NAACP and the Tea Party: Last throes of the fear-and-smear machine?

Screenshot of a prescient tweet from July 24, 2009. What a year of fear-and-smear it's been, and it all seems to be coming to a head a year later as JournoListas' leaked memos and Andrew Breitbart's video revelations emerge into the disinfectant light of day and the Tea Party strikes back.

"They got into a fight with the tea party, and all of this came out as a result of that,” Shirley Sherrod told CNN last night "in reference to the NAACP’s resolution last week accusing the tea party of having used 'racist' tactics," reports Politico this morning. NAACP "got into" a fight with "the" tea party? Puleeze. They tried to PICK a fight by throwing gratuitous accusations at no one in particular, hoping something would stick. There's no single Tea Party. It's not a monolith like the politically correct, JournoLista talking-points-of-the-day, police-state army of race mongers who would smear us as they unwittingly psychologically project their own modus operandi onto the grassroots Army of Davids that threatens their bitterly clinging grasp on power.

Tammy Bruce condensed the essence of Sherrodgate into one eloquent tweet last night.

If you'd followed and perhaps participated in the sausage-making process on blogs and Twitter last night, you would have seen in tooth and claw the life-and-death struggle between left and right to control the narrative. On the right, members of the Tea Party movement with modern-day muckraker Andrew Breitbart — that signature "take-no-prisoners" gleam in his eye — leading the charge. In the middle, calmer voices like War Correspondent The Anchoress, who argued for a measured approach. On the left, do-as-you're-told foot soldiers of the big-government, nanny-state army, determined to smear us with their racist mantra. Compare Sherrod's word choice — the passive "got into a fight" — with what actually happened. NAACP PICKED a fight, using the occasion of finding itself in the spotlight to hurl the absurd charge of racism at us. From Politico:

NAACP President Ben Jealous declared that the organization had been "snookered" into condemning [Sherrod, whose "abrupt firing" is now being "reconsidered" by her boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack] …

Jealous pointed to the NAACP’s recent conflict with the tea party, but blamed the “lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition” …

“Next time we are confronted by a racial controversy broken by Fox News or their allies in the tea party like Mr. Breitbart, we will consider the source and be more deliberate in responding. The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed.”

"Twitter is like cable news on meth," Congressional Correspondent for the LA Times James Oliphant twittered around midnight last night. The excitement was visceral as the armies of the night clashed in the seemingly endless hours of tweet-to-tweet combat. When the dust settled next morning, twitterbuddy Jimmie of The Sundries Shack basked in the realization that something consequential had happened. Genie out of the bottle. Can't put it back.

Special Forces Commander Dan Riehl's thoughtful final report, "Breitbart's Landmark Video And A Genuinely Post-Racial America," is worth your time to put it all into perspective:

In both the full video and a 3 minute excerpt I produced, Sherrod labels the entire Republican Party racist, claiming they simply can't stand to see a black man in the White House. She also characterizes totally legitimate political opposition to ObamaCare from average citizens as mean and ultimately racist in the end. Had some previous Bush appointee called the Democrat Party a bunch of race-baiting hucksters, or poverty pimps - putting black citizens in that camp, too - there is no way said official would be able to keep their position. Yet, that is precisely what Sherrod did, only it was Republicans and her political opponents she so openly smeared …

I believe shouting back against the same old racially divisive politics of old is precisely what Andrew Breitbart did in releasing this recent video. And I'm proud to stand solidly by him in the fight. I only wish more good people on the Right had the judgment and vision to understand the larger dynamics and ultimate worthiness of an admittedly very difficult battle. I believe it's a worthwhile fight, one it seems America must have if we are ever to get to the genuinely post-racial future every American should want.

Update: Dana Loesch agrees with us.

Update II: Michelle Malkin "Buzzworthy" link!

Update III: Instalanche! How sweet it is.

Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Comments

[goomp]

When one's goal is to be praised for hating and destroying the wonderful country which the United States has become what is wrong with telling lies about those who love her and made her great?

