Andrew Breitbart: Video Was Meant to Target the NAACP, Not Shirley Sherrod
Andrew Breitbart addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Feb. 20, 2010.
/ CBS / Stephanie CondonConservative web publisher Andrew Breitbart, responsible for publishing the now-widely publicized footage of Shirley Sherrod giving remarks about race relations, says that he didn't intend to sabatoge Sherrod's career but instead take down the NAACP.
Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod was asked to resign Monday after Breitbart's website released an edited video of remarks she gave at an NAACP conference. The edited video gave the impression Sherrod admitted to discriminating against a white farmer.
Her full remarks, however, made clear she was relating a story from two decades ago -- long before she joined the USDA -- and that she ultimately learned an important lesson to disregard race. Breitbart has come under fire for releasing the out-of-context remarks; he says he distributed the video without seeing the footage of her full speech.
Sherrod was not the target, Breitbart said on ABC's "Good Morning America." Instead, the conservative intended to diminish the importance of the NAACP in retribution for their recent admonishment of elements of racism with the Tea Party movement.
"What this video clearly shows is a standard the Tea Party has not been held to," Breitbart says. "The NAACP, it shows the audience there applauding her when she discriminates against a white farmer."
He added, "When the NAACP is going to charge the Tea Party of racism, I'm going to show you the other side."
The NAACP initially released a statement condemning Sherrod's remarks and backing her resignation, but the group said yesterday it was "snookered" by Breitbart.
Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with the watchdog group Media Matters for America, said on "Good Morning America" that Breitbart's actions amounted to a "smear campaign."
"If he had any decency he would apologize to Shirley Sherrod," Boehlert said. "And would stop with the incessant race-baiting that we've seen all summer."
One political commentator, Zennie Abraham, suggests Breitbart could be prosecuted for his actions.
"If Breitbart altered the video of Shirley Sherrod to make it look like she was making a statement he then called racist, he's certainly guilty of defamation of character against Shirley Sherrod," Abraham writes. "Breitbart may also be guilty of Internet harassment. He certainly should be made a high-profile example to discourage others from these uses of the computer and The Internet to harass a person. Enough is enough."
Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Magazine, however, says Breitbart is merely guilty of "reckless indifference to the truth."
"An apology would be in order, but the far right cannot apologize for anything because they are never wrong about anything," he says.
While many are decrying Breitbart's actions, he foreshadowed such aggressive moves at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington earlier this year.
The distrust which conservatives have of the federal government extends to mainstream media and academia, Breitbart said at the event, and he called for conservatives to "go on offense" against "elitists."
"Mainstream media, the gig is up," Breitbart said.
More Coverage:
Shirley Sherrod Case Exposes Raw Wounds at the White House About Race Washington Unplugged: What Will Happen Next?
Shirley Sherrod Gets White House Apology
Critics Blast White House for Shirley Sherrod Firing
Shirley Sherrod: I'm Not Sure I Want my Job Back
Shirley Sherrod Helped Keep Us Out of Bankruptcy, Farmer's Wife Says
NAACP Retracts Shirley Sherrod Statement, Says It Was "Snookered" by Fox News, Andrew Breitbart
Shirley Sherrod Resigns from USDA over Race Remark Furor
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 437 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 165 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 100 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 66 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 210 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 221 Comments
corneliusvansant said, "One has to ask, what is the cause of the hyper-racist environment?..."
---
You widen your eyes, and raise your brows in horror that someone in the GOP camp might be racist.
You pretend blissful ignorance the GOP first gained power in the American South by a strategy of undeniable racism-- compounding the social, economic and political legacy of centuries of racism across the nation.
Modern Racism, as GOP Party History---
Yet, it is a matter of record that from the first mention of civil rights legislation in the 1950's, GOP figures began to observe sagely racism was a built-in human trait which no law could eradicate. Meanwhile, the same GOP continued to push for tougher penalties for rape, robbery and murder, also time-tested human traits.
And in the late 1950's, since openly stating racist beliefs was uncomfortably ugly to some white politicians, the GOP and fellow Dixiecrats adopted the abstruse rhetoric of "states' rights", under which certain federal law-- especially about civil rights under the US constitution-- would be ignored on "principle".
George Wallace, for example, preferred not to admit he was a racist-- instead, he became a patriot in white robes defending the American constitution, courtesy "states' rights".
But however parsed for the press and public, the principle worked out to this-- in 1960 and 1964, the GOP quietly embraced opposition to federal civil rights law as a party platform.
In Philadelphia, MS, where three civil rights workers were executed by local Klan death squads, Reagan launched his campaign of 1980, assuring the crowd of whites he was a champion of "states rights"-- the same code used by every Southern racist apologist for segregation.
The white crowd cheered, knowing Reagan's was a promise not to enforce federal civil rights law. And they comforted their nagging doubts with Reagan's catch-all rationale (so abused by the GOP)-- this was not about racism, but about "American freedom".
Even Reagan's own campaign manager and RNC chairman, Lee Atwater, confessed on his deathbed that GOP fortunes everywhere depended on a not-so-subtle (though coded) racist appeal. Atwater was sorry, so sorry, about all the damage.
About the Recent Unpleasantness---
Aghast at the accusation of racism, you pose a flurry of wandering rhetorical questions, but without rhetoric. Your answer, awkwardly enough, is a self-inflicted wound, and levels the finger of accusation at the GOP, its SmearNet and Faux News.
