Reid's remarks were racially insensitive and Lott's were simply racist

[wndycty]

Reid's remarks were racially insensitive and Lott's were simply racist

This morning on Meet the Press, while interviewing GOP Chairman Michael Steele and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, David Gregory, most likely reading straight from a script provided to him by The Weekly Standard, asked why President Barack Obama has forgiven Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for racially insensitive remarks, but demanded that then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) resign in 2002, for his praise of late Senator Strom Thurmond's (R-SC) campaign for president on a segregationist platform.

Steele, who recently used the phrase "honest Injun," didn't hesitate to all for Reid's resignation as majority leader.

There is a BIG difference between praising a segregationist in public like Lott did, and Reid's making, in private, a racially insensitive comment while praising and welcoming the candidacy of the man who would go on to become the first African American President of the United States.

Reid's choice of words shows that when it comes to race and discussing African Americans he is very unenlighted. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE IS RACIST, it just means this guy, who it should be pointed out enthusiastically campaigned for Obama, has a long way to go when it comes to learning how to discuss race. His heart is most likely in the right place, his mouth and vocabulary? Not so much.

Lott on the other hand made a point say that if Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

As pointed out earlier Thurmond ran on a segrationist platform and on the campaign plan remarked "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

When Gregory, The Weekly Standard, Steele or anyone else advances the notion that there is any comparision between what Reid's and Lott's comments they show themselves either to be ignorant or worse, they show themselves as folks who will seek to exploit discussions of race as a launching pad to provoke racial division.

Cross posted: http://blog.windycitywatch.com/2010/01/reids-remarks-were-racially-insensitive.html

[cali]

1. that's my assessment as well. recced.

[global1]

2. And Why Are Reid's Comments About Obama First Coming Out Now?......

Who brought this to the attention of the MSM now? Is it because the Repugs see Reid's Senate seat in Nevada in play? Are they thinking that this is another nail in his coffin?

[FrenchieCat]

3. My hubby and I were discussing this, this morning......

and that's what he said about Reid's comments; they were insensitive, but there was some truth to them as far as to how White folks view Black folks. It wasn't something that he needed to say, as it was only reinforcing stereotypes that are unfortunate, but I wonder how many have thought exactly what Reid actually said. There was a reason there was such an uproar about Rev. Wright and the Boston arrest of the Black professor; because America is still inherently racist. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if one were to gather up all of the statements made by folks about Obama in 2007 and 2008 before he clinched the nomination; one could write a big ass book. Hell, even Hillary said herself, he may have problems with getting to vote of Hard working White people.

The whole "controversy" is being ginned up now because Reid is running for re-election, and little else. It's purely political, and has nothing to do with Halperin, et al having "concerns" of how Black people are portrayed or feel. If that was the case, the media would have stopped analyzing the entire 2008 election via their color lenses day after day after day. I'll always remember how they disected every primary along racial lines. In fact, it is the media, not Sen. Reid, who reduced the Black vote to irrelevancy throughout the primaries and then during the general election.

Some bigass hypocrites need to be called out. Halperin was one of those who analyzed so much of the 2008 election through the prism of race. Now he attempts to point the finger when it is politically beneficial for the Republican party; because he is a great big GOP stenographer and Corporate hack.

Back in January of 2008,

On CNN’s "American Morning," co-host John Roberts and "Time" Magazine’s Mark Halperin not only analyzed the Democratic results in Michigan at the beginning of the 7:30am half hour, but also examined the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the black vote to ‘uncommitted’:

ROBERTS: So they're trying to put the issue of race behind them. But the results of last night's polling in Michigan gave us a very important signal about how African-American voters are feeling.

HALPERIN: As you said before, Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot of the candidates still in the race. She won, but uncommitted drew a lot of votes, and a huge percentage, according to the exit poll, of African-American votes. That is a problem for her going forward in South Carolina, in particular, where at least half and maybe more of the vote will be African-American, and also in some of these big states coming up on Super Tuesday. The big African-American vote, she has to address that in South Carolina. It's kind of a dry run to see if she can win some of it back from Barack Obama.

ROBERTS: Our exit polling showed last night that 68 percent of African-American voters cast their vote for uncommitted. So, that's a very big sign for her, that there are some troubled waters ahead.

