Rush Limbaugh distorted an MSNBC promotional ad to accuse Melissa Harris-Perry of advocating for forced child labor in service of the collective good. In reality, Perry's comments were simply a call for society to rethink the way it values children in order to "start making better investments" in things like public education.
As part of its "Lean Forward" campaign, MSNBC is airing an ad with Perry calling on America to think about raising children as a community effort. Conservatives have latched on to the ad to criticize Perry and her call for renewed investment in education.
Limbaugh, for example, said on his April 8 radio show that the Perry was pursuing a communistic worldviewthat would lead to forced child labor:
LIMBAUGH: We haven't had a very collective notion of "these are our children." So we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families. We need to recognize that kids belong to whole communities, and not 'til then will we start spending the right amount of money on it. So how does this manifest itself?
You need your yard mowed, what do you do? You go knock on the door down the street and say, "Your kid that you don't own, I do today for the next hour. Your kid's gonna mow my yard, and then after that my trash needs taking out, and after that I need somebody to go to the grocery store for me. My kid's tied up, so I'm claiming your kid." How does this work? What is the practical application? What she is saying, Melissa Harris-Perry, what she is saying here is as old as communist genocide. But, the fact that it is said in America on a cable news channel, and is considered fairly benign is what has changed. What's changed is that people believe this. This isn't that big a deal anymore. That's what's changed, folks.
But that's a complete distortion of Perry's message. In the ad, Perry called on communities to think about children as the responsibility of all. She was not arguing that families should be replaced or that children should be a commodity to be shared throughout the community. The ad actually concludes with Perry saying:
PERRY: Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.
Broadcasting from Fox News' studio in New York City last night, which is just beginning to recover from perhaps its worst natural disaster in the city's history, and certainly the worst physical pounding the metropolitan area has taken in the modern era ("unthinkable"), Sean Hannity devoted much of his show to rehashing phony allegations about the government's response to a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya seven weeks ago.
The program's bizarre focus on an already denied, anti-Obama conspiracy theory, and how that misinformation trumped the stunning and historic damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, only highlighted the lengths to which Fox News will go to bash Obama during the election's final week
It was especially callous for Hannity to broadcast yet another endless Benghazi fantasy program from Fox's headquarters in Manhattan, given that parts of the island were still underwater at the time of his show, its infrastructure suffered egregious damage (not to mention the loss of human life), and nearly one million people were still without power.
It was against that backdrop of epic human suffering and property destruction that Hannity last night turned his attention to a seven-week-old story out of Libya. His performance represented pure Obama Derangement Syndrome.
After Fox reporter Jamie Colby did a straight report detailing the Sandy destruction, Hannity immediately began politicizing the topic by attacking Al Gore for his comments about climate change, and bemoaning "an Obama email" sent out "during the hurricane." Hannity also belittled liberals who (supposedly) want the government to "babysit" people during a storm.
Then Hannity and guest Dana Perino complained that a government press release in advance of the storm included the phrase "lean forward," which they claimed was meant to echo Obama's own campaign rhetoric. But remember, Hannity last night insisted he didn't want to "politicize" the story.
In truth, Hannity couldn't move fast enough to dismiss the topic of Sandy in order to start peddling his latest conspiracy theories about Benghazi, where four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed:
HANNITY: I think the biggest story that we need to get to the bottom of -- I mean, I want to take care of all the storm victims. They deserve our help and support. And they're in our prayers. I mean, a lot of people lost their homes, people lost their lives. I don't want to politicize that in any way. But I do want to get answers to this. Obama -- he's bragging, spiking the football, he got bin Laden, even though he didn't support the intelligence policies that gave us the opportunity to get him. But that's a side note.
JUAN WILLIAMS: He didn't support torture.
