CNN's Don Lemon Compares Mitt Romney to 60s Segregationist George Wallace
CNN's Don Lemon Sunday evening compared Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to former Alabama governor George Wallace.
At the beginning of a CNN Newsroom segment he calls "No Talking Points," Lemon played a clip of Wallace saying in 1963, "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever" followed by Romney saying Saturday, "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DON LEMON: It is time now for No Talking Points. Alright, I'm going to warn you because I'm going to tick a whole lot of people off here. The subject tonight: words that come back to haunt you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALLACE, FORMER GOVERNOR ALABAMA: And I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Honestly, can you imagine having uttered those words in front of television cameras or being one of those people in the crowd cheering on Alabama's governor George Wallace? That wasn't so long ago. It was the 1960s. Now think about how far we have come, and think about what this might sound like a few decades from now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY: Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.
There of course are a number of serious problems with this comparison.
First off, for many Americans opposed to same-sex marriage, it's a religious issue and not merely homophobia.
Lemon should know this because during his program Sunday evening, he interviewed black religious leaders about this very subject. Some of their quotes were included in this NTP segment.
Let's be honest. The concern Barack Obama has had with divulging his true feelings about this subject, and why he first flipflopped on it in 2008, is the fear that Evangelicals not enthused by John McCain four years ago or Romney today would be energized by him coming out of the closet so to speak.
Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan said on this weekend's McLaughlin Group Obama has "instantly solved the biggest problem Mitt Romney had which is how to energize and rally the social conservatives and the Evangelicals. They are now singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' and riding to the sound of the guns on this issue."
Gallup reported Friday that twice as many people are less likely to vote for Obama because of this flipflop than are more likely.
On Monday, Gallup revealed that 42 percent of Americans still view gay or lesbian relations as "morally unacceptable."
As such, for many in this country, same-sex marriage is a religious issue and not a civil rights matter.
Sadly, as America's secular press do a victory lap for Obama's flipflop, they're missing this distinction.
Also of concern regarding the blending of this issue with civil rights is the implication that folks opposed to same-sex marriage are racist.
With America's first black president seeking reelection, this acts as a double whammy to gin up anger on the Left.
But will it work?
The reality is Obama and his devoted media would like nothing more than to discuss anything but the economy for the next five and a half months.
If the headlines and airwaves are filled with the culture war right up to the first Tuesday in November, they think they've got a winning hand.
The polls at the moment certainly don't reflect that, and one can hear those guns Buchanan talked about all over America's heartland.
This might very well be one of those times that liberal elites on the coasts, particularly in Manhattan, have once again badly misjudged the temper of the nation, and are miles ahead of the parade unable to hear the music.
We will know in the fullness of time.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Back when I was in college as
Submitted by Bettendor on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:58am.
Back when I was in college as a journalism major, we used to talk about avoiding any conflicts of interest on different stories, either by staying out of the fray completely (I've heard one story of a former Washington Post editor who advocated reporters not voting so they can remain neutral). Apparently that has changed since I graduated not so long. Don Lemon, who we remember came out as gay a little while ago, now gets to comment on gay issues. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest at a "news" network, especially one of CNN's stature?
From his perspective, I think
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:52am.
From his perspective, I think it would be a little like saying black commentators can't talk about race issues.
He's even more important to CNN because . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 5:29pm.
. . . he's both black and gay. They get two "minority" show hosts for the price of one.
Lemon needs more history
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:01am.
check out what Malcom X had to say possibly. Of course his opinions 'evolved' as well.
So Obama was also like George Wallace
Submitted by Kevin Groenhagen on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:10am.
Until last week?
The moonbats are going to give us a great deal of entertainment between now and November.
Precisely
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:25am.
Before last week, Obama was all the stuff the media is telling us we are, Romney is, the Republican party is, the TEA party is, blah blah blah...............and they had NO problem with Obama and this topic prior to last week, yet now here they come.
Idiots, all of them. Hypocritical idiots.
Comparing Romney to George Wallace
Submitted by kristensuzanne on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:23am.
The problem is George Wallace was a Democrat...I don't imagine Don Lemon mentioned this or does he even know?...this contrived media blitz about everything Romney as a tide of negativity seems to be falling flat...I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe this garbage...it's perfectly absurd & laughable...I cannot help but think these calculated and purposeful news flashes are designed to fail because they're so ridiculous...the Obama campaign can't seem to catch a break for some reason...I'll be handing out popcorn pretty soon because it's like watching the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello all rolled into one giant ball of misdirection and nonsensical gaffes one after another...oh and let us not forget Joe Biden is in there throwing out his usual laugh a minute one-liners as the court jester....
These people will not stop
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:31am.
