Harry Reid Apologizes for Racist Comment re: Obama

[Conan71]

There is no double standard. That is a partisan term only used to falsely justify the other side are hypocrites.

Reid will be forced to resign his post even there is no evidence, no recording of him ever saying this. This is just words in a new book thrown out by a guy who is on a book tour.

I don't doubt Reid is an idiot, but this is pretty weak reason to bring him down. I would prefer to emasculate people for far better reasons.

How did you feel about the emasculation of Trent Lott for similar reasons?

[RecycleMichael]

Lott made stupid comments about Strom Thurman. Most of the pressure for him to resign came from his own party, as will be the case this time.

Reid will give up his leadership post...I will bet you a Marshall's six pack on it.

[Hoss]

Lott made stupid comments about Strom Thurman. Most of the pressure for him to resign came from his own party, as will be the case this time.

Reid will give up his leadership post...I will bet you a Marshall's six pack on it.

Reminds me to check if Big Jamokes still exist at Ranch Acres...oh, wait a minute, what topic was that we were talking about thread drift??

[we vs us]

Wevus, thanks for the input and acknowledging there is a double standard.

One has to wonder though, how much contrition there is in Sen. Byrd's heart about his old kkk days and how much was political expediency.

"As recently as 1997, he told an interviewer he'd encourage young people to become involved in politics, but with this warning: 'Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."'

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Kind of an odd comment, as if that's the only reason one should avoid a misguided hate-mongering group of pinheads.

I think there's a difference in context, not a double standard.  What I'm saying is, what Reid said is different than what Lott said.  I don't think they're the same.  I also think speech depends on the speaker.  Reid represents a different ideology than Lott, hence he will get a pass because of who and what he represents.  Lott, because of who is, didn't.  Double standard, to me, implies unfair treatment, and while as I said I don't think either man should be deposed for offensive speech, I think a proportional response makes some sense.  

Also:  why do we demand that our politicians believe absolutely in everything they're voting for?  What do I care if Byrd personally hates black people, so long as he votes like he doesn't?  In his case, you can actually look back and see a political change, and even though he wavers on what he "really" thinks about his Klan days (which, I might point out, happened 70 years ago), he's built up, IMO, an ample firewall against whatever evil he accomplished back in the 1930's as a Kleagle or a Grand Cyclops or whatever.

I understand that personal integrity has a premium, but why should it get in the way of judging performance?

[Conan71]

To me that's about like saying:

"I like David Duke because he believes we need to bring our troops home.  Sure he's a mis-guided individual and hates Jews and blacks, but I love his stance on the war."

What's wrong with picking standard-bearers who actually believe in what they legislate? 

[azbadpuppy]

How did you feel about the emasculation of Trent Lott for similar reasons?

There's a difference between talking awkwardly about race, and advocating racist policies. Not very similar at all really.

[Conan71]

There's a difference between talking awkwardly about race, and advocating racist policies. Not very similar at all really.

More like people simply jumping to conclusions about what someone's comments meant.  You know that Sen. Lott was advocating separationist or racist comments for certain, exactly how?

Kind of like drawing the conclusion that Sen. Coburn was asking conservatives to pray that Sen. Byrd would die.

Can you honestly say that if this had been a Republican or conservative talking head that made the comments Sen. Reid did that you wouldn't feel it was an outright racist comment toward President Obama?

[rwarn17588]

There's a difference between talking awkwardly about race, and advocating racist policies. Not very similar at all really.

Yep. It all depends on intent. Trent Lott was/is an avowed segregationist, and Reid is not. Simple as that.

[rwarn17588]

An uncommonly sensible assessment ...

[guido911]

Whitaker couldn't even bring himself to accurately repeat what Harry "the war is lost", Reid said. Reid said "Negro" dialect not "ethnic" dialect. I also loved how Whitaker explained what Lott meant in such specific detail when speaking of Strom Thurmond, as if he had any real idea. Typical bias in the media. Here is an admittedly biased response to a Whitaker article fawning over Obama:

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/mark-whitakers-bout-of-obamania/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OnTargetBlog+%28On+Target+Blog+-+Accuracy+In+Media%29

[azbadpuppy]

More like people simply jumping to conclusions about what someone's comments meant.  You know that Sen. Lott was advocating separationist or racist comments for certain, exactly how?

Kind of like drawing the conclusion that Sen. Coburn was asking conservatives to pray that Sen. Byrd would die.

Can you honestly say that if this had been a Republican or conservative talking head that made the comments Sen. Reid did that you wouldn't feel it was an outright racist comment toward President Obama?

The only similarities are that they are/were majority leaders and they both said something pertaining to a racial issue.

The Republican Party's recent history on race issues speaks for itself (not to mention Sen. Lotts own 'race' history). Thusly, racially insensitive comments made by a Republican would most certainly be judged differently from racially insensitive comments made by a Democrat. And that's before we even judge the content and context of the comments, which, in this case, were very different.

[rwarn17588]

Whitaker couldn't even bring himself to accurately repeat what Harry "the war is lost", Reid said. Reid said "Negro" dialect not "ethnic" dialect. I also loved how Whitaker explained what Lott meant in such specific detail when speaking of Strom Thurmond, as if he had any real idea. Typical bias in the media. Here is an admittedly biased response to a Whitaker article fawning over Obama:

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/mark-whitakers-bout-of-obamania/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OnTargetBlog+%28On+Target+Blog+-+Accuracy+In+Media%29

Dig deeper ...

[we vs us]

Whitaker couldn't even bring himself to accurately repeat what Harry "the war is lost", Reid said. Reid said "Negro" dialect not "ethnic" dialect. I also loved how Whitaker explained what Lott meant in such specific detail when speaking of Strom Thurmond, as if he had any real idea. Typical bias in the media. Here is an admittedly biased response to a Whitaker article fawning over Obama:

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/mark-whitakers-bout-of-obamania/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OnTargetBlog+%28On+Target+Blog+-+Accuracy+In+Media%29

It's like you used Right Wing Google and posted the first thing on the hit list, regardless of merit.  What a piece of poo.  

[Hoss]

It's like you used Right Wing Google and posted the first thing on the hit list, regardless of merit.  What a piece of poo.  

Like the right-wing version of FOTD.  He's the yin to his yang..or something like that.

It's kinda like point/counterpoint.

[rwarn17588]

It's like you used Right Wing Google and posted the first thing on the hit list, regardless of merit.  What a piece of poo.  

Yep. Attack the messenger and don't even bother to address the points of a well-reasoned argument.

But if guido wants to defend the remarks of a segregationist who was so dumb that President Bush and Karl Rove pushed him out of the leadership post, let him. I'm sure history will be kind ... not.