MoâKelly did a triple-take when he read the following editorialâŚOpposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist. Given it was published on a conservative website, it wasnât hard to figure out the sarcasm and just what conclusion would be awaiting at the end of the column.
In truth, the writer couldâve simply begun and ended with the title and written the phrase, âitâs not trueâ in the middle. The effectiveness of the point would have been the same, as in âvery little.â
âMr. Sajak is the host of “Wheel of Fortune” and PatSajak.com.â
Pat SajakâŚTHAT Pat Sajak? He’s writing political editorials?! The guy heretofore whose literary contributions amounted to questions on whether I wanted to “buy a vowel” or admonished folks to “check the used letter board” before selecting a consonant is waxing rhapsodic on the evolving health care debate?!
Really?!
Oh, it gets better.
Frank Rich
In Sajakâs editorial, he chastises Frank Rich of the New York Times (former theater critic) for suggesting that the foundation of the resentment towards President Obama and his health care reform is rooted in race.
MoâKelly wonât even get into some protracted discussion as to the vociferous Tea Party contingentâs actions. Their âN-wordâ bombs say all that needs to be said. If you think itâs any coincidence that the ignorance flaunted by the Tea Party and the Birthers is identical, it’s not. Theyâre the exact same people.  If you recognize one or two or 200 people in various Tea Party videos who also happen to belong to that “unnamed” militia stockpiling arms, living in rural “wherever”…don’t be surprised. They’re the exact same people.
You mean to tell MoâKelly that after invading Iraq under false pretenses and unprecedented American spending in the era of George Bush, these âradicalsâ would have you believe that health care reform rightly inspires more anger and vitriol?
Sajak, you’re saying this is a “principled” debate being waged by the Right?
Game Show Host please…
These people all of a sudden became radical “fiscal conservatives” the moment President Obama announced his plan for health care reform and are willing to go to jail because of their beliefs? And by the way, 4,400 American servicemen and women have died in Iraq and no Congresspeople have been spat upon or called âN*****” in the 7 intervening years.
So much for “principled” dissent and debate.
You know, the war that helped bankrupt the nation? THAT war? Just wanted to put that out there for all of you “fiscal conservatives who happen to be against health care reform for reasons OTHER than race.”
Of course Frank Rich is right. But MoâKelly digresses, this is about Pat.
Instead of creating some well-crafted rebuttal to Sajak and skewering his arguments accordingly, MoâKelly will simply let Sajakâs words do most of the talking. MoâKelly in response will do all of the laughing.
âNow, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. Iâm not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysisâheck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show hostâbut the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate sheâs bleeding money, thatâs no small sacrifice.â
Itâs a good thing that Sajak realizes the inherent absurdity in his own âTV Game Show host rantings.â The difference is, Rich IS a journalist. You Pat made a
Wink Martindale
living pointing at Vanna White playing a modified version of electric hangman. âWe writersâ would call your assertion a âspecious argumentâ or in Wheel of Fortune speakâŚthe phrase âcomparing apples and oranges.â
Newspaper columnists (even ex-theater ones) are paid to offer opinionated analysis.
Game show hosts are not. Know your place Pat and stay in your lane.
The next thing you know, Wink Martindale and Alex Trebek will be guests of George Stephanopoulos chiming in on the effectiveness of TARP. I mean, let’s be real. Wouldn’t the former host of Tic, Tac, Dough be a credible economic opinion-leader and/or analyst?
UhâŚno. Know your place Pat. You point, Vanna turns. Thatâs the deal. It’s in your contract.
Sajak continuesâŚ
âSo thatâs it. Itâs just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, youâre a
"I'd like to buy a vowell…"
racist, sexist homophobe.â
Itâs an oversimplification, but youâre warm Pat. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 had only ONE “no” vote in the Senate â Strom Thurmond.
STROM THURMOND.
You do the math.
What Sajak fails to acknowledge or understand is that debate and disagreement are always acceptable in American discourse. This is about the intimidation and fear tactics employed during the Civil Rights movement to discourage legitimate discussion and debate…which ring rather familiar today.
âWelcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing âCats.â This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology.”
Oh Game Show Host PLEASE!
No he didnât! The Game Show Host did NOT just impugn the qualifications of the true journalist, with a show business diss?! Really, he didnât just do that did he? He demanded an apology tooâŚon behalf of the âoffended?â
Chuck Woolery
If Frank Rich (the journalist) is âbetter suited to reviewing Cats” what does that say about the “game show host” who wasnât even the best host in the history of his OWN game show? Somebody get Chuck Woolery on the phone. He needs to see this!
Pat SajakâŚMoâKelly knows Chuck Woolery. (Best Lloyd Bentsen voice) Sajak…You are no Chuck Woolery.
WaitâŚMoâKelly needs a moment to recollect himself.
âŚ
âŚ
âŚ
âŚ
BUWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
(waitâŚalmost composed)
âŚ
Sajak said WHAT?!!!
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
âŚ
âŚ
Heâs killing me!!!
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
âŚ
âŚ
Make the 2nd best Wheel of Fortune game show host stop!
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
…
…
(wiping drool from shirt)
OK, MoâKellyâs back.
Mr. Sajak,
If we go back and watch the video of the Little Rock Nine making their way into Central High School in 1957, notice the âN*****â taunts, the spitting and endless intimidation. Much of that should seem vaguely familiar.
Letâs also acknowledge the fact that death threats against President Obama are up more than 400% as compared to President Bush. Up 400% BEFORE the health care debate started, and President Obama mind you won his election to office fair and square, not needing his brother the Florida governor to âallegedlyâ help seal the deal. We can’t even fathom the percentage increase in the weeks since the ratcheting up of the Tea Party rhetoric.
Animosity? Not about race?
Game Show Host pleaseâŚ
Sajak closed withâŚ
âLetâs yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?â
SureâŚjust as long as the 2nd best host in the history of Wheel of Fortune leaves the editorial commentary to the trained professionals.
[Stay tuned…the new mrmokelly.com website is coming to you in 2010. Set your browsers now.]
The MoâKelly Reportis an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at The Huffington Post and www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourseâŚas well as entertain. The MoâKelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more MoâKelly, https://mrmokelly.com. MoâKelly can be reached at [email protected] and he welcomes all commentary.
Pat Sajak: "S __ T Y __ D __ MB ___ SS D _ WN"
I'LL SOLVE THE PUZZLE!!!
Pat Sajak, ironically, is from the West Side of Chicago. He attended Farragut HS, the same school that Kevin Garnett graduated from. And I know he's pissed that their names must be uttered in the same breath.
Mo', you are a journalism hero and this piece is EXCELLENT!
Zack, THAT was funny. Walt, I figured you'd side with Pat. Of course not everyone who disagrees with health care reform is a racist. The point is that when it comes out of Sajak's mouth with an admonition that Rich has no business offering his opinion…THAT is hilarious to me.
There's an old saying Walt…Pot calling the kettle…
Like he's one to talk. At least Rich was in his field of expertise when he offered his opinion. And no, Rich didn't say to disagree with "Obamacare" makes you a racist. But he did say and rightly so that the VITRIOL, the RAGE the ANGER was rooted in race.
This hasn't been a principled fight, it's been a thinly-veiled assault on the presidency…with Birther and Sarah Palin overtones.
"
President Barack Obama says he believes the Tea Party is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist.
But beyond that, Obama tells NBC he recognizes the movement involves "folks who have legitimate concerns" about the national debt and whether the government is taking on too many difficult issues simultaneously.
In an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, Obama said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy." But he said he didn't want to paint Tea Party activists "in broad brushes" and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns."
" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_el_ge/u…
"
And no, Rich didn’t say to disagree with “Obamacare” makes you a racist. But he did say and rightly so that the VITRIOL, the RAGE the ANGER was rooted in race.
"
We simply disagree. To have such anger about health care and nothing on the War in Iraq speaks volumes. There's nothing in the health care reform debate which should inspire death threats to Black congressmen. Yes, BLACK congressmen.
