Leave a Comment below!
Boortz on Bond:
"Let me tell you what's really upsetting Bond. He foresees the end of the black culture of victimization. Home ownership among black Americans is at an all-time high, as are incomes. Blacks are graduating from colleges in record numbers and moving into highly paid jobs in finance, law, medicine, business and industry. More and more black Americans are abandoning their victimhood for the sweet life of accomplishment brought about by full participation in our free market economy. The less blacks see themselves as victims, the less they need organizations like the NAACP, and the less they need old, lame war horses like Julian Bond. In short, Julian is upset about his loss of influence and relevancy, and is resorting to old bromides to gain the spotlight again. Sad, really."
May comment more on this at length later (what has really gotten under MY skin is the whole Islamic Fatwah against the Danes over political cartoons), but for right now, I'll simply say this:
I can easily recognize that if republicans want to appeal more to the mainstream voter, they need to CUT THEIR DAMN SPENDING, put a little more arms-length away from the extreme-right, and knock off all the idiot lobbying favors (though this is bi-partisan, its more relevant for the GOP because, right or wrong, they're the ones getting tagged for it).
The reason the Democrats can't win elections? They don't feel they need to sell their message to the mainstream, but to drag the mainstream to their message. This is just symptomatic of the hard left turn much of the party has taken.
Feel free to disagree, but I can link to Teddy Kennedy's blathering on the Senate Floor, during the Alito filibuster, that MORE than makes my point for me.
The only thing more amazing that Bond's comments will be Al Sharpton's next appearance on tv doing his turning-dogsh*t-into-diamonds routine in defense of Bond's comments. Just wait . . .
Lojo, the lobbying thing is NOT bipartisan saying so is highly dishonest and that the MSM keeps trying to lump the Democrats in to the Abermoth scandal is ridiculous to anyone that has half an idea of what actually happened. And for those scoring at home, why on earth would you try and bribe people that have now power?
Anyway, Brendan, calm down - have some dip. There are a lot more important stories that are not getting reported than the rhetorical tripe of various people...
That's why I went to law school. I liked to write, but had too many scruples to become a journalist.
Bond is a prime example of what one professor was talking about when he said, "We are all too aware of how the righteous hatred of hatred can degenerate into an even more poisonous and manipulable form of hate, precisely because it is insulated from self-examination by its own sense of righteousness."
There are a lot more important stories that are not getting reported than the rhetorical tripe of various people...
Not a valid counterargument to anything I said, try again.
P.S. "There is other bad stuff happening" is not a defense of the particular bad thing that I'm talking about. Prove that I'm wrong about how it's bad, or admit I'm right. Don't give me this "you should be blogging about something else" crap.
And I think Brendant is quite right to be perturbed (so does Instapundit). This "nonstory" story is plenty important.
The media can't admit that a man can say such things and still be widely respected on the mainstream Left.
Reporters know exactly how the American people would see this; that's why they quite deliberately cover it up, like Winston Smith putting inconvenient facts down the memory hole.
(Incidentally, the Trent Lott thing really was an example of journalistic stupidity. It sounded on the surface like an innocuous compliment to an old man, and the journalists present were too dumb to consider what he was actually saying. Caling someone a Nazi sounds on the surface like exactly what it is. Stupidity cannot be the excuse here.)
People...really,
Everyone knows that Julian Bond is not a bigot. He is merely speaking truth to power. Cut the brother some slack.
Trent Lott on the other hand....well he got his just desserts.
Seriously, the race baiting by Bond, Jackson, Sharpton and folks of their ilk have cowed the media and most corporations for years. Everyone is so afraid of being called a racist that they overlook blatant racism on from people like that.
These people have a vested interest in keeping their "followers" down. If they actually succeeded in doing what they claim they are working on, they wouldn't be needed any more.
That the MSM in general play along is not surprising.
After being routinely accused of wanting to starve childern, kick the elderly out of their homes, poison the air and water, of being homophobes, racists and every other nasty accusation you can think up, getting called "Nazis" is hardly noticable to the average Republican...
The way that the Repos have betrayed their own principles by trying to prove they can outspend Dems, if the latter could get spoksepeople who aren't either undead creatures or raving lunatics, they'd be back in power in a heartbeat.
The Repos were willing to cut loose Nixon, Lott, Miers, DeLay, whoever. I'm trying to remember the last time the Dems did the same.
The sad thing is that this is more of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" ...
Our side is just exaggerating as poetic licence, whereas *their* side means every hatefilled word they spew forth ... (recognise the pattern) ...
The reason that slaves over the last few centuries were mostly of african origin is because that's where the followers of Islam found the commodity they could sell ... and, yes, lots of cultures bought 'em, and soon learned that generational slavery doesn't work ... the Brits outlawed it, the US outlawed it ... ask yourselves where it is still practised, on this planet, today ... and by whom ?
Sadly, it's not even bad journalism - how can it be, when it's what is *taught* in the cultures of Columbia and other elite schools ?
SIGH !
The problem with local reporting isn't so much a matter of poor skills or bad judgement as it is the desire of every local reporter (Radio, TV or Newspaper) to make the move up to a national outlet. They are smart enough to realize that objective reporting which doesn't fit with the MSM liberal philosophy will surely be the kiss of death. It's hard enough to be objective in spite of any personal bias but when you add the institutional bias of the MSM it's almost impossible.
TO: Brendan Loy
RE: Why No Attention to the NAACP?
Probably because they've already been discredited, by a previous chairman.
Julian Bond is just trying to draw attention to the NAACP, again. However, he's using the wrong technique. He reminds me of someone desirous of ANY form of attention. Even if it's of the negative persuasion.
Telling a bunch of lies is a good way to get attention these days. Especially if they are the form of lie that the so-calle major media appreciates.
Well...for all of the christians affiliated with the NAACP, remember that 'rule' about bearing false witness.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
The John Ashcroft / J. Edgar Hoover comparison is not so off the mark, but yes, otherwise his comments are quite ugly.
I am quite surprised this wasn't reported on more. I wonder if it's a sign that the NAACP has become irrelevant, or what? Also, do you have a link to the full speech? I wonder if that was slipped in, and not noticed. Not apologizing for anyone here -- certainly the remarks were uncalled for and the journalism was bad -- but just looking for answers.
Here's a report of his recent lecture at Brown University. Similar to his talk at William and Mary, but less vitriol than his speech at the primarily African-American university. I guess he can step it up when he has a selected audience.
http://www.browndailyherald.com/
...dailyherald.com
Didn't catch the speech but this "Fair" reporting of it means only this me:
Go Julian you were a patriot befoe most of these Talibqan idiots could wipe themselves and if they can't stand the heat they should fan themselves with a fresh copy ofthe Bill of Rights while we still have one.
Bond and the NAACP may or may not be as irrelevant as, say, Pat Robertson is. But that didn't stop Robertson's latest inanity from making the top-of-the-hour news on thr radio for nearly a day and a half last week.
The issue isn't whether or not Bond is important. The issue is the relative weight the media gives to comments like Bond's, depending upon who makes them and who can be tarnished or discredited by amplifying them
TO: cosmo
RE: Isn't....
