Nate Silver asks, is there a “Bunker Mentality at 1600 Pennsylvania?”
The White House claims that it had not placed pressure on the USDA to encourage Sherrod’s resignation. You can choose to believe that or not, just as you can choose to whether or not to believe Brietbart was not in possession of the whole video, as he now claims.
What there’s no ambiguity about, however, is that the White House is standing by its decision, which it now credits to Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack. My guess is that common sense will prevail and that Sherrod will be invited to re-take her position, probably within 24 hours. But what if the White House doesn’t back down? And if it does, why did it take the White House so long to come to a seemingly obvious course of action that Charles Krauthammer and Glenn Greenwald agree upon?
AdvertisementI don’t think the answers to that question are pretty. It was one thing for the White House to encourage Sherrod’s resignation based on such flimsy evidence, thereby enabling Brietbart and other media-savvy activists who are engaged in trench warfare against it. That’s bad enough. But it’s another thing to refuse to re-hire her. One overarching critique of some of the less successful Presidencies of the recent past is that they suffer from a bunker mentality: they were either too stubborn, or too detached from reality, to acknowledge mistakes and correct errant courses of action. Although the mistakes over Sherrod may not be of the same magnitude as, for instance, the mistakes made in the Vietnam Era, it nevertheless seems that the only reason not to re-hire is that it would involve admitting you’d screwed up in the first place.
There are going to be some tough times ahead for the White House — beginning, in particular, with the midterm elections, which even under best-case assumptions will significantly weaken their majorities. No one decision from among the dozens that a White House has to make each day can be completely representative of the way that it is thinking about politics and governance (although really, there are two decisions here: first, to fire Sherrod, and second, not to re-hire her). But I wonder about the state of mind of a White House that has chosen this course of action and how that bodes for navigating the tough waters that they and the country are facing.
And speaking of a bunker mentality, “NAACP Blames Fox and Breitbart For The NAACP’s Overreaction to Shirley Sherrod Video,” Jeff Dunetz writes at Big Government:
As soon as Ms Sherrod blasted the NAACP for not talking to her before bashing her the NAACP withdrew their statement. That’s when Ben Jealous then called Sherrod to find out her side of the story.
Following their conversation NAACP President Jealous released the following statement
“With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias,” said Jealous. “Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.”
“The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech,” he continued. “They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.”
Snookered??? How could they be snookered, Shirley Sherrod spoke at an NAACP event. Mr. Jealous had access to the entire tape but he never bothered to look at it before he blasted Ms Sherrod.Sorry Mr. Jealous, but you can’t be snookered when you hold all of the evidence. And you are still missing a major part of the video its not necessarily about Shirley Sherrod. Watch the video again, listen for the approval of the crowd as she talked disparagingly about the white farmer and how she sent him to one of his own for help. You see, Ms Sherrod’s story doesn’t change the fact that the NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer.Shirley Sherrod’s story doesn’t change the fact Ben Jealous had access to the entire video and blasted Sherrod without watching it. That is not the fault of Andrew Breitbart, nor is it the fault of Fox News, it is the fault of only one person, Ben Jealous President of the NAACP.
Meanwhile, for some background, Tom Blumer writes at the non-JournoList-approved Washington Examiner, “Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast.” the Weasel Zippers blog sums it up thusly: “USDA Official Ousted Over Breitbart Tape Won $13 Million in Lawsuit Against the USDA Over Claims of Racism.”
One thing’s for sure, no matter what happens next, this story is likely to become increasingly more vial, err, vile in the coming days.
Related: “For some reason, the stuff Fox and the Tea Party does is scaring the administration.”
Update: Don Surber writes, “Listening to the video in light of the Washington Examiner report puts it all together with breath-taking clarity.”
Update: “Breitbart Goes Fishing for Minnows and Brilliantly Bags the Big Fish.”
Update: The Rhetorican spots the center-left Mediate Website noting that “It’s been a very bad day” for the far-left NAACP, and features a clip from CNN’s Campbell Brown telling the vice president of the NAACP, “You allowed yourselves to be snookered.”
As the Professor notes, “Didn’t [the NAACP] have the whole tape all along? Did they fire her without even watching it?”
