Harry Alford nukes Boxer again: “She loves black folks in their place”
posted at 5:14 pm on July 21, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not as spectacular as his confrontation with her during his Senate testimony but the sheer contempt he displays is delicious as only raw red meat can be. Even so, it’s frustrating to find him and Bill O not quite putting their finger on what Boxer was trying to do. By challenging him with the environmental viewpoint of a black liberal, she was trying to call his racial authenticity into question. Per leftist identity politics, as a minority, he’s presumptively entitled to Absolute Moral Authority unless and until a fellow minority can impeach his progressive credibility. Having been duly impeached, he can then be subjected to blackface photoshops or whatever nasty racist invective is in vogue on the left these days for those who don’t toe the line. Anyway, if you’re pressed for time, the last 90 seconds are pure gold.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The way I interepret Boxer when she throws up the NAACP folder she thinks they speak for all black people. That whatever any prominent(noisy) black group says the rest of the blacks will follow like sheep simply because they are black. I honestly believe she and the rest of her vile ilk think black people are not smart enough to think independently and need white people like her to manage and corral them.
That is why she continues on. She doesn’t get it because she is a stupid, ignorant, loathsome racist.
Socmodfiscon on July 21, 2009 at 7:29 PM
In other words, Boxer is “the good Massah.”
coldwarrior on July 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM
The “proud” thing – and she repeated it, unbelievably, in defending herself: “he’d be proud to be quoted”/”he’d be proud you were here” was enraging.
Only an utter and complete racist couldn’t see how thoroughly condescending that was. And he called it condescending, but not loudly enough. Blood still boils every time I see the clip.
inviolet on July 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Democrats do not want to hear what is right and makes sense. They only want to hear what they want which is a lot of nonsense for us.
Maam Boxer was very condescending for sure.
OneConservative on July 21, 2009 at 8:06 PM
As am Italian-American I never take a political position until I know what Mario Cuomo, Geraldine Ferraro and Nancy Pelosi think on the issue!
mankai on July 21, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Barbara Boxer, the little senate bitch came prepared to stuff a pile of vile, into record against Mr. Alford, and he wouldn’t have it. Good for him. Boxer was outrageous, and I hope he doesn’t let this go.
When I first saw the video, I couldn’t believe that this was a U.S. senate hearing, and instead watching a kangaroo inquisition.
Ms. Boxer is way overdue for a swift voter boot in the ass!
byteshredder on July 21, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Alford was correctly assessing Boxer’s methods. Putting opposition black folks in their place by pitting them against other black folks. BillO was making excuses for Boxer. Oh, well, she’s just being partisan!
Dan Minardi on July 21, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Wow, Bill O’Reilly is truly schizophrenic. One minute, he’s relentlessly going after someone that he regards as a “Secular-Progressive” or a “Pinhead” like Akon or someone else insignificant and the next moment he is praising Oprah Winfrey as a “Traditionalist” just so that she’ll bring him on to hawk whatever his new book is. He dumps on Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin, but he defends Barbara Chihuahua as a simple partisan. O’Reilly is out to promote one thing, and one thing only: himself. Don’t ever get confused and call the man a Conservative. He’s a sell-out.
Want to educate yourself about O’Reilly? Have a listen:
Mark Levin on Bill O’Reilly Part 1
Mark Levin on Bill O’Reilly Part 2
Levinite on July 22, 2009 at 12:53 AM
O’Rielly is as much a condecending racist as Botox Barby.Of course,like all limosine liberals,he can”t see it.
Pot,meet kettle.
DDT on July 22, 2009 at 4:35 AM
Butbutbut but but SHE’S A DEMOCRAT AND SHE LOVES BLACK PEOPLE! WE CAN’T LET THIS MAN DESTROY HER! LOOK WHAT SHE’S DONE FOR BLACKS !
Look what the democrats have done for the blacks since 1968!
Black Adam on July 22, 2009 at 6:56 AM
How dare this black man NOT stop dead in his tracks and genuflect to the NAACP and all those how invoke it’s name.
