they (Fox News) are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to...where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.
On the O'Reilly Factor tonight, Bill O'Reilly pointed out that this story is only getting started. Meanwhile, Dick Morris said the administration now owns this woman. The woman was taken totally out of context but she's far left and I suspect that, once fully examined, we're going to find all sorts of language like this particular quote.
This will be a long term problem for the administration and the gift that keeps on giving for those that love political theater.
9 comments:
That's just foolish. She goes to all that effort to claim that rich vs. everyone else, rather than black vs. white, is the problem facing this country and now she decides its about race again?
Sigh, is there like some magic rule that only dumb people are allowed on TV?
we may soon learn that Ms. Sherrod is way out there. So, the admin is really stuck.
I feel bad for Ms. Sherrod, who has been thrust into the spotlight purely for the political aggrandizement of Andrew Breitbart.
The one good thing to have come out of this whole debacle is that Breitbart has been exposed to be just as agenda driven and hateful to the concept of journalism and a free press as Matthews, Olberman, Rather and the rest of the state-controlled MSM.
The is the so-called "4th Estate" failing America once again, and it's not at all refreshing that it's the right-wing folks doing it this time, instead of the usual suspects.
I want my news to be news. I'm fine with opinion, and I listen to Mark Levin with great relish. But presenting slander as "news" doesn't help free speech, it doesn't protect the Republic from the encroaching all-powerful hand of government, it only thrusts one party's aspirations above another's.
I'm livid with Breitbart, and I'm sorry for Ms. Sherrod. If she's a left-wing kook, at least she should have been allowed to be so in the quiet solitude of her life, and not thrown under the bus of political one-upsmanship.
I agree with everything except that Ms. Sherrod worked in the USDA and so she's no longer a private citizen. So, if she wants quiet solitude then she should retire or go into private practice.
"If she's a left-wing kook, at least she should have been allowed to be so in the quiet solitude of her life, and not thrown under the bus of political one-upsmanship."
When you work for the Federal Government, you work for the nation and as a senior management position, you had better learn to curb your tongue, or you can expect blowback, and be called to account for your statements. In this case quite severe.
Like it or not, that's the life of any Federal official, no matter what stripe and this political theater is no different than what has gone before. How about the Marine General who, even in his civies made some straight forward statments about Muslims, interwoven with his Christian faith, in his Church on a Sunday? No one on the left and in the MSM seemed to have much sympathy for him, they called for his head (figuratively, I'm sure the Muslims called for it literally).
My how those shoes fit on the other feet.
Yes, she did tell he story, and it is a touching one, but she seems to have decision making issues by not looking at the character, but the color of the skin.
I'm not sure Rev King, Jr is happy about all of this.
I agree though I think that Ms. Sherrod was fairly low level. Your example about the Marine is an excellent one and the hypocrisy is noted.
Once you work for the government, you are a public figure and everything you do and say is for public consumption and if you don't like that, work in private practice.
So, if you work for the government, your right to free speech is forfeit?
The whole point of free speech, after all, is the right to say things that are controversial, or even ignorant and hateful, without government interference.
I would hope that political opinions, so long they are given during one's free time and aren't spoken with a voice (implied or otherwise) that attempts to represent the Agency one works for, are still protected speech.
The example of the Marine simply gives another example of how our free speech is being encroached upon. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, but you are a public figure and your speech can and will be scrutinized.
Anonymous;
IN a way, yes, very much so. If you are chartered by your position in the government, to perform your duties, you do them in accordance with the law. In the case of Ms. Sherrod, her discussion regarding considering denying legitimate benefits from the Federal Government based on skin color directly contravenes a number of federal laws and regulations. As a case in point, both VMI and The Citadel were compelled to accept women into the Cadet Corps, because they accepted Federal funding, therefore, their "right to freedom of expression" was abridged by specific law in force.
Not saying you can't speak your mind, but you are now a representative of the US Govt, and you are required to serve the nation, by law, in a color blind (and many other attributes) manner. If you don't like it, then you can have free speech, after you resign.
And yes, the same happens in the military. Not a recent general who made a snarky comment about his boss. Go ahead, call in "freedom of speech." Who is defending him? He didn't threaten to send troops into China, nor refuse to fight (which were the cases in MacArthur and McClellan. He hurt the boss' feelings, and he's toast.
In this day and age, it is a far more difficult path to walk, and YouTube is pretty much forever. If you can't support the organization (any, commercial biz included), with the legitimate exercise of their rights as employers to expect that you adhere to their standards, then you are morally obligated to resign.
And it doesn't help when it seems we're all looking for the next train wreck like this to fuel the MSM, other media and the blogosphere. "We" like bad news...
Post a Comment