The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Anyway, now that Beck's on board with this being an unjust firing, isn't it time for you guys to flip-flop so that you can start attacking the administration and I start defending them somehow?

[southsider2k5]

Anyway, now that Beck's on board with this being an unjust firing, isn't it time for you guys to flip-flop so that you can start attacking the administration and I start defending them somehow?

 

Meh, I leave the following marching orders thing in your court.

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyway, now that Beck's on board with this being an unjust firing, isn't it time for you guys to flip-flop so that you can start attacking the administration and I start defending them somehow?

Its an opportunity to bash Obama, of course Beck and the like hate the move. If it was Bush, they'd have loved it.

 

It was racist then, its still racist now. It was stupid behavior for a publci official then, and now. It was fireable then, and still is now.

 

[Balta1701]

It was racist then, its still racist now. It was stupid behavior for a publci official then, and now. It was fireable then, and still is now.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not and it's right on the border of all your statements so I'm going to ask even though it's at best tangential...you do realize that she was not a public official during the events she was discussing, right? She was working for a group with the explicit mission of helping African Americans in that region, not the DOA.

[whitesoxfan101]

Anyway, now that Beck's on board with this being an unjust firing, isn't it time for you guys to flip-flop so that you can start attacking the administration and I start defending them somehow?

 

I already told you yesterday the administration pretty clearly jumped the gun on this one. I'm not going to "attack" them, but I think that's a hard point to argue.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not sure if you realize this or not and it's right on the border of all your statements so I'm going to ask even though it's at best tangential...you do realize that she was not a public official during the events she was discussing, right? She was working for a group with the explicit mission of helping African Americans in that region, not the DOA.

Was she employed by the DOA during that time? I thought yes. If so, then your point is irrelevant.

 

[Balta1701]

Was she employed by the DOA during that time? I thought yes. If so, then your point is irrelevant.

No. Private group. She was appointed to the Dept. of Ag in 2009. The events in question were in about 1986, when she worked for the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.

[NorthSideSox72]

No. Private group. She was appointed to the Dept. of Ag in 2009. The events in question were in about 1986, when she worked for the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.

Hm. I read a few articles and didn't see that. That being the case, that does at least lead me to think that they shouldn't have immediately fired her. Probably should have dug in to make sure she hadn't been carrying that kind of behavior into the job first. I'm sure I said some stupid things 24 years ago, which is way different than saying them now in a public role.

 

[Balta1701]

Since you said you don't have the video yet NSS, here's the text. The part in bold was the excerpt. The "Video cut" is supposedly a stop to change videotapes.

[11:50] SHERROD: I made the commitment on the night of my father's death at the age of 17 that I would not leave the South, that I would stay in the South and devote my life to working for change. And I've been true to that commitment all of these 45 years.

 

[...]

 

[16:34] SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people --

 

AUDIENCE: All right. All right.

 

SHERROD: -- you know. The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me -- I knew what he was doing.

 

AUDIENCE: All right.

 

SHERROD: But he had to come to me for help. What he didn't know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he -- I assumed that the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me; either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture -- and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had attended some of the training that we had provided 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I'd take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.

 

That's when it was revealed to me that y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hands, and said, OK, I've done my job. But, during that time, we would have these injunctions against the Department of Agriculture and -- so, they couldn't foreclose on him. And I want you to know that the county supervisor had done something to him that I have not seen yet that they've done to any other farmer, black or white. And what they did to him caused him to not be able to file Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

 

So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there.

 

So we met at the lawyer's office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, I can't believe you said that. I said: It's obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I'll do whatever you say -- whatever you think -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money. You know, so he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it.

 

And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this. And finally, I remembered that I had gone to see one just 40 miles away in Americus with the black farmers. So, I --

 

[VIDEO CUT*]

 

SHERROD: Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't.

 

AUDIENCE: That's right.

 

SHERROD: You know, and they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.

