Listening to Morning Joke & his sidekick Mika Mouse this morning, it’s apparent that the right wing nuts do NOT like to be challenged on their talking points/lies as witnessed by the exchange between Judd Gregg & Lawrence O’ Donnell!

Team O’Donnell – 1

Team Gregg – O

Mr. Greg could not dispute what Lawrence was pointing out regarding Mr. Gregg’s previous votes on unemployment benefits extension. So in true right wing fashion Judd then launched into personal attacks and trying to shout over Lawrence, who being a 'feisty redhead' himself knows a thing or two on how to handle these clowns! lol

Given what has transpired this week with yet another character assassination by ‘so called’ Fair & Balanced network WE progressives must continue to be diligent & focused on calling out the BS that the right is spoon feeding the low information voter!

Ron and Feisty

Great Post let me get something off my chest here.

Well yesterday was a very interesting day here on this board. The last few days have been consumed with the story of Ms. Sherrod’s speech to the NAACP. The most repugnant collection of non-journalists and right wing bought and paid for political hacks called Fox Network were once again churning the hate and fear mill trying to divide this country with more of their poison.

These morally and ethically corrupt pieces of flotsam aired a tape that they knew was edited for the purpose of furthering their vial racist agenda. Douchbag and his gang, standing united, attacked Ms. Sherrod relentlessly calling for her resignation etc. The dishonorable Andrew Brietbart from ACORN fame posted the edited tape on his blog (probably in consultation with Fox) and everybody at Fox jumped on it and ran with it for two days shouting their faked outrage from their false morality mountain top.

Nobody at Fox bothered to look at the whole tape, Nobody in the white house or at the USDA bothered to view the whole tape, Nobody at the NAACP or at The Tea Baggers Institution (which by the way, these two are the ones with their on-going fighting set the stage for his despicable display of hate) viewed the tape.

Nobody looked at the whole tape, NOBODY.

When it was disclosed that Ms. Sherrod’s speech at the NAACP was really about her growth from a black person that admittedly had racial views (24 years ago, by the way when she was NOT an employee of this administration but a private citizen) and her ability to overcome that and realize the world was not about race, black versus white but about people, especially poor people trying to keep their farms etc. Nobody apologized. Finally many of the people that were part of this fraud did come forward and gave half hearted apologies that were too little and too late. The only people that did not, the repugnant ones at Fox that perpetrated this fraud on the American people to begin with. In fact they pretended that they never said any of the hours of tape that Rachael showed last night. They wanted to know why nobody viewed the tape, what was the rush to judgment all about. The very people that are the most corrupt and pushed this fraud now pretend they did not. Well guess what FOX, we know now more than ever what you are.

Maybe something good will come from this I do not know. I understand she has been offered a higher position job at USDA. Will she take it? The jury is still out. I do not think she will take the job.

In my opinion the really evil and repugnant thing about this whole avoidable mess is the number of people on this board that worship those despicable morally and ethically corrupt non-journalists at FOX (Rush, Glenn, Douchbag, president Carlson, and the rest) for their information. When President Obama was elected I had hoped much of this hate and anger was going to be put behind us. We were going to have a country where people were really going to try and work together to make it better. Boy was I wrong. We are more divided now than before. Too bad, we have such great potential it saddens me to watch the minority of hateful self serving bastards try and destroy this nation.

I am watching that idiot Joe who belongs over at FOX right now and he is all over the place on this. Yesterday he spent 2 hours trashing everybody with no information now pretending he was misquoted, did not mean that etc.

On a more positive note, President Obama signed the most comprehensive financial reform bill yesterday.

The UI Bill has passed but millions of Americans will have to wait for their checks a little longer. Why, because the repugnant Republicans had to slap the faces of Middle America one more time by putting a 30 hour hold. No valid reason other than they could.

Good post. You know, as a female voter, I have to laugh at the "high heels" remark. Clearly, Ken Buck has no idea what he is doing.

Lawrence O does not let anyone, repub or dem, get away with talking points. Never has, never will. His show will be a great addition to MSNBC's nightly lineup of excellent and thoughtful programs.

Feisty, I'm glad you keep me informed of what's said on MJ. I refuse to start my day with his BS. But it's nice to see when Lawrence & others fight back.

You're welcome Pat!

It was pure poetry the smack down Larry put on Gregg!

After hearing it - I will most definitely have a smile on my face for the rest of the day! ;0)

Ps: Check over on HP later - they usually post a clip when he beats the cr@p out of someone on Morning Joke! lol Who can forget the time he tore Eric Cantor apart @ the seams! That one is a classic!

Will do! lol

US Navy

I agree, nobody at Fox viewed the tape, but then again nobody over there are journalists. Yesterday I watched O'reily. Gasp. I know, I know. I can only take his superior attitude and false impartiality for so long. Anyway I wanted to see if he would eat crow about his calling for Sherrod's firing. With his toes and fingers probably crossed he 'sorta kinda' admitted that he made a mistake.

His guest Dick Morris, however was so hate filled about the situation I thought he was going to explode. Seriously, the spittle around his mouth forms when he talks about democrats. Morris was outraged that the administration flinched to the right wing for firing her and then flinched to the left wing for apologizing. He said that Vilscak lied about making the call himself and accused the White House of orchestrating everything. O'reilly asked couldn't Viscak have made a mistake like me. "NO I know these people." If you include that swarmy personality Hannity and entertainer Beck, these guys are all foaming at the mouth especially when dealing with discussions on race.

Ever watch the NewsHour on PBS? You would find an entirely different universe of reasonable, intelligent people representing all sides of the political spectrum, discussing the issues, the actual real issues, of the day.

It's only an hour. You could just tivo whichever msnbc flame-thrower is on at 7pm and watch it later.

Yellowdog,

Good morning my friend. I agree with everything you wrote. They are a despicable bunch. What bothers me is that they really think they are journalists until caught in a lie then they say the are entertainers (Rush, Glenn,etc). I never did like Hannity, something about him.

Dear Retired Navy,

Douche bags? Bastards? Idiots ? How about adult dialogue?

Can't you see that both sides slant the news? I mean really? Are you so blinded as to think that one side or the other is pristine and righteous and never playes any political games? Don't you understand that "your guys" in the media and "the enemy" play the exact same games?

And by the way, O'reilly and Beck both appologized repeatedly. Beck spent a whole show appologizing and Bill O. repeatedly interjected that even though the NAACP and the Agri Dept acted without getting all the facts he should have gotten the facts before going with the story. Do you even watch these shows? I watch Rachel and Chris and often find them very enlightening. But of course they are slanting with the best of them. Aren't you aware that there are edited videos currently circulating that do the same thing to the tea party that Fox did to Shirley?

Do you "worship" your partisan journalitst and commentators ? I don't "worship" any of them and take the time to examine what they are saying based on where they are coming from on the issue. Please, tell me where I am wrong. Beck and O'reilly did appologize. Slanted media is slanted media - right or left. Wake up.

Yeah I like Jim Lehr and Gwen Ifill. Normally they do a good job doing the presidential debates. From what I've seen they seem fair and balanced.

As far as MSNBC goes, I admit Olberman lacks the ability to get people from the other side on his show. However, I feel that Maddow does give all people a fair shake and she will have people from all of the spectrum on. Sure she will have her slant, however if people want a non opinionated, emotionless, truely impartial commentator or host you need to obtain your news from a robot.

We as individuals or not truely impartial or non opionated its not in our nature.

US Navy-Although I agree with you that the journalists and the white house should have dug deeper before reacting to the tape, if a white person made the same claims as her, I believe the NAACP would be calling for their resignation regardless. Regardless if it was prior to working at the usda, or if she claims she learned from that mistake. I'm hoping that not only has the white house and news outlets learned, but that people in general have learned that if you're in a position of state or federal government you CAN not air those views and expect to not have to defend yourself.

YAWN.................................

I love the way the NAACP shoved their foot in their mouth yet again by condemning what she said, then turned right around and said they were, "snookered" by FNC when they, "discovered" the full tape which THEY MADE. Fox didn't even run the story until prime time, well after the NAACP made their blunder. Someone in that organization should learn how to tell time.

Ron Indiana.....You should get your facts right! The one person carrying a gun at a Tea Party rally was a black man and not a member of the Tea Party movement. The press of course only shot a view of the gun, not the face. Typical of the "Lame Stream Media." . Shameful! As far as racial signs, that is a lot of crap also. There will always be one or two crackpots, that does not speak for the rest of the Tea Party.

With the opening post i hope this sets a lighter tone than yesterday, CUFARLEY I'm very sorry for what i called you yesterday. I got mad and caught up in the tone from yesterday. i hope you respond and except my apologize. if you don't then i understand.

Ron, Us Retired Navy Vet, jody and feisty have given me the real meaning of what happened. this is not about the NAACP, tea party this was all about that poor woman who was branded a racist. her father was killed by the klan and this is an injustice that i hope does not follow her thought the rest of her life.

i guess this teaches us that we can't and should not jump to conclusions about any body, tea party, the NAACP and the administration. this is how society has failed in past years. when we do this it only brings out the mean side of people and the prejudices we all have(me included) rear there ugly face. yesterday mine was shown. i try to offer my views on this blog, i have been here for almost 2 years. i hope that in the future my post will be read responded to, but after yesterday if there are not i completely under stand,. Once Again CU FARLEY i do apologize.

Fox news all i want to say is this, CNN and MSNBC at least break away from time to time to cover the real NEWS not just political news. last night from 5pm mountain time till 10pm all they talked about was A. the racist statement from that lady, even after the facts came out, B. the racist liberal media. anderson Cooper larry King shows are about things other than racism from the liberal or consertive media and the as they always put tit the horrible poll numbers on the president. that fine but everyday they have a new poll. i can see if you watch that enough, it will make you believe ethe sky is fallings. i only did this last night to try and understand what people are getting from fox news and as good as fox sports is, there news is god offal,

In closing we must admitt, that there are black racist, white racist, jewish racist, every ethnic goup has people that are racist, but our hope is that the majorty of people in these groups will over shadow the bad elements .

Barbara -1392093

Ron Indiana.....You should get your facts right! The one person carrying a gun at a Tea Party rally was a black man and not a member of the Tea Party movement. The press of course only shot a view of the gun, not the face. Typical of the "Lame Stream Media." . Shameful! As far as racial signs, that is a lot of crap also. There will always be one or two crackpots, that does not speak for the rest of the Tea Party

__________________

I realize this is not going to change your mind Barbara.... as you appear perfectly content to wear your tea bagger badge with honor!

My hope is it WILL change someones who isn't a low information voter...

Here's 10 of them for you Barbara – care for some more? Plenty where those came from!

Jews for Obama's Oven?

Barack Hussein Obama – The New Face of Hitler?

Sucking Saudi Jewels?

No racism & hate within the tea party you say Barbara?

Then that begs the question as to WHAT would you call it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html

Before you right wing nuts start posting the ones of Bush - ask yourself... since when does two wrongs make it right?

Ask yourself that very question - since when do two wrongs make it right? Nobody's claiming perfection from the past, why can 't you demand better from the present for the future - just because it's a left wing nut in the White House?

Thanks Feisty: I simply wasn't in the mood to try to explain anything to Barbara. She needs to pour herself a cup of tea.

They cry "kool-aide" you scream "tea"

but your all a bunch of drunkards

to those who can see...

You know I got your 'back' Ron! ;0)

__________________

Ask yourself that very question - since when do two wrongs make it right? Nobody's claiming perfection from the past, why can 't you demand better from the present for the future - just because it's a left wing nut in the White House?

____________________

Ummm.... Handgunner... if reading & comprehension were your 'strong' suit - you would SEE that's exactly what I'm doing!

I did not participate or excuse the protests against W and I in NO way condone the hate & racism that's proudly on display by the tea baggers!

Understand now?

dangefield,

From your previous posts is evident you know a thing or two about drunkards & drinking problems... no?

The problem is simple. Obama is in over his head...way over his head.

Rick,

I agree with you, to a certain extent. The media, all media, will have some bias to a certain extent. Let's face it, in this day and age, puppet masters wear three piece suits, own 60 ft. yachts, and vacation to islands we, feeble people, have never heard of. There's somebody at the top of all our places of employment who control everything. However, they are the individuals whose signature we see on our miserable and pathetic looking checks.

