -- it`s clearly if the...
BASHIR: But what is the evidence?
BREITBART: -- it is clearly a theory...
BASHIR: What is the evidence?
BREITBART: -- and I had said that I believe it.
BASHIR: What is the evidence?
BREITBART: And this is an opinion. You`re not going to shut down dissent in this country...
BASHIR: I`m not...
BREITBART: -- I believe...
BASHIR: I`m not asking you to do that.
BREITBART: -- it`s (INAUDIBLE). Read the...
BASHIR: -- of the fact...
BREITBART: -- Jack Cashill...
BASHIR: -- that Bill Ayers...
BREITBART: -- article. I believe that it -- I believe...
BASHIR: What`s the evidence?
BREITBART: -- that it`s a compelling argument. It`s a very complex argument, but I would say that most peo...
BASHIR: Mr. Ayers has denied doing this.
BREITBART: Yes, well, he`s also said that he has.
BASHIR: But he`s denied ever...
BREITBART: But he`s also...
BASHIR: -- ghost writing...
BREITBART: -- said that he has.
BASHIR: -- the (INAUDIBLE).
BREITBART: But he also has said that he has...
BASHIR: You see...
BREITBART: -- he has also said that he has.
BASHIR: Here we have a problem, you see, because we have...
BREITBART: I`m allowed to have this opinion.
BASHIR: -- we have Shirley Sherrod, we have Rush, we have you...
BREITBART: Rush Limbaugh didn`t do anything...
BASHIR: -- quoting people like, suggesting that they`re ghost writers.
Do you see how your...
BREITBART: That`s nothing wrong with having...
BASHIR: You...
BREITBART: -- if...
BASHIR: -- what...
BREITBART: -- if you`ve read through my entire book -- you didn`t read my book.
BASHIR: I...
BREITBART: Media Matters read it for you. Every...
BASHIR: Sorry, I`ve...
BREITBART: -- single thing...
BASHIR: -- I`ve marked it up.
BREITBART: -- every...
BASHIR: I`ve read the whole thing.
BREITBART: -- every single point...
BASHIR: I`ve read the whole thing.
BREITBART: -- that you`ve offered...
BASHIR: Yes?
BREITBART: -- is straight out of George Soros` funded and John Podesta`s led Media Matters.
(LAUGHTER)
BASHIR: No...
BREITBART: You are playing the role of...
BASHIR: Absolutely not.
BREITBART: -- a dupe of -- of -- of John Podesta and Eric Boehlert and Media Matters. Every time I appear on MSNBC -- or a lot of times -- there`s Eric Boehlert from Media Matters to be right there.
Those are talking points...
BASHIR: No, no, no...
BREITBART: -- straight out of...
BASHIR: Andrew, you and I...
BREITBART: -- Media Matters.
BASHIR: -- you and I are having...
BREITBART: This is...
BASHIR: -- a conversation about...
BREITBART: No, we`re not. And you`re...
BASHIR: -- about truth.
BREITBART: No, we are.
BASHIR: And you...
BREITBART: Media Matters is over there. George Soros is sitting over there and -- and Bill Ayers is sitting over here.
BASHIR: Well...
BREITBART: You have -- you -- you have agenda-driven journalism. I support it. I support it. I support MSNBC. I support Keith Olbermann, when he was fined by MSNBC because the implication that he was giving money was somehow ethically wrong when everybody knows where he comes from. Everybody knows where you`re coming from.
I believe...
(LAUGHTER)
BREITBART: -- I believe in a back and forth.
BASHIR: OK, Andrew.
Well, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us today.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Stay away.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:37pm.
Bashir's conduct was, of course, completely dishonest and reprehensible, but with all due respect to Breitbart, what did he expect from anyone on MSNBC?
Ah Chris
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:34pm.
Andrew lives to set these creeps straight. He was on with Wilkow yesterday and he suggested as much. Great fun listening to those 2.
Nice to hear from you again Chris
Boudin
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:01am.
Thanks. My long hours at work keep me from coming on NB as much as I used to. I understand why conservatives like Breitbart go down the manhole and into the MSNBC studios, but, really what is to be gained by appearing there? It's like the old saw about wrestling with a pig in the mud - you get dirty and only the pig enjoys it) The hosts and their viewers won't be converted and the only way we find out about it is from NB. My point is that conservatives who appear on MSNBC always seem to be nonplussed (has anyone ever been plussed?) by the treatment they receive and I'm just saying they shouldn't be.
I think it's smart for
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 7:39am.
I think it's smart for conservatives to go on places like MSNBC, but only if they are prepared and are willing to fight.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Only the best prepared
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:35am.
Only the best prepared conservatives ought to go so they may counter the lib hosts on MSNBC. MSNBC attempts to book conservative lightweights so they may do ambush interviews.
Only a few
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:33am.
Only a few conservatives are ballsy enough to do this. You have to take lessons from Brietbart, Chris Christie, Herman Cain or Allen West in order to do it effectively.
I think it's bad
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:26am.
I think it's bad for these conservatives to go on these shows. The liberal host gets the gothcha moment and then that is what gets broadcast across the MSM spectrum the rest of the news cycle. So even if the conservative was well prepared and even made good points, those will never be repeated on air.
They'll do what they want
Submitted by Dr. T on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:52pm.
If the conservatives DON'T go on, the liberals will get even worse with what they broadcast, begin fabricating things even more than they do now and rebroadcast whatever gotcha moment they want, no matter how phony it is. This interview exposes Bashir as a total fraud. Without a Conservative to appear on his show and challenge his lies and distortions, Bashir and his ilk may slowly begin to convince people he's a legitimate journalist. That's when the rest of America, the part that doesn't pay attention all that much, is lost and the MSM wins.
Agreed,
Submitted by Mark81150 on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 8:27pm.
Conservatives are both energized, and annoyed at the bald faced hack for attempting the smear, the thumbsuckers in the progressive camp will get all weeweed up that the conservative dared make them look like chumps.. but the gold target...
Independents who don't get into politics may see it, and come away shocked that yellow journalism is alive and well in the Lamestreamers media circus.
They already lean right, but don't have a committed position. Get them to watch, get them fired up at those b*stards.. Who do they think they are with this witch hunt? Smearing a guy as racist just because he's on the other side is as UnAmerican as it gets lefties.. Their president can infer we're the evilest terrorist nazi hatemongers on Earth...
But do what Mr. Breitbart does, use their own words, on tape, and by God you can see the rage in the mediamisinformation matters hacks and their zombie cult followers..
and low grade morons like that tool Bashier.
