Reiding Obama
Chris Cillizza at the WaPo's The Fix writes about Reid's remarks chronicled in Game Change, a book by Time's Mark Halperin and New York Mag's John Heilemann:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign."I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words," said Reid in a statement. "I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments."
Translation: "I deeply regret getting caught."
Since he is a fellow democrat he will be given a-
"We accept your apology. We know it was a poor choice of words. Let's move on." By the democrats,the main stream media (MSNBC, BCS, NBC,CNN, New York Times etc...)the race baiters such as Al Sharpton and The Reverend Jesse Jackson.
If this was a republican the treatment would be just the opposite.
David M. at January 10, 2010 5:09 AM
I regret that the people of Nevada have elected Harry Reid.
Patrick at January 10, 2010 6:48 AM
The President is light skinned and has a mainstream American voice. It's the truth. When did the truth become offensive?
Steve Daniels at January 10, 2010 7:50 AM
Does anyone except the media really give a damn?
Eric at January 10, 2010 8:44 AM
Shouldn't he also be apologizing to Hillary "Ahh ain' noways tarrred" Clinton?
Robin at January 10, 2010 9:41 AM
And who surprised this comment came from a leftist-democrat and leader of the party? Sounds like he and Babs Boxer have more similarities than first realized.
Feebie at January 10, 2010 9:51 AM
Just ask Trent Lott or Joe Biden.
Trent Lott toasting Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Joe Biden on Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Lott was forced to resign. Biden was named vice president.
Conan the Grammarian at January 10, 2010 10:54 AM
Conan, I think the segregation laws that Strom Thurmond was running under are slightly more damaging that the stereotypes that Biden was referring to, particularly since Biden was pointing out that Obama is not stereotypical.
Yes, I think the bloggers who made an issue out of this overreacted. Lott was trying to make Thurmond feel good on his birthday, referring to Thurmond as "a work of art."
But really, comparing Lott's statement to Biden's? Let's not forget what Thurmond was running under. For a taste:
Disgusting, vile human being Thurmond was, I wouldn't consider the post-campaign endorsement of Lott's, especially suggesting he was "proud" to have voted for him, to be on a par with Biden's comments.
Patrick at January 10, 2010 2:23 PM
Is this surprising? Liberals are the biggest racists out there, the more left-leaning the more racist.
momof4 at January 10, 2010 2:46 PM
Momof4: Is this surprising? Liberals are the biggest racists out there, the more left-leaning the more racist.
Well, since the leftists are the ones who elected the first biracial president (one who considers himself black), with a black wife and mother in law living in the White House, that's going to be tough to prove.
And regarding Reid's remarks, apparently, conservative columnist George Will is needed to talk some sense into the affected outrage of the racially sensitive.
Regarding Reid, I have no use for him, but Will is spot on. Reid said nothing degrading regarding Obama's race. He pointed out a statement of fact, like Biden. Obama is not a stereotypical black man.
So, what?
Patrick at January 10, 2010 4:46 PM
Reid's comment was asinine for a politician as experienced as he is. Whether it hinted at an underlying racism I'll leave to armchair psychologists.
On the other hand, Reid may very well have made a legitimate point in a practical discussion of America's past racism (racism that was, unfortunately, still widely accepted in 1948 when Strom Thurmond ran for president on a pro-segregation platform).
But if someone from the other side of the aisle had said what Reid said, charges of racism would have been automatic and widespread.
Lott's comment was equally asinine. And, given Lott's past associations with racist organizations (probably necessary in a political career in Mississippi at the time), whether his remarks were a product of any lingering racism on his part or poorly chosen extemporaneous remarks seems difficult to judge at this point.
But I notice that while Lott was constantly dogged by the media for his past associations (as was Thurmond), Senator Robert Byrd's past is rarely mentioned by the media, a past which includes holding offices in the Klan and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Byrd did later apologize for his membership in the Klan and did support the CIvil Rights Act of 1968.
But Byrd's condemnation of Klan seemed lukewarm at best when in 1997 he told an interviewer that he would encourage young people to become involved in politics, but to "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." Not a word about how vile the organization's policies and views are.
In 2001, Byrd told an interviewer that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word." That remark would have ended a Republican's career.
While not an outright indicator of racism, Byrd voted against the appointments of both Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall to the US Supreme Court, making Byrd the only US Senator to have opposed every African-American nominee to the Supreme Court. Not even Strom Thurmond could have made that claim.
And, yes, Thurmond continued to defend his past support for segregation, saying that it was part of his support for state's rights.
But did you know that Thurmond was the first southern US Senator to hire an African-American aide? Or that he supported making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal holiday? Or that he supported extending the Voting Rights Act? Or that he was a decorated World War II veteran having resigned a judgeship to volunteer for the army and landed in Normandy with the 82nd Airborne on D-Day? Or that he was congratulated by the NAACP for his part in arresting the members of a lynch mob? Despite his disgusting early views on race, perhaps he was not the two-dimensional villain his critics made him out to be.