If you have health care it's a non-issue. If you don't you have better access. We can debate the intricacies and people may be for or against it…but the vitriol is most definitely racially tinged. Why, because the anger plays out accordingly.
I don't make up the stories on the Congressmen being called the N-Word…I just read them. These are the same folks who swore up and down that President Obama was/is an Arab, a Kenyan and a Marxist. Which speaks to President Obama's statement about the core group attacking the legitimacy of his presidency.
And let me just say that "politics of race" has (at least) two distinct interpretations:
1. One party criticizes the other for either promoting or opposing race-based policies (i.e., affirmative action);
2. One party points to the other and says "Your racist."
Item 1: There are two sides, both can play.
Item 2: the Left labels the Right.
There is something insidious about taking somebody's opposition to your policies and declaring you a racist, as if that's the end of the discussion and you lose, and not only do you lose, but you should be extinct.
There are racists and they should be extinct.
But here's how we know a racist: He or she EXPRESSES RACIST IDEAS.
It is not near enough to disagree with the president and therefore be labelled a racist. You can be vitriolic, you can be hostile, and you can STILL be dealing with the PERSON and the ISSUE and not his or her SKIN COLOR.
And you didn't hear me Walt. I did not in any way say or intimate that to disagree with President Obama or be opposed to this health care plan you're somehow a racist. I can't say it any more clearly than that.
But I AM saying that this faux anger is definitely tinged in race. No doubt in my mind. Don't tell me that this is about "fiscal responsibility" when the war in Iraq has raged for 7 years without a peep (even today) from the Tea Party. As for racist actions…turn on the news Walt. Turn on the news.
"
There’s nothing in the health care reform debate which should inspire death threats to Black congressmen. Yes, BLACK congressmen.
"
Well, duh.
Those people are idiots. Those SPECIFIC people.
"
but the vitriol is most definitely racially tinged. Why, because the anger plays out accordingly.
"
SOME of the vitriol. As your very bright president points out, there are other legitimate reasons for hating this law.
"
I don’t make up the stories on the Congressmen being called the N-Word…I just read them. These are the same folks who swore up and down that President Obama was/is an Arab, a Kenyan and a Marxist. Which speaks to President Obama’s statement about the core group attacking the legitimacy of his presidency.
"
Do you own any brushes that are NOT broad?
SOME of them are the same folks. SOME are racist. And SOME are honestly angry at the direction of this nation, a completely legitimate and necessary discussion to have.
1. That's midnight in the east. Adjust your time accordingly.
2. Black folks are more than welcome to join the discussion, but this is primarily about how white folks talk to each other. Sajak, Rich, Olbermann, Maddow…all white. Whites describing each others actions and motives in broad, sweeping, inflammatory terms.
If you are going to continue to insist that "Tea Partier" = "Dixiecrat, you will need more than innuendo.
Your choice is clear: Cast your lot with the hard left, whose clear agenda is to find shocking talking points to counter what they see as a successful right-wing tactic.
Or, you can join with your president and take a more measured approach.
WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.
The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus , lawmakers said.
"They were shouting, sort of harassing," Lewis said. "But, it's okay, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean."
Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted "Kill the bill, kill the bill," Lewis said.
"I said 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill'," Lewis said.
A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying "Kill the bill, then the n-word."
"It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver , D- Mo. , said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."
"It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff – they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them."
Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank , D- Mass. , an openly gay member of Congress . A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a "faggot."
Montana
Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
Stacey
"Game show host, please…"
I am dying with laughter over that line, LOL!
Jack Shepard
First, I hope you feel the same way about all the Hollywood celebs that you do about Pat. Especially Sean Penn, who seems to think Hugo Chavez is a really great dude.
Second, you underestimate the Tea Part at your own peril, Montana. As you do O'Reilly, et al. To begin with, you aren't really listening to them. If you were, you'd understand exactly why they are so popular. Hint: It's not for any of the reasons you cite.