I am too old school not to say, Lock and Load boys and girls,.. that high ground is ours, and they're getting our eviction notice, served cold and with a smile.
Agree! Fight back and don't
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:04pm.
Agree! Fight back and don't be a lame duck like many. I watched the whole video, LOL, and it was great! The guy WAS on a SCRIPT. Too funny.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
This is just despicable
Submitted by richb313 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:48pm.
This is just despicable. MSNBC is a racist and very prejudicial network. Bashir is a prime example of how it is very easy to destroy the credibility of anyone they want to. MSNBC is the very worst offender when it comes to telling the whole truth. Bashir will not listen to answers but instead continues to try and make false allegations.
This is not journalism but it is the politics of personal destruction which the Clintons help perfect.
Despicable MSM
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:04am.
"Bashir's entire manner during this interview was more of a prosecutor presenting his case than a journalist discussing a new book with its author."
This is exactly what I thought of the George Bush interview conducted by George Stephanopoulos for the book Decision Points. Also Donald Rumsfeld was asked to apologize by George Stephanopoulos when he was supposed to be conducting a book interview. Most of the other MSMers conduct cross-examinations of conservative authors and not interviews.
I watch less and less of ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN. They are just propaganda tools for the Democrats/left.
Really disgusting. I don't
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:58pm.
Really disgusting. I don't know how many "holy sh|t!(s) I said watching that.
Andrew Breitbart Is My Hero
Submitted by Chris Of Rights on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:58pm.
I would say that when I grow up I wanna be just like him, but I think I'm a couple years older than he is...oh well. Still an absolutely glorious interview.
Not listening v. being deaf
Submitted by Deskpilot on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:04pm.
It's not that Mr. Brashir wasn't listening to Mr. Breitbart, it's that he couldn't hear him with all of the MEDIA MATTERS talking points being fed into one ear and his segment producer yelling in his other ear through the IFBs.
It's no wonder that I haven't watched anything on ANY Peacock network in years.
Godwin Be Damned
Submitted by DemsRFascists on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:08pm.
For those few who haven't caught on, the narrative Mr. Bashir and others are pushing is simply this:
Republicans are greedy sub-human degenerate racists. "Liberals" are a group of intellectually and otherwise superior beings who support the National Socialist cause. The ideas and policies of the National Socialists are of the utmost racial purity (or seek to be so) and are clearly superior.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda, wherein "Republicans" or "conservatives" would be simillar to Jews, and the DailyKos or MediaMatters would substitutte for Der Voelkishe Beobachter
I think Breitbart handled this creep reasonably well.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:22pm.
However, i would have told him he is rude to ask a question and not shut up and allow me to answer it. Either he shuts his pie hole or I Ieave.
I can't understand what this
Submitted by blazermaniac on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:25pm.
I can't understand what this Bashir character says. He can't speak English. Besides, why do people go on PMSNBC?
The left knows they can't win with honest debate.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:27pm.
They smear conservatives because that's all they can do. Leftist ideals are doomed to failure. Statist/socialist style policies that enforce equal outcomes are unworkable. Their idea of fairness is actually completely unfair to anyone forced to contribute to it. For anyone who had to study and work hard to get where they are, they see nothing but diminishing returns for their efforts, while those who simply skate on by, or even refuse to contribute at all are effectively rewarded for doing so. It's an exercise in futility, and it's simply not worth the costs in freedom, prosperity, and quality of life. Hence, lies and personal attacks.
AND REGARDING THE SO-CALLED EDITED CLIP: Since the left is apparently incapable of shutting up about it, I'm going to put this to rest. Since the clip itself is simply an excerpted segment of video, calling it edited is dishonest. This clip, meant to show the NAACP members' reaction to Sherrod's stating she discriminated against a white farmer, was merely extracted from the rest of the video. The moment in question was not altered in any way.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Since you apparently don't understand the concept of "editing";
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:31am.
your failure to put the issue to rest is not surprising.
While there is no evidence Breitbart himself edited the excerpts or doctored, revised or altered them in any manner, it is beyond question he published segments which were the product of editing, i.e. selectively extracted from a longer video. So calling the clips "edited" is not only not dishonest, it is irrefutably accurate.
Jer
BTW...I just clicked the "edit" feature to post the following excerpt from the foregoing comment: "it is beyond question he published segments which were the product of editing"
Have I edited my post? I extracted a segment verbatim and without revision. As such, the original comment has been edited, and the post script excerpt is the product of that editing process.
jer - are you pretending to
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:39am.
jer - are you pretending to ignore the reason WHY editing is now perceived to be "to take out of context thereby subverting the original meaning/intention"?
Editing was formally used to refine down/clarify the point, or to add content to flesh out the point/give context.
Since "journalists" started using it to do the opposite, the word edit has negative connotations, whether or not the intent was to clarify.
Just yet another way to smear by association.
Ronald Reagan
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pretending", amy...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:08am.
I can assure you I'm not ignoring the point you raise for any particular reason. My only objective was to illustrate that, despite Phryj's suggestions to the contrary, excerpting brief segments of a lengthy video does in and of itself presuppose an editing process irrespective of motive--benign or otherwise. And Andrew Breitbart knew that he was republishing clips which had been redacted from a broader piece which once viewed would--or very likely would--add additional context to the story.
The foregoing relates to underlying facts. My 'opinion' is that Breitbart was actuated by the desire to grind an axe, primarily against the NCAA, but which was acheived through portraying not only that organization but also Shirley Sherrod (with minor exceptions) in a bad light. As far as Sherrod's chances in her defamation action, if she is deemed a public figure as many experts have concluded, they are slim to none. If held not to be a public figure, it's still a long shot but the odds are considerably improved.
Jer
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:11am.
I apologize - I had started the sentence differently, self-edited, and missed that. I phrased it badly.
As to the Sherrod video? I watched it *before* I heard about it/read Andrew's take on it. I often do that to see if I see what others do or not. My take on that video? That she was telling them about a life lesson she learned, but the audience response was out of sync.
Andrew's take expounded on that, and was what he was pointing out. As in "they applauded/condoned her past bad behavior as deserved by the white farmer" and that white people (deservedly) would be excoriated for that behavior if the situation had been reversed.
I really don't understand how she has any case - she spoke of discriminating against someone based on their color, and realized that that was a bad thing. How does showing what she said in a public forum defame her???
Ronald Reagan
The botton line is...
Submitted by adamsmith on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:14am.