 

I want to just share something with you and I think it helps to -- you know, when I learned this, I'm like, oh, my goodness. You know, back in the late 17th and 18th century, black -- there were black indentured servants and white indentured servants, and they all would work for seven years and get their freedom. And they didn't see any difference in each other -- nobody worried about skin color. They married each other. You know, these were poor whites and poor blacks in the same boat, except they were slaves, but they were both slaves and both had their opportunity to work out on the slavery.

 

But then they started looking at the injustices that they faced and started then trying -- you know, the people with money -- you know, they started -- the poor whites and poor blacks -- they -- you know, they married each other. They lived together. They were just like we would be. And they started looking at what was happening to them and decided we need to do something about it -- you know, about this. Well, the people with money, the elite, decided, hey, we need to do something here to divide them.

 

So that's when they made black people servants for life. That's when the put laws in place forbidding them to marry each other. That's when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And they -- it started working so well, they said, gosh, looks like we've come up on something here that can last generations -- and here we are. Over 400 years later, and it's still working. What we have to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference between us.

 

The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it's health care or whatever it is, they'll do what they need to do to keep that power.

 

[APPLAUSE]

 

[...]

 

[25:03] SHERROD: I couldn't say 45 years ago, I couldn't stand here and say what I'm saying -- what I will say to you tonight. Like I told, God helped me to see that its not just about black people, it's about poor people. And I've come a long way. I knew that I couldn't live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we'd probably be dead now.

 

But I've come to realize that we have to work together and -- you know, it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight 'cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point as Tony Morrison said race exists but it doesn't matter. We have to work just as hard -- I know it's -- you know, that division is still here, but our communities are not going to thrive -- you know, our children won't have the communities that they need to be able to stay in and live in and have a good life if we can't figure this out, you all. White people, black people, Hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.

Ms. Sherrod also gave an interview today to CNN saying that part of her original prejudice prior to learning her lesson in this case was likely due to her father being murdered by a white farmer that was never indicted, in an incident she believed to be racially motivated.

"There were witnesses, and the grand jury refused to indict him," Sherrod said, adding that she believed it was racially motivated.

 

"What I had to do was turn that into a positive and I did that by devoting my life to working for change. I made a commitment on the night my father died that I would not leave the South and I would stay here and work to make a difference," she said.

[NorthSideSox72]

Since you said you don't have the video yet NSS, here's the text. The part in bold was the excerpt. The "Video cut" is supposedly a stop to change videotapes.

Ms. Sherrod also gave an interview today to CNN saying that part of her original prejudice prior to learning her lesson in this case was likely due to her father being murdered by a white farmer that was never indicted, in an incident she believed to be racially motivated.

Thanks.

 

The statements are still bad, and if she had said them while working as a DOA official, I'd stand by my original thought.

 

But as they happened 24 years ago, an further she clearly was learning and growing as a person, I'll say they shouldn't have fired her. Checked into her work maybe - to make sure this wasn't a repeating pattern. But not fired her.

 

[Balta1701]

The statements are still bad, and if she had said them while working as a DOA official, I'd stand by my original thought..

The story above is a recent story, describing events and feelings from 1986. The "I've put them in his hands" part is describing how she felt at that point.

[NorthSideSox72]

The story above is a recent story, describing events and feelings from 1986. The "I've put them in his hands" part is describing how she felt at that point.

OK, I dug around a couple of the news stories, and I now see where I was confused. She made this speech in March of this year, referring back to the 1986 situation. Now I understand the timeline, which wasn't made clear in the stories I read previously.

 

She made the statements as a public official, about her past. Not as bad as if she made them about a current incident in her position of power, but still bad in that she made them while in this position, and bad that she did things that way, even if she corrected herself.

 

I guess a more complete investigation would have been the appropriate path, but I'd still say firing was the right move.

 

[Balta1701]

OK, I dug around a couple of the news stories, and I now see where I was confused. She made this speech in March of this year, referring back to the 1986 situation. Now I understand the timeline, which wasn't made clear in the stories I read previously.

 

She made the statements as a public official, about her past. Not as bad as if she made them about a current incident in her position of power, but still bad in that she made them while in this position, and bad that she did things that way, even if she corrected herself.

