Reid apologizes for questioning Obama’s racial authenticity; Update: Apology accepted, says Obama; Update: Sharpton backs Reid, of course; Update: Obama 2002: The GOP must drive Lott out

posted at 3:31 pm on January 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Whoa:

The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president.

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

Why did Reid suddenly feel the need to confess?  He’s trying to beat the media to it:

Reid’s comments are included in a book set to be published on Monday. “Game Change” was written by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann; the pair describe the book in interviews during Sunday’s “60 Minutes” on CBS.

Reid, facing a tough 2010 re-election bid, needs the White House’s help if he wants to keep his seat. Obama’s administration has dispatched officials on dozens of trip to buoy his bid and Obama has raised money for his campaign.

When Trent Lott made a foolish statement at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party about his presidential run on a segregation tick, the media outcry forced Lott to resign his leadership position.  Will this more explicit insult create any consequences for Reid?  It certainly won’t help his favorability ratings, which have tanked even before this incident.

Update (AP): That was fast.

Reid folks in overdrive to shut story down. Obama puts out statement on Reid’s apology: ” I accepted Harry’s apology without question.”

Update (AP): Reader Geoff A. e-mails with a reminder that when Don Imus made his own problematic racial crack a few years ago and then apologized, The One was … less forgiving.

Update (AP): A day dedicated to revisiting liberal racial hypocrisy ends happily, with a statement from demagogue par excellence Al Sharpton that all is instantly forgiven for his Democratic comrade in arms.

I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid’s door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.

Update (AP): A little more kindling on the flames of hypocrisy. Obama 2002:

“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.

He said: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 4 5 6

Over at the DU there are comments along this line:
“Harry Reid was just being racially insensitive with his comment while Lott was being a racist.”
How in the Hell you slice and dice the original comments and divine the difference between the two is beyond me.
Wait, maybe it’s not. Reid’s a Donk which mean he’s immune to racism charges……
JoeinTX on January 10, 2010 at 4:34 PM

There’s a difference.

Reid is using terminology like the n word, he’s referring to color of Obama’s skin, and he’s referring to vocal inflection. These are descriptives.
Lott came out and proclaimed that he was proud to have voted for a segregationist and that “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years” if said segregationist had been elected.

I appreciate and am grateful for some of the work Lott has done in his career, and I understand that it is the opinion of several that Lott was merely trying to make a politician feel good on his birthday. But it’s just hard to parse Lott’s comments to mean other than what they appear to mean.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Harry was merely stating what he believed to be Barry’s main qualifications for CIC – namely being an unthreatening lightskinned black that was able to speak entire sentences in recognizable English.

These were the only qualifications the DNC was interested in when they GAVE Barry the nomination. As I recall Barry did not have enough delegates to win so the nomination was handed to him.

Did anybody believe he won the primary because of his non-existent accomplishments ?

DeweyWins on January 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM

The Lott incident was far more serious. This was just bumbling. Nevertheless, the timing is very good.

AshleyTKing on January 9, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Oh, so it’s serious when it’s a Republican and bumbling when it’s a Democrat. Whatever helps you sleep at night, young lady.
kingsjester on January 9, 2010 at 4:33 PM

You’re damn right it’s serious when it’s a Republican. If you’re a Republican, you’re expected to be rational. And if you’re a racist, you aren’t.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM

OK to be black as long as your light-skinned. Dark-skinned need not apply, eh, Harry?

jay12 on January 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Andrea Mitchell just reported this on NBC Evening news. Looked like she smelled $hit the whole time.

OmahaConservative on January 10, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Slightly OT: Newsweek & Vanity Fair have similar covers this week.

BHO Jonestown on January 10, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Reid has had a foot-in-the-mouth problem with Blacks that goes back to the days of Clarence Thomas’s confirmation. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk3ZjFkMWEwNTJhYmE0MTBlYzAxMTFlMGQ5ZTlhNzc=

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Reid, is a racist. And I’m going to call his office and tell them as much.

‘Nuff said.

madmonkphotog on January 10, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Unbelievable………out of ALL THE STUFF in “Game Change” 60 Minutes turned their Heilemann/Halperin interview into a PALIN hit piece. Reid and Bill Clinton NEVER mentioned!!

AYNBLAND on January 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Unbelievable………out of ALL THE STUFF in “Game Change” 60 Minutes turned their Heilemann/Halperin interview into a PALIN hit piece. Reid and Bill Clinton NEVER mentioned!!

