Unlike his Democrat colleagues busy marching in lockstep and echoing the talking points on Harry Reid's controversial racial comments about Obama, mavericky Russ Feingold is attempting to give the appearance that he's thinking for himself.
Local media as well as national media, like Politico and the Associated Press, are highlighting Feingold's position on Reid's remarks. I heard Feingold's statements mentioned on a WABC radio news break.
I suppose Feingold is getting attention because he's the only Dem that's at least giving lip service to questioning the appropriateness of what Reid said.
Watch video of Feingold.
From WISN:
Wisconsin's own Sen. Russ Feingold has found himself engulfed in the political clamor surrounding comments made by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid.
...Republican and conservative groups are calling Feingold, as well as other Democrats, as hypocritical for not demanding that Reid step aside.
Feingold said he hasn't decided whether Reid should resign his leadership role yet. The Wisconsin senator characterized Reid's comments as "unfortunate and racially insensitive."
"I'm thinking about that and we're going to be getting together as a caucus next week and the topic will come up. I have not decided whether these comments merit that or not. They're very unfortunate. They should have never been said. So, I need to think about it," Feingold said.
The Dems and other apologists for Reid are all saying his comments about Obama's skin color and on-again off-again "Negro dialect" were "unfortunate."
I like Mark Levin's comments on the use of the word "unfortunate" in the Dems' script.
Discussing Eric Holder's characterization of Reid's remarks as "unfortunate," Levin said:
Notice they have it all down. They're 'unfortunate' these remarks. 'Unfortunate' is when you're walking outside and you step in dog crap. That's unfortunate.
I agree that "unfortunate" isn't the proper term to apply in this case.
Reid's comments weren't accidental or the product of bad luck.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee said Feingold called for Republican Sen. Trent Lott to give up his leadership role seven years ago after he made racially charged statements.
The group said it's difficult to see Feingold's current silence as anything other than a double standard.
Feingold disagreed that a double standard is in play. He argued that Lott had "essentially [said] that we should have kept a system of segregation in this country."
That's not true. I know that's the Dem talking point, but it's not true. It would have been political suicide for Lott to say something so ridiculous. It's out of line for Feingold to say that Trent Lott is a racist and wishes the country was segregated.
Feingold owes Lott an apology.
...Feingold insisted Reid's comments were not right and need to be examined further.
What a joke!
"Examined further." How meaningless!
There is no way that Feingold would call for Reid's resignation. He's not considering that at all.
Why do this dance?
Feingold is not kidding anyone.
13 comments:
Oh, give it a rest. Let's ignore that this is an unsourced, strung-together quote, and just look at the whole quote. Let's pull back that laser-like focus on the word "negro" being uttered by a 70-year-old man, and consider the bigger picture for just a second.
Reid "was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he said privately."
Huh. Reid liked Obama. Thought he was personable. Thought that race played a role in the electoral process. Oh, and he said "Negro."
Wow. What a revelation. Let's rate that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being ACLU and 10 being Klansman.
I'm thinking maybe a two. Maybe two and a half. (Of course, Fox "News" says it's a 12, but that's how they roll.)
Now, what about Trent Lott? You seem to think that's important. So let's go back to the instant replay.
Lott said: "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 the years, either."
So, if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, everything would have been rosy? Would that be a fair reading of that statement? If not, what was he saying?
One of Thurmond's many notable remarks was that "there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." And he still holds the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history; he talked for 24 hours and 18 minutes opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
I mean, you can try to compare the two, but it really isn't the same thing, now, is it?
The only thing that is not the same is the Democratic response to their racism versus conservatives.
You seem to have a problem with using Lott as an example? Fine. How about George Allen and the "Macaca" gaffe?
In the United States, the term was at the center of a controversy during the 2006 United States Senate election in Virginia when it was used by the Republican incumbent, George Allen. Most Americans were unfamiliar with the term until continual media coverage revealed it to be a racial slur. Allen claims to be unaware of its racial context. Relating to the Allen controversy, "macaca" was named the most politically incorrect word of 2006 by Global Language Monitor, a nonprofit group that studies word usage.