"But that didn't stop Robertson's latest inanity from making the top-of-the-hour news on thr radio for nearly a day and a half last week." -- cosmo
...it 'interesting' that the so-called major media make a lot of Pat's comments and we have to rely on the blogosphere to find out about Bond.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you can be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital. -- cbpelto]
Sadly, this is not new for Bond. He make shockingly similar comments when I saw him give a speech in Houston in 1989.
I thought maybe he was just having a bad day. Apparenty not.
In the main stream media only white people make racist,defamatory statements, which of course is an illusration of their own racism. Mr bond is simply another anal pore with diarhea, that he is a minority is coincidental but effective for his purposes.
Of course journalists behave this way.
Journalism is a job. The two most important things about a job are being able to go to work tomorrow and being able to tell people you care about where you work without too much shame.
The first explains why journalists are so touchy about access. Without it, there's no reason for anyone to pay them tomorrow.
MSM journalists are not about to risk access or "you don't work for that place that trashed the NAACP" for any principle.
How could so many media miss such comments? Wellll, if they had *already left* and never heard the comments - that's how.
Many, many times journalists will cover an event without actually being there during the entire thing - so if Bond gives a two hour borefest and throws his firecrackers near the end, the media may have already packed up their stuff.
Reporters with multiple events to cover have been known to cut corners - a notorious story of the music journalist in Memphis who reported on a concert he arrived late at - he made a reference to how well received the "opening act" was when in fact the band (The Lynch Mob)had abruptly broken up and failed to make the gig ! This happened in 1991 in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
You are too generous to the MSM in placing the blame on inept or biased reporters. The MSM has too often given a pass to liberals making incendiary comments or spiking stories that might impugn Democrats. Just remember Newsweek spiking the Lewinsky story.
John Kerry relied on the MSM to keep the Swiftboat Vets' story from gaining traction. He would have been right four years before, but between the blogs and Rush Limbaugh, the story was front and center by the time they could react to it. One of the most egregious examples of bias was the NY Times failing to review the Swiftboat book for two months, even though it was on their best seller list. When they did get around to reviewing it, 3 weeks before the election, they reliably panned it.
Maybe hiring standards for reporters have been lowered, but I simply can't fathom any reporter worth his salt not telling his editor something about Julian Bonds' inflammatory speech.
Whether it is hiring inept or biased reporters, pulling punches or spiking stories, the blame still falls on the editorial leadership of the MSM.
Crosby Boyd
Sanibel FL
Sorry, Brendan me bucko, but writing it off to bad reporting by some scruffy, wet behind the ears cub reporter who hasn't yet honed his craft, especially the part where you compared how the reporting goes if the person is someone like Pat Robertson, is a bucket of blarney
"Willful bias" and "personal outrage" are synonyms. Any reporter who allows his own convictions or ideological bent to color his accounting of an event is operating with a personal agenda, period. Whether he's fresh out of j-school or has been camped out at Black Rock for a decade, waiting for his or her shot at a CBS anchor job is irrelevent; they are walking into the story with their copy already written in their heads, and they ain't gonna screw up the predesigned storyline by letting something as irrelevent as what actually happened--like the bile Bond was offering up--get in the way.
I'm a bit dubious of the good v. bad reportering distinction as well, for the fact that it doesn't account for the roles that editors and fact checkers play in news organizations. Such stories are not simply published/aired as submitted. Bernard Goldberg had commented on this phenomena as well
..If you lived on the upper West side on Manhattan where many media people live or if you lived in Beverly Hills, if you just do a couple of things, if you stay away from Fox News and talk radio, then you might not even run into a conservative. If you live in these places where just about everyone thinks the same way on all these big issues, then you could literally not run into real people, who you walk up to on the street and shake hands with, who have these other points of view.
I've never said these media elites are bad guys or evil guys. I've specifically said there is no conspiracy. They're living in their lives in this comfortable bubble with like minded people in it. It includes the people in their newsroom with like-minded liberal people in it and after a while they think everything to the right-of-center is conservative and everything to left-of-center is middle of the road. I know that sounds crazy, but that's how they see it. That's why they'll have a conservative person on and will identify him as a conservative, but they'll have a liberal person on and won't identify them as a liberal. "Is he liberal? Why is he liberal? He has the same view that I have and all of my friends have."
http://www.rightwingnews.com/int...ws/
goldberg.php
TC, you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that the problem is young journalists who haven't honed their craft. I'm saying that MANY journalists of ALL ages and levels of experience are what I would describe as "bad." Many journalists never actually learn how to practice journalism well.
Max, excellent link, that all is definitely true. I don't think, though, that it actually contradicts my argument that "what is commonly described as 'liberal bias' is less the result of deliberate ideological skewing and more the result of the unconscious biases of bad, lazy journalists." What Goldberg describes is basically how an unconscious bias is born and becomes firmly cemented in place, such that the reporter, editor, etc., no longer realizes it's a bias at all. He thinks his views are "middle of the road," that they're obvious, that they're The Truth and not just an opinion. After all, everyone [who he knows] agrees with it, so it must be true! Anyone who disagrees must be on some radical fringe.
There are many specific ways in which unconscious bias manifests itself. What I described is one; what Goldberg describes is another. They're related yet distinct... but they're both examples of unconscious bias.
Chuck, you make a good point about journalists not attending whole events they're purporting to cover. Admittedly I hadn't thought of that possibility. However, I find it fairly unlikely that all three of the reports on these two events suffered from that problem. It's hypothetically possible, but Occam's Razor is telling me that it's more likely the reporters were there and just didn't report on what Bond said. Especially since he apparently says this as part of his standard stump speech, it seems unlikely it would be buried away at the beginning or end.
Lojo, the lobbying thing is NOT bipartisan saying so is highly dishonest and that the MSM keeps trying to lump the Democrats in to the Abermoth scandal is ridiculous to anyone that has half an idea of what actually happened. And for those scoring at home, why on earth would you try and bribe people that have now power?
Dane, you apparently have not advanced beyond 8th-grade history. Of course the party out of power is relevant in the American legislature. This is not a parliament, where the party in power passes virtually all legislation by strict party majority. In the United States, highly partisan votes are not actually the norm, and when it comes to spending money in states and districts, virtually every member of the legislature gets a piece of the pie. Sure, the majority party gets larger slices, but for those who want their pet project funded, bribing Democrats makes perfect sense if the Democrat represents the area in which your project is being done.
As for the NAACP and Julian Bond, I wasn't much outraged. This is not only Old Hat, it's what most of the Angry Left actually believes. My guess is you don't see A Nun Mouse commenting here because she can't find anything to criticize about what Bond said, and also because she doesn't want to engage in the Herculean effort of defending the indefensible. The fact is, a large swath of important journalists and Democrats actually believe this stuff, or at least hear it muttered so often at dinner parties that they are hardly capable anymore of gauging the offensiveness of Bond's remarks.
Alasdair, most American slaves came from subSaharan Arica, where Islam hadn't spread nearly as far. And only after Bartolomeo de las Casas got mad at the treatment of Indians taken slave. At the time, slavery was rather widespread throughout Europe, especially ever since Rome. Hell, even the Irish were commonly made slaves at one time. Only after the African slave trade did slavery become associated with one race. (The word slave itself comes from the taking of Slavs as slaves.) And it had nothing to do with Muslims.