It's not just "news" that has changed from 20 years ago, but news channels themselves. They've had to change. The internet has made darn near everything accessible. Why, I can trace back my family tree on ancestry.com and see that my great great great great great grandfather was a drunk! In fact, if I have someone's first and last name, I could find out pretty much anything about them. The point, is that news channels have had to keep up with the speed of the internet, and in order to do that, sometimes they may have to "go out on a limb" and report an issue without knowing all the facts. For good or bad, it's the world we live in. The difference in Fox News and other "news" channels [ABC, CBS, NBC] is that Fox News [and CNN] have news going all day-everyday. So, when they break a story, they may not have all the facts at that time. I understand that.

When Sean Hannity brought Andrew Breitbart on his show, Hannity could have-should have watched the entire video tape. When Hannity interviewed Breitbart, he never once asked him if the video itself, any of the dialogue, any scenes had been taken out of context, which is funny because when he first sits down with Breitbart, he says, "Now Sherrod says she was taken out of context..." He never addresses whether she was or wasn't with the guy who actually had the tape! He was more concerned with how Breitbart got the tape rather than what was on it. I would assume that if you're on a "news" channel that promotes itself day in and day out as being "fair and balanced" you might find some better representation.

Secondly, I do watch both Hannity and Beck. I found it ironic that not only did Beck apologize for "jumping the gun" [wish he would just jump ship] with Sherrod, but also defended himself vehemently, by saying "...the only time I talked about her, I supported her..." Why would Beck need to apologize to Sherrod if that's all he said? And why does a link to his show's title say, "Why I didn't rush to condemn Shirley Sherrod." Isn't it the guilty that usually cry [and boy, does he ever] wolf?

I agree with you about Bill O' Reilly. He did apologize for what he had done. Perhaps, O' Reilly is one bright star surrounded by other dim [witted] stars in the fair and balanced universe that is Fox News.

Feisty,

Good post. And for those of you that have any doubt I suggest you go to the Huffington Post and see these signs in color and up close. They are real and there are a lot of them.

Ron, nice job as usual

Thanks Retired!

Sickening aren't they?

PS: Link is provided in my post all you have to do is click on it!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

dangefield,

From your previous posts is evident you know a thing or two about drunkards & drinking problems... no?

No...I know that the truth often lies between the two extremes, and as an extremist, that makes you upset, so you react with anger and insult which is your stock-in-trade here.

Today I posted an article by Howard Kurtz and a clip from PBS, and a little poem that was the equivalent of "a pox on both your houses."

Your comment was obviously intended to spark a frivolous argument, which is another of your seeming "talents"...You won't get one from me.

I am sorry that you are perhaps incapable of comprehending that there are actually people in this world who see things as being a little more complex than my side vs your side, but we do exist.

You have many fitting foils for your brand of "debate" right here, who are as blindly partisan on the right as you are on the left, and who relish the vacuous "fight" that ensues almost as much as you seem to.

Thanks dangerfield!

For putting the argument to rest as to whether or not you're paid by the word! ;0)

Ok Dangerfield granted its good to look at both sides of an argument, chose for yourself and try not to be led by the extremes. Issues are complex and a majority of people dumb them down with name calling and cheering for sides. I do some cheering sometimes for "my side", but everyone is slanted, everyone!

Realistically, though I can't name one instance in this president's term where the republicans have presented an argument, idea or bill that was something more than political posturing or obstructionism? Is there a way to be more fiscally responsible which seems to be the main talking point of the GOP, sure but IMHO not the way the republicans propose. Granted I haven't watched every hour of CSpan (totally devoid of talking heads) but the whole lot seem to be on the side of Corporate america and the powerful AT THE EXPENSE of the middle class.

Are the Democrats blameless, no? I read a post back listing the amount of Dems taking big money from lobbyists. It reminds me of a line from the GodFather - "Don Corleon I want access to all of those politicians you carry around in your pocket like so much loose change."

As someone from the middle I'm tired of the hacks from both sides and for every obnoxious righty (Beck,Hannity,O'Reilly) there's an equally obnoxious lefty (Olberman,Maddow,whoever the red head from the View is) and they're all blind to any wrong THEIR party has done will SCREAMING out the mistakes of the other guys!! That said it was nice to see that Beck at least stepped up and pointed out how this incident did wrong to the ONE PERSON who had a POSITIVE MESSAGE against racism. I heard the sound bite,I was angered by it and for not researching the rest of the speech (unlike the Tea Party express letter which I read before I condemned) I apologize. Bottom line is I had plenty of company on my left (NAACP, Obama administration,FDA) and my right (all the blabbermouths above,Fox news,Rush, the local talking heads)!! Americans need to get racism and race relations in the open, but not jump to conclusions before making decisions that will affect others. Whenever we do that,everyone wins.

Yellowdog-Mark D

Fred G. from N.C.

Thank you both for intelligent, credible, and reasonable postings. They are too few and far between...

YellowDog,

You said:

"As far as MSNBC goes, I admit Olberman lacks the ability to get people from the other side on his show. However, I feel that Maddow does give all people a fair shake and she will have people from all of the spectrum on. Sure she will have her slant, however if people want a non opinionated, emotionless, truely impartial commentator or host you need to obtain your news from a robot.

We as individuals or not truely impartial or non opionated its not in our nature."

I could not agree more. I thought Maddows reporting on the gulf oil was great. She showed news footage from a gulf well blow-out in the 70's and showed us how little has been learned. She was the first to show the extensive nature and number of wells in the gulf. Also, her reporting from the front lines in Afhganistan, along with her commentary on it, has been the best I have seen on the war.

But I also like to listen to Bill O., he really did blow this one and at least owned up to it. But he should have been smarter than to go with this story without fully vetting it. I think a lot of people on the left do not really listen to him. Seems to me he disagrees with his right wing guests almost as much as he agrees with them. I would classify him as center-right pro-capitalist and in most cases would not lump him in with Hannity or Rush.

Yeah, life would sure be dull if we all agreed on everything.

A little C-Span is refreshing sometimes. It seems so strange when often two people sit down on opposite sides of an argument and have such a genteel conversation.

Richard Haydn

George Hale,

I agree with your comments on the media. I think Hannity is just an entertainment show. By that I mean he simply sticks to the right's talking points and never deviates, could never give the left credit for anything. However, he has his exact match somewhere on the left.

I think the most important thing as that viewers are aware of the slant and most importantly that voters get their information from multiple sources with multiple slants. And of course some C-SpAN and PBS news.

I am not criticizing these opion news people really. They are what they are and they do make things controversial and liven things up. But when they cross the line and screw up they need to fess up. We truly live in an age where info is everywhere. I can also understand that a board like this is a good place for some to let out there frustrations. Think I might also look for and join a group that is interested in discussing things from more of a solutions view point than a partisan political view. But there is certainly room for both.

Richard Haydn

@Cult of Personality

I have to ask..are you a minority?

Understand that as a minority in the U.S. of A. ( born and raised here ! ), I am used to being scrutinzed by the police. I am a rather sucessful business person ( if I say so myself ), but the facts are there for anyone to see/read/hear.

Police are people. People have prejudices. Police officers ( everywhere ) have a track record of 'bending' the law to suit their own purposes. I'm not putting down police officers because I do think that the entire profession is the victim of the "one bad apple" syndrome but it really doesn't matter.

In AZ, understand that the German/Black American/White person will not be stopped even if they meet the conditions of the new bill.

If you are White, everyone assumes that you belong here - no matter how bad you drive or how many people you fit into your car. No one will ask you to show your legal documents and THAT IS WRONG.

From what I understand, even without the bill, police officers had the right/responsibility to call ICE if they suspected someone of being illegal anyway, so the new law stengthens the righst that police always had?

The entire AZ law thing is red herring anyway. Statistics show that illegal immigrant crossings are down, and that the border is better protected now than its ever been. Does this mean that there are no illegals in AZ? ( Nope )... Does this mean that there are no murders in AZ that can be attributed to illegals? ( Nope ). The new AZ law was developed out of frustration, not based on any tangible facts.

And of course our media - call them the NEW ESQUIRE MAGAZINE - will always report the juicy side instead of the facts.

And then the media suckers in the rest of the world.

Pablo

Can't say as I understand your feelings, because I am in fact not, a minority.

However, my issue isn't what the Arizona law may or may not due in terms of racial profiling. My issue was that, ironically, the Arizona law makes it tougher to question someone about their immigration status than the Federal Law. Why aren't people up in arms about the current Federal law? Why is Obama wasting time suing Arizona, when he should be reforming the current Federal law?

Cult of Personality,

This is what the law says verbatim:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What constitutes lawful contact? What constitutes reasonable suspicion? These are the questions I think need to be answered before they can make this a law.

Just my opinion.

Steven,

I understood lawful contact to include any stop, detention, or arrest by any law enforcement agency. Now, we can argue that lawful contact will allow any member of a policing agency to pull over anyone they see fit, however, law enforcement officials cannot not pull someone over at random. The law protects people from being pulled over or stopped "just because." There has to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken or nation's security is at risk

Cult,

The law suit isn’t about discrimination. It is about weather a state has the right to impose its own immigration laws. The constitution implies this is the privy of the federal government.

Do you only believe in the constitution only when it states your belief and throw it out when it does not? If you believe in the constitution then allow the courts to decide. Given we have a Robert’s court they will probably decide with AZ that it is a states’ right.

That would be fine with me but do not forget the result would mean there will be 50 different immigration laws and each state will have to fund their own enforcement.

Pablo - the reason why President Obama is 'wasting time' suing the state of AZ is simple. Immigration enforcement is FEDRAL law, and the state of AZ HAS to work with the Feds to enforce that law. However, this new law, as explained by supporters of the law, is an 'enhancement' of Federal law.

The DOJ says no - the State of AZ does NOT have the power - or the right - to 'enhance' Federal Law.

The State of AZ says YES, that it does.

I have posed this question before, and I hav NOT gotten any answers from the defenders of the AZ law. Since the states do NOT have more power than the Feds, then the Feds are ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for enforcing the immigration laws. If AZ is giving AZ law enforcement the ability to enforce federal law, then AZ is in effect saying it has as much or more power than the Feds!!

How can someone with LESSER powers (the state of AZ) give AZ law enforcement the SAME power to enforce immigration law as the Feds when the Feds have MORE power than the state does? That would mean that the State of AZ would need to have AT LEAST the SAME POWER as the Feds to be able to bestow that power to enforce immigration law at a local level, correct?

This is why the DOJ is suiing AZ. I think that AZ is going to lose this round, especially when it comes to how the States interact with the Feds. Also, I do not think that the DOJ would file a complaint unlesss they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning. States CANNOT arbitrarily give themselves as much or more powers than the Feds whenever they feel like it.

SO, Pablo, what do you think? I agree that President Obama should reform the current FEDERAL law, but it takes Congress - all 535 of them - to write the legislation and pass it. As you can see, NONE of them wants anything to do with this situation.

you people need to ask the feds, specifically the Border Patrol, what they use as "reasonable suspicion"..... happens every day in the SW...

I would hope that lawful contact meant doing something suspicious or breaking a law. Honestly though, I was once stopped for walking down the street because I somewhat matched the description of someone they were looking for. Would that be reason enough to ascertain my citizenship?

Dennis

I understand that the lawsuit is about State's rights. However, the first read article was about race, and I find it funny that people are boycotting Arizona and crying "racist" and want the law repealed, when the Arizona law makes it "more difficult" for law enforcement to racially profile. It is much easier to be questioned about your immigration status under the federal guidelines, because according to federal guidelines, law enforcement officials only have to use the judgement, where the Arizona statute states that only when law enforcement officials are enforcing another law, can the person be questioned.

ennis, Columbus, Ohio

Cult,

The law suit isn’t about discrimination. It is about weather a state has the right to impose its own immigration laws. The constitution implies this is the privy of the federal government.

Dennis what you say is correct. The feds are not suing AZ on civil rights grounds. And the feds are correct, it is the federal governments job to legislate and enforce the immigration laws.