According to reports, Sherrod and her husband received a massive payout from the USDA over past discrimination against Black farmers. There are serious questions raised about her hiring right after she got the pay-out, and if the Obama Administration settled properly (the total settlement runs to over $1 billion).
Moreover, NOT firing Sherrod leaves Vilsack, and possibly Obama, exposed to deposition in lawsuits alleging racial discrimination against Whites. What, so in the video Sherrod alleges she had an epiphany? If it was say, Trent Lott saying how he decided after all, that Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond was not the right move for America, would he be able to hold a position in the federal government dispersing money to Blacks? No. Nor should he. Again because of legal jeopardy regarding lawsuits. I’d imagine there’s already a passel of lawsuits over racial discrimination at the USDA over this video. When you have the head admitting her dislike of Whites and desire to punish them, on tape, there is no way to spin it by the later epiphany described.
Obama’s move is likely to head off questions of the settlement and avoid as much as possible depositions.
Hmmmmm.
There is some serious misinformation out there on the Pigford case. Frankly I rather wonder if that isn’t the reason why the White House panicked.
Yes the payout is around $1 billion but it was supposed to be much smaller than that. The reason why it’s so big is that the bar is set so low. And the Democrats have arranged, through a Farm Bill, to enable even more black “farmers” to go grab a bite at that apple.
Reparations?
Is the Pigford settlement, done in the waning days of Clinton in 1999, a back channel reparations with a very low bar set so that any black could make a claim for money? And one that could lead to some very uncomfortable questions since most Americans are very opposed to reparations at all?
“…we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias,”
should have gone with:
the (white) devils made us do it.
I can’t decide whether this administration is racist or simply racially divisive. Either way, it’s anything but “post-racial.”
A question for political history buffs: How far back do you have to go to find an administration as racist/racially divisive as our current administration?
Discuss among yourselves.
Chuck,
Woodrow Wilson comes immediately to mind.
Ed
Thanks Ed, that’s an enlightening article. That’s the sort of history the educrats somehow fail to teach. One wonders, would Wilson’s racist ways would be more widely known had he been a republican? Rhetorical question.
Anyway, the Wilson administration’s racism went well beyond the current administration’s, thankfully. Surely there’s a more recent example, not quite as blatant as Wilson. I’ll ignore Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese, since that was kind of an extraordinary situation. Looking back to my earliest political recollections, i.e., the Carter era, I can’t think of an administration as racially divisive as Obama’s.
Stephen Spruiell over at NRO’s The Corner has posted his analysis of the unedited Sherrod speech video…and he has a different take on the whole thing. Excerpts:
“I’d encourage you to watch the video for yourself, but the summary version is as follows: After experiencing some hard-core white racism in the segregated South (her father was murdered by white men who were never convicted), Sherrod made a commitment to help black southerners in bad situations…A white farmer came to her for help, and because she perceived him to be like the others, she fobbed him off on a white lawyer — “his own kind.” But the lawyer didn’t help the farmer, and that is what led Sherrod to revise her previous biases against whites and to resolve to assist all economically distressed farmers, white or black, who came to her for help.”
“As for the ongoing dispute between the NAACP and the tea party and the various accusations of racism that have been flying of late: Sherrod’s speech was about overcoming racist views, including those held by blacks, illustrated by way of her personal story. There would be no need for her to tell that story to that particular audience if she didn’t feel that some in the NAACP still harbored prejudiced views of whites; the moral of her story would be obsolete if black racism didn’t exist.”
Sprueill’s conclusion: “My argument isn’t that there are no racists in the NAACP. It’s just that Shirley Sherrod isn’t one of them.”
Greybeard3′s conclusion: Andrew Breitbart may have stumbled into a VERY carefully prepared and sprung trap. I’ve seen a clip of him proclaiming that he received only the edited clip of the speech – it looks like that’s what he decided to run with. MSDNC’s already firing the opening salvos on this affair, and I’m afraid that the rest of the MSM’s going to use this as a rationale for a rolling barrage of “news” stories and commentary “proving” the Tea Party movement’s racial animus.