AYNBLAND on January 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM

POLITICO did exactly the same thing yesterday. They buried the FACTUAL Reid story, a story that brought out hasty statements from Al Sharpton and from the President himself, under the headline of the CONTESTED Palin allegations.

Face it, we can’t win. The Democrats own everything. They own POLITICO. They own all the networks. And their mouthpieces are working overtime, twice as passionate about defending Reid than any sentiment that Steele could muster.

jay12 on January 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

But it’s just hard to parse Lott’s comments to mean other than what they appear to mean.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Just as long as you keep in mind that the dems for decades have supported a “grand wizard” of the KKK, not only supporting him but honoring him.
No amount of verbal statements can come close to the factual actions of a leader of the KKK….there is no one but the dems that have demonstrated such a belief, support, honor, for a man who didn’t just speak words, but led a movement out to destroy and eliminate the black man.

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
Robert C. Byrd

March 8, 2001
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase “white nigger” twice on national TV this weekend.

right2bright on January 10, 2010 at 7:57 PM

….

“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

There didn’t even elude to Thurmond’s platform. He essentially said “hey old timer, we voted for you and wish you had won… we’d all be better off”. He didn’t say “If we had instituted your segregationist policies….”
….

RightWinged on January 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

The problem is that Strom Thurmond was a Segregationist. That was the definition of his political party, it wasn’t just his policy. So there is no way to split Thurmond from segregation. When Lott states “we wouldn’t have had all these problems” he could be suggesting that segregation was the answer to the problems. That is a logically valid assumption to make concerning Lott’s intent.

People assumed he was talking about segregation problems, but maybe he was talking about liberal problems.
IrishEi on January 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM

I want to go along with what the two of you are suggesting, that Lott’s comments were political, not racist. But it’s possible to see how these statements have been regarded as racist.

xax on January 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM

If Strom Thurmond did formally renounce his segregationist past prior to Lott’s comments, that would be a critical point, yes. That would make it easier to assume that Lott was referring to the political policies with which Thurmond wanted to continue to be associated namely the conservative policies, and not the segregationist ones which he would have renounced.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Media types are whores. If they think they can get people to consume their stuff, they air it.

The juciest stuff in that book is the stuff wasn’t in that 60 Minutes taping. That tells me, the producers intended on making it a payback hit piece on Palin for the Couric controversy and possibly didn’t even READ the entire book.

Even they must feel like idiots tonight. Probably taped that on Wednesday before the Reid story broke.

AYNBLAND on January 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM

You know, looking at the handling of Reid, one would almost begin to suspect that the whole thing is more about politics than real racism.

Naahhh couldn’t be.

Dark Eden on January 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM

tartan: Lott came out and proclaimed that he was proud to have voted for a segregationist and that “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years” if said segregationist had been elected

tartan: Are you reading a lot of words into Lott’s statement that just were not there? Did Lott say that he was proud to have voted for a “segrationist”? Or did he say that he was proud to have voted for Thurmond?

Do you know what “problems” Lott meant about “all these problems over all these years”?

It truly is discouraging that people read “code words” and their own interpretations or filling in the blanks over what could have been purely innocuous statements. Too many of our “problems” appear to have arisen out of hypersensitivity or a failure to be precise when using words.

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Er, typo: “segrationist” s/b “segregationist”

Also, check the link above that shows Reid’s unfounded slurs against Clarence Thomas.

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

So if Obama had been darkskinned and spoke with a Negro dialect, Reid wouldn’t have supported his candidacy?

ctmom on January 10, 2010 at 8:30 PM

All dems are racists.

proconstitution on January 10, 2010 at 8:46 PM

tartan: Are you reading a lot of words into Lott’s statement that just were not there? Did Lott say that he was proud to have voted for a “segrationist”? Or did he say that he was proud to have voted for Thurmond?

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM

This is exactly how liberals have to be.
If the facts on the ground or reality don’t back up their ideology or faux outrage,they just lie or make things up.

Maureen Dowd is such a good example of this with her column in the NY Times where not one racial slur was uttered so she had to have “voices” in her head yelling “boy” to be able to push her “if you disagree with Obama you are a racist” line.

You can put many in this long line of liberal hypocrisy such as the Jesse Jackson’s and the Al Sharpton’s ignoring a black man getting beat down in the street while being called a n#ger by a group of democrats (Gladney in St. Louis) to the pathetic full court press by the righteous liberals against the horrible and evil Imus.