Where the feds will lose though is when the judge examines if the feds are doing their job to enforce such laws. That judge will see that in fact, the federal government is at best ignoring those laws. It's at that point the feds will lose the argument.

Joanna - the feds are NOT going to lose this argument. AZ does NOT have the power - or the right - to write legislation to enforce Federal Law. Period. It does not matter if the Feds have been doing a 'good job' or not. It is not a performance challenge, it is Constitutional one.

of Personality

Dennis

I understand that the lawsuit is about State's rights. However, the first read article was about race, and I find it funny that people are boycotting Arizona and crying "racist" and want the law repealed,

But that's the Three Card Monte game the Obama administration is playing. On one hand there is the lawsuit which has nothing to do with race. On the other, and the more prominent one, is that the spin from the administration is that the law is racist. That's the one that gets the most mileage, at least from appealing to the Hispanic voters.

This all coming from the post-racial Obama.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

Joanna - the feds are NOT going to lose this argument. AZ does NOT have the power - or the right - to write legislation to enforce Federal Law. Period. It does not matter if the Feds have been doing a 'good job' or not. It is not a performance challenge, it is Constitutional one.

Lets hope someone is explaining that to Rhode Island. They've been enforcing their own law, which is very similar to the Arizona law, for years.

I don't get your logic JSmith

The feds are not suing AZ on civil rights grounds. And the feds are correct, it is the federal governments job to legislate and enforce the immigration laws.

You just made the DOJ case. Despite my feelings on the racial profiling parts of the law the whole case comes down to who can enforce immigration. You just proved the DOJ point. I'm not sure how or why the judges opinion on how well the federal government is enforcing immigration laws, a different issue, would matter in this case. Despite what you think, the federal government is enforcing immigration policy.

Pietro - I didn't see your post up above until I edited mine. I agree. Good to see you again.

JoAnna,

If the court makes a decision about the constitution based on what someone is or is not doing (in this case the Feds) then the court would be making law and not interpreting it.

Cult of Personality

President Obama...claims that the Arizona statute would open Hispanic Americans up to being “harassed” when “you took your kid out to get ice cream.”

I'm with you on this one COP. The president was clearly wrong on that scenario. I've read the law and it's nothing like that unless perhaps the driver of the car is stopped for speeding on the way to the ice cream parlor.

Pablo-FL
I have to ask..are you a minority?

Oh yea. Pablo is playing the old' walk a mile in my shoes card. If us fat and happy white people aren't members of a minority in this country then we can't possibly understand and therefore our opinions on what is logical, legal and fare are irrelevant. Sorry. It's a good law to help stem the flow of illegal aliens in a state that borders on Mexico and as a result has a lot of Mexican illegals. It's sad but true for the legal people who live in Colorado have to deal with crap that is caused by the illegals who have migrated there.

What constitutes lawful contact? What constitutes reasonable suspicion?

Lawful contact is contact is like stopping someone for speeding or any other violation minor or otherwise. It is the same reason a lot of felons are brought to justice. They happened to be driving a bit too fast and on being pulled over their identity is discovered.

Probable cause has been around for ever and on one ever cares so long as its a white person being asked for a license or having their car searched. Now that it's being used to investigate potential illegal aliens suddenly there needs to be a complete analysis of the words.

This whole thing is kinda silly. Put some stronger words in the bill to better define lawful contact so that everyone knows it's for traffic stops, etc. and leave the rest alone. It's a good bill.

I'm sure this will further piss off the liberals but I will just add that Mexicans need to fix their government. I'm pretty angered when the illegals in this country come to our city centers and protest that the American tax payers aren't giving them enough of their taxes in the way of free health care, food, education, etc. I"m also pretty angered when the leader of Mexico comes to the US and chastises us for not giving Mexico and it's illegal invaders more of our taxes. He needs to get out of bed with the drug cartels and turn his nation into the good place to live that it could be.

I'm very happy to see president Obama send troops to the border.

Pietro,

I keep hearing the "papers please" phrase in a faux German accent. Let's get real on this, we are always obliged to give our "papers" to a cop. It's called a license and it may be small and laminated, but it is just that, "papers". If only legal residents can get a drivers license, than I would imagine most legal immigrants being stopped for a traffic infraction would merely produce their license and be on there way, like anyone else. Maybe I am missing something here? If you or someone else could point out a flaw in my logic please help straighten me out.

I understand your argument and I think at the core you are correct. When it comes to immigration Federal law supersedes any state laws and in fact a case can be made that not only does it supersede state law but may in some cases make a any state law in that area unconstitutional. However, in the case of the AZ law one could make several arguments.

First, there are many laws on the state level that simply mirror federal law and are not considered unconstitutional. I think the point has also been made repeatedly that the Federal law has a much lower standard, almost none, for allowing its agents to ask for immigration status papers. This would include federal drug laws, kidnapping laws, etc. In other words, for AZ to have a law on the books that makes kidnapping illegal would certainly never be struck down. To this argument one could counter that laws concerning general crimes are not mentioned in the constitution as being the exclusive purview of the federal government, whereas immigration laws are.

Of course the primary thing here, and we all know it, is not so much a legal and constitutional issue, but a political issue. This is obvious on the face of it, as there are a number of municipal laws in so called "sanctuary" cities that directly contradict federal law. If this was all about state law vs federal law in a given area, these cities would be first on the list for a suit. Do you agrea with this statement? If not, please tell me why.

Second, we know it is political because the governor of AZ knew the law would be very controversial and so invited the controversy to draw attention to the issue. Don't you agree?

So we have to ask ourselves, as a country, what should our immigration policy be? What I am not sure of is exactly what the progressives or the conservatives want. Do progressives want unlimited immigration ? Do they want unlimited immigration from all countries or only Mexico? Why do progressives not want the border tightly controlled? Or do they want the border tightly controlled? Are the conservatives just racists? Are they just "culturalists"? Are they really concerned with criminal aliens or is this just a red herring? And more questions.

I think I can take a pretty good guess at most of the answers. I believe many progressives think the immigrants will favor the democratic party and so vote democratic. I believe many of the conservatives like employing people they can pay very low wages to and fire at will. These would seem to be the primary motivations. As to the general populace, I am sure there are many that are simply prejudiced. But I am also sure that there is real fear of being confronted by violent drug smugglers or simply having your car hit by an illegal alien with no insurance. On the other side, I would think most of the illegals are simply here to make some money to support their families. I also think that one of the reasons as a country we do not wish to have a heavily guarded border is simply it makes us think of places like North Korea or the old Berlin wall.

Finally, I think we will need to face the "racists/prejudiced" subject head on at some point. This will be a very difficult discussion. To help it on its way we need to answer some questions: If Paris, France becomes predominantly Turkish/Muslim - is it still Paris, France"? Do the French have a right to maintain there culture? Are the French Canadians racists because they wish to preserve there culture and ensure French is the dominant language? Would the people of Mexico city be considered racists if the number of Gringos in the city were to increase rapidly and they rejected the Anglo culture? Are the people of AZ racists if they feel there culture is being replaced by Mexican culture? Is there anything wrong with Mexican groups asserting that they are the rightfull owners of various tracts of land in the US and pushing for increased immigration so as to take political and cultural control of those areas? If you get my drift I think a lot of this boils down to cuture - language, music, holidays, traditions, etc - and not skin color or national origin. As long as larger groups more or less are assimilated into and adopt existing cultural norms the problems are probably minor. At the same time these groups continue to maintain aspects of their own culture. It would seem that when a one cultural group rapidly displaces the established cultural group in a given area you are bound to have conflicts.

And really finally, I would like to know what is wrong with Mexico and what can be done to improve the situation. It would seem even before the escalating drug violence something has been very wrong in that many of its citizens must leave the country to make a living. I don't know much about the state of Mexico but I assume the wealth is very concentrated and the government is very corrupt? In these cases, since there are other very bad governments, I always wonder why some nations are able to make reforms while others seem stuck. I can't help but wonder if this is a cultural thing - like the way the Japanese pre-WWII were seemingly conditioned to revere authority, or what got the French to the point where they over-through the monarchy likewise the round heads overthrowing their monarchy. Why can't Mexicans earn a better living in their own country? What is being done to address this?

Please help me to better understand this issue if you have some constructive critisism or just a point of view to add.

Richard Haydn

Lets hope someone is explaining that to Rhode Island. They've been enforcing their own law, which is very similar to the Arizona law, for years.

JoAnna - Actually, Rhode Island is NOT doing as you stated. Their law is a lot like the Riverside NJ law which states that if a person is ARRESTED, then - and only then - can a determination of immigration status can be obtained.

You can misquote all you want, but Rhode Island is NOT enforcing their own law. As far as similarities to the AZ law, immigration status is obtained after an ARREST, not if someone is stopped on a traffic violation.

Nice try, JoAnna. No sale though.

M. Fisher,

You base your response on your interpretation of what lawful contact is. And therein lies the problem. Lawful contact with a police officer occurs whenever that officer approaches a person for any reason what so ever.

Also, here is the part of the AZ law, unless it has been recently changed, that puts law enforcement (police) in between the rock and hard place. According to the AZ law, private citizens can file suit against the police if (now here is the kicker) they feel that the law enforcement officer is not actively pursuing persons who might be illegally in the U.S.

Finally, to your "walk a mile in my shoes" remark. I will say this as simply as I can so that you don't miss my point. If you as a white person, have never experienced being profile (this means stopped for no other reason than you fit the description of a supposed offender) then you have no point of reference to understand how humiliating the experience is. And the real crime is this, as an American citizen you should not, under any circumstances, be subjected to this or any form of degradation in an attempt to enforce a legal statue. Your response smacks of the term "White Privilege" which you should look up and read about. Better yet, get yourself some very real experience by simply doing the following; willfully put yourself into an environment where you are in the racial minority. After you have done so, then maybe you will have an inkling of what non-white (reads "ethnic minority") person has to deal with on almost a daily basis. Further, translate that feeling into what a legally born citizen or even a naturalized Hispanic citizen will not have to live with when the new AZ law takes effect.

As a previous poster implied, but did not specifically state; everyone assumes that anyone who looks white is in this country legally. So just how many non-minority appearing people do you think will be asked to prove their immigration status in AZ? I will be very interested in what the future statistics will say with regard to that specific point, which is the basis of mine and alot of peoples objections.

It's not that we do not agree with the fact that "illegal immigration" is a big problem. But we do not agreethat the solution to the problem should be found in making my rights less important than yours.

Again, when you've been racially profiled then come back to this board and tell us how good a thing this new AZ law is for the country.

Rick - first of all, thanks for your EXCELLENT post. We may NOT agree on all of the points, but I like the conversation that we are having.

This whole law is fraught with terminology that is unclear. If I understand you correctly, you make an assumtion that only 'legal' residents can get a driver's licence. The term 'legal' is applicable if the distributing agent issues the licesne; that person is 'legal because they are licensed. In this case, we are struggling with if people are 'legal' in an immigration sense. although the person, who may be 'illegal' as far as their status ni the country is concerned, may be 'legal' when it comes to having a driver's licence.

This is where there is the disconnect - we have the situation where an 'illegal immigrant' has the 'legal' right to drive. Are those persons 'illegal', especially if they were stopped for traffic violation? Frankly, the laws are NOT clear, and this is oneof the areas that the AZ legislature, in my opinion, is rolling the dice. The fact of the matter is this - 10 states (mine included) would issue a 'legal immigrant' a driver's license on their CURRENT immigration status; you do NOT have to be a citizen to obtain a driver's license. Those people would be 'legal' drivers AND 'legal' immigrants. however, when their Visa(s) expire, they may have an 'illegal' immigrantion status, but they are still 'legal' drivers. They are NOT obligated to turn over their driver's licenses if their Visa has expired.

Now you can understand why this whole 'paper's please' law is a mess. How can we tell - for sure - if a person is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States?