I don't underestimate the Tea Party, I think they have a sizable influence and the Right is "using" them right now because it serves their interests Jack. As for other celebrities…case by case basis. I think Martin Sheen is admirable and Ed Asner for example have been lifelong activists and advocates. Their printing an editorial is different from an average celebrity.
Sean Penn too, you can point to many years of activism. You don't have to agree with him, but his resume is long…and long before he did a movie like Milk.
Now there are other stars, rappers and the like who've I've skewered right here for the same reasons who have no business stepping out there and have no foundation in which to even go there. But yes, I don't know if the comment was specifically directed at me but I can assure you I've taken folks like Nas, 50 Cent, Diddy, Isaiah Washington and dozens of others for doing the exact same thing.
And by the way Jack…it doesn't affect me in any way whether someone in America "likes" Hugo Chavez. That's double-speak. America picks and chooses the dictators it wants to "like." Saddam Hussein was every bit the dictator in 1983 when Donald Rumsfeld thought so highly of him as he was in 2003 when Rumsfeld thought he needed to go. In 1983 he served our interests against Iran, but he was just as despicable then.
And speaking of dictatorships, it's common knowledge (and will send you to the official government de-classified link) as to our CIA involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government in the 50s…to place OUR dictator in place, the Shah.
South Africa was a dictatorship up until the 80s…it wasn't like Ronald Reagan was "unfriendly" with the "president" of South Africa. Let's not rewrite history just to suit our partisan political agenda. Or how about Reagan and Iran/Contra…how about those dictators we supported?
Let's not forget our "friendship" with Ferdinand Marcos…the supposed "president" of the Philippines, rigged election and all.
Hugo Chavez? He's nothing in comparison to the likes of Saddam Hussein. Chavez is all empty rhetoric. Hasn't invaded neighboring countries and hasn't destabilized the region.
I cannot alter my stance without being intellectually dishonest. There are countless reasons why a politician takes a particular stance.
In a real sense they need the Tea Party. Certainly none of them wants to be targeted by the Tea Party for condemnation.
And by declaring the behavior offensive on a mass level, they would be committing the same "broad brush" sin that you and Olbermann are.
You have a right to be white and angry without being called a racist. The fact that you did not condemn a person who stood next to you and behaved that way does not make you "complicit" in their behavior.
I guess in Mo'World you are either a soldier or a traitor.
Let's take this a step further, Morris. Suppose I was a Tea Partier for the simple reason that govt thinks it can do whatever it wants and the voice of the people doesn't matter to them, and I'm pissed about it.
So I go to the Capitol along with other Tea Partiers and somebody near me yells out the "N" word toward a black congressman. Other than murmurs of disapproval, nobody says anything, including me.
Why? Because I am not going to change that person's mind, and I might start a fight that's bigger than me if I spout off. Nobody's life is at risk yet; why foment a riot? Call that what you will, but it's probably somewhere close to how it would go.
Was I complicit in that jackass' behavior? Not remotely.
Now, suppose I go on the air and condemn him from a safe distance. Yes, I have burnished my liberal credentials by attacking the right people, but I have been completely disingenuous, because I tolerated the behavior when it happened.
I'm a dishonest jerk if I go that way.
So what do you call it? You call it being between a rock and a hard place.
You call it complicated, if you're being honest about it.
”
But I AM saying that this faux anger is definitely tinged in race. No doubt in my mind. Donât tell me that this is about âfiscal responsibilityâ when the war in Iraq has raged for 7 years without a peep (even today) from the Tea Party. As for racist actionsâŚturn on the news Walt. Turn on the news.
”
You mean the news of whites continuously and increasingly expressing racist attitudes?
Yes, I MISSED THAT NEWS.
What I have not missed is leftist talkies BEATING THE DRUMS and making the same sweeping judgments YOU are making.
Until the right repudiates this supposed “fringe” they rightfully get lumped in with the masses. It works both ways. If you don’t repudiate Limbaugh’s racist rhetoric, it’s an act of complicity.