HANNITY: Wait a minute! The -- Obama called the Navy SEALs. They got bin Laden. The Navy SEALs, we now discovered, during this Benghazi attack -- the ambassador asked for help beforehand. They asked for help while they were being under attack. We know that -- we had Ty Wood's father on this program last night. He literally defied orders to go save 30 American lives and gave his life for his country and was told to stand down! Where was Obama when the SEALs called him requesting help? I want an answer before the election! I want to hear those tapes. I want America to see those tapes before Election Day!
And with that, approximately ten minutes into his show, the once-in-a-century hurricane that had flattened portions of the largest metropolitan area in America was off the table. Hannity did not return to it, in any meaningful way, for the rest of his program.
Instead, Hannity pushed fantastic right-wing claims about how the Benghazi 'cover-up' was worse than Watergate, how Obama's top officials watched "in real time" as Americans at the Libyan consulate begged for help, only to have their desperate pleas turned down by the White House, and how Obama "two weeks later" was denying it was a terrorist attack.
Conservative media have created a furor over CNN contributor Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney, drowning out an important truth: conservative policies limit women's opportunities to succeed economically.
Rosen Says Ann Romney Never Dealt With Everyday Economic Problems, Then Apologizes
Rosen: Ann Romney "Never Really Dealt With The Kinds Of Economic Issues That A Majority Of The Women In This Country Are Facing." From CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
HILARY ROSEN (CNN contributor): Well, first, can we just get rid of this word war on women. The Obama campaign does not use it. President Obama does not use it. This is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they're actually the one spreading it.
With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But there's -- but he doesn't connect on that issue either.
What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.
Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we -- why do we worry about their future?
So I think it's -- yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions, but there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He seems so old- fashioned when it comes to women.
And I think that comes across and I think that that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 4/11/12]
MSNBC's First Read: Rosen's Comments Became A "Manufactured Controversy" That Was "Fueled By Twitter And Social Media." From the MSNBC.com blog First Read:
[O]n Wednesday and Thursday, the Romney campaign seized on comments by Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist with thin ties to the White House, who said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. It was a manufactured controversy -- fueled by Twitter and social media -- because no serious political actor in this presidential contest is criticizing stay-at-home moms or the value of the work they do. In fact, Rosen was referring to the Romneys' wealth, not Ann Romney's decision to raise her five sons at home. [First Read, MSNBC.com, 4/13/12]
Rosen: "I Apologize To Ann Romney And Anyone Else Who Was Offended." Rosen released a statement saying:
"Let's put the faux 'war against stay at home moms' to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his poor record on the plight of women's financial struggles. Here is my more fulsome view of the issues. As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance." [TalkingPointsMemo.com, 4/12/12]
Uproar Diverts Attention From Conservative Support For Policies That Limit Women's Economic Opportunities
EQUAL PAY
Senate Republicans Voted Unanimously To Block Paycheck Fairness Act. From a Huffington Post article:
Senate Democrats were unable to overcome a Republican filibuster of the Paycheck Fairness Act on Tuesday, with the chamber falling two votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and proceed to a vote on the measure that would help combat wage discrimination on the basis of gender.
The vote broke down along party lines with the exception of sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who sided with Republicans and voted against cloture. Not a single member of the GOP broke rank.
Observers closely watched the votes of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), all women senators who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides basic protections against wage discrimination. [The Huffington Post, 11/17/10]
WI GOP Gov. Walker Repealed Law Aimed At Preventing Gender Wage Discrimination. On April 5, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repealed a law "that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court." From The Huffington Post:
A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill.
The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.
In November, the state Senate approved SB 202, which rolled back this provision. On February, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes in Republican-controlled chambers.
[...]
Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH, said that the repeal was a "demoralizing attack on women's rights, health, and wellbeing."