The bottom line is Breitbart took that clip and wanted to demonstrate that there is now outright prejudice and hatred of whites, with the NAACP cheering it on. It shows that Blacks are now more racist in their attitude of whites than the other way around. Racism is a media construct of the leftist media for the last fifty years. I've never had words with a Black person, and I'm sure most other whites and blacks can say the same thing. The left lies. Not that it doesn't go on on the right, but the Commies have gone pro..........
adamsmith
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:06pm.
Umm, if you've never had words with a black person, why do you take it as a given that there are more racist blacks than whites?
I'd contend that we ALL make assumptions based on stereotypes {white southerners, poor people; aka "trailer trash, etc} and unless/until we meet and greet each and every one of any group, it's just that - an assumption. Is it an educated one? Possibly. But I never did like it when people judged me based on what other people said about me, so I do try not to do the same to anyone I meet.
The very word racist has been so distorted - where once it was used to show ones' race to be superior over another race, now it's used to denigrate another race. Not polite either way, but natural behavior. People tend to gravitate and live among those they share common goals/values with. The grand experiment "why can't we all just get along" is flawed, because it supposes our divisions are racial, when they are societal.
Ronald Reagan
Your understanding of racism
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:02pm.
Your claim that Blacks are more racist than whites demonstrates a misunderstanding of what racism is. My favorite definition is that of Michael Dyson, Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University: "Racism is the ability to impose your viewpoints--biased as they are--as normative and then have the power to reinforce them as necessary and primarily exclusive." The problem with "reverse racism" (which is what you seem to be suggesting) is that it does not account for the fact that racism implies having the power to enforce a group's view of race on a society. Blacks do not come anywhere close to exercising that sort of hegemony in the U.S. To say that Blacks are racist is to work from an incomplete definition of racism.
Dyson's "opinion" of what
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:16pm.
Dyson's "opinion" of what racism is, particularly his point about having the power to reinforce them also applies to blacks as well. Your argument engages in the fallacy known as begging the question since you have taken Dyson's personal definition as the standard when it has not been established as such. Racism, by it's classic accepted definition is:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
[Source: Merriam Webster online]
Considering your extremely biased source (Michael Dyson), it's no wonder why you accept such a skewed and faulty view of what racism truly is.
To deny the fact that black racists are indeed in existence, as you are doing, is simply delusional.
Personal Definition?
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:25pm.
This is not his "personal definition" of racism, it is his informed sociological definition reached through many years of graduate education and research as a professor of sociology at a prestigious university. I would also point out that his view of racism is widely held across the discipline as well, so he is anything but a crack pot. You are not going to get sophisticated sociological analysis from Merriam Webster.
No, it indeed is his personal
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:32pm.
No, it indeed is Dyson's personal definition and not an accurate one. And his view of racism is not widely held as you claim nor can you prove it is. That is your personal opinion.
Reading List
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:41pm.
In that case, I would suggest you get some books by Cornel West, Patricia Hill Collins, and especially Eduardo Bonilla Silva.
Doesn't change the facts I
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:51pm.
Doesn't change the facts I presented. Dyson's personal definition of racism is not the accepted definition but one of a liberal professor. And three other liberals cited does not prove your claim that Dyson's personal definition is the one most commonly held. Do you even understand what proof is?
I suggest you get a good dictionary.
What more do you want Beuk?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:54pm.
He gave you three more race-baiting liberal professors. One wasn't even a sociologist. That has to get him the point.
LOL! I want him to get a good
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:57pm.
LOL! I want him to get a good dictionary rather than take the liberal tactic of redefining words to fit the liberal agenda.
Ooops...did I say "liberal"? I mean PROGRESSIVE.
Which further makes my point.
He is right about one thing Beuk
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:04pm.
I'm pretty sure the entire field of Marxist styled Conflict Sociologist do go by that definition of racism.
It's been fun Beuk. Enjoy the day being a powerful racist and hunting for 7 million year old bones of The Irishguy (small brain capacity as he cited). No wonder, the poor thing thinks it's human.
Whether or not that
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:22pm.
Whether or not that particular field hold to that particular definition also has not been established as fact.
You are too tough Beuk
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:29pm.
How many Marxist Conflict Sociologists must he introduce?
In all seriousness, I find the idea of using the word "fact" in relation to any social science to be wrong.
I've found that in many
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:36pm.
I've found that in many instances, "social science" is oxymoronic.
West
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:07pm.
No, West is not a sociologist, but not all experts on race are. Some are religious studies experts (like West), some are historians, some are psychologists, etc.
Academics
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:00pm.
I don't think you understand how academic research works. Whenever a sociologist like Dyson reaches and publishes a conclusion, it is more than just a personal opinion because it is based upon evidence and reasoned arguments. In addition to that, academically published work is subject to peer review which provides a further check on the soundless of the author's work. And after that, academic works are subject to academic review and rebuttal in the journals. No academic would be taken seriously, let alone get tenure, if their work was just based upon mere opinion.
Actually I do understand how
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:24pm.
Actually I do understand how academic research works and that's why I know that Dyson's definition is his own personal definition and not the standard accepted definition of racism.
Get a good dictionary, Justin.
More
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:37pm.
Perhaps I didn't give you enough references to convince you that definitions like Dyson's are widely accepted, you can also read bell hooks, Joe Feagin, and Larry Bobo. But, I don't think any of that matters to you, however, because you will just continue to write it off as "personal opinion," (in which case we can just write your comments off as "personal opinion" rather than doing the mental work required to actually take your argument seriously--if you actually have one) which reveals that you harbor a rather nihilistic view of education and the production of knowledge.
Get a good dictionary,
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:47pm.
Get a good dictionary, Justin. What you are presenting still doesn't prove your claim.
Also your conclusion that I "harbor a rather nihilistic view of education and the production of knowledge" is not only absurd on the surface it is also a conclusion you made with no evidence whatsoever and is clearly intended merely as a desperate act of character assassination which is commonplace with liberals like yourself and those you have been citing.
Again, my advice to you is to get a good dictionary. Your reliance on the faulty definition of racism held by liberal extremists reveals more about you that you are willing to admit.
BTW, you still haven't proven your claims and I'm beginning to think you have no idea of what proof actually is and of what it consists as well as its various forms.
Liberal Extremists
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:55pm.
So, my citing of six authors who share a viewpoint similar to Dyson's is not good enough for you? I suspect a list of 50 would not be good enough because you have already written this off as "liberal extremism." By the way, how do you even know they are all liberal extremists?
Liberal Extremists are easy to look up
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:36pm.