That’s what you fail to acknowledge. Complicity. It’s what the Republican leadership has been great at doing. “We didn’t say it…they said it.” But stop short of thoroughly condemning it or truly distancing themselves from it in an activity sense. Because the Tea Party serves a viable purpose at the moment.
It’s called complicity.
If I’m edging closer to Olbermann…I’m ok with that. There’s a recurring theme here. The Limbaughs of the world can say and do what they want and they make Michael Steele apologize. That’s called complicity with one’s actions.
The tea baggers do what they want and the Republican Leadership does nothing other than say “that’s horrible” in the media…yet do nothing to truly repudiate the behavior. It’s talking game while winking at the Tea Baggers. C’mon Walt, you should be more savvy than that.
I don’t need to commit the crime to be complicit in the committing of a crime. The law understands this and so should you.
Excellent post Mo!! We all know what the anger and angst is about. As you so aptly pointed out the Rethugs only get fiscally conservative when they are not in power. The redefining of Reagan the "so-called" conservative who, as you stated, actually raised taxes only proves that the Rethugs are masters of deception and continually rewrite history to fit their agenda.
Roger Reid
Walt, your duplicity is showing…and hypocrisy (yet another thing you seem to have in common with the right-wing Republicans you so readily contort yourself to understand).
You have previously stated how you admire Dr. Martin Luther King, yet your rejoinder that moral cowardice is "complicated" and "being between a rock and a hard place" is hardly worthy of your professed adoration of Dr. King.
OF COURSE you are supposed to speak up and decry wrong, simply because it is wrong! Do you believe that Dr. King felt speaking out against wrong was optional?
Your opinions here never seem to want for confrontational grist, and you never seem to be at a loss to take Mo to task over his beliefs, but I dare say that Mo (black belt not withstanding) would never stand side by side with someone in a crowd hurling vendictives and racial epitaphs without voicing his opposition to the offender.
Walt, if you can not stand on the convictions of your beliefs, no matter what the circumstances, then you need to fill out Zack's "Wheel of Fortune" puzzle and act accordingly.
"EVIL PREVAILS WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT."
p.s. Your "Ghetto Pass" is revoked. Your meandering psuedo-philosophical tirades excusing inappropriate discriminatory behavior as non-racially motivated and unintentional just underscores the difference between proximity and inclusion.
And, for the record, African-Americans are not racists. A rac-IST determines the CONDITIONS (Rule of Engagement, if you will) of discrimination, because they have the POWER to INSTITUTE the practice(rac-ISM). African-Americans are reactionaries to the INSTITUTION of racism that has been foisted on them within a captive society from the moment they were brought to these shores. But you would know that if it where YOU.
27 responses to “Pat Sajak – On the Health Care Debate?! Really?!”
Pat Sajak: "S __ T Y __ D __ MB ___ SS D _ WN"
I'LL SOLVE THE PUZZLE!!!
Pat Sajak, ironically, is from the West Side of Chicago. He attended Farragut HS, the same school that Kevin Garnett graduated from. And I know he's pissed that their names must be uttered in the same breath.
Mo', you are a journalism hero and this piece is EXCELLENT!
Zack, THAT was funny. Walt, I figured you'd side with Pat. Of course not everyone who disagrees with health care reform is a racist. The point is that when it comes out of Sajak's mouth with an admonition that Rich has no business offering his opinion…THAT is hilarious to me.
There's an old saying Walt…Pot calling the kettle…
Like he's one to talk. At least Rich was in his field of expertise when he offered his opinion. And no, Rich didn't say to disagree with "Obamacare" makes you a racist. But he did say and rightly so that the VITRIOL, the RAGE the ANGER was rooted in race.
This hasn't been a principled fight, it's been a thinly-veiled assault on the presidency…with Birther and Sarah Palin overtones.
I'm with Pat.
Sick and damn tired of this complex issue being tied up in a neat bow by the left.
They're as bad as the right, which makes them worse.
Of course you're with Pat, Walt. And that puzzle is for you as well. đ
"
President Barack Obama says he believes the Tea Party is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist.