Meanwhile, This Modern World recently posted on a scientific study of political bias, and how it affected the reward centers of the brain much like a drug addiction.
Dane, you apparently have not advanced beyond 8th-grade history.
I'm glad to see that meeting each other in person, and getting along splendidly by all accounts, hasn't reduced your ability to argue scathingly with Dane. Heh. :)
Andrew, look at your job descriptions and the job descriptions of the people you work with on a day to day basis... Now, look at mine and the people I work with (read cause related marketing and government relations) I shall now use this evidence to make the very 8th grad argument of I'm right your wrong now get off my playground.
Dane, the argument that "this is my field and not yours so obviously I'm right and you're wrong" works much better if you back it up with an explanation. It's not even like Andrew has no experience dealing with minority party politics, given that he's a politically active Republican in California. Your background in politics can help you make your argument, but it can't be your entire argument. Or, well, it can be, but if it is, your argument is lame.
Dane, even when a party does not have the majoity, it gets it's share of lobby visits and lobby money. The Demcracts control the California Legislature, and control a lot of what passes, from big, patisan votes to small little bills they would rather kill than see a Rep take the credit for. Nonetheless, regional ties and personal relationships play a role in the political process, and both parties get money. The association I work for raises money for and lobbies both Democrats and Republicans (infact, I raise money for both Democrats and Republicans), because we need both to get our bills passed and get the votes we want.
I agree with Andrew, this comments are not that outrageous when one considers how many on the left actually believe them and identify with them. After everything people call us Republicans and conservatives, I have no time to worry about this guy. I see why Brendan is so upset. He is upset at shoddy journalism, but more importantly, he is upset that the side he identifies with is ok with these types of comments, many believe them, and even people like Dane tell him this is no big deal compared to what he really should be worried about (because I guess equating people who disagree with you with the nazis or the taliban is not indicative of what is wrong with the left). This feeling of frustration is similar to how upset I get at conservatives who get bent out of shape over gay marriage. I feel alienated from the other people on my side, and it sucks. But, I think being on the side that thinks these comments are not outrageous enough to be newsowrthy has to be even more frustrating.
Dane, what bullshit arguments. First you tell Brendan he needs to worry about more important things, and then you tell Andrew that because of your job, you know more about politics than a procurement agent, former Congressional staffer with campaign experience? Good one buddie. Look, if anyone's job description clearly shoots down your argument that the minority party does not get any lobby money, its mine, both my former and my current job.
The NAACP belives it impossible that Rice and Powell could have made it on their own. Mabye he should start hanging around a different crowd. A crowd that believes all are created equal BEFORE affirmative action handouts and multi-generational welfare.
Rice has a fair shot at being the GOP president in a few years. (I'll sure as hell vote for her). It'll be interesting to hear her called 'token' then.
Republicans will never get their racist supporters in the south to vote for Condi. That is a pipedream. Didn't the president's grandfather make some serious money doing business with the german reich? Didn't he have to be told to desist by our state department? When is rhetoric over the top? I hear over the top crap every time I listen to little Rusty Limbaugh (high school name, I know people who went to hs with Rusty) and to me he is about as much a national figure as Bond is. Tempest in a teapot. The rightwing made things this way in the late 80s and early 90s. And it worked for them; look who is supposedly inpower, though if this president is a conservative you guys are in much worse intellectual shape than I thought. Party on dudes. Everything will come out in the end. It's the lies you tell yourself that are the hardest to see.
Brendan,
I agree with your points about the alternative media bringing attention to stories that would otherwise not be reported.
I happen to think that the balance of power that exists right now between the MSM and the conservative media plays right into the conservative's hands. I say this because the conservative media has just enough power to make an impact (Rathergate, Christmas in Cambodia, etc), yet the MSM still has enough clout to make Democrats think that they can still play the role of the hare, as in "The Tortoise And The Hare".
In other words, the Democrats think that they can veer as far to the left as they want, knowing full well that the MSM will do everything in their power to portray them as sober headed centrists who are in touch with mainstream America. So the Democrats don't actually have to take positions on the issues that are consistent with sober headed centrism. Instead, they think that they can pass themselves off as sober headed centrists by virtue of having the MSM constantly portraying Republicans as right wing extremists.
So while the Republicans play the role of the tortoise, plodding along, slowly and deliberately trying to win the hearts and minds of the American people (with the conservative media playing a big role), the Democrats nap under a tree, expecting the MSM to push them over the finish line.
As a Republican, I'm afraid that if the conservative media gains anymore power and the MSM loses anymore power, the Democrats will wake up and take a page out of Bill Clinton's book on how to act like a sober headed centrist.
Referring to the "Taliban" wing of the GOP is damn near a sacrilege. It was Chimpyhilter Bush who directed our brave armed forces to smash the Taliban, which they did in about 15 minutes.
As to the media coverage of Bond. After Edward abdicated the crown the marry Mrs. Simpson, he traveled to Germany at Hilter's invitation. At a survey of the troops, he threw up a seig heil. You know, just to get along. Well, that wouldn't do. So every photo that ran airbrushed out his upraised arm. Why? It didn't fit the narrative. No, not at all.
And so now we have Bond. Julian Bond. Whose words are just too much. So we airbrush them out.
Tommy, you're as credible as Rusty.
Brendan,
No, boyo, don't you dare walk down that, as you put it, "unconscious biases" crapola road. Maybe in that snooty Times doyenne Kael's day, attenuiated as such was her experience to other perspectives due to matters of location and whatnot regarding the the info stream she had access to, but not now, not anymore...that excuse ended the day that Reagan chucked the "Equal Time" FCC edict over the good ship Broadcasting's rail and sunk that punk out at sea and blew the info stream wide open.
Anyone in the here and now who still lives in such a bubble does so consciously. There is no reason for being so obtuse unless sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Hey, Nani-nani, I can't hear you, Mr Other Opinion, because you speak the devil's tongue, and all my friends TOLD me you do, so I won't listen to you" qualifies as an excuse.
Because if that kinda mea culpric crap does qualify, then the term "jackass," in regards to the human condition, needs to be stricken from the language, and a new definition for "dumb from the neck up" is in needing of coinage.
Sean @ 8:38 - you could not be *MORE* wrong ...
Unless, of course, South Africa, for example, is north of subSaharan Africa ? Or perhaps this is just propaganda ?
The Afrikaans word for 'black' is kaffir which comes from the arabic word for 'infidel' ... the white settlers bought 'em from Arab slavers ... the same slavers who raided inland, then brought their commodity to the coast of Africa to sell to passing ships ...
What the devil this slave stuff has to do with reporting on the crap dripping from Massa Bond's lips, I'm guessing I must of missed.
What happened? Kos Kidz came to town?
Good on ya, Brendan. Last week I scolded you for engaging in a relativistic argument, tonight you trash such. Well done.
The local news problem is that above all else, controversy - REAL controversy, is to be avoided at all cost. Only universal villains (see: pedophiles) can be criticized.