It doesn't matter how many you cite. It's still a personal opinion from a Sociological perspective. What's the psychological definition of racism? Legal? Who are you to say one is correct over the others?
Also, the definition seems to suggest a Great White Conspiracy to keep minorities in their place. Historically, that could be true for much of our history but as a white man, I am unaware of these meetings currently taking place. As another poster pointed out, that definition also suggests that groups with no "power" cannot be racist. You can't possibly believe that.
Finally, to rest my case I submit your own words..."My favorite definition is that of.....". So you know of other defintions but the one you used is your favoirte because it fits your beliefs. Good to go. It is perfectly okay to have a PERSONAL OPINION ON THE DEFINITION OF RACISM....just acknowledge it is just that.
Get a good dictionary.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:10pm.
Get a good dictionary.
The mortar of human perception.....
Submitted by HillbillyKing on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:10pm.
C.B.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. -Thomas Jefferson
Hey Crow: assuming you're white,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:57pm.
and walk past a bunch of black guys who yell out "What are you doing here, Honky?", would you consider that racism?
Or do you whip out a Silva thesis to calm yourself and THEN start running?
A few things Justin
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:36pm.
1) As educated a man as Michael Dyson may be, he is not the Grand Decider of the Galactic Dictionary. That is his opinion on racism and it sounds like a biased one at that. Wait...THAT Michael Dyson...THE REVEREND Michael Eric Dyson. Nevermind, it IS biased.
2) African Americans have more than enough political power, via the Democrats, to enforce a view of race on society.
Edit: fiew??
I can't believe you left
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:58pm.
I can't believe you left Melissa Harris-Lacewell off the list!!! She has all the "attributes" of those you listed. Oh wait - she sounds like a rational person until MUCH later into her thoughts. Dyson sounds like Cornell, who sounds like... Well, you get the point.
Just because those with a REASON {job security anyone?} to support the "Only whites can be racists" line doesn't make it true. I suggest YOU read Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams and do try to be open minded.
Ronald Reagan
Excerpting
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:26am.
Would my pointing out that your connecting of Mr. Breitbart and Ms.Sherrod to the National Collegiate Athletic Association be an example of this excerpting and out of context editing process?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
No, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:24am.
But you would be pointing out, and in fact did point out, a pretty silly mistake on my part.
Jer
I don't normally point out spelling errors.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:40pm.
Based on the discussion at hand, though, I had to take a shot at a silly joke.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
No problem, Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:05pm.
For some reason my fingers didn't type what my brain was thinking.
Jer
Well I, for once, agre with
Submitted by Smartypants on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:09pm.
Well I, for once, agre with you. Cutting someone's speech down to small little tidbits can and often does TOTALLY alter the context of the message. Of course, the media does this to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives all the time (which is Breitbart's actual point). I've lost count of the number of times I've listened to Limbaugh's show during the day, only to hear clips of his commentary on some evening news program which are entirely taken out of context (and intentionally so). Of course, it is okay to do this to Limbaugh. After all, he's not black and he's conservative. MSNBC is in no position to question this methodology being employed by someone else. They are as guilty of this as the next guy.
It's a favorite tactic of Hannity, too...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:58pm.
I have seen examples of his literally excising a word, phrase, or sentence from remarks by Obama to make it appear he is stating precisely the opposite of what the full quote in context is actually intended to convey.
Jer
→ They do it too!!!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:02pm.
Good comeback, Jer.
It's pretty much 95% of his
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:04pm.
It's pretty much 95% of his arguments.
Actually, NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:19pm.
about 50% of my arguments today has been devoted to defending you. Again.
Jer
Oh Jer, I was just giving you
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:03pm.
Oh Jer, I was just giving you a hard time!!! You have to admit, though, a lot of your posts consist of pointing our where a conservative has done the same thing, that's all that I was saying.
Lighten up a little bit. I've never attacked you and never will.
NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:15pm.
I knew my comment was a "they do it too" argument. I started to even label it as such. But the reason I posted it was because Smartypants--to whom my reply was addressed--had made a blatant "they do it too" argument about Limbaugh. For some reason you and Cool overlooked that important point.
"They do it too" arguments and comments are posted ALL THE TIME at NB. Take a look at the ones about George Bush and the "chimp" references about him in response to the "family photo" of Obama. Apparently it's perfectly appropriate when a conservative does it, but out of bounds for a lib.
Jer
I see what you're saying, I
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:24pm.
I see what you're saying, I think both sides do that to a certain point. However, what this article is noting is how horrified and offendedd the MEDIA seems to be by this whole episode while not blinking and eye when it happened to Bush.
Both instances were wrong, offensive and riduclously ignorant.
The "they do it too" argument
Submitted by Smartypants on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:30pm.
The "they do it too" argument is what this website is all about, at least in my view. There are, definitely, instances where both sides perform some kind of chicanery to make a point; however, the political left gets away with it and the right is called on the carpet. In fact, the right's actions will be exaggerated by the media to no end, while transgressions by the left will be virtually ignored. The point is not to make excuses for someone who parses or edits the words of someone else. The point is that the left does this as a standard practice. And, I'm not talking about some biased pundit; I'm talking about the evening news on most networks. In the end Rush Limbaugh can do what he wants; he has an entertainment show on the radio. The news is supposed to be objective and professional and it has not been so for decades.
Smartypants...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:07pm.
So the "they do it too" argument is, in your opinion, permissable for conservatives to employ, but not liberals, or is it okay for both?
Your side already has exclusive rights to the ubiquitous"Imagine if that had been Bush [or a generic Republican], the media would have done so and so..."
Somebody needs to open a forum and post the Rules For Libs at NewsBusters.
;-)
Jer
Rules for libtards? Just one
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:19pm.
Practice your ideology, without stealing from others!
I would add a lying and moral clause, but I know their limitations.
Such as here, for example:
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:29pm.
#30 It boils down to this, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:26am.
While NC Cop's initial characterization of the incident as "a search gone bad" may be justifiably criticized as a bit too glib and callous--especially where a life was tragically lost, he then expanded that view with the explicit statement that if an investigation revealed impropriety on the part of the officers they should be punished--and he emphasized (what should have been obvious), that he wasn't supporting unconstitutional actions.
Nevertheless, after that follow-up post, you still found it necessary to level the outrageous charge--via a dramatic headline no less--that NC Cop himself was a "thug with a badge". That, Satch, was inexcusable and despicable, and you should be apologizing for it rather than defending it and rationalizing it.
Jer
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/17/cnbcer-strikes...
And also here, for another example:
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:33pm.
#33 As an Atlanta resident, I'm quite familiar with the case, Satch.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:59am.
