President Obama commented yesterday on the Shirley Sherrod controversy. He didn't do himself any favors. He referred to the situation as an overreaction to a "bogus controversy," and said she "deserves better than what happened last week." She sure did, but his administration are the people she deserved better from.
Andrew Breitbart is a tool for editing her remarks the way he did, and Fox News--well, criticizing Fox News for broadcasting Breitbart's excerpt is like criticizing a stone for sinking on water. She worked for the Obama Administration--she was what would be referred in an anonymously sourced piece of journalism as "an administration official," or, "a USDA official." She deserved the benefit of doubt from you, above all.
Obama also said, "Rather than jump to conclusions, we should all look inward and try to examine what's in our own hearts." What he should have said was, "Rather than jump to conclusions, we should have looked inward and examined what was in our hearts before we took drastic action on a spurious report of the nature we've been decrying for three years now."
This deflecting the blame shit is too Republican for my taste. Honest to God, how dumb does he think we are?
5 comments:
It is odd that his administration and the NAACP didn't review the entire tape before rushing to judgment, but it also getting closer to election time and even Paul Krugman (Times) has been upset of late by Fredo's ignoring the left: Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred?
Krugman does go on to make the lesser of two evils argument in his column yesterday, but I have to wonder when the left grows a pair (talk about fear of fear) and DEMANDS some respect.
Still, this particular mess didn't bother me as much as Fredo not denouncing what Feinberg said last week about it being "unfair" to request the bailed out company execs who rewarded themselves with OUR money return some (or all) of their stolen gelt.
Then again, I'll never understand why the left goes anywhere near the Democratic Party anymore. This lesser of two evils bullshit is keeping them mired in a muck of their own doing.
"I'll never understand why the left goes anywhere near the Democratic Party anymore"
I know what you're saying. I've thought for years this country had outlived the usefulness of the two party system, and we needed somewhere from three to five, making it difficult for anyone to get a true majority. Then coalitions would have to get worked out, but no one party would have enough votes to delay things too much.
True dat. But it's not just one party delaying things. Think about how the Democratic Party nixed single payer. How many went along with all that Bush proposed, but renigged on Fredo.
The left leaving the Dems for back to back elections would guarantee the Reps win, but i say "what's the focking difference?" This guy called Clinton Bush-Light. Christ, if so then he's Bush-heavy. The left leaving the Dems would also guarantee they get respect (or their own party). Why not try it?
I'm not sure if it'll ever happen that a 3rd or 4th or 5th party gets a genuine shot, but just from the Presidential debates (where nobody but Dems & Reps get to challenge) is telling enough.
Why I say vote anything but either party. They need to be taught a lesson. The tea party has the right idea (except they stand on too much crazy-ass ground for me), but Nader and his ilk do speak to my concerns and directly to the concerns of the true left in this country. Yet Nader gets vilified for it, including being responsible for Iraq (while the Dems, including our illustrious Sec. of State) are the ones who were too eager to join the mob (of which I was guilty as well). The difference is, I'm not paid to ignore the intelligence reports Hillary didn't bother reading. I'm not paid by BP to let them write their own regulation reports. I'm not paid by Goldman Sachs to lobby for their interests.
The mire of their own doing ...
I wonder if the left abandoning the Dems for a while might have an unintended, but felicitous, consequence. It might fire up the "moderates" who like to oppose some of the Democratic ideas because it's currently in vogue and is safe. Faced with the potential of Republican majorities and policies, these folks might vote with their heads instead of their glands once in a while.
Your last point (about Iraq, BP, Goldman Sachs) is well taken. I don;t want my representatives governing strictly by polls; he's privy to information I don;t have. Do the right thing, or at least what you genuinely consider to be the right thing. If you really don;t think everyone should have health care, say so. I'll respect you for it. I probably won't vote for you--though I refuse to be a single issue voter--but at least let me know where your heart and mind is.
Right now, I'm almost willing to move to New York for the privilege of voting for Rep. Weiner.
(Word verification = baftsk. How Buckwheat pronounces "Baptist.")
I love what Warner sounds like, but used to love with Kucinich sounded like until he caved in on health care for a ride on Air Force One.
I think these guys, however well intentioned they ALL (both sides) may be, are required to be corrupted before they can get where they are. Term limits is one way to go (but it won't happen in my lifetime). I doubt Fredo or Bush are inherently bad people ... but they certainly don't speak to my concerns (single issue or otherwise).
Nader (or Ron Paul for that matter) wouldn't be able to do much without others there like him to help so it would have to be a sweep on all (or most) fronts. Still, rewarding the assholes currently ruling the roost just makes no damn sense to me. Not whatsoever.
Post a Comment