Can y'all imagine WSBTNDUSJV reporting seriously about an explosive national political story? Which anchor babe would have the guts to ask the field reporter a question LIVE?
Above all else, a local TV personality must be well liked. Anything that doesn't fit that template doesn't make air.
Now, if Julian had criticized "The Vagina Monologues," you can rest assured all hell would have broken loose.
Imagine that, a man upset about the current state of blacks in America. Like how they make up 12% of the population and 43% of the prson popultion? Or how they are disproportionately poor in comparison to any other minority group. They are not lazy, they are not stupid, they are the victims of a continuing racist society. When the recent head of the republican party says something to the effect that segregation was great, and meanwhile the democrats offer token initiatives to the black community, how else can they feel when the political system is either antagonistic or indifferent to their plight. America is a racist nation, so it makes sense that a victim of racism would be upset. Civil rights changed a fair amount, but it certianly did not change near enough. Blacks will never be equal, nor will poor people in general, until the government steps in and introduces some redistributive justice.
Alex, what doea anything you just said have to do with Bond saying Republicans are Nazis and his supreme court nominees the Taliban? How does saying stupid stuff like that help the unfortunate situation of poor blacks in America? How does this guy contribute to civil dialogue? I know you expect to be taken seriously, and you are by many who agree with you about how evil Republicans are, but that does silch to move blacks forward. Atleast you recongnize Democrats throw red meat and take blacks for granted.
Alex? As a former card-carrying member of the USA/IRA, and someone who can play both war pipes and the uilleann set, I hereby revoke your "mc" prefix, you dumb-as DeVelera dolt.
Like how they make up 12% of the population and 43% of the prson popultion?
Two words: Crips. Bloods. Settle that pyschosis in your own house, okay?
They are not lazy, they are not stupid, they are the victims of a continuing racist society.
There was nothing close to resembling "affirmative action" going on when old man Kennedy, or New York's maverick union boss Mickey Quill, took Boston and NYC away from the poncy WASPs. Why should some following minority get cut such a wide swath of slack as you ask? Look at the previous question and consider the difference in approach: Old Man Joe wasn't killing every Mick who looked at him with envy in his eyes in the desperate search for more bling to hang around his neck. He took his hunk of dough and created a political dynasty--not a feakin' "Def Jam" empire.
The Irish were the niggers of Europe, and became the kings of America's East Coast because they refused to take any guff...and worked harder than anyone else. Same for the goombas; same for all: "work your ass off and you will get ahead."
So excuse me, but bury that tired asshatted argument your trying to ride like a horse heading for the glue factory about "the man" holding the black community down. Call up Parson over at HBO, or the brother at Bechtel's top shelf.
They are not lazy, they are not stupid, they are the victims of a continuing racist society.
Tell that line to all the boat people from Vietnam and Cambodia who hit our shores with "gook" and "VC" hanging over their heads...after taking a hell of a more beating and bitch of a boat ride than your whining ass ever did. All they ever asked for was "Let me stay and let me work."
And explain to me, Brother, because I just grew up in housing projects out here on Staten Island with a pack of jacks who ended up becoming the Wu Tang Clan....
Other than bitching about your life, what is it, exactly, that a fool like you can do?
Without Govt. Assistance, that is.
Shit, I'm a better nigger than you.
Not bigger...better, skippy.
When is rhetoric over the top? I hear over the top crap every time I listen to little Rusty Limbaugh (high school name, I know people who went to hs with Rusty) and to me he is about as much a national figure as Bond is. Tempest in a teapot. The rightwing made things this way in the late 80s and early 90s.
The right wing MADE Julian Bond say outrageous and repugnant things? Fascinating!!!
Look, show me the money. If Rush Limbaugh has said things that are equally outrageous to what Bond said, give me some quotes. Note: they need to be statements that are actually outrageous, not merely ones that liberals think imply something outrageous. (For example, anytime anyone criticizes illegal immigration or affirmative action, some liberals think that person is being racist. This is not a valid argument. Now, if the person says, "Illegal immigration is bad because all those damn dirty wetback bastards are taking jobs from us real Americans" then, yes, THAT is racist ... but the racism needs to be explicit, or so overwhelmingly clear that the implication is undeniable, in order to match Bond's bigotry.)
It's the lies you tell yourself that are the hardest to see.
Indeed... like how the Republicans are evil and the reason the Democrats aren't in power is because of Evil Bushitler and the All-Powerful Karl Rove, instead of because of tired, bankrupt ideological orthodoxies, a total lack of direction and new ideas, and a pathological inability to connect with the average voter...
Muslims did trade slaves at the time. So did most of the civilized world and parts of the uncivilized world. The ones that went to the United States, however, by and large came from south of the Sahara, captured from farther inland by other tribes and sold to white slavers on the western coast. If that had not been the case, if they had all come from Muslim countries like you claim, our slaves would have had a much lighter skintone.
Did I mention yet that obviously conservatives don't like swastikas? (Although their arguments against letting the press criticize the war read the same, verbatim, as parts of Mein Kampf.) Just because all Nazis were conservatives doesn't mean all conservatives are Nazis. And the only legitimate way to bring up the Taliban is to point to the principles of theocracy that they share, while realizing that they do not nearly compare in severity of implementation. (I have yet to hear any American Christian conservative demand that children be stoned for flying kites.) Better to bring up other theocracies as well, like the Papal States or Byzantium.
What IS IT with you dumbassed KosKoolaid scmucks?
"Rusty" Limbaugh? THAT is your counter-punch?
I WIN!
Now, if you wanna talk about your team's QB, Al "I'm Living Proof Harvard Accepts Idiots" Franken, or any other Air Idiot/radio stuff....
Come on to my house, to my-I-ayy house;
I wanna feed you canndeeee....
...let's excuse ourselves from Brendan's bandwidth and allow me to inject some ClueFormula 109 into your brain...through a ventral vein.
(PS: don't let on, but I have it from good sources Mother Hannity called her boy "Sean-ogh" until the third grade, when he begged her to stop saying that kind of thing in front of his friends because they was all eye-taliano. Mrs. O'Reilly referred to her lil darling as "Hey, EgoBoy.")
No wonder you dolts continually lose.
Tune into Rush Limbaugh any day of the week and you will hear FAR worse thngs than Julian Bond's comments....
This has been going on for years and years.
Now I'm supposed to get all worked up about the "liberal media" not calling Julian Bond, an indidividual entitled to his personal opinions, to task over what he said because some find it to be "bigoted"?
When the media, word for word, focuses on the bigoted speech of right wing hate radio, which FAR outweighs the alleged bigotry of Julian Bond, then I'll maybe consider this post to be in the ballpark of truth.
Here's a small hint: right wing hate radio has been going on for well over a decade and the media hasn't spent much time on it recently.
The good ol' "liberal media" always falls down on the ground over these issues....What's up with that?
Nunsuch:
How about a specific quote from Limbaugh on a par with Bond's actual hate speech?
I mean, if there's one every day and all...
I notice you haven't offered any quotes yet. In my personal experience, charges of "right wing hate" usually fail to stand up once the alleged evidence is offered. I'm not saying Rush Limbaugh has never said anything bigoted, but until you offer me a quote, you're just spewing hot air.