HALPERIN: Some of that was probably directed by the Obama campaign below the surface, but some of it was clearly organic. The Clinton family in politics has been able to rely on African-American votes. One of the real challenges she faces from Obama is obvious appeal to his fellow African-Americans.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/01/16/cbs-abc-ignore-democratic-primary-michigan

Time's Halperin: "Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama" include attacks on his race and name
In a February 25 (2008) entry to his website, The Page, Time magazine political analyst Mark Halperin posted a list titled "Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot," in which he suggested that McCain "can ... llow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama" and "can ...mphasize Barack Hussein Obama's unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism."

Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot
by Mark Halperin

Nomination fights are tribal matters. There are certain lines candidates from the same party cannot cross when trying to win. In general election battles, there are fewer rules and constraints.

snip
The McCain campaign is staffed with savvy, experienced operatives who have closely watched the rise of Obama, and they have learned from Clinton's failure to take down her Democratic rival.

So below are things McCain and his forces can do when running against Obama that Clinton has been unable to do well or at all -- some of which McCain, President Bush, and other McCain allies are already doing. Some McCain boosters -- and Obama opponents -- would likely cross the lines of appropriateness in a general election with a few of these tactics, just as at least one state Republican Party, one radio host, and several GOP commentators already have done.

As always, there is a difference in politics between "what is" and "what ought to be." McCain has already been forced to denounce several instances of some of these efforts.

1. Play the national security card without hesitation.

2. Talk about the Iraq War without apologies or perceived contradiction.

3. Go at Obama unambiguously from the right.

4. Encourage interest groups, bloggers, and right-leaning media to explore Obama's past.

5. Make an issue of Obama's acknowledged drug use.

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.

7. Exploit Michelle Obama's mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.

8. Play dirty without alienating his party.

9. Dismiss Obama's brief national tenure from his own lofty platform of decades in the Senate – there will be no ambiguity about who has more experience as conventionally defined.

10. Use his sterling war record to reinforce his image of patriotism and valor – and contrast it with his opponent's.

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama's unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

12. Employ third party groups like the NRA to hit Obama on issues that might turn off general election voters. Perhaps an ad such as this will run in Ohio: “So, what do you really know about Barack Obama? Did you know he supports meeting with the head of terrorist states? Do you know he wants to get rid of your right to own a handgun? Do you know he is calling for the repeal of the law preventing gay marriage? Do you know he is for a trillion-dollar tax increase? What do you really know about Barack Obama?”

13. Face an electorate less consumed with “change change change” (the main priority for Democratic voters) and keenly interested in “ready from day one” as an equally important ideal.

14. Link biography (experience/courage) and leadership (straight talk) to a vision animated by detail – accentuating Obama's relative lack of specificity.

15. Give Obama his first real race against a credible Republican. (Clinton has always asserted that Obama would wilt before a fierce Republican assault.)

16. Confront Obama with a united, focused campaign absent of second-guessing, which hits the same themes and message every day.

http://thepage.time.com/halperin’s-take-ways-mccain-can-beat-obama-that-clinton-cannot/

<--- HACK!

[wndycty]

4. Great find

:kick:

[FrenchieCat]

5. I didn't have to look long.....

and there's plenty more where that came from.

[wndycty]

7. Very true

:kick:

[jtrockville]

6. Steele appeared petty and uninformed.

In otherwords, he looked like a hero to the RW'ers.

[theothersnippywshrub]

8. Excellent analysis. And it illustrates a fundamental truth about the republican party.

Republicans praised and defended a man who said a segregationist should have been elected president and they criticize and condemn a man who said an African American should be elected president. That is so very, very republican.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Congressional Black Caucus to Issue a Statement Supporting Reid....

http://twitter.com/PrestonCNN

Now, in theory, this should satisfy all the angry white men on the right who have decided to become civil rights champions over the weekend, but of course it wont.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. don't forget Steele jumped on the bandwagon

sp predictable

[Arkana]

11. Whatever. Reid's probably out the door in November anyway.

I don't think Obama took any offense, but I'm sure he's filed it away somewhere.

[lynne]

12. Not sure you can split that hair much thinner -

- and to deny that we'd be furious and be demanding the resignation of a republican that said the same thing is intellectually dishonest.