Moreover, this situation is NOT so much a legal and constitutional issue, but a political issue. As a general rule, the Feds NORMALLY stay out of local affairs, and the local constabularies stay our of dealing with Federal affairs. i think this is an implicit agreement that has been followed for years. With that being said, many cities - so called 'sanctuary cities' - have local laws that will allow for the care and 'sanctuary' of illegal immigrants. As far as the Feds are concerned, they are UNINTERESTED in tracking down ALL of the illegal immigrants. Iam thinking that the Federal attitude is this - 'if the illegal immigrants can make it to your cities without being caught, and you want to take care of them, then its YOUR problem to deal with'.

You just gotta love interagency jurisdictional battles.

So, I believe that the reason why there is NOT a lawsuit filed by the Feds is because the states/cities have basically 'taken them into the fold', as it were in their communities, the Feds are basically uninterested UNLESS they are called in for a reason. Again, there is this tacit 'agreement' (my opinion) between the cities and the Feds.

Now, on to your questions. To answer these questions, you have to understand the mentality of many liberals/progressives/left-wingers as opposed to conservatives/right-wingers. Progressives, basically, are compassionate, and will act upon their beliefs, as long as everyone will 'live and let live'. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be more concerned about the allocation of resources (in this case monies), and are more apt to want to control people and their enivironment. They tend ot be more concerned that they 'cannot afford' what they percieve as 'wasteful' or 'unnecessary' spending if it doesn't DIRECTLY benefit them.

Now, before I get e-mails, I am speaking GENERALLY; most people are a mix of the socially liberal/fiscal conservative or socially conservatiev/fiscally liberal mold.

Q. Do progressives want unlimited immigration ? A. Not necessarily.

Q. Do they want unlimited immigration from all countries or only Mexico? A. Not necessarily.

Q. Why do progressives not want the border tightly controlled? A. Because Progressives believe that it is not necessary, as long as there is no imminent threat to their life, limb or happiness. Progressives have no problem sharing with people within reason.

Q. Are the conservatives just racists? A. No. However, their focus on life is radically different than progressives, and will be more concerned about who has what resource(s).

Q. Are they just "culturalists"? A. Not sure what that means, but progressives are generally more curious and accepting of other cultures than conservatives tend to be.

Q. Are they really concerned with criminal aliens or is this just a red herring? A. I think that all Americans - progressive or conservative - are concerned with criminal immigrants.

Again - these are MY IMPRESSIONS, and since you asked, here are my answers.

Finally, as far as progressives wanting illegal immigration for votes - I think that progressives are more apt to let people make up their own minds and vote their concience. However, I would think that if progressives give immigrants a hand that the immigrant would be more apt to vote with the people who helped him/her. We can see this type of behaviour in many communities. For example, the Cuban community in South Florida is more Conservative than Progressive.

Why?

Possibly because the conservatives reached out and helped a good many people emigrate from Cuba, as Castro's policies repulsed Conservatives as much as the people who want to leave there. Conservatives gave the anti-Castro Cubans all the help they needed to be successful in America, and we are seeing that every day. Cubans are more apt to vote Republican because of their history with Conservatives.

Conversely, many Progressives have helped Latin Americans who are here - for whatever reason - with a means to be a productive member of society, and so those Latin Americans are more apt to lean democratic when they are asked about votes, they are more apt to vote Democratic because of their history with Progressives.

So, with all of that being said - I believe that this is an issue in AZ because the AZ legislature needed an issue to 'rally' their base. Illegal immigrants are the MOST vulnerable and the least able to defend themselves because they are NOT wanting to make any waves while they are in someone else's country. the mere fact that the AZ legislature is demonizing these people is offensive to progressives, no matter what their immigration status is. Its that 'mean spiritedness' that progressives really find hard to stomach when dealing with conservatives. In AZ case, let's hope that the electorate there wil lrealise that they are being used, and that their current representation is going to bankrupt that state wit hthe current immigratin policies.

Maybe the AZ electorate will listen to others. Maybe they will not. In any respect, AZ is being set up for a fall.

Unfortunately, there are those who would rather burn the place down than to let 'That one' run the country. There are those that are AFRAID that 'the scary Black man', now that he is a position of power, will enact 'retribution' upon the white populace because of how people of color were treated in the past. This is why RACISM is such a RAW nerve in this country, and there is such a huge fight about it.

Rick, again ,thanks for your post. I had to edit my response to you because I had so many answers to your questions, but I hope this will give you some insight into why there is such a chasm regarding this immigration issue.

Hey Yellowdog - It's great to see you again as well. Great post.

Sayitaintso - EXCELLENT response to M. Fisher. Excellent post. Since you pretty much said everything I wanted to (and better), I don't have to say anything more.

All I have to say to those who are debating about the AZ law - THIS is the way to do it. No name calling, no hatred or vitroil. If you disagree with me, we can talk about it and MAYBE we can learn something about ourselves in the process.

Sayitaintso. Thank you for making my point. You said when I get racially profiled I need to come back to this conversation. Meaning, I can't truely understand the hardships that a minority goes though when racially profiled therefore, unless I'm agreeing with you, I have nothing good to add to the conversation.

The fact is that I don't have to be a minority because I am a voter with a brain and I can figure things out on my own. Just because I haven't been racially profiled doesn't mean I haven't been profiled or questioned by police because I looked like the type of person they might be looking for or even because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Did I feel like a victim? You're damn right I did but I understood that the cops were doing their jobs. Personally, I resent the power that cops have over me in that they can stop me and ask me for my license and I MUST comply but I also appreciate what they are doing. I swallow my pride like every other innocent taxpayer who is stopped by a police officer and questioned.

Pietro,

Thanks for your very instructive response. I think your comments about the confusion concerning the law seem legitimate and your answers well thought out. I also think your reasoning as to the sanctuary cities is pretty good.

I can't say I agree that conservatives as a whole are mean spirited but I can agree that progressives are more sympathetic, to my mind. Here I think the argument could be made that sometimes trying to do the right thing out of compassion may have unintended consequences. For example, I have to wonder if those living on government subsidies for several generations are well served. Sometimes necessity can be a real motivator. I also think that government, say a county, must be concerned when there health, education, and legal systems are being affected by a large influx of immigrants - if those immigrants are not contributing substantially to the tax base. I would classify that as fiscal responsibility and there duty. Guess I will insert a little Winston Churchill here - could be a whole topic:

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

But these are all issues that CAN be discussed when people on all sides are willing to eliminate fear mongering and especially rhetoric they know to be good as a debating or rallying point but is in fact worthless when trying to actualy address a problem. Thanks again for your thoughtful post Pietro.

Richard Haydn

This will likely win the award of the best post of the day! Well said Jody

GREAT POST Jody, as Ron said best post of the day.

Thank you, Ron.

And thank you Jeff.

Very powerful Jody! Thank you!

"...it only attacks those who willingly accept that freedom, liberty, power belong only to those who think as they do."

Sorry to rain on the parade of praise for your post, but from my perspective the words above come pretty close to desccribing the mindset of most leftists on this board. In particular, posters who don't share the point of view espoused by the left are routinely villified around here. Doesn't matter whether the post was trash talk or thoughtful, what matters is they expressed thoughts that deviated from the Gospel according to the Left.

Also from my perspective it is the tentacles spread by the devious left that seek to a permannent majority for "progressive" ideology -- or in the absence of being able to achieve that majority, to force their agenda on an unwilling public while the left still retains the power to do so.

Other than that Jody it was quite a nice post, your writing skills deserve praise.

Tremendous insight Jody! I am a person of color, AM/IA, and I was so hurt by what happened to Ms. Sherrod that I could not bring myself to make any post's yesterday. I sat and read a lot of the post's from you guys and it made me feel somewhat better knowing that there are at least some in this great nation we call America that stand for integrity and have compasionate feelings for others and are not self-centered, thoughtless person's that only want what is best for them.

The way an individual thinks is demonstrated in their actions and the actions of so many that had a part in this fiasco leaves nothing to my imagination. Instead of writing to this board yesterday I decided to write to the USDA so I sent an email requesting a public apology for Ms. Sherrod's dismissal and also the offer to reinstate her.

I felt some better after seeing Mr. Vilsack's press conference.

Thanks to all of you that are so thoughtful and are taking a stand to fight this disease that continues to fester within the consciousness of the people of this nation.

Jody, you're a tool!

Jody,

I suppose you think you are a thoughtful discerning person. Your example of radical leaders, however, did not include any ELECTED leaders. I believe that fact makes your comparison invalid. As objectional as the billboard was to many, it was highlighting a valid point. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party in Germany and he had absolute control over the country. Lenin was definitely the leader of a country where government control was pervasive. Mr. Obama's policies and his political philosophy advocate more government control over the American people. Fortunately, our system is designed to make complete government control difficult to attain for any leader or party. I am certain that this post will generate many comments against me from the posters here. But since this is an open forum, I still have the right to make it.

For those who actually read more than they post...

Finger-pointing at Fox in Shirley Sherrod firing

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 22, 2010; 8:31 AM

The White House spokesman and the agriculture secretary weren't the only ones offering regrets Wednesday to the USDA official abruptly fired over a videotape excerpt that turned out to be totally misleading. Bill O'Reilly apologized to Shirley Sherrod as well.

But for all the chatter -- some of it from Sherrod herself -- that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn't touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O'Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."

Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say "do it, because you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight." And for all the focus on Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist.

On Monday night, O'Reilly played the clip posted by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart on his site BigGovernment.com. He led his Wednesday program by criticizing some of Sherrod's language but acknowledging his own mistake: "I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology for not doing my homework . . . and for not putting her remarks into proper context." While the excerpt showed Sherrod, an African American, telling the NAACP in a speech that she had discriminated against a white farmer as a nonprofit aid officer 24 years ago, the full speech made clear she was saying she had overcome that race-based bias and learned an important lesson.

In his Monday comments, O'Reilly credited Breitbart with posting the excerpt and concluded that her remarks were "simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately." O'Reilly taped the show at 5 p.m., and by the time it aired about 8:50, USDA had announced Sherrod's resignation (as Fox noted on the screen). Fox executives say O'Reilly's staff, which is not part of the news division, sought comment from USDA throughout the day.

Breitbart has worked closely with Fox opinion hosts in the past, most notably when he posted videos of two young activists ostensibly posing as a pimp and prostitute and seeking help from ACORN offices. Breitbart promoted those tapes on Sean Hannity's Fox program and the network gave them heavy play.

The administration's concern about Beck stems in part from his campaign last year that prompted the resignation of White House environmental official Van Jones over divisive remarks -- a controversy that some news organizations acknowledged they were too slow to cover. Ironically, Beck defended Sherrod on Tuesday, saying that "context matters" and he would have objected if someone had shown a video of him at an AA meeting saying he used to pass out from drinking but omitting the part where he says he found Jesus and gave up alcohol.

Breitbart told "Good Morning America" he had "no second thoughts" about posting the excerpt, which he says he did not edit, and sought to justify it by noting that the NAACP recently passed a resolution urging the tea party to disassociate itself from racism. "The video shows racism, and when the NAACP is going to charge the tea party with racism . . . I'm going to show you it happens on the other side," Breitbart said. On the same program, Eric Boehlert of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters told George Stephanopoulos: "Andrew had no idea what the context of the comments were, but that didn't stop him from launching the smear campaign."

Breitbart did not say how he obtained the tape he posted Monday morning but told CNN's John King he got it in March, when Sherrod appeared before the NAACP. He told MSNBC that "I feel sorry that they made this about her" and that the media have "misconstrued the intention behind this."

Sherrod ripped Fox in an interview Wednesday with Media Matters, saying the network would "love to take us back to where we were many years ago. 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."

Clemente, the Fox executive, said in an interview that Sherrod "certainly could be forgiven for being confused." As for other critics, he said that blaming Fox is "a comfortable reflex for some people."

Even the NAACP, which had initially criticized Sherrod, beat an embarrassing retreat after viewing the full tape -- and complaining that it had been "snookered" by Fox and Breitbart. Clemente said he never heard from the group's president, Benjamin Jealous, despite a recent lunch in which he says they agreed to get in touch when disputes arise. Fox says the NAACP did not respond to messages left by Clemente on Tuesday.

Once Sherrod's resignation was confirmed, it was obviously a significant news story that media outlets were entitled to chase. But they did so on the basis of one misleading clip before the NAACP made the full video available Tuesday.