And no one is saying that Julian Bond isn't "an individual entitled to his personal opinions." What an asinine, irrelevant comment for you to make. Of course he's entitled to his personal opinions. Racist right-wing rednecks are entitled to their opinions, too; what's your point? MY point is, if the NAACP allows itself to be led by someone with such ridiculous, offensive, bigoted opinions, then the public at large is entitled to conclude that the NAACP ought not be taken seriously anymore. And at any rate, the public is entitled to be INFORMED of Bond's opinions by the "journalists" who are supposedly "reported" on his speech.
P.S. Oh, and the scare quotes around "bigoted" are cute. Would you care to explain why it's NOT bigoted to call Republicans Nazis, call black Republicans "tokens," and call conservatives the Taliban? Put up or shut up, Mouse. The sneering insinuation that we're wrong to call these blatantly bigoted comments "bigoted," unsupported by anything, does you no credit.
Rush Limbaugh Quote from his show:
1. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh once told a black caller to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." http://www.snopes.com/politics/q...es/
limbaugh.asp
2. Recently, I listened to a streaming audio recording of Rush Limbaugh where he refered to abortion as a "sacrament to the religion of feminism." That's pretty f*cking disgusting. You can listen to the streaming audio here, but you have to listen to snippets of the SOTU before Rush kicks in. But the quote is there: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200602020010
3. Rush praised Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." (TV show, 9/1/93) (Source for this quote and more looney Rush ideas here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895)
4. Listen to this quote on streaming audio, "The most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill." http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200602030005
5. Listen to another Limbaugh quote, talking to the women in his audience: "How many of you in the secrecy and privacy of your own dreams and hopes would love to be hired as eye candy?"
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200601130002
6. Another live audio clip: Limbaugh claims women who protest sexual harassment actual wish for it: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200405020008
7. Limbaugh continually and repeatedly refers to feminists as "feminazis." http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200601060006
Brendan,
Please don't make me spoon feed information that is readily available.
More conservative bigotry that happens every day:
1. Audio clip: Michael Savage repeatedly characterized Brokeback Mountain, a film about a romantic relationship between two cowboys, as "Bareback Mounting." http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200601200001
2. Michael Savage weighs in on Terri Schiavo controversy: "Deathworshipper" Democrats are "[l]ike Mengele" (No audio but links to Savages website) http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200503220007
3. Audio clip: Savage: "When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. ... [T]hink only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son" http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200408050004
In above quote, he also calls "human rights activists" "communists or nazis or both"....
The top quote in #3 is pretty goddam offensive...
Shall I go on???????????
Yeah I'm so incredibly bothered by Julian Bond, a guy who doesn't even have his own radio show...
Yeah the "liberal media" is just rampant, isn't it?
More awesome (sarcastic) Savage audio:
Savage: Lesbians are "jealous that they don't have an AIDS epidemic that they can cash in on"
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200406240001
Audio: Savage: Gay-rights activists are "fighting for perversion" http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200406150007
Maybe Savage is a better example than Limbaugh.
But the point is real simple: Brendan is suddenly offended by Julian Bond and yet this kind of HATE SPEECH has been going on repeatedly with Savage and Limbaugh.
AND THEY AREN'T THE ONLY ONES....
Let me know when Bond gets his own radio show. I've seen Savage on FOX News. No one ever calls him on his hate speech.
More Limbaugh:
1. Limbaugh: Murtha is "the biggest morale booster that the enemy has in Iraq" Audio: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200512050005
2. Limbaugh on kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this" Audio: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200511300010
3. Limbaugh on federal judge who ordered Abu Ghraib photos released: He "has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda" audio: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200510050001
4. Limbaugh awarded free website subscription to caller who said liberalism is "rebellion against God" and who described Democratic leaders as "pimps" Audio: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200510040003
Thanks for the quotes, Mouse. There's no denying that Savage is bad. (There's a reason I said "usually.") Limbaugh, well, most of his quotes aren't at the same level of bigotry as calling Republicans Nazis and successful black conservatives "tokens," and they certainly aren't "FAR worse thngs than Julian Bond's comments," as you claimed. But I'm not going to waste my breath defending the guy. I don't like him, never said I did.
Still, I'm not sure how any of this is a defense of Julian Bond.
Also, your argument that because Bond "doesn't have a radio show," therefore it matters less, is laughable. He's the chairman of the freakin' NAACP!! Limbaugh and Savage's only "authority" is that which is implied by the size of their audience, but Bond has been duly elected as the president of a once-prestigious liberal organization. If Savage was the president of the NRA or something, but didn't have a radio show, would you find his remarks unimportant and unworthy of comment?
Also, you still haven't explained what you were getting at when you said that Bond is merely "an individual entitled to his personal opinions." After all, Limbaugh and Savage are also individuals entitled to their personal opinions, aren't they? So... again... what was your point exactly, when you said that?
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the explanation of how Bond's comment weren't actually "bigoted" (as implied by your use of scare quotes). It's one thing to point out that there are some conservatives out there who also say nasty things -- it's another thing entirely to show that Bond's remarks WEREN'T nasty. So far you've merely suggested it; I'd love to see you try and prove it.
1. Savage has repeatedly been disowned by the right, in the same way that William Buckley formed the National Review as much in an attempt to wrest conservatism from the Birchers and Mercury Society as a response to imperial communism.
2. Every time right-wingers ask for examples of Limabugh's hate speech, lefties drag out that "bone in your nose" statement from 33 years ago. Limbaugh has repeatedly said it was a stupid thing to say, that he wished he hadn't said it. If you wan't to keep hanging him for it, go right ahead.
3. Re his statements about abortion: abortion HAS become a sacrament for a certain brand of upper middle-class, college-educated feminist. If you don't believe me, go stroll to an east-coast urban pro-Roe rally.
4. One of Rush's beliefs is that feminism is designed to improve the prospects of unattractive women. I don't agree, but it's interesting to ponder the reaction of Martha Burk specifically and married women in general if Augusta National opened its doors to three women, and three women only: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Angelina Jolie.
A choice Limbaugh moment of sheer, unadulterated bigotry: Limbaugh calls Native Americans "injuns" -- again Audio: http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200508180006
Oxford American Dictinary lists "injun" as "informal offensive"
Brendan
So you asked for the quotes and then dismiss them?
That seems odd....
But let me be clear. The main point I'm refuting in your posting is the notion that there is some kind of "liberal media bias" and that the fact that Bond wasn't raked over the coals for his comments proves it. Plus you have this kind of "oh well, that's the MSM" attitude about Bond's comments but not about the hate speech spewed out daily on right wing talk radio.
As for "proving" his quotes were/weren't bigoted, I know already we'd go around and around all day long and never get anywhere.
My take on it is that the THRUST of his comments are accurate. I would not use that kind of rhetoric. but some on the right side of the isle would say the same thing about Savage and Limbaugh and find some way to make them seem palatable....
What else?
1. There is (or was, I guess) something breathtakingly refreshing about the likes of Thurmond not giving a damn what the NY Times thought of him. We can say this without endorsing segregation. I wish John McCain were more like that, and I intend to vote for him.