It received extensive coverage here, and I would imagine a fair amount of national attention. Look, I likewise have reservations about the efficacy of the War on Drugs as well as questions about the desirability of no-knock warrants, but those concerns are not the point despite your determined efforts to make them the legal and emotional linchpins of an indictment of police tyranny in general and an unseemly and unfair personal attack on NC Cop's integrity in particular.
An uninterrupted procession of numerous US Presidents and successive Congresses, as well as continuing majorities ot the American public, have backed the investment of billions of dollars to stem the flow and distribution of illegal drugs across and within our borders. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if officers announce themselves at the door of a residence where quantities of those drugs are reportedly stockpiled and sold, the evidence will be subject to disposal with dazzling speed and efficiency. Thus, the no knock warrant. To date such warrants have withstood judicial challenge. It may be that at some future time the Supreme Court--cognizant of the exploding frequency of their use and horrific tragedies such as the Atlanta incident--may be more inclined toward finding Constituitional infirmities with the no knock process.
But unless and until that occurs, it remains a lawful practice if exercised in conformity with prescribed procedures, while the abuse of same will expose the officers and possibly the muncipality or other responsible entities to significant liability.
Yet you dismiss all of that with a few lines of theatrical rant--making little or no distinction between completely warrantless entry and no-knock warrants--and offering weak and presumptious claims of unconstitutionality [and even worse, cheap personal attacks on a poster/policeman whose only offense was and is endorsing a policy with which you disagree.] And then you end your post by reintroducing the same strawman which has been repeatedly burned to ashes--the Satch Manifesto of a sort. "Any policeman who breaks the law, violates one's civil and constitutional rights, or supports those who do, is a thug with a badge." What size mallet does it require to pound into your brain that NO ONE has explicitly disagreed with you--although your "thug with a badge" unnuanced conclusion is a little over the top. [What if the violation of constitutional rights is relatively minor and is the result of unintentional conduct?] But, most important, if you review the exchanges on the thread in question, you become ensnared by one inescapable fact. NC COP DOES NOT AND DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS YOU REFERENCE, NOR ANY OFFICERS WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED THEM! And yet you smear him as if he did.
Jer
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/17/cnbcer-strikes...
And also here, on the original thread...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:40pm.
#59 Please, Satchmo...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:58pm.
Why do you insist on personalizing your views on law enforcement and your theories of Constitutional limitations of power by directly attacking the integrity of NC Cop who hasn't posted a single word which could even be remotely construed as defending, condoning or excusing the inevitable and regrettable--yet comparatively rare--abuses of police authority.
You deplore a tyranny which exists only in your mind and invite anarchy which guarantees nothing but the ultimate disintegration of a free society. Thank God we have NC Cops on the beat. We could use many more just like him.
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/03/31/drug-laws-cenks...
*************************************
None of which you acknowledged. But that's okay, I would do it again.
Jer
Oh and my favorite "they do it too" argument about NC Cop:
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:50pm.
#10 God bless you, Ken. A
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 7:20pm.
God bless you, Ken.
A wonderful example of what a "never give up"! attitude can accomplish.
You are an inspiration to all of us.
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/16/npr-wapos-ej-dionne-d...
You mean my comeback to Smartypants
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:20pm.
they do it too argument?
Jer
Never bother....
Submitted by BBallleaper on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:17pm.
replying to jer(k). A total waste of time and effort.
So why are you wasting YOUR time, BBall?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:24pm.
Oh, I know. It's to once again display your towering cleverness with the jer(k) play on my screen name.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:55pm.
Here's the thing; while calling it an edited clip may seem technically correct, it's actually redundant. By definition, the fact that it's a clip explicitly means it's a segment of a longer video, edited in the sense that the rest of the video was edited out. However, calling it an edited clip implies that the clip itself was manipulated in some way. In this case, it's intentional. It is a means of accusing Breitbart of editing the footage without actually saying it. The idea behind such a tactic is to put someone on the defensive and make them appear to be guilty, because it's harder to defend against than a direct accusation. You'll notice how many of Breitbart's defenders have had a hard time deflecting the implication that it was a maliciously edited clip. This is by design. It's both intellectually dishonest and grammatically incorrect.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Phryj
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:02pm.
Well, I'm perfectly comfortable with calling them clips from a video which had been edited to produce excerpts of Sherrod recounting her discrimination against a white farmer as well as the reactions of an audience comprised of members of the NAACP. While there is no evidence of Breitbart altering the excerpts in any manner, he knew they were abbreviated segments of a recording of a forty-minute speech given by Sherrod. If he knew what was contained in the rest of the video, it was malicious to post the excerpts without at least summarizing the balance of her remarks. If he was unaware of the remaining content, it was irresponsible of him to post the excerpts without first ascertaining the remainder.
Breitbart ran a serious risk that the remaining portion of the video would provide additional context and details which might prove inconsistent with the general impression given by the excerpts [including the subtitles and his own introductory remarks.] And in fact the complete video did.just that.
Page after page of comments at FoxNation initially exploded with rage and ridicule directed at Sherrod [the impression being that the discrimination had occurred very recently]. As soon as it was learned it had occurred years ago and Sherrod actually helped the farmer save his property, the silence was deafening.
So there clearly was a selective editing process, but it was performed by someone other than Breitbart [I presume] and it was the full video recording which was the subject of that editing.
Jer
Bashir
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:28pm.
Where does msnbc/comcast find these radicals? Breitbart creamed that fool. What a poor excuse for a "host" Bet he didn't read one word of Breitbart's book, which I ordered tonight
True but
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:22am.
Bashir is better than Chris Matthews. At least Bashir does show prep unlike Matthews who just spouts whatever thought pops up in his head.
Bashir doesn't seem to spit either.
Hmmm...I wonder how Breitbart
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:43am.
Hmmm...I wonder how Breitbart would handle "Short Bus" Schultz. Of course I think "Speshul Ed" is scared poopless of A.B.
Where?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:41am.
"Where does msnbc/comcast find these radicals?"
Under rocks, in back alleys, on the streets & and from the vast wasteland known as liberal talk radio found in such diverse places as Berkley, CA, Madison, WI, Portland, OR. Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA and various foreign countries with a known presence in the "I Hate the United States" club.
The final comment is hilarious!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:30pm.
Bahir at 13:50 - "Next, the prescription drug abuse running rampant in every American home!"
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I heard Contessa was so scared when Breitbart showed up,
Submitted by lsudolemite on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:45pm.
she ran right into the nearest closet to hide.