But beyond that, Obama tells NBC he recognizes the movement involves "folks who have legitimate concerns" about the national debt and whether the government is taking on too many difficult issues simultaneously.
In an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, Obama said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy." But he said he didn't want to paint Tea Party activists "in broad brushes" and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns."
" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_el_ge/u…
Morris wrote:
"
And no, Rich didn’t say to disagree with “Obamacare” makes you a racist. But he did say and rightly so that the VITRIOL, the RAGE the ANGER was rooted in race.
"
Still too broad a brush.
We simply disagree. To have such anger about health care and nothing on the War in Iraq speaks volumes. There's nothing in the health care reform debate which should inspire death threats to Black congressmen. Yes, BLACK congressmen.
If you have health care it's a non-issue. If you don't you have better access. We can debate the intricacies and people may be for or against it…but the vitriol is most definitely racially tinged. Why, because the anger plays out accordingly.
I don't make up the stories on the Congressmen being called the N-Word…I just read them. These are the same folks who swore up and down that President Obama was/is an Arab, a Kenyan and a Marxist. Which speaks to President Obama's statement about the core group attacking the legitimacy of his presidency.
And let me just say that "politics of race" has (at least) two distinct interpretations:
1. One party criticizes the other for either promoting or opposing race-based policies (i.e., affirmative action);
2. One party points to the other and says "Your racist."
Item 1: There are two sides, both can play.
Item 2: the Left labels the Right.
There is something insidious about taking somebody's opposition to your policies and declaring you a racist, as if that's the end of the discussion and you lose, and not only do you lose, but you should be extinct.
There are racists and they should be extinct.
But here's how we know a racist: He or she EXPRESSES RACIST IDEAS.
It is not near enough to disagree with the president and therefore be labelled a racist. You can be vitriolic, you can be hostile, and you can STILL be dealing with the PERSON and the ISSUE and not his or her SKIN COLOR.
And you didn't hear me Walt. I did not in any way say or intimate that to disagree with President Obama or be opposed to this health care plan you're somehow a racist. I can't say it any more clearly than that.
But I AM saying that this faux anger is definitely tinged in race. No doubt in my mind. Don't tell me that this is about "fiscal responsibility" when the war in Iraq has raged for 7 years without a peep (even today) from the Tea Party. As for racist actions…turn on the news Walt. Turn on the news.
"
There’s nothing in the health care reform debate which should inspire death threats to Black congressmen. Yes, BLACK congressmen.
"
Well, duh.
Those people are idiots. Those SPECIFIC people.
"
but the vitriol is most definitely racially tinged. Why, because the anger plays out accordingly.
"
SOME of the vitriol. As your very bright president points out, there are other legitimate reasons for hating this law.
"
I don’t make up the stories on the Congressmen being called the N-Word…I just read them. These are the same folks who swore up and down that President Obama was/is an Arab, a Kenyan and a Marxist. Which speaks to President Obama’s statement about the core group attacking the legitimacy of his presidency.
"
Do you own any brushes that are NOT broad?
SOME of them are the same folks. SOME are racist. And SOME are honestly angry at the direction of this nation, a completely legitimate and necessary discussion to have.
"Politics Of Race". tonight's Talking Point.
waltbennett.com/wordpress
Tonight at midnight.
Video link in the top right.
Anybody who wants to get into this, meet me there.
Two notes:
1. That's midnight in the east. Adjust your time accordingly.
2. Black folks are more than welcome to join the discussion, but this is primarily about how white folks talk to each other. Sajak, Rich, Olbermann, Maddow…all white. Whites describing each others actions and motives in broad, sweeping, inflammatory terms.
All chasing ratings.
Disgusting.
Yes, Walt…some. But the debate is not being predicated on principle. This "movement" is not about health care reform. It's a red herring.
Morris,
If you are going to continue to insist that "Tea Partier" = "Dixiecrat, you will need more than innuendo.
Your choice is clear: Cast your lot with the hard left, whose clear agenda is to find shocking talking points to counter what they see as a successful right-wing tactic.
Or, you can join with your president and take a more measured approach.