[FriendofYasmine]

Your second link about Andrew Breitbart is instructive: his focus is on getting the attacks on the Tea Party stopped. Shirley Sherrod is the unfortunate focus of the moment. And she doesn't seem to me to have fully formed her current ideology, though she insists that our divisions today are "all about money".

Her "epiphany" that all issues are economic and class issues, and therefore secondarily about created divisions between races, makes her a more sympathetic figure to many, however. Breitbart is being portrayed as unfair for presenting an audited video. This is, I think, unfair to HER, but not unfair to the NAACP and their allies who care nothing for the reputations of individuals in other ideological camps.

Breitbart has been consistent in making clear his intentions to use the Left's tactics and strategies against them, especially since he started Big Government.

And he did get a reaction, didn't he?

[Robbins Mitchell]

"Cry havoc...and let slip the dogs of war!"

[willis]

How did Shirley Sherrod become the focal point of this issue? Did Andrew edit in scenes of the audience voicing its approval of Sherrod's dislike of white people? I haven't heard the NAACP defend the behaviour of their people in attendence, only Ms. Sherrod.

[Account Deleted]

Regarding the title, sadly I must disagree. I suspect we are seeing the first throes, not the last, of the fear-and-smear machine.

[Seerak]

How did Shirley Sherrod become the focal point of this issue?

Because Breitbart miscalculated by failing to provide or account context for Shirley's anecdote, thereby accusing her by implication of a particular malfeasance that, as it turned out in the full video, Shirley herself recognizes as wrong.

Whether he had the whole video and selectively edited it, or had only the fragment and decided to run with it, he goofed this one.

The Left now has the opening they need to come charging up off the mat with barrages of "For shame!" and accusations of character assassination launched against Breitbart, from the platform of Shirley Sherrod as a sympathetic individual and victim of character assassination. All that noise will be enough to bury the real issue, which is the racist nature of the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People (Defined by Race), and of the Left in general.

Their immediate priority, of course, is to damage or knock out Breitbart as a credible threat in the future, and it looks like they'll manage it this time.

That's too bad, as he was really building up some momentum as a weapon against the Establishment Left.

[Gregory Koster]

Dear Ms. Willis: I can't agree with the premise of this post. You don't say so explicitly, but it comes across strongly, that Breitbart and Riehl are soldiers (e.g. "Special Forces Commander Dan Riehl" or Breitbart "leading the charge" or "War Correspondent The Anchoress."

No. None of these people, nor you, are at war. War is what's going on in Afghanistan or Iraq. It involves the daily risking of life, shooting bullets, watching bombs explode. In all too many cases, it means death, of the enemy, or of your buddies on the line, even yourself. Nothing any of the people you mention are doing is even close to the level of peril soldiers are in. I agree that the exposing of the press as liars and cheats is worth doing. But it isn't the same as actual soldiering. That it is being thought of in this way is a serious loss of judgment. It's understandable; when you consider the casual malice and meanspiritedness that went into the production of, say, the Bush Texas Air National Guard memos, it's no wonder that Breitbart's striking back raises the spirits.

But he didn't tell the whole truth. He did what he claims to despise in the press, release an edited version of Sherrod's speech. He does say that the edited version was what he received. But such a "too good to be true" clip should have aroused his suspicions. It didn't, and he fell into the same brackish waters the Journolisters wallow in.

Look at the full speech It does give a distinctly different flavor than the clip does. This, of course, doesn't acquit Sherrod of dam foolishness, or a witlessness that beggars belief. But it does explain the shock I felt when I stumbled across commenters at NATIONAL REVIEW's Corner blog who said, well, Sherrod should get her job back, she never should have been canned in the first place. I relied on the "warrior" Breitbart for my impression of Sherrod. In this case, it was a mistake.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

[Sissy Willis]

Hey, Gregory Koster, ever heard of metaphorical prose?

[Michael Kennedy]

The last two commenters don't realize that they are advocating the passive response typical of the GOP since Watergate. Mark Twain was right when he said "The lie is half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on. Andrew did not post anything that was untrue, unlike the fake video produced by Think Progress.