There were signs of enterprising hustle, however. On Tuesday, CNN snagged interviews with Sherrod, Breitbart and Eloise Spooner, wife of the Georgia farmer whom Sherrod had aided and was the subject of her anecdote. "She gave enough that it helped save our farm," Spooner said.

With Vilsack now offering Sherrod a job and the media looking like they abetted the insta-tragedy, even many on the right were siding with the previously vilified Sherrod. "Her full speech is heartfelt and moving," wrote National Review Editor Rich Lowry. "It's the tale of someone overcoming hatred and rancor when she had every reason not to. Her saga over the last couple of days is a lesson in how the culture of offense often works in contemporary America -- chewing people up and spitting them out before they even have a chance to defend themselves."

Story goes viral

The MSM are primarily interesting in blaming the administration (although Keith Olbermann included his own network in criticizing the media's handling of the mess).

"The Obama administration issued an extraordinary public apology Wednesday and offered to reinstate a federal official who was fired after she appeared to make racial comments on a misleading snippet of video," the L.A Times reports.

"The events came as an embarrassment to Obama administration officials, who have sought to depict themselves as immune to the blogosphere and demands of the news cycle."

The New York Times includes this section on the media:

"Mr. Vilsack's late-afternoon appearance capped a humiliating and fast-paced few days not only for the White House, but also for the N.A.A.C.P. and the national news media, especially the Fox News Channel and its hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, all of whom played a role in promoting the story about Ms. Sherrod.

"The controversy illustrates the influence of right-wing Web sites like the one run by Andrew Breitbart, the blogger who initially posted the misleading and highly edited video, which he later said had been sent to him already edited. (Similarly, Mr. Breitbart used edited videos to go after Acorn, the community organizing group.) Politically charged stories often take root online before being shared with a much wider audience on Fox. The television coverage, in turn, puts pressure on other news media outlets to follow up."

That may be true generally, but the problem with the chronology in this case is that by the time the O'Reilly and Hannity comments aired Monday night, Sherrod had already been cashiered.

The White House wanted Wednesday to be about the president signing the financial regulation bill. But the Sherrod fiasco dominated the Robert Gibbs briefing.

Politico's Ben Smith, looking at recent racial dustups, concludes that "the conversation just got dumber.

"The America of 2010 is dominated by racial images out of farce and parody, caricatures not seen since the glory days of Shaft. Fox News often stars a leather-clad New Black Panther, while MSNBC scours the tea party movement for racist elements, which one could probably find in any mass organization in America. Obama's own, sole foray into the issue of race involved calling a police officer 'stupid,' and regretting his own words. Conservative leaders and the NAACP, the venerable civil-rights group, recently engaged in a round of bitter name-calling that left both groups wounded and crying foul. Political correctness continues to reign in parts of the left, and now has a match in the belligerent grievance of conservatives demanding that hair-trigger allegations of racism be proven."

Atlantic's Marc Ambinder deconstructs the administration's handling of the mess:

"The executive branch realizes that the White House is extremely sensitive to the charge that Obama is using his presidency to advance the cause of black people. It's a tremendously silly charge, and maybe the White House shouldn't be so sensitive to it, but it's a real sensibility. One suspects that the moment that the specter of reverse racism was raised, the USDA's political appointees reacted almost unconsciously because they assumed the White House would blanch when the videotape was played. . . .

"The NAACP wasn't snookered. Vilsack was snookered. It doesn't matter why he was snookered, but he was. If he doesn't reinstate her, he'll look like a jerk who refused to admit he made a mistake. If he reinstates her, he might look like a wimp to some who object to Sherrod's economic inequality argument, or who refuse to acknowledge that Andrew Breitbart selectively edited a tape, but he'll also look like a guy who made a rash decision and had the judgment to reverse it.

"The White House is loath to touch anything resembling a racial thing, but this isn't a racial thing: it's a judgment thing. It's about thinking before speaking. It's about slowing down, it's about gathering evidence before making decisions, it's about doing the right thing."

From the right, David Frum unloads on the proprietor of BigGovernment.com:

"On the phone on the evening of July 20, a friend asked me: 'Can Breitbart possibly survive?' I could only laugh incredulously. I answered: 'Of course he'll survive, and undamaged. The incident won't matter at all.'

"There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart's role. By the morning of July 21, the Fox & Friends morning show could devote a segment to the Sherrod case without so much as a mention of Breitbart's role. The central fact of the Sherrod story has been edited out of the conservative narrative, just as it was edited out of the tape itself.

"When people talk of the 'closing of the conservative mind' this is what they mean: not that conservatives are more narrow-minded than other people -- everybody can be narrow minded -- but that conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact.

"When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him."

Jonah Goldberg delivers more of a rap on the knuckles:

"I think she's owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart. I generally think Andrew is on the side of the angels and a great champion of the cause. He says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, Would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I'd like to think he wouldn't have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable. When it seemed that Sherrod was a racist who abused her power, exposing her and the NAACP's hypocrisy was perfectly fair game. But now that we have the benefit of knowing the facts, the equation is completely different."

From the left, Washington Monthly's Steve Benen takes issue with Breitbart saying that "I feel sorry that they made this about her":

"Breitbart pushed a deliberately misleading video that went after Shirley Sherrod for no reason. He proceeded to label her a 'racist' who 'racially discriminates against a white farmer,' and demanded that the NAACP 'denounce the racism in the video.' That, of course, would be the racism that didn't exist when listening to the remarks in context.

"Breitbart's racially-motivated media stunt cost Sherrod her job, at least for now. But he regrets that 'they went after her'?"

Still, one fact is indisputable: It was Vilsack, not Breitbart, who kicked Sherrod out of her job.

Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201265.html?sid=ST2010072106581

Except Howard Kurtz is wrong: I was waiting to hear from Media Matters, since you always know there is another piece of the story that Fox News will not give. And here it is : This story was posted by Foxnews.com on July 19th, and referenced the Big Government story. Title "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give Full Force of Help to White Farmer." July 19th. Subsequently, Foxnews.com reports that Sherrod resigned shortly after Foxnews.com published the initial report. That this story was pushed by the morons at Fox is without dispute and only the truly naive believe otherwise.

You obviously didn't read the entire Kurtz piece (He cites multiple sources) , or watch the (do you think PBS is right wing?) PBS segment either...and using the term "morons" makes it hard to take your opinions seriously...sorry

This is an angry place and seemingly getting meaner and nastier by the day. A little more light and a little less heat would be welcomed...

The fact is that Fox News pushed this story. Simply that. The evidence is clear. And yes, they are morons.

Jody,

No need to fret about permanent conservative power. By its very nature conservatism cannot stand up over time. It is by definition to "hold on to or conserve the status quo". The label "progressive" is very acurate since over the history of our nation, what was once considered unthinkable became just taboo, then became a cause, and finaly became the norm. We have progressed from a slave holding country where only white land owners could vote - where religion was an integral part of the government and the idea of abortion and gay rights were not even considered. A place where the very idea of it being illegal to spank your child, marry someone of the same sex, or paint "F---- You on the back of your wagon ---- this would all seem to those folks like something from Mars.

So whether you chear or despise the progressive march - it will most likely continue. Some of it very good, some of it questionalble. The only thing we really need to fear is an absolute concentration of power in the hands of a very few - be it far left or far right, communism or facism - whatever label you give it. We have only to fear a time when we are all in lock step agreement and voices of decent are silenced.

Richard Haydn

In that vein...a good read..

Op-Ed Contributor

The Dreaded P-Word?

By JOHN McWHORTER

Published: July 20, 2010

IT’S no surprise that in recent years some on the left have embraced the term “progressive” as a substitute for “liberal.” The right has so demonized “the L-word” that during a Democratic debate in 2007, Hillary Clinton, asked by a voter whether she was a liberal, said that she preferred to identify herself as — of course — a “modern progressive.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/opinion/21mcwhorter.html?ref=contributors

Dave be careful man....

You say too much like that around here youll join me in being a racist because I dont believe people should be allowed to be here illegally and because I think people should actually work for a living.....

Repeat. Fannie and Freddie were in trouble years before Dodd and Franks became the majority leaders in the finance committees. Again, I ask: why did republicans refuse to discuss fixing the problem from 2001 through 2006? That is what the GOP finance committee leaders did--they said NO, just as they continue to say NO.

Jody, you prove the fallacy of your own argument in your own post: "Fannie and Freddie were in trouble for years". Dodd and Frank have been in charge in Congress since 2007. Barry Obama has been in the WH since January 2009. One of the top priorities of the WH and Congresssional Dems was "the most sweeping financial reforms since the Great Depression". And then these CLOWNS just ignore ANY kind of reform of the two biggest recipients of taxpayer-funded bailouts??

And that's the Republican's fault??

Life must be good when you live on Planet Liberal. I gotta get me some of the hallucinogenic drugs in the atmosphere there. LOL!!!

Joe, Fannie and Freddie will be addressed in a different bill http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/house_senate_lawmakers_agree_o.html because, as public/private hybrid enterprises they are a different animal.

Wrong, you prove the fallacy of your argument. The republicans were in charge from 2001-2006, the problem they rant about existed WHILE they were in charge. Republicans have used Dodd and Franks as whipping posts for their own failures. The GOPers were unwilling to work with Franks and Dodd. The point is Franks did try in the House. The Senate was a nearly 50-50 split in 2007 and we know how that works, no way any legislation would have made it through the filibuster cloture vote. That's what republicans ignore.

Thanks, John B. I didn't think to mention the additional legislation to address Fannie & Freddie.

John and Jody:

Can you say "Kicking the can down the road, again"?

Sure you can.

LMAO!!!

Joe in Albany,

The financial mess actually started in 2002-2003 when the risky loans were actually made... the toxic assets just started to expire in late 2006/2007 and somehow no one still wanted this could be happening in the American economy (why do you think I ran out of California, in 2006 before it crashed - if you had your ears to the ground, you'd see that the sky was already falling on the west coast).. In either case, the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency.

So you really can't blame Barney or Dodd for this. The problem was actually created when Greenspan and the Bush admin (Paulson) made it imperative that increasing home-ownership for all americans was a way to grow the GDP - quite successfull if I might add... they did this by lowering key interest rates, so people who couldn't qualify for loans now qualified. And when the Banks realized that this was profitable and they could pass the risk off to foreign investors by packaging into complicated structured investment vehicles (SIV), the relaxed all their lending rules to enable "everyone" to qualify. This snow ball effect was what created the bubble. The Bush admin was successful in their efforts of bringing the economy back from the dot.com bubble crash, but unfortunately they created another bubble by their lack of bank regulation - LESSON IS THAT BANKS WILL NEVER REGULATE THEMSELVES.

Capitalism is good.. but can also be bad because if law isn't written, business will do it for the almighty dollar. Even if a law is written, businesses will find a way around it, making the laws weaker. Hence the need for 10,000 pages bills passed by the congress - so when i see fools like boner parading with 5 page health care bill, I just laugh because he and I both know the trash a paper doesn't muster to any law in court.

Many of us would argue that the assets didn't become toxic until the variable interest rates began to rise. This had the effect of adding hundreds of dollars to mortgage payments. This rate change is where the real spiral begat. In my opinion.

Most people did not object on the basis that the sign was racist. It is NEVER appropriate to compare any US President--republican or democrat--to Hitler, Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez or any other evil dictator. To do so diminishes the horror that was the holocaust, the gulags, the repression of those who were different or disagreed, the deaths of innocent people simply because they were different or disagreed. That was why the sign was disgusting. Its purpose was to promote hate and fear to the naive. The objections to the sign had nothing to do with race.

Jody, you're kidding right? Remember those signs during Bush? Comparing Bush to Hitler? C'mon now ...

OK, we'll go with you that it wasn't racist. Was it inflammatory to equate President Obama with Hitler and Lenin? Was it constructive to the dialog we should be having about the future of our nation? Did it help answer the question "what services should our government provide and how shall we pay for them?" Was there any purpose whatsoever, except to portray the Democratic Party in general and President Obama in particular as a danger to the very fabric of our society?

Was it constructive, or was it hateful? As far as I can tell it only further discredits the Tea Party through their almost constant demonstration of Godwin's Law.