These people will not stop until the entire country is gayified and no one is allowed to express a dissenting view.
Gay claims....
Submitted by Chulio on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:50am.
My comment is not scientifically researched, but most of the people who I've heard or read who compare the civil rights struggles for African Americans with gay rights are gay people. Most straight black people that I've listened to are offended by the comparison. Election results and polls show that most black voters oppose gay marriage, especially those who are church going. I doubt that the majority of black voters will vote for Romney and against Obama, but staying home because of a lack of Obama enthusiasm is a definite possibility.
When someone says in 50 years
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:58am.
When someone says in 50 years people will think its silly anyone opposed same-sex marriage, I say I think in 50 years people will think its silly anyone ever thought to compare same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle.
Yep!
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:08pm.
The problem is Lemon's tribe is the same one that is writing the history books, so he may have a point. 30 or 40 years from now, people will wonder how anybody could have ever thought of such a thing... that is IF the media keeps controling the agenda.
I never bought the argument that this is a civil rights issue. If that's so, how come homosexual marriage has never been accepted in 6000 years of human history... that is until the latest generation? Doesn't all this seem at least a little arrogant to you?
This is not even a religious issue. It is quite simply anthropological. We, as humans, have created an institution that has worked and benefitted all of mankind for all of human history, and now these activists aren't happy because it isn't enlightened or inclusive enough. I'm so sorry, but it is what it is... what it has always been.
The argument I would use to counter the faux "civil rights" argument is this: To argue that SSM is right today is to argue that hundreds of generations before this one was WRONG about marriage all along. 6000 years of human history has been 'disproven'. Yet the evidence that marriage has worked in its traditional form is all around us. What do you suppose will happen to mankind in 1000 years after we destroy marriage, simply to accomodate less than 2 percent of the population?
And make no mistake. We ARE destroying marriage. The first pillar to fall was no-fault divorce. Look around you and see what has happened to society since that innovative breakthrough occured. Brilliant!
Now the next pillar: people can marry others of the same sex. What comes next? Well, why restrict the number to 2? Then will come the blood relatives. Wouldn't you like to stick around for what the world will be like in 1000, or even a 100 years?
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
On the no-fault divorce
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:27pm.
On the no-fault divorce thing:
Our culture was already becoming increasingly liberal towards sex, women's rights, family relationships, around the same time that no-fault divorce was put into law, so its not really an easy proposition to say that the cultural changes were a product of the policy rather than vice versa.
Its my opinion that conservatives should stay away from arguments about marriage from the perspective of "molding society" -- that's a progressive thing to want to do isn't it? Isn't that what conservatives call social engineering? However, marriage does serve a particular legal purpose: ensuring rights for the children born into those relationships -- and arguments about changing marriage should go back to re-stating that purpose. Its simply not a civil rights issue, because two straight men or two straight women can't marry either. An adoption agencies will be found discriminating against those types of relationships too, not just gay relationships. Why? Isn't it a bit strange that they can't give preference to a couple who can't have a child because they're infertile, and instead have to give equal consideration to two guys who decided they wanted to have a baby? So the question should be -- what type of laws best serve the legal purpose of marriage.
A Real Lemon
Submitted by lilium479 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:57am.
Wallace was a Democrat!
And
Submitted by Tjexcite on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 4:45pm.
A Republican President D Eisenhower was against him. To send the airborne against Wallace (D) and him standing in the doorway.
I do not understand. People
Submitted by John21 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:13pm.
I do not understand. People continue to be upset by the limited intelligence and lack of integrety of Mr. Lemon.
Everyone knows he is a far left Kool-Aid drinking Obamabot with limited (at best) mental capcities.
Why is anyone surprised by his over the top moonbat statements?
Mr. Lemons lack of integrety and honesty is well documented and he is even listed as one of the most bias of the many CNN Obamabots.
Why does anyone really care what his thought are?
The only people that really pay any serious attention to the administrations Public Relations firm of CNN is already in the Obama pocket.
Why do you give his rantings more play than his audience of 35? He is at best a slimey toad, ignore him
Lemon
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:36am.
This guy was hired because he was black. He gets to keep his job because he's gay.
Once he came out of the closet it seems his private part took over and he can talk of nothing else.
Pathetic, isn't it!
Identifying gender differences
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:14pm.
Words have meaning. To change language is to condition thought. The linguistic equivalent of Fahrenheit 411.
Quick -- Define the words matriarch and patriarch without citing gender.
If identifying gender differences is no longer necessary, then let's take the signs off the bathroom doors and see how well it goes.
You are exactly right, it all
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:29pm.
You are exactly right, it all boils down to the idea that male and female are indistinguishable and easily interchanged. It is pure insanity.