 

I guess a more complete investigation would have been the appropriate path, but I'd still say firing was the right move.

So, is it then your opinion that holding prejudiced views at any point in your lifetime is a disqualification for government service?

 

If the answer to that is no, then is it your opinion that talking about how you overcame those views is a disqualification for working for the government?

 

Just trying to see what you define the firing offense to be here.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, is it then your opinion that holding prejudiced views at any point in your lifetime is a disqualification for government service?

 

If the answer to that is no, then is it your opinion that talking about how you overcame those views is a disqualification for working for the government?

 

Just trying to see what you define the firing offense to be here.

Read her quotes in what you posted. Yes, there is reformation there. There is also her characterizing the racism there, even from her current perspective. In other words, there is still racism there, even now. And she said it as a public official.

 

That's the firing offense.

 

Its not criminal, and I'm not saying she is evil. I am also saying that they should have investigated before the firing. Its not as bad as I had originally thought, but the statements that are there are still over the line IMO for a person in her position. She has created a situation where she is now not going to be trusted by anyone who would need her, and that makes her ineffective in the role.

 

[Balta1701]

The AP is reporting that Vilsack has offered her the job back.

[Rex Kickass]

You know what's probably more sad than the fact that the Obama administration handled this so poorly is that nobody is out there talking about whether or not people like Andrew Breitbart and Fox News who ran with this should be held accountable for running with this video in the first place. It's fraudulent journalism by a biased media with an axe to grind. It's just a shame that we only hear about that part of the story when the slant affects Republicans.

[EvilMonkey]

You know what's probably more sad than the fact that the Obama administration handled this so poorly is that nobody is out there talking about whether or not people like Andrew Breitbart and Fox News who ran with this should be held accountable for running with this video in the first place. It's fraudulent journalism by a biased media with an axe to grind. It's just a shame that we only hear about that part of the story when the slant affects Republicans.

oh PLEASE! If you are going to even TRY to go that route, then you need to wonder if every damn paper in this country is going to be held accountable for running with all the crap they do before they even try to verify it. And when it effects Republicans, ALL YOU GET is the edited version, no time to even THINK about 'context', because with the R, it just doesn't matter.

[lostfan]

Kinda like how the media basically accepted Eric Cantor's lying ass story about being shot at at face value.

[EvilMonkey]

Kinda like how the media basically accepted Eric Cantor's lying ass story about being shot at at face value.

I KNOW you can do better than that, on all sides.

[lostfan]

I KNOW you can do better than that, on all sides.

I have thoughts on conservative media, the narrative of conspiracy and liberal bias and why the influence of conservative media makes it irrelevant in reality, and how certain stories get emphasized or de-emphasized but I figure the Republican Thread isn't really the place to do that.

[Balta1701]

If nothing else, I'm sure they'll stop trusting random edited videos posted by Breitbart. Just like they stopped trusting that Breitbart guy after it was revealed how horribly edited the ACORN videos were.

[mr_genius]

You know what's probably more sad than the fact that the Obama administration handled this so poorly is that nobody is out there talking about whether or not people like Andrew Breitbart and Fox News who ran with this should be held accountable for running with this video in the first place. It's fraudulent journalism by a biased media with an axe to grind. It's just a shame that we only hear about that part of the story when the slant affects Republicans.

 

 

are you serious? the story is everywhere and FOX news is getting hammered.

[EvilMonkey]

I have thoughts on conservative media, the narrative of conspiracy and liberal bias and why the influence of conservative media makes it irrelevant in reality, and how certain stories get emphasized or de-emphasized but I figure the Republican Thread isn't really the place to do that.

With things like the JournoList posts coming out, you can't even begin to try and claim that the MSM is unbiased, or even just lazy. Those posts show how they conspired to control the narratives and message for the views that THEY wanted.

[Rex Kickass]

 

are you serious? the story is everywhere and FOX news is getting hammered.