"Economic security is a women's health issue," she said. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women's health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access." [The Huffington Post, 4/6/12]
CONTRACEPTION
Study: Women's Early Access To Contraceptives Significantly Improves Their Economic And Educational Opportunities, Narrows U.S. Gender Gap. A study by economists from the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia found that contraceptives have a significant impact on women's educational and economic opportunities. They argued that contraceptives are at the "root cause" of the boon in female college enrollment and workplace employment from the 1970s on, because they "improved [women's] ability to time births, altered their expectations about future childbearing, and reduced the cost of altering career investments to reflect their changed expectations." The study also found that "younger access to the Pill conferred an 8-percent hourly wage premium by age fifty" and concluded that "the Pill can account for 10 percent of the convergence [of] the gender gap in the 1980s and 30 percent in the 1990s." [Martha J. Bailey, Brad Hershbein, and Amalia R. Miller, "The Opt-In Revolution? Contraception and the Gender Gap in Wages," 3/7/12]
Almost Every GOP Senator Voted To Negate Mandatory Contraception Coverage. From aWashington Post article:
The Senate Thursday rejected an effort to vastly expand conscience exemptions to the Obama administration's new birth control coverage rule, even as Republican presidential contenders continued to tussle over the issue.
The measure, an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to a highway funding bill, would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement. And it would have allowed such employers to do so in the case of not only contraception but any health service required by the 2010 health-care law.
The 51 to 48 vote to kill the amendment was largely along party lines, although three Democrats -- Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- broke ranks to support it, and Republican Olympia Snowe (Maine) opposed it. [The Washington Post, 3/1/12]
Mitt Romney: "Of Course I Support" Negating Contraception Requirement. From a CBS News article:
After suggesting Wednesday that he did not support a controversial measure allowing U.S. employers to opt out of a rule requiring them to provide employees with contraceptive health coverage, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney quickly clarified his position, affirming in a radio interview that "of course I support the Blunt Amendment."
[...]
On the Howie Carr radio show later on, Romney said explicitly that "Of course I support the Blunt Amendment."
He explained that he was confused by the question and thought the reporter was referencing legislation in Ohio, despite the fact that it was explicitly referred to as Blunt-Rubio.
"I didn't understand his question, of course I support the Blunt amendment," he said. "I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply -- misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment." [CBSNews.com, 2/29/12]
ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEEDY
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Republican Budget Would Cut SNAP Funding By $134 Billion Over 10 Years. From a paper released by the CBPP:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan includes cuts in SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) of $133.5 billion -- more than 17 percent -- over the next ten years (2013-2022), which would necessitate ending assistance for millions of low-income families, cutting benefits for millions of such households, or some combination of the two. Chairman Ryan proposed a similarly deep SNAP cut last year.
While Chairman Ryan has outlined some key features of his proposal as it affects SNAP -- in particular, converting SNAP to a block grant beginning in 2016 -- he has provided little information on how the cuts would be achieved or their timing over the ten-year period. And the total cuts under the Ryan plan could turn out to be somewhat larger than $133.5 billion.
Since more than 90 percent of SNAP expenditures are for food assistance benefits for low-income households, and most of the remaining funds go for necessary state administrative costs to determine program eligibility and operate the program properly, policymakers couldn't possibly achieve cuts of this magnitude without substantially scaling back SNAP eligibility or reducing benefits deeply, with serious effects on low-income families and individuals. ["Ryan Budget Would Slash Snap Funding By $134 Billion Over Ten Years," CBPP.org, 3/22/12]
USDA: 62 Percent Of Nonelderly Adult SNAP Recipients Were Women, 66 Percent Of Elderly Were Women. From the Department of Agriculture's report on the characteristics of SNAP for fiscal year 2010:
In fiscal year 2010, 46 percent of all SNAP participants were nonelderly adults, and 8 percent were elderly. About 62 percent of nonelderly adults were women, as were 66 percent of elderly adults. Forty-seven percent of all participants were children, similar to the number of participating children in fiscal year 2009. About 66 percent of the children were school-age. ["Characteristics of Supplemental Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2010," USDA.gov, September 2011]
CBPP: Republican Budget Would Cut At Least $463 Billion From Programs From Lower-Income Americans. From a paper released by the CBPP:
At least $463 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid and SNAP). Chairman Ryan's budget documents indicate that he is proposing $1.2 trillion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs, but the documents do not specify how much specific programs would be cut (with the exception of SNAP). For this analysis, we make the conservative assumption that savings from low-income mandatory programs (other than Medicaid and SNAP) would be proportionate to their share of spending in this category. Thus, we derive the $463 billion figure from the fact that 45 percent of mandatory spending other than for Social Security, health care, and SNAP goes for programs for low- and moderate income individuals and families.