Perhaps, too, neither are Byrd, Lott, and Reid.
The point here is not whether Lott, Thurmond, Byrd, or Reid are vile and disgusting human beings (they're politicians, they probably are), but the different treatments their pasts were given.
Conan the Grammarian at January 10, 2010 5:49 PM
"Well, since the leftists are the ones who elected the first biracial president (one who considers himself black), with a black wife and mother in law living in the White House, that's going to be tough to prove."
Not really. Who keeps the blacks (and now hispanics) living in squalor while working their damnedest to convince them they are capable of nothing better? Not conservatives.
Many, many people (I won't go quite so far as to say most of those who voted for him, but many) did so simply because he was black. That's racism too. The voting equivalent of saying "Hey, I have a black friend! I"m not racist".
momof4 at January 10, 2010 6:18 PM
"Many, many people (I won't go quite so far as to say most of those who voted for him, but many) did so simply because he was black."
If someone votes on the basis of skin color, it is racist. Unless the skin color is non-white, then it is ok.
bradley13 at January 10, 2010 10:19 PM
Momof4: Not really. Who keeps the blacks (and now hispanics) living in squalor while working their damnedest to convince them they are capable of nothing better? Not conservatives.
You're using one unproven and biased assertion to support your previous one. Your argument got no stronger.
And Conan, I agree with the different treatments of their pasts. Also, your points or Thurmond's history were most informative.
And yes, the rather soft condemnation of the Klan by Byrd is unsettling.
On the subject of different treatment of pasts, I've often said that had a white man with past associations similar to Obama's (domestic terrorists, and an unapologetic racist minister like Wright) were to make a bid for the White House, democrats would have hounded him mercilessly.
Patrick at January 10, 2010 10:38 PM
"Well, since the leftists are the ones who elected the first biracial president (one who considers himself black), with a black wife and mother in law living in the White House, that's going to be tough to prove."
No it isn't, but they rely heavily on people like you to make this argument.
They voted for Obama out of white guilt. And just like Reid said - he is "light-skinned".
You think the Democratic party would have elected a JC Watts? An African-American who worked his way up from nothing? An African-American from the Martin Luther King school of thought or heritage?
They could have picked half a dozen more qualified african americans ahead of Obama that had ten times his experience...and why didn't they? Huh?
Not on your life would you see a JC Watts. Not on your life would you see a Condelezza Rice. Not on your life would you see a Clarence Thomas.
They don't fit the script.
Leftists are the real racists.
Feebie at January 10, 2010 10:45 PM
"You're using one unproven and biased assertion to support your previous one. Your argument got no stronger."
No she isn't, she's right Patrick. If the Democrats were so interested in making the lives of minorities so much better, why have they failed them again and again? LBJ started these programs and he was a complete bigot.
They make things far, far worse with their entitlement programs, welfare, affirmative action, diversity, multi-culturalisms...
The democrats have institutionalized poverty, classism and racism against minorities through policies they've been legislating for YEARS and have done more collectively to keep minorities down in this country than any other party/ideology.
True Conservatism is the antithesis of this.
Feebie at January 10, 2010 10:52 PM
Feebie: No it isn't, but they rely heavily on people like you to make this argument.
They voted for Obama out of white guilt. And just like Reid said - he is "light-skinned".
Feebie, whatever. I stopped taking you seriously weeks ago. And reading this post reinforces why. You're either mind-reading the motives of everyone who voted for Obama, or you conducted a survey, neither one of which is a plausible theory.
You can direct your posts to me all you care to, but once I realize who's replying (and you're...style gives itself away rather quickly), I simply roll my eyes and stop reading.
Patrick at January 11, 2010 1:21 AM
Regarding the naive assumption that Democrats are the real racists and Republicans are just as sweet as candy, and anyone else who needs to see the world as black and white, least the shades of grey render them catatonic, Newt Gingrich weighs in on the subject of Republican racism.
I know. I know. He's a soft conservative. He's also the conservative who ushered in the first Republican controlled congress in forty years. And maybe his "soft" stance is precisely why you should listen to him.
Patrick at January 11, 2010 2:39 AM
"Feebie, whatever. I stopped taking you seriously weeks ago. And reading this post reinforces why. You're either mind-reading the motives of everyone who voted for Obama, or you conducted a survey, neither one of which is a plausible theory."
Seriously!?
I am doing neither one.
Feebie at January 11, 2010 8:56 AM
I propose an alternative solution: simple good politics.
The liberals knew that the general public wouldn't have voted for a JC Watts/Condelezza Rice/Clarence Thomas, however much the liberals themselves would support them. If you have the opportunity to put forward a potential presidential candidate who you know will be instantly shot down by the conservatives for being "too black", why in heck would you even consider them?