2. When "peace activists" are taken hostage in Iraq, I can at least appreciate the irony. Shoot me.
3. Re the release of the prison photos: that it emboldened our enemies is, I think, a matter of undeniable fact. Whether the photos should have been released is another matter.
Gee, did I miss anything? Only this: Limbaugh is an individual. If you don't like him, turn the freaking station. Bond is the face and voice of an organization whose positions we are supposed to take seriously. Bond has the right to say anything he wants, but if the NAACP allows him to continue to speak as he does without any sanction whatsoever, we all can factor both Bond's statements and the NAACP's nonaction into our opinion of the NAACP.
Twenty-six years ago, NAACP chair Benjamin Hooks spoke at the GOP convention that nominated Ronald Reagan. Then, only a few months into Reagan's presidency, before any legislation as to race had been proposed, the NAACP proceeded to savage Reagan so horribly the reaction was, Screw you. Why should I meet with you, why should I listen to you, if all that comes out of your collective mouth is what a terrible person I am? This is the road the NAACP chose to go down, and its loss of political power is its own fault. Julian Bond is everything that is wrong with the NAACP. Appoint him chairman for life, for all I care.
I didn't "dismiss" the quotes. I read them, thanked you for them, and responded. I said that I agree, Savage is a bigoted asshole. As for Limbaugh (the person you were talking about in the first place), I find most of the quotes offensive, some more than others, but I also don't believe they prove your initial point that he says "FAR WORSE" things than what Bond said.
And these quotes certainly do not refute my point about liberal media bias. Generally speaking, a radio host saying something on his own show is not "news" of the sort that a reporter would be reporting on, so of course there aren't articles every day in the NYT saying what an ass Michael Savage is. That said, anytime (or, okay, virtually anytime) there is an article talking about Savage, I guarantee you this controversial/bigoted views are MENTIONED! Perhaps not on Fox News, but I already acknowledged that Fox is conservative so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there. However if Savage were giving a speech in front of a local audience and he said these things, and a local reporter was reporting on it, I guarantee you that 95 times out of 100, if not more, those quotes make it into that article. Not so with Bond.
As for the thrust of his comments being accurate... I'll give you the "Taliban" comment (I don't necessarily agree, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point), but I'm not sure how the thrust of Republican=Nazis or smart and successful conservatives who you happen to disagree with=tokens can be correct. I find that position rather indefensible, actually.
And as for my point about Bond being a private individual, you wonder exactly what I mean...You rightly point out that Limbaugh and Savage too also are...
Bond's comments were said to small groups/speeches for people who wanted his opinion. He wasn't broadcasting them to the whole world. We often pick and choose what we say depending on our audience. He may have used bombastic rhetoric because of the AUDIENCE he was speaking to.
Limbaugh and Savage use PUBLIC AIRWAVES to promote HATE SPEECH.
So compare the two: Bonds expressing his personal opinions in over the top ways-- not meant for public broadcastig-- to groups that asked him to speak VERSUS Rush and Savage using public airwaves to promote their brand of bigotry...
You're clearly more bothered by the former than the latter, and that seems odd to me. PLus you clearly think the MSM should cover this, even though they aren't covering the hate speech of Savage and Limbaugh which is broadcast to MILLIONS of people using PUBLIC AIRWAVES>
I'm sorry if the incongruity of that doesn't reach out and grab you by the cajones......
Brendan,
But just to be fair to Bond, in my opinion, I would really have to read both speeches in their entirety (sp?) as they were delivered.
And as for the word "token," in reference to Rice and Powell, all that word refers to is the cynical politics of picking a person of color to fill a position. Yes, the person is qualified, obviously. (Obviously Rice and Powell have incredible intellects and experience.)
But I don't think it's in the least bit "bigoted" to say Bush and others in his administration recognized the added political advantage of trying to change public race relations and perceptions with regards to the Republican Party and the Bush Administration itself by choosing a person of color to fill an important position.
You'd have to ask mr. Bond, but my guess is that that is what he meant by the word "token." It's a cynical political ploy based on the person's race.
Brendan,
As for you "dismissing" the quotes I found, that's still how it seems to me for this reason: first, you somehow said my credibility and my argument hinged on presenting the quotes, and then after I did, you said "Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with Bonds," as if suddenly the quotes were irrelevant.
You could have just said something like "Well, even if you're claims about horrbile things said by Limbaugh (and others) is true, what does that have to do with Bond...."
Then I wouldn't have looked them up.
:-P
.
Bea, you're right to an extent. I really don't want to get into the NAACP argument because I really don't care. But what is the difference between a guy like Pat Robertson and a Fatwa issuing Mullah when he calls for the death of supreme court justices? There are parallels to be drawn. Just like there are parallels to bas things that can be drawn on the left. Is it annoying when the two extremes start firing crap over the hades of the moderates and blasting each other? Yes. Is it ever going to stop? Probably not.
As to your other point - and mike - you seemed to miss the tongue planted firmly in cheek. I was more responding to Andrew's playground rhetoric than anything else. I don't doubt Bea and Andrew's political acumen. I will say that I know more about the Abermoth issue than the two of you - this is a very sticky issue for those of us inside the beltway right now and I don't particularly want to get into it.
Be that as it may. First principals of corruption: the party in power is more corrupt than the party out of power. (those that would corrupt them have more to gain corrupting those in power than those out of power.)
First principal of the Republican Revolution: rally the horses around the wagon, make the rules difficult to fight against us. Anyone that dissents gets thrown to the wolves.
As for Abermoth, he was part of the Republican revolution, he donated money exclusively to Republicans and Republican campaigns. He gained clients from both Republican and Democrat Lobbyists (in some instances billing at a rate 20 times more than the previous firm had) via means nefarious. In those cases where he gained new clients the new client stopped donating to Democrats or the rate of donation decreased significantly after he became their lobbyist. Abermoth is not a bipartisan scandal. He is a Republican scandal. The press is falling over themselves to be even handed to the point where they are failing to report the truth.
Abramoff, Dane... Abramoff.
Dane - I'm going to guesss you mean Abramoff ... and, as and when and IF THEY ESTABLISH THAT ANY POLITICIAN COMMITTED A CRIME, THAT POLITICIAN SHOULD DO APPROPRIATE TIME ...
Clear enough ?
I do find it interesting that you seem to genuinely believe that he gave to Republicans in illegal and nefarious ways and to Democrats in noble and legal ways ... seems just a little convenient - in a Cleopatra sort of way ...
Mendacious Mouse - I'm impressed that you are sufficiently perceptive to realise the difference between Savage's and Bond's audiences ...
Savage's audiences are those who find him on the public airwaves and choose to continue to listen to him ... I've yet to hear *anyone* (remember, I don't like such absolutes) that has *any* real respect for him ... someone must listen to him, or he would not have his show, but those "conservatives" that I know classify him in the David Duke tarpaulin of the conservative big tent - built to look sorta like the main tent but most of the time empty ...
Bond's audiences, on the other hand, actively shoose to attend his speeches and stay there .. they are the folk who claim to be part of a liberal group - the NAACP - who manage to further the victimhood of their members ... *that* is much more the true active racism from which the black community suffers ...