This likely substantially understates the cuts that the plan would make in low-income programs. The Ryan documents show that $758 billion in cuts would come from mandatory programs just in the income security portion of the budget (function 600), and the bulk of the mandatory spending in that category goes for low-income programs. The documents also show $166 billion in mandatory cuts in the education, training, employment, and social services portion of the budget (function 500), which, based on the discussion in the Ryan budget documents, would likely come mainly from the mandatory portion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students. ["Chairman Ryan Gets 62 Percent Of His Huge Budget Cuts From Programs For Lower-Income Americans," CBPP.org, 3/23/12]
"Function 600" Includes Temporary Aid For Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income. [Budget.House.gov, accessed 4/12/12]
National Women's Law Center: 86 Percent Of Adults Who Got TANF In 2009 Were Women. From the website of the National Women's Law Center:
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is a block grant to states to fund cash assistance, work supports, and other services for low-income children and parents. In FY 2011, nearly 1.89 million families and almost 3.4 million children received TANF assistance on average each month. In FY 2009, nearly nine in ten (86 percent) adults served by TANF were women. [NWLC.org, 2/15/12]
NWLC: Nearly Six In 10 Adult SSI Recipients In 2010 Were Women; Two-Thirds Of Elderly Beneficiaries Were Women. From the NWLC website:
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides income support for low-income individuals who are elderly, blind or living with disabilities. In 2010 SSI served 7.9 million people, including over 1.2 million children. The majority of adults in the program in 2010 were women -- nearly six in ten -- and two-thirds of elderly SSI beneficiaries were women. [NWLC.org,2/15/12]
ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC-SECTOR JOBS
Economic Policy Institute: Women "Have Taken The Brunt Of The Job Losses In State And Local Governments." From an EPI blog post by David Cooper:
Paul Krugman and Jared Bernstein have written recently of the seemingly contradictory forces at work today in government policy. On the one hand are the stimulus efforts of the Obama administration and the federal government, which have had a measurable impact in reducing unemployment and aiding the recovery. On the other hand are the dramatic cuts to state and local budgets that these governments have made in the wake of the Great Recession. States have had to deal with the largest drop in state revenues ever recorded, and the resulting deficits have meant huge jobs losses among state and local workers.
I have commented on these job losses a few times before, so this time around I want to highlight the gender dynamics a bit. These cuts to state and local government workforces, while a significant drag on the economy as a whole, are particularly damaging for women. In 2011, women made up 46.6 percent of the overall labor force, but among state and local workers, about 60 percent are women. Because women are so disproportionately represented in state and local jobs, they also have taken the brunt of the job losses in state and local governments. Of the net change in total state and local employment between 2007 and 2011 -- a decline of roughly 765,000 jobs -- 70 percent of the drop is from female employees. Today, there are about 540,000 fewer women in state and local jobs than in 2007, compared with about 225,000 fewer men. [EPI.org, 3/6/12]
Princeton Business Professor: "Many Of Women's Job Losses Have Been Government Jobs," And Those Jobs Have Been "Slower To Come Back Because They Require Greater Government Spending." From a PolitiFact article:
Betsey Stevenson, a business and public policy professor at Princeton University, also pointed out that "in every recession men's job loss occurs first and most, with unemployment rates for men being more cyclical than those of women's."
She added that many of women's job losses have been government jobs -- teachers and civil servants -- which have been slower to come back because they require greater government spending. [PolitiFact.com, 4/10/12]
FactCheck.org: "There Has Been Scant Republican Support For Increased Federal Aid To States To Retain And Hire Teachers, Police And Firefighters." From a FactCheck.org article:
[P]art of the Obama plan is to invest $35 billion to prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers, police officers and firefighters, and to hire tens of thousands more.
