RacISt LiBeraLs UnHinGed

An article in today's Washington Times ('Party trumps race' for Steele foes) has many conservative bloggers steaming in anger at black Democrats in Maryland. Michelle Malkin writes that it is "exactly the kind of unhinged liberal hatred and bigotry against minority Republicans I talk about in my book." I checked out the article for myself and came away with the feeling that it is actually the writer of the article who's a bit unhinged.

The author, S.A. Miller, pulls together many quotes that look suspiciously out of context to support the main claim that "black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican."

What I notice, however, is that that none of those quotes from Democratic leaders actually say that they think racial attacks against Steele are "fair".

The first quote is this:

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Is that a statement that's in support of racially tinged attacks against Steele, or is it more likely pointing out that acknowledging someone is black is certainly fair, but taking it farther by calling them names is not fair. I mean, I don't know, I'm just speculating. But I would be really hesitant to use that quote to bolster an argument that Democratic leaders think racial attacks on Steele are ok.

The next quote, from State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, is this:

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Again, I don't see where she is saying that racial attacks are ok, that they're just part of the game. She does say that you have to "take whatever the voters are going to give you", but it's certainly a stretch to conclude that she means that "attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele ... are fair". In fact, if you read the paragraph preceeding her quote, they cite her as saying that "she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele". (As for saying "party trumps race," I'm not exactly sure what she means since there's no context here.)

Moving on to the next quote, we have Delegate Salima Siler Marriott saying:

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

That sounds fair to me. What's wrong with making the point that he's different than most public blacks because he's a conservative, or having the opinion that his politics are not in the best interests of the black people?

Now, the potential kicker here is in the previous paragraph, where the author of the article tells us that Marriott said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

WOW!

Um, don't you think that if she actually said that, then that's what they would have quoted, and not her other much more reasonable comment? I'd be very interested in knowing exactly what she said, and the context in which she said it. Was she condoning the racial attacks? Who knows. I certainly don't know from the little I have to go on.

Next, there is one case of a direct racist attack by a Democratic leader, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr, who called Steele an "Uncle Tom". However, he later apologized for this remark. The Washington Times asserts that Black Democratic leaders think that racial attacks on Steele are fair, but if Miller thought an attack like his was "fair", then why would he apologize for it?

And then, as if Marriott was responding to the fact that Miller apologized, the article cites the following quote by Marriott.

"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."

The author doesn't say that this quote is in response to Miller calling Steele an Uncle Tom, but it is strongly implied by directly following the Miller paragraph with this quote. Again, if it was in response to the Miller name-calling, I kind of think the author would have made it a point to say so. Otherwise, I am left with the strong suspicion that this quote refers to something else, maybe following up on the earlier things she was talking about. I highly doubt she meant that Miller's name calling wasn't racial. Who would say that?

Turning to page two of the article, we find that Steve Gilliard, a blogger from New York (not a Black Democratic leader in Maryland) posted a manipulated photo of Steele that showed him as a black-faced minstrel. Yes, that's bad. So what did the Maryland Democratic Party have to say about it? Did they shrug it off, calling it "fair"?

Actually, no, they,

denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse."

Seriously, this article is just waaaaaay to easy to "nail" (ala Stephen Colbert). I am almost (but not quite) surprised that conservative bloggers even bothered to link to this ridiculous article.

Next we learn that Joe Trippi (spokesman for Mfume) thinks that Steele's willingness to attend a Republican fundraiser at the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore is something that "should be part of this debate." Ok, I don't see what's so terrible about that. The author of the article points out that Democrats also have used the club for events, so I suppose all that can be said there is that maybe everyone should rethink using this location for events. But again, bringing up this issue is not the same thing as saying that racial attacks on Steele are "fair".

Finally, the article ends with some reasonable quotes from State Sen. Verna Jones and Kweisi Mfume criticising the Republican party for not promoting the interests of the black community. Again, they are not saying that racial attacks against Steele are "fair because he is a conservative Republican."