They are the only group that I know of that hasn't given the collective finger to their oppressors and gone on to thrive ... Irish, Polish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, etc - all have been on the wrong end of bigotry and have become stronger and prosperous as a result - mostly cuz their own leadership, whether family or clan or 'nation' helped 'em thrive, one group at a time and those then went on to pay back and more ...
Given the evident racism of the Republicans, it's amazing how desperate they must be to consider putting a "token" President Rice into the White House ... that'll *really* show the KKK puppetmasters who own the party, won't it ? And a token female, too, at that !
I do find it fascinating the sheer number of "tokens" (black, female, etc) that the Republicans put in positions of responsibility and authority and how few needy and victimised minorities, by comparison, that Democrats put in such places ...
Mouse, part of the whole point of journalism is to inform people about what's going on which they otherwise wouldn't know. Anyone who's at all interested in the assinine mutterings of Robertson or Moore or whatnot can easily find out what they're saying--that's part of the point of having a media outlet in the first place. Speeches made in person, not over a broadcast station, are somewhat inherently more worthy of reporting, as they *aren't* something which anyone who's interested could easily find on his/her own. Obviously, of course, that depends on the impact factor of the person making the speech--LaRouche will carry less weight than Clinton, for example, as the former is a complete lunatic moonbat while the latter has clearly enjoyed widespread popular support. So why is it that you find Brendan's position that Bond's statements are more newsworthy than are Limbaugh's odd?
hanzie sed: "Rice has a fair shot at being the GOP president in a few years. (I'll sure as hell vote for her). It'll be interesting to hear her called 'token' then."
appropriately, immediately after, Kling sed that the racist South would never vote for her.
These two comments are perfect together. For liberals like Bond, blacks like Rice will always be "token" no matter how much their success because they are towing a new line of individual acheivement and personal, not group-based, self-respect. Kling pops in to say Rice will never take Southern states - another common liberal talking point that conclusorily declares Georgia and Alabama 2006 are still Ga/Al 1966. Just like Bond, it doesn't matter how many minorities acheive in these states, it's always going to be racist; because threats of widespread societal racism keeps people angry and victimized.
I'll place 100$ that Rice easily red-states Ga. and Al. even in straight up 2 party race, where greens and libertarians don't swing the result.
Your next-to-last sentence is key:
"Of course, in the long run, failing to expose the bigotry of men like Julian Bond doesn't really 'benefit' liberals at all."
I have always maintained that, although the liberal media bias hurts conservatives in the short and medium term, in the long term it hurts liberals and helps conservatives. This is because it forces conservatives to be serious and consistent and honest, while it encourages liberals to be reckless and inconsistent and dishonest, because they don't get "called on it" and so suffer no immediate consequences, even though the long-term consequences are that the voters lose confidence in the liberals.
There is no liberal media bias. The media is an idiotic contraption that brainwashes anyone who watches it. The media has an idiot bias. CBS and other "lefty" news organizations never have progressive people like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn on their TV shows. They show centrist Democrats like, well, most every Democrat. It just goes to show you how conservative America is. One station is blatantly reactionary and the others are centrist and middling, and somehow we have a liberal media bias?
There is no legitimate radical source of mainstream news, so how could the Media be anything but right to center leaning? In short, everyone needs to expand their political spectrum from Republican to Democrat and start thinking how Democrats are more centrist (do they advocate legitimate wealth redistribution?), republicans are right. . .and we have no left in America, at least after RFK and MLK were murdered.
Hey, Randi Rhodes's bitch...oh sorry, I mean Oliver Willis's Soros spewing biatch (no, wait, that ain't right...)
Hey! Sister Rodent?
I asked nicely... you want maybe I give a blow-by-blow of your asholes when they have said stupide shit?
I mean, since this was a conversation about your "house nigger" at the NAACP NOT getting propped by the MSM....
and I just jackbooted all the server logs involved in this bullshit....
C'mon to my hose, to my house
I'll feed you canndee!
How the hell could you have a "radical source of mainstream news"? If it were mainstream, it wouldn't be radical!!
Ideological spectrums (spectra?) are by their very nature relative. What counts as "left" in America is to the right of what counts as "left" in Europe. Meanwhile, our "right" would be considered radically liberal in an Islamic theocracy. Does that mean our left isn't really a left? No, it means that on our spectrum, it is to the left. It isn't sensible to talk about ideologal spectra as if they are somehow absolute. The spectrum of mainstream ideologies is defined by the beliefs of the populace in question. And when compared to the actual spectrum of mainstream ideological opinion that exists in America, as opposed to the one that exists only inside your head, the media as a whole tilts to the left. Is it to your right? Yes, and Al Jazeera is to the left of Osama bin Laden, but that doesn't prove anything.
Alasdair you dig bat, I'm not saying that Abramoff gave to Democrats legally and to Republicans illegally. I'm saying that Abramoff only gave to Republicans full stop.
Nothing brings out the lefty troops like the words "liberal media bias."
The fact that Bond's remarks are not reported in any MSM outlet is certainly newsworthy, as the rhetoric he used was defamatory and bigoted. As the leader of a still respectable black civil rights organization (though how much longer that will last is anybody's guess), he has a responsibility to portray their purpose as a rational, positive movement to retain credibility. Throwing verbal bombs around is miles away from that.
I find it fascinating that the lefty commenters refuse to label Bond's hate speech for what it is (because it is that beyond a shadow of a doubt). Listing examples of others' speech is ridiculously beside the point (my kids try that on me all the time). What Bond said should be considered on its own merits and the MSM is refusing to do so. Brendan makes a persuasive argument as to why that is happening, I think.
For all the decrying of the right's bigotries here, there is one lefty bigotry that quickly surfaced - that all southerners and/or Republicans are racists. Sigh... I am a southern Republican who would gladly vote for Condi and there are enough of us out there to make the Dems scared.
Personally, I find it funny when Rush calls feminists "feminazis". Spend ten minutes in the company of ardent pro-abortion anti-male activists and you know exactly what he is talking about (ever been to Oberlin?). It's not pretty.
Oops, I forgot to add that "feminazis" is a joke in the general vein of the "Soup Nazi" on Seinfeld.
Dane - I do not believe that he is being accused of giving illegal personal donations to Republicans - he is registered Republican, after all ...
I believe he is being accused of steering illegal client donations to Republicans - and *you* seem to imply that if he steered money to Republicans it's illegal and if he steered money to Democrats that it's legal ...
*That's* what I have difficulty with ...
So - which one of us is a "dig bat" (or even a 'ding bat'?) ?
(grin)
It just seems odd to me that the World Net Daily story carries no byline and cites no sources. As Mr. Loy speculates, it seems unlikely that World Net Daily actually had a reporter there. So where did that story come from? And why does it pull up a five-year-old quote from an unnamed source?
The quote from one person who claims to have gotten up and walked out really strikes me as suspect. It's very tough to hustle out to grab a quote from someone who leaves a speech early while still covering the speech itself. But it's hard to see how World Net could have gotten the quote any other way, unless the writer knew the person or the person who walked out contacted the writer. What are the odds?