In December 2009, House Democrats passed the Jobs for Main Street Act that included $24 billion for state and local governments to retain teachers and police officers. (Not unlike what is included in Obama's plan now.) It did not include a tax credit for small businesses that create jobs.
It passed the House 217 to 212, but not a single Republican voted for it. The measure never took hold in the Senate, however.
In March 2010, six House Republicans joined 211 Democrats to help pass a pared-down version of the bill, then called the HIRE Act. The $17.5 billion bill included a temporary payroll tax break to companies that hire jobless people. Notably, however, it was opposed by 166 House Republicans. Two weeks later, 11 Republican senators helped pass a Senate version of the bill. But it also was opposed by a majority of Senate Republicans -- 28.
On Aug. 5, 2010, two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, crossed party lines and voted for a bill that included $10 billion for state governments to spare thousands of teachers whose jobs were imperiled by strapped state budgets. But 39 Republicans voted against it.
In short, there has been scant Republican support for increased federal aid to states to retain and hire teachers, police and firefighters. [FactCheck.org, 9/12/11]
CAP Economist: States That Cut The Most Spending Have Lost The Most Jobs. From a Think Progress blog post by Center for American Progress economist Adam Hersh:
[S]teep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states, while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing declining unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth.
UPDATE: Kristina Schake, communications director for First Lady Michelle Obama, made the following statement about these attacks:
The words, meaning and context in these claims are all wildly off the mark. The First Lady was commenting to the President on how moving and powerful it always is to watch all that America's firefighters and police officers do to honor the flag. It was an emotional moment on a powerful day and she was awed by the ceremony and all that the flag symbolizes.
Before today, when the right-wing media made up quotations to attack progressives, they at least hadsome audio to misinterpret. But now, they are reduced to lip-reading.
Blogger Jim Hoft, still in the running for the Dumbest Man on the Internet, didn't even have the confidence to type the fake Michelle Obama quotation himself. He instead provided a link to an American Thinker post making the accusation for him.
The video the bloggers have posted has no audio of Michelle Obama at the relevant point, and their lip-reading is hindered by the fact that Michelle Obama's lips disappear behind a partition at one point:
But they still believe Michelle Obama must have said something extremely controversial. We leave you with the ramblings of Debbie Schlussel, who seems to believe it doesn't matter what Michelle Obama said, because we all know what "she's thinkin' ":
I can't really tell for sure, but a number of people are abuzz about this video of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Hussein Obama Idi Amin Dada. The consensus seems to be that the First Ms. Thang is saying to hubby Barack, "All of this for a damn flag." (She said this about the American flag -- you know the one brave men died for.) Wouldn't be surprised if that's what she said because we know she hates America and previously said she wasn't proud of our country until Obama had a chance to become Prez. Looks like that's what she said, but I can't tell for sure. I would need a deaf person or other expert lip reader to confirm. Watch and see if you agree (like I said, even if she didn't say exactly that, we know she's thinkin' it).
Motor City Liberal Comment: Do people still pay attention to what Debbie Schlussel says? She's probably the least relevant right winger in that toxic pool honestly she's probably on if everyone says they're busy let's book Debbie list.
Based on what appears to be selectively edited footage, Andrew Breitbart falsely suggested that Shirley Sherrod said that, in her former position with the USDA, she had discriminated against a white farmer. In fact, Sherrod's statements in the video corroborate her statement that the story she was discussing is 24 years old. Moreover, Sherrod says that the video took her remarks out of context to omit that she was actually telling story about her work to get "beyond the issue of race."
Breitbart strongly suggested Sherrod was discussing actions she took as a federal official
Breitbart: Sherrod's "federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions." In a July 19 blog post on Big Government, Andrew Breitbart strongly suggested that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her capacity as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development:
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.