Tea Party = "N*gger chant" to congressman. That's not innuendo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3457015
WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.
The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus , lawmakers said.
"They were shouting, sort of harassing," Lewis said. "But, it's okay, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean."
Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted "Kill the bill, kill the bill," Lewis said.
"I said 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill'," Lewis said.
A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying "Kill the bill, then the n-word."
"It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver , D- Mo. , said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."
"It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff – they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them."
Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank , D- Mass. , an openly gay member of Congress . A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a "faggot."
Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
"Game show host, please…"
I am dying with laughter over that line, LOL!
First, I hope you feel the same way about all the Hollywood celebs that you do about Pat. Especially Sean Penn, who seems to think Hugo Chavez is a really great dude.
Second, you underestimate the Tea Part at your own peril, Montana. As you do O'Reilly, et al. To begin with, you aren't really listening to them. If you were, you'd understand exactly why they are so popular. Hint: It's not for any of the reasons you cite.
I don't underestimate the Tea Party, I think they have a sizable influence and the Right is "using" them right now because it serves their interests Jack. As for other celebrities…case by case basis. I think Martin Sheen is admirable and Ed Asner for example have been lifelong activists and advocates. Their printing an editorial is different from an average celebrity.
Sean Penn too, you can point to many years of activism. You don't have to agree with him, but his resume is long…and long before he did a movie like Milk.
Now there are other stars, rappers and the like who've I've skewered right here for the same reasons who have no business stepping out there and have no foundation in which to even go there. But yes, I don't know if the comment was specifically directed at me but I can assure you I've taken folks like Nas, 50 Cent, Diddy, Isaiah Washington and dozens of others for doing the exact same thing.
No hypocrisy here…
And by the way Jack…it doesn't affect me in any way whether someone in America "likes" Hugo Chavez. That's double-speak. America picks and chooses the dictators it wants to "like." Saddam Hussein was every bit the dictator in 1983 when Donald Rumsfeld thought so highly of him as he was in 2003 when Rumsfeld thought he needed to go. In 1983 he served our interests against Iran, but he was just as despicable then.
And speaking of dictatorships, it's common knowledge (and will send you to the official government de-classified link) as to our CIA involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government in the 50s…to place OUR dictator in place, the Shah.
South Africa was a dictatorship up until the 80s…it wasn't like Ronald Reagan was "unfriendly" with the "president" of South Africa. Let's not rewrite history just to suit our partisan political agenda. Or how about Reagan and Iran/Contra…how about those dictators we supported?
Let's not forget our "friendship" with Ferdinand Marcos…the supposed "president" of the Philippines, rigged election and all.
Hugo Chavez? He's nothing in comparison to the likes of Saddam Hussein. Chavez is all empty rhetoric. Hasn't invaded neighboring countries and hasn't destabilized the region.
Mo,
I cannot alter my stance without being intellectually dishonest. There are countless reasons why a politician takes a particular stance.
In a real sense they need the Tea Party. Certainly none of them wants to be targeted by the Tea Party for condemnation.
And by declaring the behavior offensive on a mass level, they would be committing the same "broad brush" sin that you and Olbermann are.
You have a right to be white and angry without being called a racist. The fact that you did not condemn a person who stood next to you and behaved that way does not make you "complicit" in their behavior.
I guess in Mo'World you are either a soldier or a traitor.
Let's take this a step further, Morris. Suppose I was a Tea Partier for the simple reason that govt thinks it can do whatever it wants and the voice of the people doesn't matter to them, and I'm pissed about it.
So I go to the Capitol along with other Tea Partiers and somebody near me yells out the "N" word toward a black congressman. Other than murmurs of disapproval, nobody says anything, including me.
Why? Because I am not going to change that person's mind, and I might start a fight that's bigger than me if I spout off. Nobody's life is at risk yet; why foment a riot? Call that what you will, but it's probably somewhere close to how it would go.
Was I complicit in that jackass' behavior? Not remotely.
