The ethics investigations of Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel, I just heard, may have racial tinges! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Total SHOCK! I was thinking that just a bit earlier.. when is someone gonna connect race with these charges? Well, apparently it's happening. YAY! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! NYT: Rangel, Waters ethics trials may split Dems on race WA-WA-WAAAAAAHHHH Predictable.
First Shirley Sherrod. Then comes Shoot the Darky. Next, we have Usurpergate. Now this. I mean, DAMN! Can't get away from race it seems, so let's just plunge headlong into it and wallow in the mud, shall we? I heard someone predict not more than two weeks ago that we could expect, as the midterms approach, to see more and more crying about race. After all, it sells, does it not. Knowing that it is a lucrative business, this entrepreneur is going to be mightily disappointed if there isn't a good amount of stone throwing and skull crushing soon. Well, I'm an undertaker, you see. We're a, uh... dying breed. So help me out? Waters and Rangel Ethics Trials Put Spotlight on Race in Congress Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" Is Obama bowing to pressure from someone? Are Waters and Rangel's Ethics Cases Racially Charged? Hmmm. So is someone sacrificing their own flock as a political strategy? Certainly the Democrats wouldn't be engage in that? Only Republicans and conservatives see race, right? Again, I would like to mention the prediction I heard that race would be thrust to the forefront as this election looms. Not really as a legitimate issue, but as a distraction. So, which is it?
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...ters-race-card-is-totally-maxed-out-video.php On The Daily Show last night, Larry Wilmore was dismayed to discover that when he tried to use "the race card" on the Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics scandals, it was "maxed out." That's when he read the small print: "'Void during a black presidency.' F*ck." When Jon Stewart was surprised to learn that there was an actual race card, Wilmore replied: "There's all kinds of cards you use to avoid accountability." There's "the gay card, the Christian card, the disabled card, the ADHD card, the 'I had bad parents' card, the fat card, the 'I'm the only (fill-in-the-blank) who works here' card, the poor card." Jon admitted he didn't know about the poor card, and Wilmore replied: "Yeah, fat-cat make richo didn't know that. See! I just played it on you, Jon."
It's certainly a possibility. Rangel's charges seem legitimate, but Maxine Waters didn't do anything wrong. You can't use the anti-race card card to dismiss the fact that sometimes race really is the cause of some events.
Well, then somebody is throwing her under the bus for a purpose. Apparently the time is right to run people over. This Earl Ofari Hutchinson dude seems to think that it may be a ploy by Democrat leadership to "clean house" and make it look like they're tough on Congressional crime. And it could also double as a racial issue. All they'd need to do is tie in some Republicans. And Breitbart. He's definitely gotta be in there. So how will they pull that off?
Try something more reasonable If you wish to play up your wisdom on race issues and such, perhaps you ought not start with Hot Air. Ed Morrissey's construction of the situation is unreliable, to say the least. Start with something more reliable, and don't rely on half-witted propaganda mouthpiece constructions to explain the situation. What you've essentially told us is, "This is what unreliable, extremist conservatives are saying." And you're also telling us you think it's true and correct. Fine with me. But it doesn't do you much credit, sir.
Tut tut. I was sure someone would take offense. It was a story on the morning news, so I thought I'd look it up. Crucify me for quoting the first link I came across? Well, if that's what you are into, then sure. Notice that my last quote was from "Essence" magazine. Notice that appears to cover nothing but African Americans. Racial bias there?!?!? Anyhow, I found it interesting that the one guy insinuated that Dems were possibly using both of the congress critters politically.
And? A piece of advice: you probably could have made your point without the conservative e-rag. That is, you could easily have presented the issue with the NYT article, and not tipped your hand. The thing is that we don't really know whether even the NYT article represents Rep. Lewis properly. The quote about the Tea Party seems a bit of a non-sequiter. Was it an answer to a question? Did the reporter follow up, asking for clarification? We don't know. Perhaps Lewis we misconstrued for reasons either political or oblivious. And, yes, perhaps not. The truth is that even if Rangel's problems are accidental, and Waters' mistake a matter of appearances, nobody on the right wing will accept anything short of deliberate fraud and partisan ass-covering as an explanation. Meanwhile, some questions about the charges are fair. I've heard the pathetic, "Other people did it," somewhere in the Rangel mess, and while that doesn't excuse anything, it does raise questions about why. Is his alleged violation particularly egregious? Is the process he has engaged consistent? What sets the alleged corruption of a Democrat apart from that of his Republican counterparts? In a way, this kind of reminds me of the franking scandal in the '90s, and what is most important about that is the fact that not much has changed over the years. If Rangel and Waters are guilty, so be it. But we ought not pretend they are the only ones, or that their convictions by an ethics committee, or even a court, will actually change much. I think what I resent most about these sorts of issues, in life or at Sciforums, is the superficiality of the arguments. Indeed, as time goes by, I wonder if this will look like the Clinton sex scandal, in which it turns out the most ferocious complaints are put forward by people who are likewise guilty. And, if so, will their supporters decide that this vital issue at some point became simple political mudslinging? Round about and round about we go.
Blah. I am Count Chocula. Blah! I really don't care what I quoted first. If I had quoted a liberally-biased blog first, would that have made a difference? :bugeye: ??? Either way, either side, it's really not that important. I think many scandals are that way, simply because. Simply because people want a reason to demonize the perceived opposition. The Tea Party, as it is called, is a choice whipping boy for the Left. Great. Whatever intentions it had at the start, it is now little more than a mouthpiece for the likes of Sarah Palin and ilk. Frank? Franklin? Both? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BRAVA! It is time we came to that conclusion. Which was actually my conclusion previously. I just thought I'd be a cute mindless annoyance by adding this scandal to the pot. Since, well, it kind of fits with the attitude as of late.