So when did she come out of
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:13am.
So when did she come out of the closet?
She was forced out when Ed
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:45am.
She was forced out when Ed hid. Brewer then sought refuge under her desk.
if Breitbart wants to play that game...
Submitted by mom_rox on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:01am.
When someone calls him a racist, just call that person a pedophile. See how easy it is to toss out words with no basis in fact?
YES!
Submitted by dpc1212 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:23am.
YES!! I Love it!!! Spot On!!
seeking the truth
Submitted by malthus on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:16am.
I wasn't offended when they did exactly the same thing to W, and I'm not offended to see it done to Barry. Only a liberal would express outrage... people should be seeing through this by now.
Just as they should be seeing through the COLB.
http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm
Wow
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:33am.
I'm stunned by Bashir's "points". It was all guilt-by-association, or lies. And Bashir thinks it's funny that Breitbart tagged him as recycling Media Matters dreck -- I think it's strange how Bashir never dissents from their line. So if he's not being fed from their orifices, he just happens to think exactly like Media Matters.
MSNBC is truly run by idiots, though. Liberalism only prospers in the absence of strong opposition. To bring Breitbart on was a suicide move.
Visions and Principles blog
I think I would have asked
Submitted by inquiringmind on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:48am.
I think I would have asked Bashir why he lied to Michael Jackson just to get an interview with him. Also when doing the interview why did you pretend to be a concerned friend but then air a hit piece that hurt Jackson terribly.
Michael had his issues but the Bashir hit piece was a new low even for him.
Bashir was attempting to drive Breitbart crazy.
Submitted by ekslib on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:54am.
Bashir failed.
Is Bashir a pedophile?
Submitted by inmypajamas on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:04am.
After all, he did spend an awful lot of time in deep discussion with Michael Jackson. That 's all I need to know.
Republican Official from Idiot Central Casting
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:29am.
"This week, Marilyn Davenport, a Republican official in Orange County, sent an e-mail to a number of colleagues featuring President Obama dressed and in a family of apes."
Who are these idiots who send out stupid trash "jokes" like this? No semi-intelligent person could possibly think this was funny or clever - or wouldn't get out. Is there some kind of rule that, once a month or so, someone in the GOP has to lose his or her mind and feed into the Demedia*-created myth that we're all racists? Or, is there some factory manufacturing these dolts then secretly installing them into obscure positions in the GOP?
*I'm trying out new names to describe the merger of the mainstream media and the Democratic party
Lesson here is not to send
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:39am.
Lesson here is not to send these emails but also not to trust anyone.
Really, I would love to know who Davenport sent this email to that actually forwarded the email to the press. So it was racist, so what? Some people are just idiots. That doesn't mean you concoct a "joke" into a national disgrace.
Sorry, but I hate backstabbing rats that are supposed to be working on your team even more than I hate bigots, but that is just me.
Apparently Davenport didn't know who was loyal and who was not. That's a problem if you are a politician.
email vs television
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:35am.
If I were to ever get something like that picture in my work email, I would always just delete it and make sure it didn't get "passed along" somehow.
When Bashir takes that photo, and holds it up on his television show for viewing, isn't he basically sending out a blast email of the picture to all his viewers? How is Bashir's action, even though he says he deplores the picture, any different from other forms of mass dissemination?
Shouldn't Bashir lose his job over this, by his own standards?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Bashir's only standards are
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:47am.
Bashir's only standards are his double-standards. That's the case of all at MSNBC.
When one is a public official
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:47am.
When one is a public official it's always best to: 1) always treat every camera and microphone as it is on and recording and 2) remember that emails leave a traceable trail and never truly go away so never send anything personal or potentionally embarrassing.
The point should be that
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:00am.
The point should be that racist jokes like this stupid picture should be treated like a chunk of plutonium, especially if one is an official for the GOP. She shouldn't have thought it was funny in the first place and stayed the hell away from it.
Bashir dropped the ball
Submitted by Boil It Down on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:28am.
I'm sure that Bashir thought he was going to knock one out of the park with Breitbart or he wouldn't have invited him on. I'm also sure that the only reason they had an honest to goodness Tea Party conservative on was to use him as an example of how "radical and extreme" they are. I've noticed this pattern at MSNBC. This interview highlighted Bashir's bias, race baiting and hatred for the Tea Parties and little else. I'll bet it sold a ton of books for Breitbart.
Considering how few viewers
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:29pm.
Considering how few viewers Bashir has (and factor in how many of those few viewers would be inclined to buy a book written by a conservative), a "ton of books" is an overestimate IMHO.
Childish Nonsense from MSNBC
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:01am.
Perfect example of why they have no viewers. Even most of the liberals must be embarrassed by this kind of "interview".
B*tchslapped
Submitted by cbiskt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:23am.
I'm half way thru Righteous Indignation and my respect for Andrew just went up ten fold. How he held his bearing I'll never know. I would've reached across the table and b*tchslapped Bashir like a red-headed union thug.
There goes my hero!!!
Submitted by poseA on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:12am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJdtXOFL5wM
So what?
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:33am.
I actually think that picture is pretty creative, and no worse (or better) than the similar ones thrown at Bush. It is the hyper-sensitive left that 'just can't take it' when the tables are turned.
I agree, Troll.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 7:37am.
I think it's a lovely family portrait.
I agree
Submitted by HelenS on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:11am.
Some of the cartoons or comments about not only President Bush but also about Condi Rice were reprehensible. It is beyond my powers of imagination to understand how these people's synapses work. "Illogical" doesn't even begin to explain it. I'd suggest some sort of mental disorder but that implies there's an excuse.
Which there isn't. They're just a less evolved form of pond-scum with a touch of jack@ss thrown in.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
I disagree...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:05pm.
The Bush "chimp" references and "photos" were highly offensive and in very poor taste.
This family picture of Obama and his parents is highly offensive, in very poor taste, and is racially insensitive.
Jer
Oops, or did you mean to say, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:39pm.
this "supposed" family picture of Obama? :o)
Amazing oversight from one who appears to be such a crusader for protecting Obama from racial slurs.
Real, as in the picture, or imagined, as in comparisons with Curious George.
Sometimes political correctness distorts certain views all out of proportion.
MD
The Real
Submitted by gotmail87 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:28am.
The Real Obama:http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87142/the-real-obama-scandal
Bashir is a proven dishonest
Submitted by RealVet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:16am.
Bashir is a proven dishonest journalist. He's also a terrible interviewer. Like a typical liberal, he interrupts, changes the subject, avoids the facts, and runs his bucket mouth when cornered.