There certainly are more examples, though we'll start here and await your response.
Feingold rules. He was my first choice in 2008.
The silliest thing of all in this entire debacle is watching the Republicans shed their crocodile tears over Harry Reid's "racial insensitivity". They're comparing it to the Democrat's reaction to Trent Lott's unfortunate comments back in 2002 at Strom Thurmond's one-hundredth birthday party. Lott, referring to old Strom's run for the White House in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat" candidate, said that America would today be a better place had the country elected him over Harry S Truman. Trent seemed to forget that the only position Thurmon ran on in '48 was as a staunch segregationist. Lott was forced to step down as Majority Leader - not because of his moronic statement - but because he had already lost favor with the Bush White House.
For the Republicans to now claim a newly-found racial sensitivity is quite amusing to say the least. If that is the case, why the hell did they choose the dumbest black guy they could possibly find to chair the RNC? Racial sensitivity? Please.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Ah, yes. Now, see, Allen got in a little trouble a while back for displaying a noose in his office and a Confederate flag at home. So it's not like he didn't have a history.
Well, this time, he was caught on tape referring to S.R. Sidarth, a young man of Indian descent, as "Macaca." He clearly said the word twice, so at least nobody has tried to claim he was misunderstood. Well, nobody but Allen.
His exact words were:
"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great... Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
Allen's first answer, when asked about his use of the word "macaca," was the basic defensive response: "I don't know what it means." Then he tried to claim that it was a reference to the man's hair, as in "Mohawk" - oddly enough, a cut that is only barely related to the mullet sported by our cameraman, in that they both involve hair.
Now, blogger Jeffrey Feldman did a little research, and discovered that the word was used by white supremacists to refer to black men (mostly when "nigger" seems redundant, apparently). His links are a little hard to follow: in the face of the controversy, Stormfront seems to have scrubbed their pages, and I somehow didn't feel like logging in to Vanguard News Network.
But the word is out there, and it doesn't mean "I respect you and don't object to your skin tone."
Since Mr. Sidarth was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia, it seems a little unreasonable of Allen to have welcomed him to either America or Virginia. Especially since Allen had met him a few days before.
So, you have some alternate explanation? What did Mr Allen mean by his little "quip"?
See? It all comes back to what people mean when they use words.
Harry Reid will survive this little snafu he's gotten into - but just barely. As the numbers stand, he is not likely to be reelected this November. He should step aside with dignity and allow his party to nominate someone with a better chance of winning on Election Day. Maybe he will do the right thing - who knows?. In spite of everything he strikes me as essentially a decent guy. He should just go back to Nevada to a dignified retirement and bask in the glow of his career as a public servant - or go to work as a lobbyist for the gambling industry - anything. He just needs to realize that his number is up.
Reid's comments, while inarticulate, hardly constitute the fuss that is currently being made. All it really amounts to is the GOP's Kvetch Du Jour. They have so little credibility left that it really is quite touching watching them stoop to these non-issues. It is total desperation on their part. Today it is Harry Reid's harmless gaffe; tomorrow it will be something equally stupid and irrelevant. Just you wait and see.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
All it really amounts to is the GOP's Kvetch Du Jour.
No argument there. It's just a play lifted right out of the Moonbat playbook. A good way to stop it is for the Moonbats NOT to do it.
Today it is Harry Reid's harmless gaffe; tomorrow it will be something equally stupid and irrelevant. Just you wait and see.
Ummm, were you asleep from 2000-2008, Rip Van Winkle?
Good grief.
You're putting words in my mouth.
You should be addressing your comments to "anonymous," not me.
A clarification is in order. Please do so.
So, while you're trying to fit Reid with a white hood, you believe that his comments prove that he's a racist, yes?
Nope. They do not disprove he is a racist either, though he could easily be one using the phraseology that he used. Either way, I couldn't care. Payback is what I am enjoying.
Because you're positive that race plays no part in political decisions?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I have written?
That was Newt Gingrich, on January 7, 2010. Oddly, I don't see anything in your blog getting all upset about that.