No one is saying that.

I don't usually engage in much, if any, political blogging, but this article really made me angry. I came across it via various sites that had linked to it, and everyone was expressing the same horror, decrying the black Democrats who were supposedly condoning these racial attacks. I had to read the article for myself, and now having read it, I'm more disappointed in the state of political discourse than ever.

Part of me feels like it's pointless to even post my reaction to this article. I mean, it's so obvious, isn't it, that the article was biased and not at all supported by any real evidence? But I figure I might as well post this, for whoever who might have read the Malkin-type reactions and/or read the first few lines of the Washington Times article and walked away with the conclusion that black Democrat leaders really do think racial attacks are fair when they're aimed at conservatives.

Comments

[DaB]

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

OK, so as long as they're just "pointing out the obvious" [that he's an Uncle Tom house nigga tap dancing for his white masters simply because HE DOESN'T THINK THE WAY PEOPLE WANT HIM TO THINK] and not calling him out loud in public what they think he is it's all good?

(and thank god you decided to post this on your own blog...)

[seadragon]

I think he was trying to draw a distinction between talking about race and racist talk. As for what he was referring to by "the obvious", I have no idea because they don't cite it (and I'm not going to make any assumptions one way or the other).

[Linda]

Keep in mind that the WT is a notoriously conservative rag. Worse even than FOX news. They would sell their mother to the Devil to make ANY liberal or Democrat look bad - race aside. The WT is not worth your anger or indignation. They just proved their incompetence and bias once again. Soooo easy to nail.

[seadragon]

Linda, my anger is less about this coming from the Washington Times, and is more about the large portion of the blogosphere that take the first sentence from that article as fact and then write up posts about their disgust for this blatant liberal racism.

For example,

• THE VILE BILE WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH - Michelle Malkin
• Democrats: Racism OK For Liberals Opposing Conservatives - Captain's Quarters
• Black Democrats in Maryland Make Candid Admission - California Conservative
• Black Democrats in MD make candid admission - Sister Toldjah
• Liberals openly admit they're racists - The Unalienable Right
• Dems give racism a big o-tay! - reverse-vampyr
• As Racist As They Wanna Be - Hard Starboard
• When Racism Rocks - Standing Cheese
• Party Trumps Race- PsychoPhil
• ... I could go on.

This article is getting quite a lot of coverage and the spin is that Democrats have admitted to their racist tactics and justify them as ok when used against Republicans!

I wonder whether these bloggers have read the Washington Times article or whether they took the first three paragraphs at face value. And I wonder whether they have looked closely at the quotes to see whether they actually support the point that the author is making.

But you're absolutely right that this is too easy, and for that reason I almost didn't post this. But the more I see stuff like all of those posts I just linked to out there on the web, I have to think that it must not be as easy as I seem to think it is. :)

[anonymouscoworker]

Seadragon- They don't need to read the article. All they need to do is bounce it around in the Conservative echo chamber. Everyone comes out saying the same thing.

It happens on the blogs on the right and the left, which is why I find them all so worthless. No one analyzes the articles like you did. They just keep linking to each other with absurd accusations.

[Malnurtured Snay]

Marriott went on the Ron Smith show last night to defend herself. I was working so I didn't pay a lot of attention about what was said, I just remember that she defended herself, elaborated on what she said, and mentioned that quotes were taken out of context.

[seadragon]

Excellent Snay, you're right. Here are the links to those clips:

Kweisi Mfume
Salima Siler Marriott

I think they're both pretty clear that neither of them support, "racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele ... because he is a conservative Republican." But Marriott's segment is going too long, and I'm late to be somewhere, so I'll listen to the rest of it when I get back and comment then.

Thanks Snay for the tip!

[Malnurtured Snay]

In fairness, Seadragon, it's also not so much that Marriott's segment is long, but also that she's a boring orrator ;)