[Peter]

I submit that the left deliberately threw Ms. Sherrod over the side just to make the narrative about her instead of about the NAA(L)CP.

Having thrown her into the shark-infested waters they can now talk about that mean ol' Breitbart instead of the seeming joy with which the NAA(L)CP greeted the original talk of "sending him to his own kind".

Should Sherrod get her job back? Well, I suspect we'd be better off if about 82% of nonmilitary Federal employees lost their jobs, but sherrod, specifically? I dunno. I don't care. It ain't about Sherrod. It ain't about Breitbart. It's about a monolithic left wing smear machine.

[BFT]

Gregory Koster, as I understand your point that kinetic war is not the same as political war. For the past thousand years we have suffered the loss of political war that led directly to kinetic war. What the present resident of the White House and the TEA Party have presented us with is an actual critical choice; do we stay with that good 'ol stodgy constitution or go with a new green, progressive and race neutral interpretation or better yet just make it up as you go along?

[Gregory Koster]

Dear Ms. Willis: I sure have, though why you use the fancy Latinate word "metaphorical" when the good old Anglo-Saxon, "fake, but accurate" is available, puzzles me. Or do you think that the Texas Air National Guard memos, forgeries all, were warranted because they metaphorically proved that Geo. W. did not run toward the sound of the guns when his country needed him?

The difficulty in using metaphors is that they can be mistaken for the thing itself. Mr. Michael Kennedy has already fallen into that trap, talking about a "passive response" ftom the GOP. But Breitbart has no official connection with the GOP (and if Trent Lott is any indication, they wouldn't want him) and he was not "responding" to anything. Breitbart was instigating. As Mr. Kennedy points out, nothing Breitbart posted wasn't true, just as I can show you a photograph of the TITANIC under way at Queenstown, and ask, "What's all the fuss about the TITANIC?" The picture is certainly true, isn't it?

The justification brought forward in such cases is an old one: "It's an emergency! If we don't act now, everything will be lost." There's a great deal of truth to that. The One is a public menace, and this nation will be a long time paying off the financial and other debts he has run up. You and Mr. Kennedy could rightly point to the press as liars and suppressors for the Democrats, who had a great deal in The One's election. Therefore, the press needs to be given the works. An attractive proposition; I think every citizen should be able to walk up to Anderson Cooper and call him a liar to his face. But that's the easy part. The hard part is digging for the truth. Denunciations of the press are only half---the easy half---of the task ahead. Spoiling your own reputation "because the press is much worse" is a mug's game.

Meanwhile, someone toss Mr. Kennedy a rope. He thinks he's flying toward heaven, but he's just playing in a quicksandbox.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

[MikeC]

Let's try this: the next time anyone calls you a racist, call them a pedophile....

[Gayle Miller]

Name calling is the response of feeble minds. The riposte, if you will, of people lacking imagination as well as vocabulary. As to Ms. Sherrod, perhaps what she has illuminated in a way no Independent, Libertarian or Republican could do, is the inherent and deeply-rooted racism of the Democratic Party which is, after all, the party that gave us and supported the Klan and other such abominations.

The Left consistently accuses the middle of the road and right wing people of good will in this nation of that sin of which they themselves are guilty.

They cannot PROVE their charges of racism against the Tea Party movement, thus they use Shirley Sherrod's speech and the subsequent attention given it AFTER Ms. Sherrod's firing, to distract from the very real racism being displayed by the White House. And President Obama cannot lay this one at anyone else's door. He's the one who said the Cambridge police acted stupidly and it was HIS administration that rushed to judgment on Ms. Sherrod.

He who consistently throws people loyal to him under the bus, shall himself eventually join them there!

[MikeC]

@ Gayle Miller

Thank you for making my point. Disproving both the insults of "racist!" and "pedophile!" requires proving a negative, which, both in the rules of debate and as a practical matter, is impossible.

My point was simply that we need to put the left on the defensive about this. The best defense is a good offense sometimes....