Rob, yes I remember those signs during the Iraq war protests and I felt they were equally inappropriate then. As I said--NO President of either party should ever be compared to evil dictators. The Obama as a witchdoctor protest signs--those were racist.

The signs were absolutely inflammatory and outrageously hateful. I agree, John B, those billboards further discredit the Tea Party and emphasizes who they really are.

I think the simple point of the Iowa sign was that Democrats have the Congress, near 60 votes in the Senate and control of the Executive Branch. Democrats have not seen these majorities since Carter, maybe even farther back. So yes, there is a general sense that the nation is sliding towards a more collective/socialist state. And the simple fact progressives are gathering together, as another thread here pointed out, to argue that there is no "public option" or single payer in the health care plan, and that financial reform did not go far enough simply proves this point. If Democrats had larger majorities in the Senate, this slide would be even quicker. Just ask any progressive what their deepest, darkest desire is, and you see the potential of where this nation could head under this currrent leadership.

The best thing for Obama would be if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate in 2010.

Rob - how do you figure that the best thing for President Obama would be if the Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate in 2010? We would have Legislative gridlock, and NOTHING would get done. How is that better? Would you agree that my premise of Legislative Gridlock is correct?

i). Voters don't like when one party controls the Congress and the WH. So he would have a better chance at re-election.

ii). Clinton benefited with the economy growing with Republican control of the Congress. Remember, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes" not the Executive. All the Executive has is the bully-pulpit to encourage voters to call their representative to support his/her policy.

iii). We get less governement when the Legislative and Executive are split.

Remember, "gridlock" is debate. The Founders didn't want change to happen quickly. That's why we are a republic, not a democracy.

I dunno, Rob - I don't agree with your conclusions.

i). Voters don't like when one party controls the Congress and the WH. So he would have a better chance at re-election.

I think this premise is incorrect. It looks like in 2008, the voters did exactly that - voted in a Democrat into the Executive. The majorites in the House and Senate were there from 2006. From what I can see, it seems that the President is not doing enough - fast enough - for BOTH sides of the aisle. Saying that the President would have a better chance at re-election MAY be the case, but there is nothing I can see that would support that conclusion.

ii). Clinton benefited with the economy growing with Republican control of the Congress. Remember, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes" not the Executive. All the Executive has is the bully-pulpit to encourage voters to call their representative to support his/her policy.

Your inital instinct is correct, but the Congress and the economy in 1994 is a LOT different from the Congress and economy in 2010. I cannot support your conclusion here that the same sort of 'arrangement' that worked in 1994 will work in 2010.

iii). We get less governement when the Legislative and Executive are split.

Actually, in this climate, you would get NO Government, but that is EXACTLY what you were looking to achieve, wasn't it?

Remember, "gridlock" is debate. The Founders didn't want change to happen quickly. That's why we are a republic, not a democracy.

Actually, this is not entirely true. In this case, Legislative Gridlock would mean that NOTHING would be done because there would be equal pressure from the Executive and legislative branches, resulting in a cancelling out of the momentum from each side. But again, that is what you wanted, correct?

I think that Americans want their Government to SOLVE PROBLEMS and MOVE FORWARD, and setting the Government up for Gridlock - constant bickering across the aisle while NOTHING is accomplished - is nothing more than a right-wing wish because they know they cannot 'roll over' this President. The veto pen will come out real fast.

Did the founding Fathers want gridlock? No. They did expect that the people in Congress would act responsibly and move forward with legislation.

I dunno Rob. I think your conclusions are wrong and baseless.

This may win the award of being the funniest award of the day. Well done.

Don't ding him for being first up-

Ron is an excellent poster who has something important to say everyday. Do the GOP have anything important to say? I doubt it. But sometimes I would like to see them up first so that the Democrats can spend the day disputing their BS.

But ding Ron for being first? No, it shouldn't happen. He's well respected here and a good, supportive friend to those he has known for a few years (including me).

Pat,

Great post. Ron is always thoughful in his posts. He is sometimes first because he cares and wants to get his message out before the knuckle heads start showing up. Your posts are always good too and I enjoy reading them as well.

Pat: You will never know how much I have learned from you. Reading your posts for years has taught me how to write a decent post on FR. Thank you my friend.

I.R. You get the award for best pre-emptive strike! LOL.

I have to laugh at those yelping about "who's on first". I'm not telling the secret to be first but I used the trick myself to follow close behind (which is fine with me).

Same here Ron and US Navy. We have some wonderful wonderful people here. We are fortunate. And I'm happy to see this site grow and grow with new posters each and everyday.

Is this you again, Andrew?

Pat,

Take care and have a great day. Keep those posts coming I learn someting for you and many others every day. We do have some talented people on this board.

I see your still jealous because you can't beat Ron to be the first poster on FR Redneck. For the rest of your post, what are you talking about? Your post doesn't make a lick of sense, but maybe in you, Joe and no joe all blows world it makes sense.

Mo you know Anna Molly and I had this very conversation earlier in the week. Subtlety is just lost on some folks so I guess I'll have to go back to using a two pound hammer to drive this particular tack. And here I am being a nice guy and trying to help some body out and all so they won't have to get out of the bed so early in the morning.

Mo: It's OK.. IR is one of us. IR: you and I can both be ornery now and then. Still the funniest post of the day.

Shucks Ron I know that sometimes things get lost in translating that soft southern drawl. Mo has always been good with me. Still is. He's just probably in that group that I tried to apologise to and spilled his coffee before he got through the whole thing.

Dear Joe,

Why be upset with Ron, IN because he beats you and everyone else to the punch every morning? Isn't that one aspect of our capitalist system? Figuring out a way to beat the competition? Instead of complaining, put on your thinking cap and devise a way to be numero uno!

You'll have to plan strategically and be smart and quick to beat my friend Ron. So if your vision is to win the prize of being the first to post on First Read - get to work on it. It's all up to you, you see.

Sincerely,

Gail, TN

Being the first to post on here everyday does not equate to being SMART or having something constructive to say. What it says is he doesn't work and has nothing better to do in life but wait on FR to post.

The man made an observation to many of you have also made even if you just can't bring yourself to admit it on here.

Gail,

STRATEGICALLY and smart and quick...LOL...now that is some funny hype. Your riding that dude's jock as if he is snoring in your face everynight.

How do you know he doesn't work for MSNBC?

Mo:

You get the award for being the most IGNORANT AZZ on here. I bet you are little 5'5", 200lb little pervert that surfs the net for who knows then pops in here without anything but a little smart azz snark.

Middling I see that your still around demonstrating that freak of nature tendancy to spew sh!t from both ends. You don't have to slink around over here hiding your one little candle under the basket when every body else has moved on. Why don't you push the little button and move your nasy old self up there where some folks can hear your particular brand of B.S. and appreciate you for the azz you really are. Or does yo Mama only let you come out and play after you've preformed your chores and done your homework.

ITM:

You’re continuous allusions to ‘tricks’ has me wondering if that’s actually a BBQ shack you supposedly own… or more like a ‘love’ shack!

Here I was under the impression all this time that ‘tricks’ are promoted by a silly wabbit! lol

There's ITM back talking about someone's jock again... i swear that man has an underwear fetish we DON'T want to know about...

Don't you have to go and 'kick rocks' or something?

Maybe his Mama made him model hers when he was younger! lmao!

Dude does have some serious issues not the least of which is underwear!

ITM, Texas: So glad to see you have a sense of humor! No, Ron and I are not sleeping together...we're just friends...and I think if he worked for MSNBC he would have the little colorful peacock emblem beside his name, like Mark Murray does. But thanks for your concern!

Thanks for putting the history of Shirley Sherrod out so we all can see it. Excellent.

Wonderful post, thank you, Pat.

Shirley Sherrod is a class act. One who took a horror and searched for a way to make a difference. Watching her interviews today, proves what a fighter she is and what a forgiving soul she has.

Thanks Ron and Jody. I thought it important that we see the entire picture of this woman.

I have to agree about the "broken promise" comment. I hope it was only poorly worded and not really how the FR staff sees this. President Obama has consistently refused to engage with the lowest form of race baiting, nor has he engaged in Al Sharpton-style bombast and grandstanding. He is a black man (thanks to our ridiculous "one drop of blood" standard) who stands with class and grace while all about him are people who work to portray him as a scary "other."

Good point.

Thanks, Navy, for the compliment. And thanks for adding more good thoughts to my earlier comment. It is frustrating to watch the "pinheads" make fools of those who are fearful.

The only people obsessed with FOX is Liberals. You are the only people that cite Fox in every diatribe written. MSNBC is no better. If Maddow was so interested in the truth, why didn't she come straight out of the box when it broke and attempt to discredit what was shown? She is Monday morning QB'ing just like a lot of you. It is easy to see something after the fact.

The problem with Liberals are: You're too damn scary. You're scared of everything, Fox, The boogey-man, Tea Partiers, etc. Stop being so damn soft and maybe you will get a little respect.

Fox knew exactly how Liberals were going to react and I went and read Limbaugh's transcript: He said word for word exactly what the Liberals will say. You can call that man what ever you want but you cannot fade him nor will you ever diminish him. All of the coordinated MSNBC/Whitehouse attacks still hasn't put a dent in any ratings but tehy sure as hell hurt the Liberal cause daily.

Liberals will always be a trick........now go ask your street-wise buddies what trick means.

Guess you didn't see my comment. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

I didn't read that post Joe, but since you're asking I'll present an opinion.

It may well be that the Bush Administration politicization of the Justice Department didn't provide evidence of prosecutable crimes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't damaging to the department and our entire concept of Justice in this free society.

JoAnnaSmith

Yes, I'm sure the Regressives and some Democrats also but let me use their special line where are we going to get the money to pay for that. Oh how could I forget....the tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Nelson I can't figure out why he doesn't just put a big R beside his name.

TRR,

Wait until he runs for re-election and his record gets posted.

Unlike a lot of citizens in our country who seem intent on voting against their own best interests, Congressmen don't like to, remember the ridiculous Bush tax cuts help keep the rich from paying their fair share, Congressmen (and women) are rich, not too hard to figure out.

JoAnna, I see that rather than admit that the Right was caught red-handed on the Sherrod story you'll just go "LaLaLa" and pretend it didn't happen, or if it did happen it wasn't a firestorm of controversy that badly damaged the Conservative media.

I see that you're confused about the concept of a political party that allows discussion and even dissension within its ranks. To quote Will Rogers "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." What you're seeing is an attempt to create consensus instead of impose a narrative. It happens outside the world that was created by Tom "the Hammer" DeLay and Karl "the Architect" Rove. Yes, they're both on the fringes now with Newt Gingrich and a bunch of others, but their legacy lives on.

Gotta laugh, today the right claims that Sherrod is a nonstory. How quickly they shift focus when the right was made a fool.

I guess it's my turn in the barrel ! ! was away from a keyboard when you finally showed up here at 1st Read , like a stray cat. Dazed & Confused, empty belly, all the symptoms of being thrownout into the BigBadWorld by a Rovian style Dictatorship. O, well, "Days Gone By".

I think what we'll call this is President Barrack Hussein Obama's" RollBack Days"! A Tax hike is when you actually Raise taxes. This, if it's allowed to Expire, will bring the taxRate for the Upper echelon(as yourself)back to 2001-2003 rates. So in essence, these upper echelon folk's will still have gotten a Tax Cut, because,Taxes have'nt raised in 10 years, I guess. Not that i'm aware of, unless you wanna say Taxes were raised on gas, taxes were raised on Food, taxes were raised on cigerettes, taxes were raised on everything under the Sun, while the Upper Echelon enjoyed a Stagnant taxRate for almost 10 years now.

All this while we enjoy the Fruits of the Iraq Invasion, from which gas Prices did come down from $1.30 a gallon in 2001, to the Present point of $3.00 a gallon.O well,Math has Never been something the GOP knew about. Say what, we're paying more for gas now, than what we did in 2001, But,But,but, Chicken George/Deferment Dick said the Iraq War would pay for itself.It sure has!

You DumbA$$e$ beleived it then, America threw you out of Governing ,A$$ 1st in 2006, swept the floor in 2008 & now were getting around to cleaning the Carpets of which the Piles of $hit leftover from the GOP were stained.

