Democrats must stop rationalizing Harry Reid^'s racism

by The Operative

More repugnant than the racist comments disgorged by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, when he expressed enthusiasm about Obama's candidacy because his skin was of lighter pigment and his voice of flatter cadence than that of your typical dark-skinned Negro, is the extent with which Democratic leaders have gone to justify Reid's drivel.

Meanwhile, Republicans have predictably called for Reid's head and have accused Democrats of hypocrisy for exonerating him this week, considering in 2002 the Dems had righteously condemned Trent Lott for similar transgressions. Trent had been chastised by the left and the black community for espousing pro-segregationist sentiments - remarks that forced his Republican brethren to arm-bar Lott into relinquishing his party's Senate leadership position.

Republican failure to see the difference between Reid's personal prejudice and Lott's institutional racism is plenty indicative of their policies. Nonetheless, liberals should refrain from setting Lott's despicable behavior as the benchmark for judging their own. Yet, the go-to defense Reid's advocates relentlessly put forth is that Harry's words were not as racially discriminatory as Lott's - if discriminatory at all. I hope Reid doesn't find solace knowing he's less of a racist than a man who aches for the days of Plessy vs. Ferguson - when life was uncomplicated and tidily separate-but-equal.

The conspicuous vacuity of outrage from liberals is only outdone by apologias emanating from black leaders, including Obama himself, who have excused Reid due to his record of fighting for minority rights, as Democratic Party politics trump liberal values.

Obama's forgiveness is irrelevant, by the way, at least in my mind. Just because he's a black President doesn't mean he has the authority or power to wave some magic wand and render Reid's statements non-racist. Although Obama was the target of Reid's analysis, it is not Obama's place to pardon him unless the President is brazen enough to speak on behalf of all darker-skinned-Negro-sounding blacks.

Another insidious defense that's evolved is the argument that Reid is not a racist but a "realist" who was simply speaking the truth about society. Although there's no doubt racism is alive and well in America, one wonders if Reid was really playing armchair sociologist or if that's giving him way too much credit, and Harry's just your run-of-the-mill bigot.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Reid was merely describing the sick state of racial affairs in our country, and was relaying the reality that voters vote based on skin color. But that doesn't rule out the fact that Reid could have been disclosing the key traits that drive his own voting decisions. Does Obama's lack of blackness make him more electable to the general population only, or do these characteristics also make Obama a more palatable commodity for Harry Reid's taste?

The sleepy-eyed Reid did apologize for his poor choice of words, although, as he announced his retraction, Harry appeared void of both emotion and pulse. What I have not heard from Reid is an explanation of the substance of his words; instead we've only received apologies for poor semantics and delivery. Why hasn't anyone asked Reid about the intent of his message? Without understanding the context, Reid might as well have said: "thank God Obama doesn't look, talk and walk like one of them dark-skinned Negroes". But now, like Trent Lott, we are left with expressions of regret over the words used, bereft of the meaning behind them.

Perhaps I judge too harshly based on one slip-up, yet Reid disturbed me with his Jimmy-the-Greek-style analysis of the impact that Obama's skin shade and non-Negro voice has had on the collective subconscious. It triggered an image of Reid, the supposed FDR-liberal, sitting at a piano, chomping on a stubby cigar and crooning: "Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again."

Harry's protectors have been using modifiers such as "clumsy", "klutzy", and "inartful" to characterize his statements in an attempt to reduce the crime to a slip-of-the-tongue misdemeanor, which is difficult to accept because Reid's statements seemed awfully coherent, even reflective. Truth is, Reid's folly was about as accidental as Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic roadside tirade. But, unlike Gibson, Harry cannot even use the "I was snookered" defense.

True liberals ought to judge Reid's words standalone and resist viewing them through the prism of moral relativism. I don't believe Reid should be pressured to resign, I just hope he doesn't get re-elected (although I have held this view for quite sometime mainly because of his incompetence, prior to the disclosure of his potential racism).

Perhaps we should heavily weigh Reid's record of fighting for minorities. But my gut tells me Reid's voting record is all about politics, not values. Most worrisome is the fact that Reid's slip-of-the-tongue may have provided us a glimpse of what's in his heart. We will never stand a chance of knowing the truth behind what Harry Reid meant by his outlandish remarks, at least not until Mr. Reid explains his words. And we will likely not stand a chance of Mr. Reid ever explaining his words, especially if we never ask.