Now, suppose I go on the air and condemn him from a safe distance. Yes, I have burnished my liberal credentials by attacking the right people, but I have been completely disingenuous, because I tolerated the behavior when it happened.
I'm a dishonest jerk if I go that way.
So what do you call it? You call it being between a rock and a hard place.
You call it complicated, if you're being honest about it.
”
But I AM saying that this faux anger is definitely tinged in race. No doubt in my mind. Donât tell me that this is about âfiscal responsibilityâ when the war in Iraq has raged for 7 years without a peep (even today) from the Tea Party. As for racist actionsâŚturn on the news Walt. Turn on the news.
”
You mean the news of whites continuously and increasingly expressing racist attitudes?
Yes, I MISSED THAT NEWS.
What I have not missed is leftist talkies BEATING THE DRUMS and making the same sweeping judgments YOU are making.
Morris continues his narrow-minded rant with this comment:
”
Tea Party = âN*gger chantâ to congressman. Thatâs not innuendo.
”
Once again, Morris, you are really practicing the art of obfuscation over this:
SOME idiotic, possibly racist, INDIVIDUALS.
Not an ENTIRE MOVEMENT.
I haven’t called you a fat, stupid idiot yet, but you are edging ever closer to Olbermann territory…
Until the right repudiates this supposed “fringe” they rightfully get lumped in with the masses. It works both ways. If you don’t repudiate Limbaugh’s racist rhetoric, it’s an act of complicity.
That’s what you fail to acknowledge. Complicity. It’s what the Republican leadership has been great at doing. “We didn’t say it…they said it.” But stop short of thoroughly condemning it or truly distancing themselves from it in an activity sense. Because the Tea Party serves a viable purpose at the moment.
It’s called complicity.
If I’m edging closer to Olbermann…I’m ok with that. There’s a recurring theme here. The Limbaughs of the world can say and do what they want and they make Michael Steele apologize. That’s called complicity with one’s actions.
The tea baggers do what they want and the Republican Leadership does nothing other than say “that’s horrible” in the media…yet do nothing to truly repudiate the behavior. It’s talking game while winking at the Tea Baggers. C’mon Walt, you should be more savvy than that.
I don’t need to commit the crime to be complicit in the committing of a crime. The law understands this and so should you.
Excellent post Mo!! We all know what the anger and angst is about. As you so aptly pointed out the Rethugs only get fiscally conservative when they are not in power. The redefining of Reagan the "so-called" conservative who, as you stated, actually raised taxes only proves that the Rethugs are masters of deception and continually rewrite history to fit their agenda.
Walt, your duplicity is showing…and hypocrisy (yet another thing you seem to have in common with the right-wing Republicans you so readily contort yourself to understand).
You have previously stated how you admire Dr. Martin Luther King, yet your rejoinder that moral cowardice is "complicated" and "being between a rock and a hard place" is hardly worthy of your professed adoration of Dr. King.
OF COURSE you are supposed to speak up and decry wrong, simply because it is wrong! Do you believe that Dr. King felt speaking out against wrong was optional?
Your opinions here never seem to want for confrontational grist, and you never seem to be at a loss to take Mo to task over his beliefs, but I dare say that Mo (black belt not withstanding) would never stand side by side with someone in a crowd hurling vendictives and racial epitaphs without voicing his opposition to the offender.
Walt, if you can not stand on the convictions of your beliefs, no matter what the circumstances, then you need to fill out Zack's "Wheel of Fortune" puzzle and act accordingly.
"EVIL PREVAILS WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT."
p.s. Your "Ghetto Pass" is revoked. Your meandering psuedo-philosophical tirades excusing inappropriate discriminatory behavior as non-racially motivated and unintentional just underscores the difference between proximity and inclusion.
And, for the record, African-Americans are not racists. A rac-IST determines the CONDITIONS (Rule of Engagement, if you will) of discrimination, because they have the POWER to INSTITUTE the practice(rac-ISM). African-Americans are reactionaries to the INSTITUTION of racism that has been foisted on them within a captive society from the moment they were brought to these shores. But you would know that if it where YOU.