November just got a whole lot more problematic for the good guys than it should have been, folks…
Link to Sprueill’s NRO post:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWU0Y2ZlYzcwYmRlZjQ1MmQzMDdmYmQ4NWY2MTMyMjE=
“Andrew Breitbart may have stumbled into a VERY carefully prepared and sprung trap.”
somehow, firing the woman does not seem like a well cordinated move.
if anything, obama just lost cred with naacp and his minority base. nevermind that they rushed to the same conclusion as the wh. they’ll inevitably make the woman into a martyr, but instead of the wet dream of bush being the antagonist, they have the nightmare of their “wise” leader with blood on his hands.
obama v. sherrod…wouldn’t surprise me if the wh goes out its way to find someone to fall on their sword, for ‘unilaterlally’ seeking the woman’s resignation. better make it a white person, bonus if they can find a jew.
Breitbard did not fall into any kind of trap as his focus was not about sherrod. His focus was on the NAA(L)CP. No matter the end of the whole tape, in what we had, the convention of the NAA(L)CP sat in silent approval of Sherrod’s original ill treatment of that farmer, because of his skin color.
That is the story. Making Sherrod resign takes the spotlight off the NAA(L)CP and puts it on Sherrod, and on Breitbart for making that poor woman lose her job. I would say that this is deliberate. This would not be the first, or the 31st time the left has ran over a member in good standing for the cause. Think of Lewinsky, without the DNA on the dress. The left would have ground her into dust to save a serial abuser of women who just happened to have some power over abortion.
“Breitbard did not fall into any kind of trap as his focus was not about sherrod.”
some disagreement…
breitbart performed what is arguably the same thing as media matters did with the tea partiers. It was a mistake of getting dragged into a contest with a far lesser opponent, and falling to their level. This weekend featured a twitter war between eric boehlert and breitbart, over malicious editting of video. Breitbart was promising blood, and went with the fool’s gold he had.
where lemonade arises from the lemon:
the naacp and the wh were the only ones to ‘call for/and force’ her resignation. They didn’t even give the gop a chance to make fools of themselves. They stole all the ‘glory’ for themselves.
bonus irony: media matters will complain about the right editting video tape, in the same week they perform the same vile act with the tea partiers.
I give breitbart the benefit of the doubt, as he did NOT call for her resignation.
The point is how the attendees at this “civil rights” group reacted to her story. Listen to their reaction and you can tell that whatever the NAACP stands for, it isn’t a color blind society. (Hint: it is socialism.)
Last night, NPR had a segment on this, and it was butted up to a segment on the NBP situation. The general tone was sort of a much-a-do-about nutt’n. But the conclusion was pretty funny: that things have changed in this political season, that anything you (as a pol) may say could come back to haunt you; so they’ll be extra careful over the coming weeks… It came off as: these poor fellows – doing god’s work – may actually be on the end of criticism for things they say, and could even end up jeopardizing their jobs. Oh, the humanity!
via another instapundit link today, the NAACP prez was in attendance so he doesn’t NEED the tapes. He knows the context of Sherrod’s little racist pep rally and futhermore typically when a person tells a story like this it is prefaced with something to the effect like, “my life experience with people outside of my group has shown me we are not really that different…” Any such preface? and the inflection of how she told the story, did it show any remorse or humbling versus glee and self-righteousness?
Okay, Mr.Holder, we’re having a conversation about race in America. How do you like it so far?
If the WH or any libs try to continue to use this against conservatives, it will fail. Thanks to Obama and the Black Panthers as well as continued unemployment, people are tired of the race card. The voters O relied on will not be there. For blacks (which I am one) he is not on the ballot, for independents and most whites, he is breaking their bank, ignoring the gulf, then running the race card instead of coming up with solutions. This will play (I believe) until next week when O will do something else stupid
It’s a shame when people discover that the fine words of their ideals are not shared by others who parrot the words but use idealists as tools for their own agenda. The NAACP, CPUSA, and similar organizations opposed the horrible–but less-than-EUropean–racism that old Chicago, old Boston, old New York (well, ok, actually, they are still racist, hate-filled cities), and the old South shared, but these organizations parroted the words of freedom and equality, but didn’t believe in ideals that the words represented. Their hatred-suffused goals were more like those of the KKKlaverns and Nazis they denounced. And now they control the government and have a lapdog media and academia. Prepare yourself for hell.