Keep on Preaching for the RightWingTalibanBibleThumpingTeaParty Choir. My $$ is on America, as a matter of Fact,"Spent in America", while yall labor on about Absolute Nonsense!

Don't know much about you, nor do i care to findout anymore. I see your Insanity from the few things i've seen you post. NJALLBLOW needs a helper for all her pole dancing, grab a rag & help Shine the poll!

When are yall gonna bring Abortion back out of the Quiver, it's about the Only arrow yall got left, that has'nt been zinged.

You Betcha!

Actually, outside of this angry, polarized little partisan universe, it is the administration's hypersensitivity to the 24 hour news cycle they claim to pay no attention to that is the bigger story, ...Did YOU watch PBS last night?if not...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/politics_07-21.html

or read the Kurtz piece in the post?

Still, one fact is indisputable: It was Vilsack, not Breitbart, who kicked Sherrod out of her job.

Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201265.html?sid=ST2010072106581

Expand your universe and your mind...

John B, Des Moines, IA

JoAnna, I see that rather than admit that the Right was caught red-handed on the Sherrod story you'll just go "LaLaLa"

John, there is plenty of discussion about the Sherrod story, and I've even made comments on several points being made. If you want to run around and waste your time blaming this group and blaming that group, be my guest. IMHO, no one looks good in this fiasco, and apologies are pouring in to Sherrod from nearly everyone. And rather getting on to the economy, Obama is stuck on explaining why his inner-circle demanded the firing of Sherrod before knowing the entire story. Not very competent of his people, don't ya'think?

I see that you're confused about the concept of a political party that allows discussion and even dissension within its ranks.

"Dissension"? John, this is the Holy Grail of the Democrats story line, that the Bush tax cuts killed the economy, that supply side economics does not work, that the power of job creation comes not from the private sector investments, but from the government deficit spending. We're not seeing dissension in the ranks John, we're seeing a repudiation of the Democrats entire message against the Republicans.

Dangerfield, you're quoting sources from inside the Beltway. That group doesn't have a particularly good track record in terms of knowing what people outside their little social circle are really thinking. They thought the polls were wrong when they showed the Iraq war becoming unpopular. They thought the polls were wrong when they showed the possibility of a strong Democratic year in 2006. And 2008. Many of them thought John McCain would be victorious right up to the moment that Barack Obama won with 56% of the popular vote. They thought the public would turn on Obama if he followed through with his promise to draw down in Iraq. They swore health care reform would never pass. Same with financial sector reform. They were sure that the public would turn on the President if Gen. McChrystal were relieved of command.

Maybe you're right. Maybe this will crystallize with Barack Obama as the bad guy. I don't see it that way however, and don't be surprised if the conventional wisdom changes as soon as there are some polls out there to show what people are really thinking. Maybe not even then. It's happened before.

Well said, John B. It is a very good week!

How can something be fabricated when one can actually hear the person say the words? The audience cheering and hollering while the speaker beams with satisfaction and pride, not only about the recognition but the deed done. She's been a racist who only, 24 years ago, did what she had to do to not lose her job, she's a racist now, being proud of her sentiments and she will stay a racist because now she found out, it pays very well and gives you recognition. But then, it worked with the Obamas, didn't it? Look at where they are right now.

herewegoagain-1972081 says "one beams with satisfaction and pride about a racist who pays very well and gives you recognition."

It's there in your own words herewegoagain. How can it be fabricated?

Apparently you only heard Breitbart and FOX's edited version. You might try listening to the real tape and note that the white farmer she talked about DEFENDED her yesterday and said she saved their farm. That dog won't hunt, herewegoagain.

herewegoagain, I see you don't like the truth, and I'm guessing facts are like a stake to the heart for you. Your really not vary smart are you, just a Becker head.

Here's-another-idiot-going-Reagan-again

It's called audio and video EDITING. In the context of telling a story about reverse-racism, one has to admit to having had a racist thought. Acting upon those thoughts and causing real harm to someone through racist motivations and actions is something entirely different from thinking about it. She admitted the thought, and proved through her actions that she abandoned racism. The tape was editted to focus on the thought of being racist as if it is the same thing as actively being a racist.

This is not a difficult concept for anyone who is actually trying, in good faith, to understand.

"It seems that there are many in this country who are not keeping their end of the bargain. You remember. The unwritten and unmentioned deal that if we elected a black president, the race baiters, whiners, rabble rousers and constant complainers would give it a rest."

But there the Right is anyway, doubling down on a new Southern Strategy, sowing seeds of racial discontent on a daily basis. They just won't accept that with every year our society becomes less homogenous, more multicultural. Rather than share the stage with people they don't understand they cry "take our country back!!"

CU Farley

the day after the elction, i left a post saying that Now we have a black president all those people that complain about the MAN(whites) keeping them down must stop, all the who sell drugs because the white man will not allow them to do any thing else must stop. our youth who does not finish school and aspire to go and finish college have NO excuses any more. there are no more excuses. for years we(blacks) have always said the day we have a black president is the last day we should allow age old excuses to interfer with the progress we enjoy now. the president is a example of what you can do with a education. the president is a example of what you CAN be. he was not born rich or lived a privalage life. he was a everyday guy that made it to the top. so big AL and jesse (never been a big fan of either) need to find something else to do. the NAACP needs to enbrace the tea party, just maybe the evil signs will come down. when i was a youth i did not let out side influnces leade me in the wrong direction. too many of our black youth even after the first black president was elected still give excuses. this has to stop because there are no more excuses. CU farley i have learned it all about upbringing. the examples you witness as a youth will follow you the rest of your life.

i want to say this right now, if martin luther King were here to see the first black president he would say that his I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH came true. instead of getting so upset at the tea party he would enbrace. find common ground. after all we will not completely agree with everybody out there but he would have said, instead of labling the tea party racist, he would pray to god that we should love each other instead of showing hate. showing hate is easy, trying to live thy neighbor is what we should be trying to do.

CU FARLEY unlike others i don't hate the tea party i just hate some of what there doing. also its out that many american think Obama will be a 1 term president. i really don't care about that because november 2008 we made it to the promise land.

Joe in Albany

This is not good news for the economy. And Congressional Dems who were hoping and praying things might get better before the fall election probably should be updating their resumes. Why wait until the rush of November 3, 2010??

So what ever happened to all those "Green-shoots" for the economic growth that Obama and his klan of morons, aka his Economic Team, were pushing last year? And just as the news on the economy needs to get better for the Democrats to have a chance to keep the House and the Senate for the fall elections, it now looks like things are getting worse.

And rather then Obama taking time to spin his (lack of) economic successes, now he has to stumble around and deal with yet another race issue, this one again of his own making.

Hey Joe and JoAnna,

You just might want to look at all of the legislation which contained JOB CREATION MEASURES that the Republicans required to be stripped out as a condition for their voting on passage, which they turned around and did not anyway.

Funny how those on the Conservative side always clip middle class americans with their legislative voodoo and then claim that the Progressives aren't a) Doing enough or b) Moving this country towards socialism.

And while we are at it just what are the measures, besides tax cuts which have been proved to also raise the deficit, that the Conservatives will put in place to get our economy moving again? Maybe the current administration is not doing everything the way every American wants, but at least they are trying something. Tell us, just what is the opposition party doing, other than saying and voting NO to the presented legislation?

Lastly, those of you on the FAR RIGHT have no credibility on the issue of race. We know what and who you are. We've seen and heard your kind for years. Those of us who grew up under legalized racism followed by Jim Crow laws know what racism is. It goes beyond the use of the "N" word. It goes straight to the heart of the person. You gotta have the right heart in order to combat and defeat racism. Gotta ask, where is your heart?

Sayitaintso: And while we are at it just what are the measures, besides tax cuts which have been proved to also raise the deficit, that the Conservatives will put in place to get our economy moving again? Maybe the current administration is not doing everything the way every American wants, but at least they are trying something.

Setting the bar rather low there, aren't you Say? "At least they are trying something". Just how hard is it to spend trillions of dollars of borrowed money? To produce, nothing. I guess others, like myself, set the bar slightly higher then "well, at least he [Obama] tried". I guess in the Leftist world it's too much to ask that we get a return on our investment.

Alan:

There is one more talking point regarding Sherrod. In addition to losing her job (and wronglyfully) this woman's face was plastered all over the news accompanied by a poorly investigated and subsequently reported story that accused the woman of being racist. In my mind many people would be just as concerned (and rightfully upset) with how their character had been damaged on national television as they would be losing their job, maybe more so. No, I think there needs to be some kind of atonement here by those who have damaged this womans character. Just getting her job back is not enough. She now has to get up every morning with the terrible realization that when she looks i nthe mirror she will see a face that many others will now identify with racism.

Nobody is saying that the administration is not at fault in jumping the gun and firing an innocent person. I find what Vilsack did to be as repugnant as what FOX and Biertbart did. I give no quarter here. Vilsack was wrong and at least admitted it, a little too late in my opinion. The NAACP also was wrong in that they did not do their homework either. It is becoming all to clear that racism is alive and well in this country. If we are to move the human race forward we need to start working together and call out those that try to divide the country with fear and hate. That is my opinion and I see nothing to change it.

Thanks for dialogue I agree that she was fired unjustly.

Hey CA, the media is not blameless. Whenever I hear something I always check the source. I don't listen to Fox so I can't really comment. Never watched Beck, Hannity O'Rielly.... In the same vein when I read something in the NY Times I try and verify it, especially after the lies put out in the run up to the Iraq war. Opinion is opinion so you take that any way you want. However, at the end of the day this woman's employer did not investigate her side of the story before taking action. That is way beyond what the media did.

Alan, NJ

Retired Navy: You can heap as much blame as you want on Bienhart and Fox. However, the real talking point is how this woman was fired with NO due process from the Agriculture Department, with White House support. Are they that afraid of Fox News? Unbelievable. You keep blaming the media to distract from this outrageous reaction from the administration but its not working.

Brietbart is no different the a Michael Moore. Two men cut from the same cloth.

The USDA employee in question though stated she got no less then three calls from "The White House" asking/encouraging/telling her to resign. Ag Sec Tom Vilsack then had to fall on his sword taking the blame for the administrations knee-jerk reaction.

Hey Navy, nice post. I can only agree with you and I will predict that the next item to come up the race debate will be the role of JournoList. If you haven't heard this was a group of reporters and journalists supporting Barack Obama during the last election. They exchanged emails during the Rev Wright revelations discussing whether to call a random right winger a racist to deflect the story.

Now, as I said above I check and verify because right now it looks to me as if a couple emails in the heat of a campaign are going to be taken out of context but I predict this will be the new shiny object for the next few days.

To add something positive, I think race would be helped if we began to move away from affirmative action college places. By changing this from race factors to economic factors many of the same people would be helped and it would be available to all. This was something Jim Webb proposed a couple of years ago.

Alan:

We are saying the same thing I believe. There are many persons in this Sherrod incident who did not behave as they should or act professionally. I just wanted people to understand that the loss of a job in no way comes close to the loss of one's character, especially when that character was damaged on a nation-wide basis. One can get another job but one may not be able to recoup other's confidence in your character.

CA and US Navy, well said. No one is defending the too quick action by Vilsack and the concurrence of that action by the WH or the NAACP.

The blame lies squarely on Andrew Breitbart and FOX for slandering an innocent woman. Regardless of how many times the reputable journalists report the true story, those who watch FOX will think it was a conspiracy, that Breitbart and FOX had the real facts--they will continue to believe it because it reaffirms their beliefs. The damage was done. It would have been necessary for the USDA to provide another position regardless of yesterday's firing--for Mrs Sherrod's personal safety.

JoAnna,

There are two distinct differences between the two: Michael Moore does documentaries exposing government malfeasance, such as Fahrenheit 911, Sicko, Capitalism: A Love Story, to name a few. Even though he may be too left leaning for your taste, he does try to be objectionable, trying to get to the person responsible, and ask them why.