What the hell are you talking about? Newt is being stupid. The GOP is being stupid and playing catch up on race with the DNC. Pathetically so, may I add. Of course it is solely based on race. What a revelation you got there! LOL As I said before, it is nice to see Reid and the Dems squirm at their own game.
Oh, and incidentally, when you're done trying to build up those molehills into something substantial, you should probably read this.
Clearly, you have no idea what my stance was, however I will address this farcical retort of yours. You've pulled the old "freedom of the accusation of racism due to black corroboration card"! LOL Not quite though. Bill Cosby has chastised the black community for the various failures in family dynamics they have experience. A white man saying those words would send the Dems bouncing off the walls in epileptic fits. No?
Oops. You're correct, Mary. Well, you know what they say about making assumptions. Well, let me back up a little bit.
So, my mind-numbingly ignorant, yet strangely anonymous respondant, I'll play your little game.
Please explain how Reid's statement (badly phrased as it is) in support of Obama, indicates that, in your own words, his "racist little heart (came) out in the open"?
And then explain why Lott's statement in support of a man whose only presidential campaign plank involved segregation is comparable. (By the way, you know he was forced out of his role by Bush, not the Democrats, right?
Or explain the "macaca" comment. Even if your entire purpose is douchebaggery, you still get called for false equivalencies.
I'll even go one step further. Reread that last link. I didn't put it up there as a "freedom of the accusation of racism due to black corroboration card" (can you have made a more ponderous name? I'm just curious).
You need to work on that reading comprehension thing, pinhead. Yes, it may have been written by black people (cute how you come away with that as the only point to the article - is that your racist little heart coming out?), but it explains, in detail, why this is a non-issue.
douchebaggery
Hahahaha
Get lost you little punk. At least come back when you have a handle of the English language and acceptable comprehension of same. What we don't need is a little tw*t progressive with his ever changing suuuuper coool lexicon of put downs.
"Douchebaggery", "asshattery", "assholery". You guys are geniuses, man! LMAO Here's one for you, dumbfuckery! Run with it.
Oh, a little advice for you. When you cannot grasp the basic of basics on internet forums, that being knowing whom you are responding to. I suggest holding off on calling others "ignorant" and "dense", etc. It kinda loses its punch.
Fascinating how, when faced with facts, the standard teabagger reaction is to resort to random insults, and never even try to face the question that they have no answer for.
Run back to your mama's basement, kid. Come back when you have a basic grasp on what you're trying to say.
Actually, what IS fascinating is your complete lack of self awareness. It is not I who has trouble understanding and answering your idiocy, idiot. It is you who cannot even grasp whom you should be addressing in your comments, let alone gestating and processing the answers I have given that deal with your superficial treatment of this subject.
Then more fascination occurs when you think your "facts" destroy my argument, when in "fact", you have no idea what my argument is. Which is easily gleaned by your responses.
Then the final bit of fascination is your claim of argumentative superiority, as most mental midgets are want to do when the facts dictate just the diametric opposite.
Yes, there is plenty to be fascinated about in your comments, though unfortunately for you, it has nothing to do with what you think it does. You fancy yourself so clever and intellectual, however has it crossed your puny mind that you are as clumsy in your approach as Dear Leader without a teleprompter? Even more so to those of us that have dealt with low intellect know-it-alls over the years. Douchebaggery, tea baggery and so on. Wow, couldn't see that coming from such a super stealth verbal assassin. LOL
All full on your "dumbfuckery"; take it somewhere else. Like an elementary school blog.
And once again, random insults, with acomplete lack of support for the "arguments" you're trying to make.
Let me help you out a little. First of all, by the way you immediately took charge of the conversation, who could blame me for being confused? (Maybe you should consider getting your own blog since you seem to believe that you have a point of view...) Since that seems to be your only argument at this stage, I've got to say your side of he discussion is pretty week.
Now, as to what your all-important "agument" is, I figured that you spelled it out fairly clearly earlier when you said "Payback is what I am enjoying."
I'm just asking you to justify how this is "payback." See, there's a difference between unjustified accusations of prejudice, and actual, verifiable charges.
So, justify. Or are random insults all you have left, you simple-minded pinhead?
Post a Comment