Surely the liberals are showing their open-mindedness and lack of racism by slowly pushing the political boundaries to allow non-whites more fully into politics?
I find it incredible that people are still so terrified of liberal policy that you'll start attacking the party for not electing a black-enough president. Phenomenal. Because, you know, the conservatives have such a strong history of multi-racial politics.
And for everyone who's complaining that the current administration hasn't achieved anything, I have a news-flash for you (and I'm only 25 years old!):
Politics. Changes. Nothing.
Nothing is ever achieved that makes people feel happy or proud. At least, that's the way it runs in Britain. We occasionally get an absolute stinker of a policy that pisses the hell out of people - but I cannot remember one single example of a policy being made that made me or any of my friends say "yes, finally, that is a good idea".
The point is that while Obama may not have fixed everything in the universe instantly, I propose he is doing no worse than the conservatives would have done. Hell, look at the previous administration. Conservative, right? I reckon he's already doing significantly better than that bunch.
donald at January 12, 2010 3:54 AM
Oh, and in response to the original entry - as so many people have pointed out already, Reid doesn't seem to have said anything wrong in the slightest.
Additionally, this was in a private conversation!! I say things in private conversation all the time about one thing or another which, taken out of context (the context being a joking conversation with friends, for example), could turn me into one of the greatest hate figures of the day.
I'm not racist; sexist; ageist; homo- or hoplophobic - but every now and then I'll say something which could be taken in one of those ways if taken entirely out of context by someone else who feels they have the right to listen in to my private conversation.
donald at January 12, 2010 3:58 AM
Here's the rule. If politician XYZ is on your side, anything and everything he does and says in proper and correct. Is something he says is potentially questionable, the most cursory of apologies will be accepted. Any attempts to further address said statements will be shouted down as the cruelest of calumnies.
If the same politician is NOT on your side, anything and everything he does, from his statements, hand gestures and how much butter he puts on his toast are grounds for him being thrown from Washington bodily, prefereably nude, tarred and feathered. No apologiy will be accepted, and anyone who DOES accept said apology will be similarly pilloried, and accused of agreeing with said statement or act.
Twas ever thus, shall ever be.
Vinnie Bartilucci at January 12, 2010 6:58 AM
You let your politicians butter their toast? That's disgusting.
donald at January 12, 2010 7:06 AM
"The liberals knew that the general public wouldn't have voted for a JC Watts/Condelezza Rice/Clarence Thomas, however much the liberals themselves would support them. If you have the opportunity to put forward a potential presidential candidate who you know will be instantly shot down by the conservatives for being "too black", why in heck would you even consider them?"
JC Watts, a former congressman (three times elected and could have had the governorship of Oklahoma state if he wanted) won in his conservative districts by landslide margins by republican voters.
Donald, you don't live here, right? Riiiight.
Just last month a liberal judge down south (I want to say in one of the Carolinas or Flordia) voted to remove an African American candidate from the ballot because he was running as a Republican. His argument was that a black man wasn't electable if not running as a Democrat.
If African American's tossed the Democrats on their asses they would be much better off for it.
Leftists depend on their victimhood script (which they keep going through welfare programs) to stay in power. They elected Obama because he was "clean and articulate" and was "light-skinned" and didn't talk in "negro" slang. They voted for Obama because he was given everything on a silver platter by marxists, leftists and communists. He has no ideas of his own, he is not a self made man, he has never created wealth for himself nor anyone else. Basically, he would never challenge the status quo and because he has achieved nothing without them he hasn't a leg to stand on.
Now, look up JC Watts on Wikipedia. Conservatives support people regardless of their color, and are not threatened by someone who is the very antithesis of Obama...in fact, they welcome it.
Feebie at January 12, 2010 9:31 AM
No. Big government Republican. Not conservative.
I believe it was said to or in front of a group of reporters.
Besides, someone who has been in politics as long as Reid and who has risen to as high a rank as Reid should have realized by now that politicians do not have private conversations.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2010 10:46 AM
And Patrick, again - I am neither mind reading nor polling people.
http://ow.ly/V862
It is what it is - dismissing (or impugning me because you disagree with me) ain't gonna change it, just makes you look ignorantly blind to alternative viewpoints. Shocker...
Feebie at January 12, 2010 11:04 AM
"Oh, and in response to the original entry - as so many people have pointed out already, Reid doesn't seem to have said anything wrong in the slightest."
This is hilarious. Leftists don't comprehend on any level whatsoever how offensive this statement truly is. Brilliant, on-point, working example.
Any questions?
Feebie at January 12, 2010 11:19 AM
VDH had an interesting take on this double standard in National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzMyOTVjNDA3MDg4OWE3NTRjMTNlNjhmMDQ0Y2FkM2Q=
Conan the Grammarian at January 14, 2010 10:41 AM
Leave a comment