But when it is a liberal involved in obvious bigoted or racist actions the talking heads will parse the lines over and over and over wanting America to ignore the actual words that come out of a liberals mouth while they “make up” or ” put words” in a Conservatives mouth to install faux outrage.

I along with millions of Conservatives who saw this story pop up this weekend could tell you the ending verbatim.
It would be the same ol liberal line of it’s “taken out of context” or a ” verbal gaffe” line along with liberals coming out of the wood work to excuse the democrat who plainly stated that Obama was okay because be “wasn’t really like all those other N#gros”.

Face it……
….if you are liberal you can be the most hateful,lying,bigoted,misogynistic,hypocritical racist in the land and they would excuse it as long as you can help them push their political agenda.

Baxter Greene on January 10, 2010 at 8:51 PM

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I was alluding to the Government Run Media and the obvious double standard when it involves statements of this nature. They castigated Lott. They are acting like the racial statement by the Speaker of the Senate is no big deal. Trent Lott lost his prominent position in Government and the public eye because of this perceived racial moment. Reid deserves no less.

kingsjester on January 10, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Bob Parks of the blog “Black and Right” weighs in:

Harry Reid’s comments have prompted a warning… to Republicans!

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is warning Republicans against trying to make hay out of Harry Reid’s comments about Barack Obama’s skin color and lack of a “Negro dialect.”
The nonvoting member of Congress said Reid’s opponents “will not find a welcome mat in the black community” if they try to seize on his remarks.

Thanks to the white washing of black history by liberal academics, the Democrat Party, and the media, Republicans don’t have a welcome mat in the black community now. Talk about a threat with no teeth….
That said, Eleanor Holmes Norton (IF she can be intellectually honest with herself) should look at all the things Democrats like Reid have done TO blacks instead of for them. The destruction of the black family with entitlement programs, politically-endorsed mass abortion of black babies, denial of school vouchers to help black kids escape failing schools run by liberal teacher unions, economic development broken promises, an liberal entertainment culture that discourages blacks from education and towards sports and rap are prominent things that come to mind.

The Democrat Party are the last people to be issuing warnings

onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Due to my tireless support of social justice, I can now announce that our light-skinned Negro President is a clueless idiot, even though he has a go-to Ghetto dialect, which I envy.

jamie gumm on January 10, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Harry Reid’s comments have prompted a warning… to Republicans!

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is warning Republicans against trying to make hay out of Harry Reid’s comments about Barack Obama’s skin color and lack of a “Negro dialect.”
onlineanalyst on January 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Talk about a full circle of liberal hypocrisy…..
…not only are they going to give the racist Reid a total pass on his racist remarks, they are going to attack anyone who wants to hold him accountable for his racism.

This is the mistake Republicans have made by bending to all the bogus liberal faux outrage over the years.

Republicans should have stood their ground with Lott and many other incidents where liberals show their selective outrage purely for political reasons.

Whether it is using the difficulties of War as a political tool,liberal activists supporting the misogynist like Bill Clinton,John Edwards, the rapist Roman Polanski,or racist remarks from Biden and Reid,it is obvious that liberal only care about advancing their agenda,not about social justice.

Every Republican on the Hill needs to call out this hypocrisy and not let them get away with it.

Make the Black Caucus,Sharpton,Jesse,and other democrats have to defend this racism over and over and over again.

The die hard liberals will buy it because democrats can do no wrong in their blind devotion, but the vast majority of America will see this blatant hypocrisy combined with all the failure and broken promises coming from Mr. “Hope and Change” as just another example of how full-of-sh!t democrats are.


Grow some Cheney balls for crying out loud.

Baxter Greene on January 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM

who watches 60 mins anymore?!?!

winston on January 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM

The problem is that Strom Thurmond was a Segregationist. That was the definition of his political party, it wasn’t just his policy. So there is no way to split Thurmond from segregation. When Lott states “we wouldn’t have had all these problems” he could be suggesting that segregation was the answer to the problems. That is a logically valid assumption to make concerning Lott’s intent.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

No, if you read Lott’s entire quote, that is NOT a “logically valid” assumption… unless you’re a partisan douche on a witch hunt. The Dems were flailing at that point, losing elections, so they played their usual dirty tricks.