He wasn't interested in listening to the answers to his questions at all. He was simply bent on bleating his own agenda and talking points. What a despicable person.
You are one up on me. I never watch MESSNBC, so...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:25am.
I never heard of Bashir's name until now. Based on this interview, I hope I never hear it again.
I like the picture. Isn't it the Liberals who tell us we're...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:20am.
all descended from apes, so why should they object to it? (Besides, I do see a great family resemblance.) Funny, they never objected to this type of humor when Bush was depicted in similar ways.
said it before and will say it again....
Submitted by thescoots on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:26am.
msnbc owes Newsbusters a debt of gratitude...which airs segments of its broadcasts...msnbc actually has an audience here...abeit an intelligent one which finds it humorous and unserious. The leftist narrative is law to these people...they will not deviate from it at any time. They make absolutely no concessions to conservatives regardless of the truth or facts or law. None. Their marxism transcends all things common and good.
Andrew Breitbart
Submitted by Snilwar4 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:21am.
Is Martin Bashir considered one of their best, if so, Andrew Breitbart dusted him up, took his hat and stole his cookies. Martin better stick to talking to the indoctrinated progressive crowd. He desperately tried to spin every event; give it up pup, you are embarassing.
Every day is Ground Hog day at MSNBC
Submitted by acumen on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:05am.
To sum up - Bashir attempts to paint Breitbart as racially intolerant based on MSNBC's intolerance of The Tea Party's contrasting ideological views.
I watched
Submitted by Bob K on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:10am.
Andrew on Red Eye last night. The thing I found interesting when he talked about the interview was his saying he had been given a heads up right before the interview. MSNBC has a "traitor" in their midst......... or, in my opinion, just someone who is not a complete liberal douchebag. I am also sure that after last night they are trying to find out who it is. Since it appears to be a staffer, you know they will can the person if the find out who they are.
Can't Wait for Cheney's Book
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:15am.
I can't wait for Dick Cheney's book to be published. He will mop the floor with these 'interviewers'.
I hope he tells what really happened in meetings which he was at and Bob Woodward only imagined himself at. Who the players were and weren't. What the liberal media got right and what it got wrong. Also, how this country has been damaged by a media that has had a liberal agenda.
I'm worried about Dick Cheney
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:18am.
He looks awfully frail.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sad
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:16am.
You're right. He's been through alot.
The Redcoats are coming
Submitted by Markangelo on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:29am.
The Redcoats are coming the Redcoats are coming !!
Kill an overpaid cop -- Join the Tea Party.
They dont call them PIGS for nothing;
first to the trough.
After the Revolution read your Whiskey Rebellion history,
where GW & Alexander(central bank)Hamilton
slammed a federal excise tax on the poor corn farmers
& backed it up personally with the military force !
They are not patriots they are revolutionaries.
As was the case the first time , this time also the Tea Party will lead to the destruction of the nation. Though both the latter & the present were not against their mother country they naively thought that they could have a revolution without separation, killing bloodshed, violence, war. If you do not know history it will repeat itself. NO THE TEA PARTY DOES NOT LIKE AMERIKA It is a sick bird; AN ILL EAGLE !!!
ILL EAGLE!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:35am.
I love puns! More please.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
We yam what we yam
Submitted by desertphreak on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:36am.
Andrew was dead on with saying we know what MSNBC is and that he supports it. The greatest part of this country is free speech and the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, the leftist main stream media tries to shut down opposing views and agendas. Fortunately, they will never be able to do so.
PMSNBC are the real racists..
Submitted by pwoz on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:30am.
PMSNBC are the real racists.. do a google image search for "Niger Innis"
President Bush
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:31am.
was depicted as a chimp over and over and over again in media during his terms.
Why is that OK, but it isn't when it is Soetoro?
The only difference is the color of their skin right?
Racist policy? Yeah buddy. And the proof is in the pudding.
You wrote
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:30pm.
You wrote "pudding"!!!
That's so RACIST!!!!
/sarc
Trig the Retard - ha ha ha!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:40am.
Obama the Baby Chimp - outrageous racism deserving of the death penalty.
Ask the idiots at MSNBC to do
Submitted by Davart on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:11pm.
Ask the idiots at MSNBC to do an image search of "Bush Chimp" and then STFU.
The Angry White Guy Blog
Our so-called cartoonist in Phoenix
Submitted by StarAZ on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:55pm.
Steve Benson, the AZ Republic's liberal cartoonist, had the chimp complaining about being dragged into this by Republicans--of course, meaning all non-Obama supporters. So stupid, but what else is new. Whoever that woman is, she's out of material, that's for sure.
Bush chimp not the same
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:21pm.
Your argument equating these images (Obama and Bush chimps) ignores the long history of racism and racist imagery in America. First, depicting Blacks as part animal plays upon the long-held notion that Africans were not fully human, nor civilized, and were thus closer to apes. Likewise, there is an equally long history of using the terms "ape" and "monkey" as derogatory terms for Blacks. Thus, when those terms and images are applied to a Black man they communicate a far different (racist) message than they do when applied to a white man (as in Bush).
No, Justin, the point being
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:24pm.
No, Justin, the point being that plenty of liberals created equally disparaging images of Bush in more numbers overall and the MSM was silent. A relative few idiots create disparaging images of Obama and the MSM screams bloody murder over it.
It's the double-standards you are choosing to ignore.
You neglect to mention of the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:59pm.
You neglect to mention of the racism that was leveled at the Irish when they started coming to this country in the 1800's.
Images like this
Or this
Or this
Anti-Irish sentiment was also prevalent in the popular magazines and newspapers of the time through cartoons. A cartoonist influential in the permeating of negative Irish stereotypes was Thomas Nast, who portrayed Irish immigrants as drunks, prone to violence and possessing simian-like facial characteristics. This is evident in many of the cartoons published in the magazine, Harpers’ Weekly. A good example of this is shown below.
So Blacks were not the only ones to have images of apes or monkey used to describe them.
Well said Scoob!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:05pm.
Everyone seems to forget the Irish were treated just as badly if not worse than other immigrants to this country, with the "simian" reference. So this is not an exclusive "black only" insult.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
You neglect to mention that
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:37pm.
You neglect to mention that numerous immigrant groups throughout American history have been persecuted and discriminated against by resident majorities, primarily on the basis of race, religion, and nationality--Catholics, Irish, Italians, Poles, Asians, Jews, endemic Mormons, Hispanics.