Breitbart and other like him, on the other hand, have displayed a talent at being a "Hatchet Men" doing whatever it takes to personally ruin the reputations and livelihoods of an individual or an organization, I.E Van Jones, etc. and ACORN, no matter how unfounded the accusation might be. The end result is what you see right now. Unfortunately, legacies have now been cemented in this travesty

For Foxnews to air this hogwash without fully researching it shows just how "Fair and balance" they really are, and it shows just how desperate and how far a person will go for their party.

Kevin-458252

JoAnna,

There are two distinct differences between the two:

I guess my point to it all is that there are provocateurs on both sides of the political spectrum. It is the goal of these provocateurs to get the "news" out fast and hope that they get it out right. In a 24/7 wall-to-wall news outlets we have today, a story like that is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. With that in mind, sometime these orgainzations/people get it wrong.

But then there are the news sources that do the steady drum-beat, one of implication rather then of actual evidence. One of spin and point of view (either from the left or right of the political spectrum). That's kind of where Moore sits. CNN too. For weeks/months CNN has been implying that the Tea Parties are racists. It's a steady beat. But what headline did they splash on the screen yesterday with the Sherrod case? "Anatomy of a Smear". CNN has a steady stream of commenators (Roland Martin comes to mind) that nod their head in agreement that the Tea Party is racist, a type of smear if you will, but then pounce all over someone else when they do they same. Odd, isn't it?

No your point is to point at Liberals and say "no fair, he did it first!!"

When my kids did it I'd tell them that doesn't make it right, and I'll deal with him if I catch him doing the same.

They were better behaved as 5 year olds than Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are as adults.

kudos given. I did not see Mr. Smith's story. Thank you for the info and I stand corrected. It is funny that people are giving the media such leeway here. It was the media, (starting with the blog from a known fraud) that lit the fuse and it just took off. I could not believe how many jumped on this bandwagon with minimal information and were so fast to jump to judgement. There are a lot of people today that are wearing some egg on their faces.

Thanks again and keep on correcting me I appreciate it.

Well guys I have alot of work to do today so I will try at least to read the posts.

Need to get ready for our audit and do all of the wonderful taxes and the EOM.

Write to you guys soon and have a nice day!!!!

Have a great day TRR. I love having you here. You are a welcome addition to all of us.

TRR: Thanks for the comment; I think the guy's name was Joe. My take is that it is a good idea to start the day with something thoughtful. Conservatives start the day attacking. They have little else to offer.

Have a good day, TRR. Always appreciate your thoughts on FR. Ron, you deserve to be first. Always best to start the FR day with reasoned thought.

Thanks Pat, Ron, and Jody.

I've learned so much from you guys and from the others.

Thanks again for making me feel welcomed!!!!!

CA,

There was a Newsweek issue a couple months ago about Baby's and race. It went on to say that babies are not color blind like we would believe. A white baby would realize he/she is different from a black baby, just like a boy realizes he is different from a girl.

While these babies realize they are different, they don't view their differences as superior or inferior, just different.

What breeds racism is the small cues that parents tend to do. For example a white parent might hush or glare disapprovingly at a white child for staring or asking a question about a black child. White parents do this because they feel embarrassed and don't want people assuming that they are raising a racist. The white child in turn may then believe that black people are taboo. Something not to be talked about.

On the flip side, black parents are more apt to tell their children that racism does exist, and that they may be the victims of racism when they are older. This will encourage the black child to look for signs of racism and become more sensitive to the issue of race.

Will racism ever go away? Probably not, but like you said, we need to air out these discussions. To simply ignore these issues, will breed violent reactions instead of heated discussions.

CA

I would be interested to know how you feel about the diversity czars Maxine Waters had attatched to the Financial Reform Bill? I feel it just helps stir the pot and until we can all play on a level playing field we will never get over this devide. I have a Grandaughter entering college and I don't want her to feel she is going to get hired even if she doesn't do as well. It shoots down incentive in my eyes.

Terrific post, CA.

To add to your thought on each generation's increasingly more tolerant and less prejudicted--anyone remember the TV drama "I'll Fly Away" years ago with Sam Waterton (Law & Order fame) and Regina ??? It was excellent and an insightful view into the lives of a black maid's family in the pre-civil rights south. Waterston's white family was sympathetic to blacks. It only lasted a year on the network but PBS acquired the series, the writers and the actors to continue it for awhile longer. My niece allowed/insisted her elementary aged young boys watch it. They learned a great deal but the most telling was their reaction: they could not understand why people would treat others so badly. Not why did whites treat blacks so horribly but why did people treat other people so badly. Their eyes did not see the colors, they simply saw unfairness.

Maggie:

Well, personally, I am opposed to appointing diversity anything. And personally, I think it is high time that all people contribute, behave, be responsible, accountable, accomplish and be treated simply as another human being. I understand why some are tired of what they see as forced diversity this or affirmative action that, while also understanding their are those who still think we need to establish laws, goals and benchmarks so that any existing intolerance can be combatted and eliminated.

If you are talking about a relationship between myself and you that realtionship would be based on who and what I am as a human being and who and what you are as a human being, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly that relationship would not be impacted by the fact that you may be of a different race, gender or religion form me and vice versa. But when it comes to the behaviors of an entire nation, who can say. One day, such things as diversity czars wil hopefully not be necessary. And I hope that day will be soon.

Regarding your granddaughter, kids need to be challenged and held responsible (and accountable) to do all they can to care for themselves and to contribute to the well being of their community and nation. It matters not their race, religion, gender or any other differences. And frankly, give most kids the tools they need, the opportunities, the guidance and the incitememnt to do well for themselves and they will respond very well.

Cult:

There have been many interesting studies on children and race. Some suggest that the seeds of racism can begin as early as age four. You are correct that babies begin to see differences right away in color, etc. When the child becomes of age to comprehend and understand the reasons for these differences it is then up to the parents and society as a whole to properly teach childen (even at these ages) how these difference should be celebrated rather than feared.

Why do we have to have African American, Japanese American, Hispanic American or any other " " Amercian? Since I'm not any of them can I just call myself a Caucasian American? How much flack would that stir up? Am I a racist stating that? If we want to get rid of "racism" than the races having to quit refering to themselves as a different race in my opinion.

snardsus:

A good question snardsus. My guess is that there are people who wish to hold on to their distinct cultural backgraunds and heritages and to celebrate the same to which I am not opposed. We should be able to celebrate cultural differences while at the same time recognizing we are all Amercians, and proudly so. Perhaps what we need to do is to place American before our cultrual identiifers and to train ourselves to think in terms of being American first. So instead of being an Irish American, Hispanic Amercian, Jewish Amercian or African American people who wish to keep their cultural identifier would be referred to as American Irish, Amrican Hispanic, American Jewish and Amercian African.

I mostly enjoy your posts Eric however don't blame Christianity and God for Fox News behavior. I am a progressive Christian. Very much against Fox News and have it on parental lock down with the security code of "666". You insult all Christians when you call anyone in Fox News a Christian. They can claim to be whatever they want. Living, breathing Christians like me know better. Christians are not the enemy of America. Rush, Breibart and Fox News are!

I, too, enjoy your posts Eric but do agree with AnaBanana. Christianity has nothing to do with Rush, Breitbart, Beck, and those at FOX who pretend to be religious.

Yes, there are radicals in every religion but that does not make every religious person a radical. It is wrong to lump them together. To do so makes us no better than the jihadists.

Ana Banana - 1782128

Amen I am a progressive Christian, also. I am taught not to judge. However, calling anyone at Fox News a Christian, is not something I can do. Christians are not the enemy of America.

ANA:

You call yourself a Christian but yet you are judging. Is your name Jesus Christ? If not you nor anyone else in here can say if someone is NOT a christian at heart.

Just because you disagree with someone politically does not necessarily make them the DEVIL. I totally disagree with just about anything a Liberal stands for but I do not call them the devil.

Next, you'll be telling us that Obtuse Angle can come back from her constant miscues. See a pattern here? Nominate a whack job, whack job opens mouth, whack job inserts foot between the incisors, whack job drops like the "Hindenburg" in the polls!

No, you DON'T seem to get that the election is two years away! There is no wide-spread consensus that there will be a Republican takeover of either house of congress. Troubles, yes, but people like Buck and Angle seem hell-bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It's not just Kent Buck. I live here. ANYONE who aligns themself with Tom Tancredo (which both Buck and Norton have) will not get the Indie support here. And as they say elections aren't won on the right or left, but in the middle.

Steven, Tancredo reminds me of the old rock song. I think it's by Rush (the band, not the fat flannel mouth). Part of it goes "I'm goin' off the rails on the crazy train!"

nojonobo:

Nor did you notice the Quinnipiac poll numbers yesterday-Obama is at a negative approval/disapproval number, and loses to a generic Republican for re-election,

Gee, Saint Ronny of Raygun's poll numbers were below 40% at this point in his presidency, too, even without Obama's problem of having an entire television network dedicated to destroying his presidency. Maybe Ronnie should have resigned in disgrace rather than running for a second term.

This is the second poll in a week that hows him below 40% against a generic opponent of the opposing party.

The problem is, the Republicans can't run a generic candidate against Obama; they'll have to run one of the current crop of nut jobs like Sarah Death Panel and goofballs like Mitt Romney.

Houston, big ups! Palin doesn't even poll well with REPUBLICANS! Romney? God, Mike Gallagher was on Romney the other day for being a Mormon! I recall Romney having problems with his religion 2 years ago. What's he gonna do - convert?

FYI - Crazy Train is Ozzy :)

And Tancredo is one of the few politicians that actually leave me stupified by their dialouge. It's so bizarre that I can't even formulate a respone to what he says because it is so 'out there.'

Steven. I cringe everytime Tom Tancredo speaks just as I cringe when Iowa's wingnut, Steve King opens his mouth.

Houston. Good work.

Thee tax cuts damn sure helped to turn surpluses into deficits!

patHuntingtonNY

I don't think we said the Bush tax cuts caused the Great Recession. Rather, we noted that despite the tax cuts, there was still a Great Recession. Supposedly the tax cuts were supposed to grow the economy and grow jobs.

Pat, from this, do you believe that tax policy is the over-riding factor to job growth/decline? Or do you believe that tax policy has little to do with job growth/decline. Because the drum-beat from the Left is that the recession occurred because of the "unpaid Bush tax cuts". And this gets even more complicated in the case that if these unfunded tax reductions were so damaging to the economy, why didn't Obama and the heavily Democratic congress repeal these unfunded tax cuts on Day 1 of their control of the White House and Congress? More complicated yet, now some of the Democrats in the House and Senate are backing off of these claims and saying that the Bush tax cuts should be extended.

So just where do the Democrats stand on this issue?

Perhaps the tax cuts need to be looked at individually, and congress should decide which ones are worth keeping,

But that hasn't been the position of the Obama and the Democrats. Their position has been the Bush tax cuts were a major cause to the damage to the economy. How can getting rid of some tax cuts and keeping others improve the economy? An unfunded tax cut is just that, an unfunded tax cut. And that's true whether a Republican or Democrat supports the cut.

No JoAnna, the drumbeat is that the recession was caused by the financial sector treating our economy like a casino and making repeated risky bets with other peoples money. And getting rich for losing. The unpaid and biased toward the rich Bush tax cuts merely destroyed the federal budget and in the process hurt our ability to use stimulus to help the economy out of recession. Oh, and even the Bush Administration's budget projections were based on the tax cuts expiring on schedule.

Keeping some of the tax cuts and allowing others to expire makes perfect sense. The middle class can't afford to pay more in taxes and that's been made worse by rapid accumulation of wealth at the very top. The rich can afford to pay more because they're rich and because the Republicans have spent 30 years redistributing wealth upward. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Excellent point, Houston. The media has not covered the NAACP's amendment accurately.

Hi Beverly. Yes, we all miss David. When you hear the BS that comes out of MSNBC, you wonder why it is only David Shuster who must be made to stand in a corner for months on end. It's not fair. He is not a pundit. He is not a radio talk show host. He is a professional journalist. You would think they would try and keep him.

Girls, let me see if I can work my 'magic'... lol

FREE DAVID SHUSTER NOW JEFF ZUCKER!

I agree about David Shuster. He provided some zing.

bring back david.....get rid of joe schmoe and his sidekick.