For example, you claim Obama was elected to "prove" a post-racial America-- only to note a substantial number of "reactionary" Americans making jokes about black Americans, and Obama, in particular. And still pretending innocence, you ask, "What is the cause of the hyper-racist environment?"
Again, where is your finger pointed? A fair definition of racism is to use the attribute of race to qualify judgment. Such judgment is taught-- those who teach racism by their own doctrines and example are the cause of racism.
Another Teachable Moment---
Which brings up "teachable moments" and leadership. If education has any claim to promote truthful, ethical conduct, then leading America out of its racist past is its first lesson.
Yet, to the last-- no longer claiming "states' rights"-- the GOP now claims "free speech" excuses racist attitudes. Apparently, this will do for Obama haters until something more noble-sounding better masks the ugly, unpatriotic face of racial prejudice.
As a teacher of the teachable, Obama, himself, has not made an issue of overt racism displayed toward him-- from the anonymous internet "jokes" which all of us have seen, to the epithets shouted by tea baggers, to a shouted interruption of a presidential address by a southern senator whose son swears on his bible that his father hasn't a "racist bone in his body". All this is surely to Obama's credit.
Because it lets him lead by example-- a patient, forgiving example. Obama speaks as president to all Americans, not simply those who agree with him. And that leadership is not only "post-racial", for those who can conceive of non-racial relationships, but it is "post-partisan" in the sense we Americans must move beyond what you recognize as pointless acrimony.
Yes, Obama admitted a mistake in labeling the police action in Cambridge "stupid" (which it actually turned out to be), because his words seemed a rush to judgment about what actually happened at the Gates home. To admit error is a good sign in a teacher, because every teacher is an eager student.
You conclude with partisan humor, "What is the definition of racist? - a person who has won the argument with a Democrat." But now, the most difficult question-- how would you know when you "won"?
Aside from the fact no winners emerge from a national problem that is no laughing matter, you little realize the "joke" is not only at your own expense, but that of the entire country.
CBS reports, "Breitbart has come under fire for releasing the out-of-context remarks; he says he distributed the video without seeing the footage of her full speech..."
---
By his own conduct, Breitbart defames himself-- accuses himself of the very lies and prejudice of which he would charge others.
Either Breitbart lied, knowing he misrepresented the facts. Or, Breitbart revealed his own racist prejudice by ignoring the facts, and rushing forward with his claims about Sherrod.
Effectively-- as far as Breitbart's own credibility is concerned-- there is not a great deal of difference. To make a charge without checking facts makes Breitbart's every statement suspect.
But to make a charge, knowing it is false, approaches slander and defamation of character. This brings Breitbart into the realm of criminal intent.
On the advice of his legal friends, Breitbart chose to deny intentionally causing harm. Instead, he confessed to incompetence. ("Mistakes were made?")
To the extent Breitbart is not that bright, after all, he certainly has a daunting series of lessons in public discourse ahead. Perhaps, an attorney at every elbow?
"At the end of the day," as certain of The Usual Suspects in Washington love to say, Breitbart will learn not every public figure and federal employee is fair game.
Breitbart, clearly one of the dimmer bulbs in GOP circles, finds his oxymoronic smear job seems to dog him-- much as Palin's own gaffes pursue her.
Breitbart is merely the latest dishonor grad of the GOP SmearNet-- a loosely coordinated, trickledown network of regurgitated opinion, refreshed (after a fashion) by Faux News and the RNC. Its motto-- "We believe! (Understanding is entirely optional)"
I find it amusing that the DOJ dropping the Panther case is nowhere to be found must the mainstream media is just all in everyone's business.
Breitbart released the video because of the racist reactions of the NAACP members in the audience. I've seen the rest of the video which displays Ms. Sherrod's partisan comments about how the 8 year of the Bush Admin was not on the side of the 'have nots.' Quote unquote.
As a government employee, for whom WE pay a salary, you cannot make partisan comments in public.
She should lose her job specifically for THOSE comments.
But of course CBS, the land of Bob Shaffer not knowing which way the world turns while he's on vacation, would never expose that truth.
hopefully a nice defamation suit is in order.
Kick the NeoCONmen where it hurts.
posting while distracted ... NOT GOOD
In trying to get the NAACP, this LOSER, Breibart, crapped on an innocent woman! And he didn't prove ANY POINT WHATSOEVER!!! The people in that video clapped all through her speech, from beginning to end. Only be editing and manipulating the speech was he able to make a point---and he still FAILED!! Did he think someone wouldn't find the entire speech? WTH??
All the this loser did was empower Shirley and hopefully, make the White House and other media outlets much wiser in dealing with "stories" like these--especially when they come from Faux News & the like.
And any right winger who would applaud such nasty efforts is PATHETIC. Say what you will about the NAACP's charges, they at least had real evidence of who they were targeting. They didn't have to manipulate or edit speeches like a bunch of lying losers. No, that's what the folks on the left do! They showed real signs, comments etc and just said what everyone knew already--the Tea Party tolerates racism to fuel their movement. Well, the NAACP forced the Tea Party to clean up their act, too, didn't they??!
What did Breitbart prove? All he proved is that he's a liar and everyone, the White House especially, needs to NOT PAY ATTENTION TO FAUX NEWS & THE LIKE!!! This is just a wake up call for sensible people not to take the right seriously anymore.
And Shirely should sue Breitbart for defamation of character.