====

HAITI RELIEF EFFORTS - Donate online now by Clicking one of the links below:

Doctors Without Borders

Partners In Health

Red Cross Haiti Relief & Development Fund

Harry Reid's comments unsurprisingly given a pass by The Left

by The Counselor

I am shocked.

No, not because the recently released book, Game Change, revealed that during the 2008 primaries, Harry Reid felt Barack Obama was just white enough to be the first black man to capture the presidency.

And not because the Nevada Senator actually vocalized that thought openly to reporters he knew were writing the aforementioned book.

Not even because the self-styled progressive Democrat made his point by utilizing a decidedly archaic adjective in, um, praising Obama's oratory prowess.

The true surprise for me is that anyone thought, for even a second, Reid would suffer any adverse consequences because of it.

President Obama, who couldn't be bothered to drag himself off the Hawaiian golf courses to make a public statement for three days after a Muslim terrorist nearly blew a jumbo jet out of the sky over U.S. soil on Christmas, leapt into action less than twenty hours after the Reid story broke. This time, though, it appears he could find no teachable moment in his Senate Majority Leader's unfortunate comments.

Rather, Obama took the opportunity not merely to accept the pro forma apology without question, but to quash any consideration of whether Reid's comments might be considered in any way racist before it even started by reassuring America that he knew what was in his colleague's heart. His response to Reid's mea culpa concluded with the deft attempt to minimize the entire episode with a cute little pun about the book being closed on the matter. Tee hee.

The President was harder on his own beloved grandmother in the ballyhooed speech on race he delivered during the 2008 campaign, in which he famously noted that on more than one occasion, [she] has uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. If only she got the same pass as Senator Reid, whose admiration of Obama's light skin and ability to speak with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to was immediately deemed a non-cringe-worthy poor choice of words.

Apparently, not all pre-emptive doctrines are anathema in the Obama White House.

As expected, a parade of other Democrats, all of whom, quite coincidentally I'm sure, just happened to be black, followed suit. Attorney General Eric Holder, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, Al Sharpton and even First Lady Michelle Obama were all trotted out to make clear they didn't consider the comments anything other than a poor choice of words, which served the secondary purpose of providing Reid with the opportunity to employ the time-tested why, some of my best friends are black defense if he felt it necessary.

If any Democrat came close to bucking the party line on this one, my money would have been on Joe Biden. I can just imagine the Vice President carefully reviewing Senator Reid's analysis of why Obama would appeal to the mainstream American voter, turn red with indignation and disgustedly brand Harry with the dreaded is label plagiarist. Oh, sweet irony.

In reality, though, like a tree falling in the forest when no one's there, if a patently offensive statement is uttered and no liberals complain, it doesn't make a sound.

It's well-known that liberals have long sold out their beliefs to protect one of their own. Generally, they could not care less about what a person says or what a person does. It's how the person votes that matters.

Picture the most ardent feminist you can. Then envision how she would react to a middle-aged male executive who openly cheats on his wife with a barely-out-of-college intern who's oozing with self-esteem issues, at the workplace no less, and then lies about it, under oath, in order to impede another female subordinate with whom he had a workplace affair from seeking monetary damages to which she is legally-entitled under workplace harassment statutes.

Now think back to the unwavering support the various women's organizations, including NOW, had for Bill Clinton. Reason? When it came to women, Clinton pushed hard. For legislation their groups supported, that is.

Conversely, despite the fact that liberals are constantly pushing programs like affirmative action and kvetching about the need to do more for minorities, it was the past few Republican presidents who were actually doing more, by appointing the first female and most recent black Supreme Court Justices, the first black Secretary of State, the first Hispanic Attorney General and the first black, female National Security Advisor. Without credit, of course, because to liberals, these individuals are viewed not as minorities, but as conservatives, if not sell-outs.

That's why even the slightest opposition to any of Obama's grand plans to radically overhaul significant portions of our economic and societal structure is branded as racist while expressly premising the support of a black presidential candidate on characteristics that make him less black is dismissed as a minor syntax error.

Harry Reid got a pass because of that capital  that is affixed to his name. Liberals don't define racism in terms of black and white, but as blue and red.

Comments(0)