I'm with you, MrSnuggles
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:49pm.
So far, Dennis Prager has been the only public person who's articulated this fact. As he noted when he was on w/ Gayle King, once the notion that male and female are interchangable is crushed, the subject always gets changed...which is when Charlie Rose interjected and in order to "move onto something else."
On another note, Don Lemon is lucky he's so pretty because that "No talking points" segement was the most vacuous and intellectually shallow commentary I've ever heard -- even for a CNN anchor.
Ok immortal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:47pm.
It's already been done. And yes, lets see how it goes.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/university-creates-gender-neutral-bathro...
Its not really a problem at
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:03pm.
Its not really a problem at all if its set up right. To begin with, single-person bathrooms really don't need to be gender specific. And when I was in a university dorm we had co-ed bathrooms but all the stalls were closed, so everyone had privacy. Its only a problem if you take away the privacy provisions.
For some of us it is a problem
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:11pm.
Sorry, but I don't find single sex bathrooms oppressive. Quite frankly, there are more than enough perverts in the world, it would be nice to know we are safe in the bathroom.
Neither do I. Public
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:17pm.
Neither do I.
Public bathrooms I would probably consider a little different than dorm bathrooms though just because you're a bit more anonymous.
~On single occupant gender neutral
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:25pm.
public restrooms..
Women's restrooms are cleaner. I'm enough of a neat freak that women's public restrooms make my skin crawl; I'd go find some shrubbery before I'd use a public restroom frequented by men.
Bru. LOL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:36pm.
One way to make men neater is to make them clean the bathrooms! My kids used to have to take turns cleaning them, believe me, my son learned to be neat as he didn't want to clean it up later!
~Thankfully
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:36pm.
My MIL raised her boys well in this area.
Dorm restrooms usually include showers
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:35pm.
Sorry, I don't think it would work. Single sex bathrooms have worked for quite a long time. Because one person protests everything has to change?
It does work, everything is
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:40pm.
It does work, everything is set up so its private. There was never a problem.
Redfish*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 3:50pm.
You see single sex bathrooms as having no problems for YOU. But you must consider these areas in terms of 10 yr old girls or 8 yr old boys alone or even old ladies like me. Defenseless in a closed area. No thanks DUDE!
Well, if women don't mind walking in pee,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 4:54pm.
then I guess I could put up with waiting 20 minutes for an empty stall.
No wait, actually I would mind!
Dorm showers, private?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 5:10pm.
Not usually. They have a shower curtain for privacy. Can you imagine drunk guys, or just disrespectful guys ripping down the curtains? Don't forget the age of college students and the immaturity of them
They have a door
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:09pm.
They have a door plus a curtains, people arent allowed to drink in the dorms, and if someone did something inappropriate they'd be punished or kicked out.
~Yeah, because no one ever breaks the rules
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:34pm.
especially rules pertaining to drinking. And hey, what's the big deal about being assaulted in the shower as long as the guy gets in trouble for it? No biggie.
Do yourself a favor and drop the topic.
Showers made just for women anyway
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:41pm.
don't have doors, except to get into the bathroom, which your saying could be for both sexes.
As far as the rest of your post, what Bru said.
It's not only a matter of
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 5:12pm.
It's not only a matter of privacy, but safety.
If you volunteered at a local women's shelter as I have, you would know that the most frequent places where women are attacked are in parking garages and public restrooms.
Where's the first place child abductors go to dye the kid's hair?
Let's see....
Submitted by Forbus on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:29pm.
so according to Lemon....the civil rights movement is equal to sodomy.
Is it okay to argue that the
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 12:39pm.
Is it okay to argue that the federal government and the courts overstepped their powers on civil rights issues in the 60s? Or does that make me like George Wallace, too?
The Left's Desperation
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 1:51pm.
The crescendo of shrill, shrieking Leftist vuvuzelas has just begun it's rise to an apoplectic apex. Buy stock in earplug companies.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
At the risk
Submitted by bobsmom on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 2:18pm.
of appearing obtuse, when comparing gay "wants" to civil rights, I need someone to explain to me exactly what it is they're being denied? Use of the water fountains? Front seats in the bus? The right to vote? The right to own property? A seat at the lunch counter?
Sorry Mr Lemon, those rights being denied blacks were REAL, and to compare them to the rights better black folk than you risked their lives for is ludicrous.
As I've said before, go ahead, live your life, be as gay as you want. The fact that I don't care doesn't mean I support you, but it does mean I'm not interested in a ring side seat to your lifestyle. I don't think you'd want to see me in a tutu, any more than I want to witness your private life.
I compare Lemon to......
Submitted by Qtaug on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:52am.
Paul Lynde! Both are effeminate comedians! Sadly, both are brain dead!