Video proof: Sherrod's interaction occurred 24 years ago
Sherrod to AJC: Encounter happened 24 years ago and was "completely misconstrued" by Breitbart because she was discussing "getting beyond the issue of race." In a phone interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution on July 20, Sherrod said the video was "completely misconstrued" and "excluded the breadth of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with him and his wife." From the AJC:
But in a phone interview from her home in Albany early Tuesday morning, Shirley Sherrod told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution that the
video posted online Monday by biggovernment.com and reported on by FoxNews.com and the AJC completely misconstrued the message she was trying to convey.
[...]
But Tuesday morning, Sherrod said what online viewers weren't told in reports posted throughout the day Monday was that the tale she told at the banquet happened 24 years ago -- before she got the USDA job -- when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.
[...]
Sherrod said the short video clip excluded the breadth of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with him and his wife.
"And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."
Sherrod made similar comments during a July 20 appearance on CNN's American Morning.
Video producer confirmed that "the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described...she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression." Talking Points Memo reported that, "The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release" the video until the national NAACP gives him "permission" to post it. However, Wilkerson told TPM "that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm."
In the video, Sherrod says "Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm," - in 1986. Statements Sherrod made while she recounted the relationship she had with a white farmer during the NAACP dinner corroborates her claim that she made those statements 24 years ago. In the video, Sherrod can be heard saying that "Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm," when she had the encounter with the white farmer:
SHERROD: I did enough so that when he - I assume the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me - either that or the Georgia Dept of Agriculture - and, uh, he needed to go and report that I didn't help him.
So, I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm.
Chapter 12 Bankruptcy was enacted in 1986. In a June 2009 press release touting Sherrod's appointment to USDA, the Federation/LAF states that Sherrod had worked for them "Since 1985."
Conservatives have raised questions about Breitbart's editing of tape
The Anchoress: "I am uncomfortable with this 'get' by Breitbart." In a July 19 post on The Anchoress, blogger Elizabeth Scalia questioned Breitbart's selectively edited video of Sherrod's comments (emphasis in the original):
Nevertheless I am uncomfortable with this "get" by Breitbart.
[...]
But the video ends so abruptly!
Sherrod, who isnotan impressive public speaker, says she did not do all she could for the "poor white farmer" who she perceived to be somehow both asking for her help and simultaneously "trying to show me he was superior to me; I knew what he was doing..." She admits that she did just "enough" for the farmer so as to cover her own sense of accountability and then: "I took him to a white lawyer . . . I figured if I took him to one of them, then his own kind would take care of him."
Yes, there is a bit of paranoid projection, there, and some shocking language-language that has been rightly rejected by society-that seems to play well to the audience. But then Sherrod apparently has a revelation. She begins to understand that "it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white-it is about white and black-but you know it opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own."
Yes? AND?
[...]
Doesn't it seem like, after all of that sort of winking, "you and I know how they really are" racist crap wherein Sherrod-intentionally or not-indicts her own narrow focus, she was heading to a more edifying message? What did it open her eyes about? Was she about to say "I took him to one of his own, but it shouldn't have mattered about that; my job was to serve all the farmers who needed help."
Was she about to say, "I learned about myself and about how far we still have to go?"
Was she about to say "it's not poor vs those who have, because we are not at war, we are just in the same human reality that ever was?"
Was she about to say, "poor is poor, hungry is hungry and the past is the past when a family can't eat?"I want to know. Because it seemed like Sherrod was heading somewhere with that story, and the edit does not let us get there. I want the rest of the story before I start passing judgment on it.
[...]
I want to see the rest of the tape. I cannot believe Sherrod ended on "I took him to one of his own." Either she said something much worse after that (which we would have seen) or she said something much better.
If it was something "better" then we should have seen that, too.
Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Doesn't it sound like Sherrod was building to a 'but' before the clip cut out?" In a July 19 post on prominent conservative blog Hot Air, Allahpundit echoed Scalia's concerns about Breitbart's editing of Sherrod's statement, despite his "assum[ption]" that "Breitbart's edit is fair to the spirit of her remarks":
Here's Ed's post on the vid in case you missed it this morning. It's a great write-up, but The Anchoress adds an important wrinkle: Doesn't it sound like Sherrod was building to a "but" before the clip cut out?
Breitbart has not released the full video. As Media Matters has noted, Breitbart has yet to release the full video of Sherrod's speech.
Farmer's wife said Sherrod is a "friend" who "helped us save our farm"
Farmer's wife said Sherrod "helped us save our farm." In an interview with CNN on July 20, Eloise Spooner - the wife of the farmer who Sherrod helped - came to the defense of Sherrod, calling her a "friend" who "helped us save our farm." The Atlanta-Constitution Journal similarly reported that Spooner considered Sherrod a "friend for life" and said that Sherrod "worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986." From the Atlanta-Constitution Journal:
But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.
"Her husband told her, 'You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the AJC."She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."
Breitbart has a history of promoting "heavily edited tape[s]"
Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."
Breitbart repeatedly published O'Keffe's videos on his BigGovernment.com website.
Law enforcement sources criticize O'Keefe and Giles' editing ACORN tape "to meet their agenda." A March 1 New York Daily Newsarticle reported that "a law enforcement source" said of O'Keefe and Giles: "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." A March 2 New York Postarticle, headlined "ACORN set up by vidiots: DA," reported of O'Keefe and Giles' ACORN tapes: "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said."
Breitbart and O'Keefe released "heavily edited tape" of Philly ACORN office. On October 21, 2009, Fox News reported that O'Keefe and Giles released "a heavily-edited video on Wednesday depicting their visit to ACORN's Philadelphia office." Fox reported that a "new eight-minute video depicts O'Keefe and Giles entering ACORN's Philadelphia office and meeting with [ACORN employee] Conway-Russell. O'Keefe and Giles are seen speaking with Conway-Russell, but audio portions of the video are missing or edited in some portions." Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn stated, "They played that heavily edited tape but did not show the ACORN worker's audio for legal reasons." O'Keefe later wrote: "We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN's legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees' oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn't they do so?"
In video promoted by Breitbart,O'Keefe falsely claims he sought advice from DC ACORN on establishing brothel for "prostitution of a dozen underage girls."In a voiceover at the beginning of his Washington, D.C., ACORN video -- which was promoted by Breitbart -- O'Keefe claims that in Washington, he and Giles "sought housing assistance from ACORN in order to establish a brothel where we could profit off the prostitution of a dozen underage girls trafficked in from El Salvador." In fact, at no point in the transcript of Giles and O'Keefe's visit to the Washington, D.C., ACORN office does either Giles or O'Keefe clearly state that they are planning to engage in child prostitution.
Breitbart-promoted doctored video falsely claimed community organizers were "praying" to Obama.On September 29, 2009, Breitbart.tv embedded a YouTube video under the headline: "Shock Discovery: Community Organizers Pray TO President-Elect Obama." The video included captions reading "Deliver Us Obama" and "Hear Our Cry Obama," suggesting that the crowd of people -- members of the faith-based group The Gamaliel Foundation -- featured in the clip was "pray[ing] to" Obama. Breitbart.tv subsequently updated the original post with an editor's note acknowledging that "there is a debate over what is actually being said" and that the crowd may, in fact, be saying "oh God" rather than "Obama." The Gamaliel Foundation subsequently stated that "at no time have we prayed to President Obama" and that in the video, the organizers "can be heard saying, 'Hear our cry oh God,' 'Deliver us oh God,' etc."
M.C.L Comment: Will someone please sue Andrew Breitbart and his corporate lords.... First he helped that punk James O'Keefe and his equally dumb side kick Hannah Giles helped closed down ACORN and now that holy than thou piece of trash got a woman to lose her job. Do the right thing Mr.President give this woman her job back.