Jeff from WI on July 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Interesting.
O’Reilly said EXACTLY the same thing I did on TEMS in text… that Boxer was not being racist, she was just using a cheap debate tactic.
But not a peep out of Ed or Duane that day, as they were busy making the case Boxer was being racist.
Alford remembers better than I do, and for good reason, Boxer’s past attitudes involving things racial. O’Reilly winds up by saying Boxer may just despise all things RIGHT, not all things BLACK.
In any event… I am NOT a PC kinda guy… but if you are going to go around calling Boxer racist, and you are NOT in debate, or using a debate tactic, but really really mean Boxer is racist, I have a HUGE bone to pick with you, Christian or Atheist. Guilty of racism until O’Reilly’s likely evaluation is proven to be true?
During this age of Obama, who was elected almost solely because of his race, we are going to see a lot of people we otherwise respect acting in strange ways, like suddenly doing a 180 and silently defending affirmative action or frivolously labeling someone a racist because of his or her political alignment.
This whole nation threw Martin Luther King under the bus, and few even remember what he was trying to teach us anymore. But his message will not die, because truth will not die.
But I myself am likely to die (be banned) as a commenter to this blog — I expect it. HA will conveniently deem me a racist because I defended the white person and that will be that. I’m especially guilty because my own skin is white. Racism is BACK, and the people on HA think it’s kewl topic, even if they have to contrive a racist story and even reheat it.
You think there was enough hate in this world, without HA trying overhard to add to it.
So long, and thanks for all the fish…
Danzo on July 22, 2009 at 7:42 AM
The New York Times Op-Ed page team of columnists, an elite group of which Ms. Dowd is a star, is 19% black and, again according to the Times listing of its Op-Ed page columnists, 0% Latino. Will the white media report on boxer?
Pitch white Dowd pitched race parity for you not me.
seven on July 22, 2009 at 8:20 AM
So long, and thanks for all the fish…
Danzo on July 22, 2009 at
Boxer is a racist because she only “loves” black people who stay on the Democrat reservation and keep in their place. That you can’t see that is not HA’s problem; it is yours.
SKYFOX on July 22, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Harry Alford: “She loves poor black folks and she loves black folks in their place.”
How I wish that the other 90% of black people understood what Mr. Alford does. Democrats promise anything, effective or not, to black people, to get their votes. Pandering is NOT representation. Senator Boxer has a plantation “I own you” mentality inherited from years of liberal Democrat pandering.
Does anyone yet NOT believe that Democrats are elitist authoritarians?
ExpressoBold on July 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM
So long, and thanks for all the fish…
Danzo on July 22, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Other than congratulating yourself for the dubious approbation of being “validated” by O’Reilly’s tepid analysis, what was your point? I couldn’t tell whether your rambling was anti-HA, anti-racism, anti-nouveau racism or just anti. All it clearly was was self-promoting.
Unfortunately, the Conservative parties in our country are home to many people who are just anti-, and they sometimes speak way too loudly when the camera is running. If that describes the way you’re going to be, good riddance. Leave. But don’t kid yourself that you were banished.
If you want to have a discussion, stay, and stop being so sensitive. “I can’t say what I really want because you might be offended” is actually a cry for help.
rwenger43 on July 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM
rwenger43,
You couldn’t see what my point was? I was too vague?
I don’t deny someone their point of view, but your judgments about my character, were much akin to the judgments I saw made by HA posters on the topic above, that is: character attack first, without backing up that reasoning with anything that supported the point. The ONLY citation you made of anything I said or did was my being validated by SOUND reasoning by O’Reilly. So where did I go wrong? Oh, you couldn’t see what point I was making… and so I need to get MY act together?
I think I was clear as crystal, and your very obvious ad hominem attack on me didn’t shatter any glass. The only thing I might have to do in the future is possibly dumb things down a bit so you can grasp things a bit better. But I don’t want to do that, as I want to aim for the main part of the IQ bell curve, so perhaps my comments are doomed to continually go over your head and you are doomed to miss my points over and over.
Danzo on July 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2