The only people stupid enough to think that Lott may have been implying something about segregation, are people who buy in to Kerry’s “I meant Bush/botched joke” excuse when he told kids that if they don’t study hard they’ll get stuck in Iraq (implying troops are idiots).

At any rate, the whole point is moot. Not that anything Lott said indicates anything about segregation… but assume for a second it did. Fine, he lost his leadership position, and will forever be known as “that racist guy”, even though I guarantee you that 95% of those who have this impression, don’t have a clue about the actual quote.

So, that’s where we are today. Given what was done to him, including Obama jumping on the “drive Lott out” bandwagon, should Reid be driven out? He essentially mocked ALL blacks with his “negro dialect” comment. In fact, he’s digging in with his attack on blacks because part of his excuse was that “it was really a compliment”… So, Obama is an attractive candidate because he doesn’t “talk like them negroes” was Reids point. An angle I feel even Fox is missing. There are some slips you can apologize for. Imus’ “nappy headed hoes”, for example. It was satire, and black lingo (yes, I will say it and not apologize, because “Ebonics” is a problem… but I’m not calling blacks “negroes” and saying I like Obama because he doesn’t talk like the rest of them). But when you say what Reid said, you can apologize all day long… but that doesn’t take it back. He didn’t wake up on the eve of this book release and stop thinking what he thought when he made the statement.

RightWinged on January 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Give no quarter to these hypocrites, for you will receive none from them.

scotash on January 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM

oh, and furthermore, tartan…. Thurmond ran in 1948… Lott was 7 years old. His comments were made in 2002… long after Thurmond had supported Voting Rights Act, Federal Holiday for MLK JR., and been the first southern senator to appoint a black aide.

Anyway, you should feel foolish now for your “logically valid assumption” nonsense… Unless you’re dumb enough to believe that in 2002, Lott was thinking back 54 years to 1st grade and how much he loved Thurmond because he was a segregationist… Rather than what is obvious to any honest person – He was saying “hey my 100 year old friend, we voted for you and we’d probably be better off today if you’d won”.

RightWinged on January 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM

….
I want to go along with what the two of you are suggesting, that Lott’s comments were political, not racist. But it’s possible to see how these statements have been regarded as racist.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I need to back track what I’ve said here. I’ve done some extra reading and I don’t see how it’s possible that Lott could have been talking about liberal problems. If he had been, why wouldn’t Lott have wanted his state to support the then republican candidate Thomas E. Dewey? Why was he proud to have had his state support the candidate whose only point of difference with the then democratic candidate was his support for segregation?

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 11:50 PM

tartan: Are you reading a lot of words into Lott’s statement that just were not there? Did Lott say that he was proud to have voted for a “segrationist”? Or did he say that he was proud to have voted for Thurmond?

Thurmond was a segregationist. If Lott said that he is proud that his state voted for Thurmond, then by logic, he was proud that his state voted for a segregationist.

Do you know what “problems” Lott meant about “all these problems over all these years”?

Strom Thurmond was a member of the states rights democratic party, a splinter party that broke from the democratic party that election year on the basis that they opposed racial integration. Why was Lott proud that his state supported a candidate from this party rather than the republican challenger in the election, Dewey? What problems could have been solved by the segregationist but not by Dewey? Do you see what I’m saying? Looks to me like these are racial problems.

It truly is discouraging that people read “code words” and their own interpretations or filling in the blanks over what could have been purely innocuous statements. Too many of our “problems” appear to have arisen out of hypersensitivity or a failure to be precise when using words.

This is very true to be sure.

tartan on January 10, 2010 at 11:51 PM

I’m going to drop this issue because I’ve become uncomfortable with it and I probably won’t have time this week to post again, though I may stop back to read briefly. I regret if my earlier statements sounded harsh there’s just too many questions.

I shouldn’t assume to know Lott’s heart. None of us do. And I certainly choose to believe that whatever was implied or not, Lott has moved on from this, and that spiritually he’s grown away from it.

I think it’s a complicated and regrettable issue at best. I’ll leave it there and wish peace for Lott, peace for blacks, and peace for the hot air community.

tartan on January 11, 2010 at 1:12 AM

My computer crashed and was down for three days… can’t believe I missed this… My only source of news.

GoodBoy on January 11, 2010 at 5:37 AM

Republicans have absolutely nothing to lose by holding Democrats to the same racist standards as Democrats have held them, and everything to lose. It’s guts check time for the GOP. Independents and JFK Democrats are disgusted with this latest example of far left hypocrisy.