 

I caught about an hour of coverage on CNN (I'm currently in the Caribbean on business and have limited TV access) but I saw a lot of coverage about what Vilsack did wrong, a lot of coverage about Obama needing to make a phone call, but nothing about the problem with trusting this particular source who has now twice taken down people and organizations that are left of center with chopped up, out of context and fraudulent video releases.

 

The only place I'm seeing this be about Fox and Breitbart has been on Daily Kos and, to a lesser extent, on Fox News itself.

[Controlled Chaos]

oh no...a black conservative woman!! Wait....and the tea party supports her??? I thought they were all racist??

 

Here's a fox chicago video.... http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/polit...lhelmi-20100714

Flannery is horrible here. To compare her situation with getting Pederson knocked off the ballot is a joke. He filed for state representative, state senate, secretary of state, U.S. Senate, governor and lieutenant governor....all with zero signatures. Removing him is removing a sham...hardly the same the democrats trying to remove a legitimate challenger.

 

Judge sets date in ballot removal appeal

Bolingbrook Republican seeks to run in 43rd District race

 

Couple other articles....

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/mcqueary...cqueary.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,3148172.story

 

 

Judge: Bolingbrook Republican can reclaim ballot spot

July 21, 2010 5:59 PM | No Comments | UPDATED STORY

A Will County judge today ruled to put a Bolingbrook Republican and tea party darling back on the ballot for a state Senate race.

 

Will County Associate Judge Bobbi Petrungaro overturned a 2-1 decision by the Will County Electoral Board to remove Cedra Crenshaw, 37, from the ballot over a technical issue with her nomination petitions. Crenshaw is vying to unseat Democratic state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi in the 43rd District, which has been a Democratic stronghold since 1975.

 

The decision to remove Crenshaw from the ballot energized tea party members, who organized protests on the stay-at-home mom's behalf and showed up in patriotic T-shirts to her legal hearings.

 

"Finally, we can vindicate the 2,100 people who signed my petition and all the people in the district who are looking for an alternative," she said after learning of the ruling, which was filed at 4:01 p.m.

 

The decision comes about three months after Crenshaw's petitions were challenged. Earlier this month, the electoral board ruled her nomination petitions were invalid because her campaign had indicated on old forms that signatures were collected within 90 days of the filing deadline, even though a new state law requires that signatures be collected within 75.

 

In fact, Crenshaw collected signatures less than 20 days before the deadline since Republicans picked her to be their candidate on March 30 because no one in the GOP had run in the February primary.

 

After the electoral board ruling, her attorney, Burt Odelson, filed an appeal in Will County Circuit Court. On Tuesday, Petrungaro listened to both sides argue the minutia of state election law.

 

In her five-page ruling, Petrungaro said that state election law is unclear and "has not yet been reconciled by the legislature."

 

However, she said court precedent is clear and favors Crenshaw. "There was no evidence of fraud, nor was there any evidence of voter confusion ... No evidence was presented that the petitions were circulated in an untimely manner or that the Petitioner gained an unfair advantage over her opponents by circulating her petition in advance of the circulation period," the ruling said.

 

Will County Clerk Nancy Schultz Voots, the lone dissenting vote on the three-member electoral board, said she is glad the judge ruled quickly. Voots had also stated in the board's dissent that state election law is unclear.

 

Crenshaw said now her campaign can move forward.

 

"Now we're able to raise money," she said. "We weren't able to do that before because we couldn't answer this very important question of whether I would be on the ballot or not. Now, we are going to be able to get our message out."

 

Wilhelmi, 42, who has served in that seat since 2005, said he supports the court's decision and that the Democratic leadership does not plan to appeal. He said he looks forward to talking about his record and the significant progress made in job creation and economic development in the Will County area.

 

"I welcome Mrs. Crenshaw to the race and I look forward to discussing the issues that are important to Will County as well as the significant challenge we face in the state of Illinois," he said. "People want to hear what our solutions are for those challenges, and I look forward to discussing how we arrive at responsible solutions."

 

The election is in November.

 

-- Mary Owen, Triblocal