It is true that the treatment of the Irish--in certain regions of the country in particular--was especially harsh and pervasive. Still, there was a gradual absorption of the Irish into the society at large which, although it may have never become absolute, occurred far more quickly and more comprehensively than has the integration of African-Americans. And aside from early periods of indentured servitude of the Irish, nothing can even remotely compare to the enslavement of millions of blacks for generations followed by another century of institutionalized segregation after emancipation.
I can't say how long or how extensive the simian imagery was associated with the Irish, but any suggestion it begins to approach that with which blacks were and--still to this day--are similarly stereotyped is absurd.
The county chairman of the GOP pronounced Ms. Davenport's Obama/chimpanzee family e-mail photo "extremely racist" and has called for her resignation. Personally, I put it in the 'racially insensitive' category and am not in favor of forcing her out of office--despite a couple of prior cases of questionable judgment on her part [e.g. defending a picture of the Obama White House surrounded by a watermelon patch.]
The Bush/chimp comparisons during his administration were offensive and tasteless. If they weren't condemned by the MSM, shame on the MSM. However, adding a racial component to the Obama mockery rendered the product not only offensive and tasteless, but the thinking behind it stunningly short-sighted.
Jer
Depends entirely on whose ox, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:47pm.
is getting gored.
It is all wrong, but it is not all called for what it is.
MD
When Obama was running for
Submitted by Smartypants on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:15pm.
When Obama was running for president, and conservative commentators rightly pointed out some of the nefarious people Obama hung with in his past, including Reverand Wright and some other Chicago cretins, the message from much of the msm was that Obama was being treated as if he was "guilty by association". The media rushed to Obama's defense at all cost. Now, this Bashir character is doing the exact same thing to Breitbart. Of course, the big difference was that, in Obama's case, he really did associate with the louts while Bashir is creating, out of thin air, associations that do not exist in reality.
If nothing else,
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:22pm.
I think this interview, and Bashir's conduct, simply proved Andrew Brietbart's point about how the "Democrat Media Complex" operates.
As for the Shirley Sherrod incident, if I'm not mistaken Breitbart only posted the excerpts he was given, as he didn't have the entire tape -- which the NAACP did yet chose to fire Sherrod anyway -- therefore, Andrew Breitbart didn't "edit" anything. I wish he would have been able to make that point.
What a disgusting slimeball
Submitted by FreedomFan on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:20pm.
What a disgusting slimeball is this Martin Bashir ashwipe. MSNBC should be ashamed, but they're not because the entire channel features nothing but dishonest shills like Bashir.
What does one dishonest shill
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:47pm.
What does one dishonest shill say to the other?
"Good morning Martin, we have a busy day. Here is your script. Let's get taping!"
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
More discussion
Submitted by 76United on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:42pm.
Bashir: Adolf Hitler. He was white and has vowels in his name...
Breitbart: Um, ok...
Bashir: You're white and you too have vowels in your name. Can you explain that?
Breitbart: Huh?!
This interview was intended to be a lynching.
Submitted by needle on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:12pm.
but Bashir's intended victim slipped out of his control.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
But Sherrods husband is a racist
Submitted by JDL on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:23pm.
So are we to believe that Shirley is special and does not believe the same as her husband?
“the white man and his uncle Toms”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcJ3cBDS7Y&feature=player_embedded
Entire 43 minute speech
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:33pm.
I watched the entire speech by Shirley Sherod. One of her points that stuck out was her disappointment when black Georgia farmers sold their land to white people. That struck me as a tad racist. But maybe Ms. Sherod can't be a racist, because, after all, she's black. If that's true, then I'll amend my remarks and say that she's just a bigot.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
JDL - Wow. Here's another bit of history on the Sherrods
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:31pm.
August 2, 2010
The Story of Annie Hawkins and New Communities, Inc.
The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod
By RON WILKINS
(;~> gary
When the Sherrod story first
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:56pm.
When the Sherrod story first hit everybody was throwing her under the bus including the NAACP. The video itself was sourced frrom the NAACP. The video begins with Sherrod describing her racist impulsions against white farmers and the audience eating it up. Only then does she say that she had to step back from those impulsions and act in a fair manner. She exonerated herself from those comments but the reaction from the audience was enough to prove the point that the NAACP has racist elements within its organization.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonNo way Jose
Submitted by russedav on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:58pm.
You can tell by the endless string of incomplete lines that there's no way genuine, coherent communication can take place in such a delusional venue, which of course is exactly what intolerant fascist bigots like Bashir want, not that Breitbart is entirely innocent, for as our Founding Fathers made quite clear, only the Protestant Christian perspective (most are too ignorant and illiterate to know the basic error of catholicism, even though refuted 500 years ago) is sufficient to sustain our nation, without which we're fatally doomed, something about which Biblically and historically illiterate secularists, conservative or liberal, sadly only rarely have a clue, blinded, often unwittingly, by an errant religion of antiChristian bigotry (e.g. the Soviet-style evolution hoax at which the founders of modern science, like Newton and many others (Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar, Pasteur, etc.), would have laughed to scorn, extensively scientifically refuted as a fraud at www.creation.com and www.answersinGenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org).
Problem with that theory of
Submitted by ozarkian on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:01pm.
Problem with that theory of racism is, number one, it is just that, a theory, and a self-serving one which automatically makes all people in one group the agressor in every confrontation and the other person in the other group a victim in every confrontation, Besides self-serving, it is highly political and a favorite argument of the left, but not agreed to by others.
Second problem is that in many, many situations, blacks have the power. Ever work in an inner-city school? You would see racism (not "reverse," just racism) all the time, and the person it's addressed to is expected to suck it up -- mostly BECAUSE of that self-serving, political definitioon which is only a theory. In fact, it's common to spend 4 days being the victim of that type of real racism and then be forced to attend a workshop on Friday in which you are told that the only real racism is caused by having the power, and etc. etc.
Lots of other similar situations -- there was chaos on an Atlanta BART system car the other night. There was racism involved, and it was by the people in power and the people in power were not the assumed "privileged" group.
"Paraphiliac" is a good term to use when Librards throw out the
Submitted by daveinboca on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 3:21am.
"racist" BS onto the table.
They're usually flummoxed enough to do a deer in the headlights response. The term means "someone who commits to perverted behavior" and it's hard to find a libtard who isn't addicted to some sort of perversion by the classical canon of behavior as monitored in the original DVSM which describes all sorts of deviant activity which a shrink can charge you for disgorging on their couch!!!
I'm happy Contessa Brewer had to take a sick day during Andrew's visit. She should be ashamed of herself, but then again she's shameless....!