Who wants to identify with a party that embraces Harry Reid racism?

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Al Sharpton was just on Fox n Friends spinning awfully hard about this. I thought he was going to hurt his neck he was spinning so hard.

ted c on January 11, 2010 at 7:22 AM

At a time when Obama and other ‘black leaders’ say we need to discuss race relations and be open with each other, the Majority Leader is forced to grovel in front of the world over comments that were not only true, but not offensive at all.

If we all want to be honest about this, would anyone have thought a dark skinned African American who spoke in Ebonics terms and tone be elected in 2008?

AND, if Harry Reid really thought his comments were offensive, he would have apologized 2 years ago, when he said them and not wait until they came out in a book.

These are the biggest group of morons that I have ever seen in my life.

tatersalad on January 11, 2010 at 8:22 AM

What tatersalad just said…..

adamsmith on January 11, 2010 at 8:33 AM

One question: Is the double standard obvious yet?

Cybergeezer on January 11, 2010 at 8:47 AM

How can you expect any respect for the people or their policies if the policies are not applied even handed, and without prejudice?
I thought that was the purpose?

Cybergeezer on January 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Tartan is entitled to his “interpretation” of what Trent Lott “meant” when Lott said that we would have been better off had Thurmond won. In addition to be a strong supporter of segregation, Thurmond was also a strong proponent of the 10th Amendment and State’s Rights. You might say that Thurmond was a “constitutionist.” Sadly, the state’s have been emasculated over the years of Democratic power and are actually in danger of bankruptcy due to unfunded federal mandates pushed on the states. Now, THAT’S what Lott was speaking to.

BTW, Tartan, didja know that Thurmond fathered an illegitimate black love child when he was 22 years old? Run THAT by your “race-o-meter” and see what ya get.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-17-thurmond_x.htm

I guess Harry Reid would say that Strom fathered a “negro child.” Hey! She coulda been the first Black President! (Assuming she did not speak with a “negro dialect” and was “light skinned.”

BigAlSouth on January 11, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Cybergeezer on January 11, 2010 at 8:57 AM

it’s all about being #1, nothing else…POWER

cmsinaz on January 11, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Aw Yeah! Now Blago claims he’s blacker than Obama.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM

It’s probably the only time Reid told the truth as a politician and he’s apologizing for it. Conservatives need Reid where he is. He’s damaged goods for the Democraps and we need him to continue to represent what they stand for leading up to the elections.

orlandocajun on January 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM

The body language of the President in the photo accompaning the blogs title, says,

“Whaaa yo jest say boy? yo dissing me, and my bros of the hood bin tol to pay you a visit yo won’t ferget.

If you need a translation, rent a copy of the original Airplane, and ax Barbara Billingsley cuz she speak jive.

MSGTAS on January 11, 2010 at 10:12 AM

If it were up to Republicans/Conservatives the US would still have segregation and slavery. Although Reid is a ignorant moron and fool, the Republican party is far more racist than any racist Democrat.

The Republican Party support the neo-KKK in the form of support for the Tea Parties. Not only that but the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush “Magic Negro” Limbaugh is a proud racist. The Democrats, no matter how bad they may be, will never be at that level.

That is the reason Reid will get a pass on his comments.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Lott’s comments on their face seemed to be an endorsement of segregation. Reid’s didn’t. I think that’s the important distinction between the two.

Jimbo3 on January 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM

The Republican Party support the neo-KKK in the form of support for the Tea Parties

HA,HA,HA,HA,ha,ha,ha………

The actual KKK was, of course, the violent wing of the DEMOCRATIC party which used violence to prevent blacks from voting. A former member of the KKK is still a democrat and is still sitting in the senate.

You cannot be serious.

DeweyWins on January 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Paging Janine Garafalo (GODAWFULHO!)

justonevictory on January 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM

HA,HA,HA,HA,ha,ha,ha………

The actual KKK was, of course, the violent wing of the DEMOCRATIC party which used violence to prevent blacks from voting. A former member of the KKK is still a democrat and is still sitting in the senate.

You cannot be serious.

DeweyWins on January 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Any informed person knows that the Republican and Democratic Parties changed during the 1960s because of the Southern Strategy. Talk Radio/Fox News ignores this fact so if that is your only source of information you are misinformed.