I'm not defending the local coverage. I wasn't there and I don't know what actually happened. Maybe every word of the World Net Daily story was gospel. But it seems surprising to me that people concerned about bias would be so eager to accept one story as accurate and so dismissive of other accounts without having first checked the accuracy of any of them.
You dip-shit, you don't get it. He ONLY steered money to Republicans. He steered money away from Democrats. Regardless, the contributions of clients were, to the best of my knowledge, legal. The contributions Abramoff made on behalf of clients were from questionable to wholly corrupt. Beyond this, he defrauded his clients, paying off reps to put up bills that would be bad for his clients and then extorting money from them to stop it. To the best of my knowledge Abramoff's clients have not done anything illegal but were, instead, defrauded and extorted by him.
David Crisp: as I mentioned in the post, I initially chose not to publish this on the blog for that very reason... until I had seen the independent reporting of two separate sources on another Bond speech, a week earlier at a different college, in which he made many of the same sort of remarks. That was enough to convince me that WND wasn't simply making this up.
I would certainly like some more info on their sourcing, but as it stands, the evidence strongly supports the belief that the story is true.
Can't wait to see if this gets any coverage in Sunday's NYTimes--and if it does, where.
Wow.
Fer chrissakes, the CloisterMouse runs off all those Media Matters riffs?
Get thine ass back to a nunnery! Who gives a shit about what some schmuck said on the radio? This was about what the public face of the single biggest reason Democrats even compete in elections calling the other side Nazis.
Here's some facts, you amped-upped whacks: Julian Bond represents a group that claims a half million members. He considers any person of a certain pallor to be a low rent, bought and sold nigger if they don't agree with him politically. As far as he is concerned, when speaking publicly, they should be considered lower on the food scale than white trash smothered in giblets.
And you white bread honky fucks who consider yourselves "progressives" got NO problem defending the brother on that?
And YOU asshats are the "party of diversity" ... while castigating a strong, intelligent black woman like Secretary Rice for the lone reason that she ain't on your team?
You realize, of course, that Barack Obama is YOUR party's "house nigga" right? Hell, Kennedy can't even pronounce his name/
It would be nice if you could make your arguments without saying the n-word quite so much. Just one man's opinion.
But what is the difference between a guy like Pat Robertson and a Fatwa issuing Mullah when he calls for the death of supreme court justices? There are parallels to be drawn. Just like there are parallels to bas things that can be drawn on the left. Is it annoying when the two extremes start firing crap over the hades of the moderates and blasting each other? Yes. Is it ever going to stop? Probably not.
Dane, what do you mean by this? I am not sure what you were responding to when you said this. Are you implying there is no difference between a Muslim religious leader calling for someone's head and Pat Robertson calling form someone's head? If so, I agree they are similar and both are wrong. So, what's your point? (although I find the Muslim follower more likely to carry out violence that the Robertson follower, but Roberton is still a dumbass). Or, do you mean to imply Bond meant Robertson in his Taliban reference? If Bond ment Robertson in his Taliban reference, he should have said Roberton. Robertson is not a mainstream conservative that conservaives look up to, despite that large audience. Robertson is a moron, and he sais stupid shit all the time. It seens Bond does too. They seem to be equally caustic. Which is why Bond's comments should make headlines, if Robertson's are going to make headlines.
As for the extremes having food fights and the poor moderates stuck in the middle. Yeah, it will always happen, but was I saying it won't? In fact, I said I am neither outraged nor offended by Bond's comments, not because they are not offensive, biggoted or inappropriate, but because I already know many people agree with him, to a greater or lesser degree. None of this is news to me. You even suggested Brendan find more important things to worry about. Why is that? Is it because, like me, you are used to people on the left saying, or because you don't think it is that offensive or inaccurate? David and others here think Bush is a dictator in the making, a la Hitler, and he thinks Republicans are pretty crappy, more crapy than Dems can ever be (David has said this numerous times), so his views are not too far from Bond's comments. I am not trying to say David would defend Bond's comments, but merely pointing out that what he said is not that outrageous when a good number of the population agrees with him to some extent. It is, ofcourse, no less offensive or wrong.
I agree that corruption is a function of power, and the party in power is usually more corrupt, and can get away with a lot more, which is why Reps in Congress are dirty like the Dems in Sacramento. I have argued often pointed out to David and others how corruption is a function of power, not of party. I do not know the details of the Abramoff scandal, but my point was that, to say that the miority party does not get money and does not engage in shade stuff because it has no pwer is inaccurate. Your purportedly tounge in cheek comment did not come off as tounge in cheek, but as, "I know more about politics because you work in defense and I work in DC".
Brendan,
The fact that Bond made similar comments in other venues may add credibility to the story. But it also means that if World Net Daily (or its stringer) did fabricate the story, it would have believable quotes to use.
I'm less concerned here about the TV story than the newspaper story. Because of their unremitting deadlines, TV reporters frequently have to leave speeches early, and it's quite likely the TV reporter never heard the bulk of the speech. The newspaper reporter cites sources she contacted after the speech, which means either that she stayed for the whole thing, arrived late or, possibly, that she had to leave early and made arrangements to phone someone later for an update. That's a common practice among reporters on deadline, just in case something sensational happens after the reporter has to leave. If that happened, then the source she talked to later might not have mentioned the remarks, or the reporter might have considered them so inflammatory that she was reluctant to use them without having heard them herself.
I've sent an e-mail to the reporter asking for an explanation. If I hear anything, I will let you know.
Just because all Nazis were conservatives doesn't mean all conservatives are Nazis.
Someone please explain to me how National SOCIALISTS (!!!) are conservative. Please. Anybody?!?!?
I'm saying that Abramoff only gave to Republicans full stop.
Um, no, learn to read. He gave money to both parties, bud.
Brendan, if one can use virtually all the other cuss words on this site (and I've also seen "honky" and "wetback"), why is nigger not okay? Especially when quoted by an apparent black man trying to make a point?!?
Just curious why NIGGER is not okay to use in illustrations but WETBACK is.... Or has this site become ABC News?
I didn't say it's "not okay" or not allowed, just that I personally felt it was being used a bit much -- more than necessary to make the point. Just one man's opinion.
The Fayetteville reporter, Alice Thrasher, sent me to www.fayettevillenc.com, which has a followup story. She also says the speech can be heard there, but I don't have a sound card.
The story says that Bond's swastika reference was to the Confederate flag, not to the Republican Party. This is believable because he has made similar statements in the past.
Bond apparently did make a Taliban reference, but he wasn't referring to judicial nominees; rather, he referred to the "Taliban wing of American politics."
He did compare Ashcroft to Hoover. And he had harsh words for Democrats as well as Republicans.
World Net Daily, according to the story, drew its report from people who were there. Some of them, apparently, either had an ax to grind or were poor note takers.
All of which, in my mind, raises again the question that started this: Why are so many people here so eager to believe the MSM screwed up and that the Daily had it right? As usually happens, the truth lies somewhere outside such simplistic distinctions.
Sorry. This should be a better link:
www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=225894
Commenting by HaloScan.com