The Republican Party feeds on racism. It still wins using the Southern Strategy although it is now a bit more sophisticated. The Republican Party is the politicaly correct way to belong to the KKK or Aryan Nation in 2010.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM

DeweyWins on January 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

It is amazing how short the memories of the left are. But, I usually attribute these gaffs as the result of the education system they have created, which is totally slanted to the left. So far left that, they become obtuse.

MSGTAS on January 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM

If it were up to Republicans/Conservatives the US would still have segregation and slavery. Although Reid is a ignorant moron and fool, the Republican party is far more racist than any racist Democrat.

The Republican Party support the neo-KKK in the form of support for the Tea Parties. Not only that but the de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush “Magic Negro” Limbaugh is a proud racist. The Democrats, no matter how bad they may be, will never be at that level.

That is the reason Reid will get a pass on his comments.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Still waiting for that proof that the Tea Party movement is racist.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM

HA,HA,HA,HA,ha,ha,ha………

The actual KKK was, of course, the violent wing of the DEMOCRATIC party which used violence to prevent blacks from voting. A former member of the KKK is still a democrat and is still sitting in the senate.

You cannot be serious.

DeweyWins on January 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Any informed person knows that the Republican and Democratic Parties changed during the 1960s because of the Southern Strategy. Talk Radio/Fox News ignores this fact so if that is your only source of information you are misinformed.

The Republican Party feeds on racism. It still wins using the Southern Strategy although it is now a bit more sophisticated. The Republican Party is the politicaly correct way to belong to the KKK or Aryan Nation in 2010.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Proof that Tea Party is racist…still waiting.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Still waiting for that proof that the Tea Party movement is racist.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 10:34 AM

The proof is that the Tea Party Movement is not based on anything other than hatred for Barack Obama. Obama is doing nothing different than George Bush or Bill Clinton yet the Tea Party started within a few months of him taking office.

The Tea Party movement exists to fan the flames of hate for a Black President, nothing else.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM

The proof is that the Tea Party Movement is not based on anything other than hatred for Barack Obama. Obama is doing nothing different than George Bush or Bill Clinton yet the Tea Party started within a few months of him taking office.

The Tea Party movement exists to fan the flames of hate for a Black President, nothing else.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM

You said that the proof is easy to find. Remember “Google is your friend” and all that? I’m asking you to produce PROOF and not your OPINION.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM

The proof is that the Tea Party Movement is not based on anything other than hatred for Barack Obama.
Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I see. The solid proof for your argument is ‘because I say so’. Weak…

joejm65 on January 11, 2010 at 10:49 AM

The real racist is Al Sharpton, if you believe that it is possible for a person of one race to be a manipulator of his own people. Rather than Sharpton calling this statement, while everyone with a brain knows it is racially insensitive for what it is, he goes with the flow and defends it as merely spoken in private and not meant as a slur. What total BS.
Al Sharpton sells his own folks down the river every day so as to be a player in the Democrat’s heirarcy. He is obviously smart enough to cover his ass in ways so as not to be seen as a manipulator, but as a tower of strength that speaks for the “black man.” He knows it is fairly easy to keep them in line, as long as they can’t see behind the curtain and it is quite obvious that the curtain is pulled tight, as evidenced by the blacks following in lock-step to the Democrat’s agenda, even if there is no real agenda other than more power grab. If blacks ever wake up and start thinking for themselves, rather than sticking with the sheep mentality, the Democratic party would wither on the vine, unless the Latinos take their place in the mix.
Sharpton will continue to play his “black ringmaster” role with success as long as a willing MSM and guilt ridden whites give him a pass every day and allow him to have undeserved respect, so as not to offend. This guy is a chameleon if ever there was one.

gunter on January 11, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Obama is the nation’s first African-American mixed race president.

He can try & deny his white heritage all he wants, but he’s still 1/2 & 1/2.

Badger40 on January 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The proof is that the Tea Party Movement is not based on anything other than hatred for Barack Obama.
Decider on January 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM

You are clearly insane.
The facts are: Americans are PO’d about Congresses inability to get anything done & it has nothing to do with our president being of mixed race.
From now on, & probably before this, you have painted yourself as someone who indictes a whole group based on your own buried prejudices.
Nothing you say is of value in this matter, & perhaps more, unless you show yourself to posses a modicum of intelligence in the future.

Badger40 on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

You said that the proof is easy to find. Remember “Google is your friend” and all that? I’m asking you to produce PROOF and not your OPINION.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Proof that the Tea Party Movement is little more than hatred for a Black President is like proving the sky is blue. It just is.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Democrat Party=Taqiyya Party.
ie. what ever’s convenient to promote our agenda of lies and deceit.

Cybergeezer on January 11, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Proof that the Tea Party Movement is little more than hatred for a Black President is like proving the sky is blue. It just is.
Decider on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Nope. Not good enough. Not by a long shot…

joejm65 on January 11, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Proof that the Tea Party Movement is little more than hatred for a Black President is like proving the sky is blue. It just is.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Proof that Darwin was right. Liberal racism is the ONLY good racism. It just is.

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM

President Obama was elected to fan the flames of black hatred in America.
If Jesus Christ was elected, the blacks in America would still not be happy with their self image.
Pass laws that give them and other minorities equality; Still not enough.
Pathetic; totally pathetic.
And they want respect? Not going to get it that way from any one with intelligence. And many of their own.

Cybergeezer on January 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM

The false outrage is quite annoying. I thought us on the right are supposed to shun political correctness and the right is losing a great opportunity to have a “teachable moment” on political correctness versus just playing the cheap game that the left does. Don’t get me wrong, the term Negro is an awkward one, usually that you’d hear a senior citizen use, but otherwise I don’t see racism here at all. Reid was basically stating what most people believe to be true, that a darker and more black sounding candidate would do worse than a lighter whiter sounding candidate. Most people seem to think this is true. And its not just politics that this is the case, why do you think they market athletes like Peyton Manning for mass consumption and black athletes on the billboards in the inner cities? People tend to vote for folks they can relate to easier, and it goes both ways since the number of people who give a rat’s behind as to the issues are small compared to the population of people who vote. It just seems to be the Republican Talking heads taking a cheap shot at Reid, when there are much more substantive things to hit him with (health care, cap and trade, taxes, etc.), at the expense of the right’s argument on the cheapness and superficiality of political correctness. The right is engaging in the same political correctness it seeks to eliminate.

LevStrauss on January 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Do you think Michael Jordan would have been as marketable if he had Allen Iverson’s image?

LevStrauss on January 11, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

It is best to ignore trolls because they tend to die slow and painfully that way, but in your case I am making this one exception.

You are delusional in a funny way! You really need to get some help.

Wife and I are white, middle class republicans, support the tea party movement, and we have two beautiful adopted children.

Both are black. Call me a racist, I double dare you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

rukiddingme on January 11, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Reid was basically stating what most people believe to be true, that a darker and more black sounding candidate would do worse than a lighter whiter sounding candidate.

LevStrauss on January 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM

The Duke Lacrosse Team supports this statement.

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM


Dec. 5, 2002;
“I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, Mississippians voted for him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years either.”


Quote about the Democratic Candidate for President in 1948.

Just thought the Actual Quote would help refocus the conversation. No comment about skin color, subspecie identification, speach pattern etc.

barnone on January 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM

barnone on January 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Bravo!

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Proof that the Tea Party Movement is little more than hatred for a Black President is like proving the sky is blue. It just is.

Decider on January 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM

But unlike you, there is scientific PROOF why the sky is blue. You have yet to show any PROOF that the tea party movement is racist.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Dec. 5, 2002;
“I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, Mississippians voted for him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years either.”

Quote about the Democratic Candidate for President in 1948.

Just thought the Actual Quote would help refocus the conversation. No comment about skin color, subspecie identification, speach pattern etc.

barnone on January 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Exactly, if the rest of the country would have voted for the Presidential Candidate, whose party slogan was “Segregation Forever”, we wouldn’t have had “all these problems over the years”. Because one thing about the Dixiecrat party, it had nothing to do with race, right?

LevStrauss on January 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM

On Dec. 12, 2002, Obama, then serving as an Illinois state senator and filling in as host of the Cliff Kelley radio show on WVON, challenged the Republican Party to demand Lott’s resignation.

“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.

He added: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59337

The Democrat Party itself has to drive out Harry Reid. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM

That’s NOT the Harry Reid I know…

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM

“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community,” he said. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Democrats: Nobody does racism better.

Roy Rogers on January 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM

“Negro” appears in the 2010 census form.

Maybe it’s making a comeback.

Akzed on January 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM

“Negro” appears in the 2010 census form.

Maybe it’s making a comeback.

Akzed on January 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I’m holding out until “colored” becomes fashionable again.

mizflame98 on January 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6