'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post

[Allhallowsday]

'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post 

Tea Party Express is also expelled because it refused to rebuke Mark Williams, who was responding to accusations by the NAACP that the conservative movement has racist elements. 

Reporting from Washington —
With racism accusations roiling the conservative movement, the National Tea Party Federation said Sunday that it had ejected commentator Mark Williams over an incendiary blog post in which he wrote a fictitious letter to Abraham Lincoln.

The faux letter was written in the name of Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, in response to an NAACP resolution condemning "racist elements" within the "tea party" movement.

One passage of Williams' "letter" read: "We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!" 

Williams is a spokesman for Tea Party Express, a Sacramento-based political action committee. Tea Party Express was a part of the federation, but it was expelled after refusing to banish Williams... 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party-20100719,0,5302758.story?track=rss   

[3mnkids]

1 down 10,000 to go.   

[indianasmith]

How come liberal groups never - or at least rarely - censure their members who say nasty, hateful, biased things about conservatives and/or eligious people?


(I'm looking at YOU, Moveon.org!)

[Jim H]

How come liberal groups never - or at least rarely - censure their members who say nasty, hateful, biased things about conservatives and/or eligious people?


(I'm looking at YOU, Moveon.org!)

I'd assume the same reasons right wing groups hardly ever do it.  They only do this when they know they've offended sensitive groups with significant political power over them (and if they offend someone they know will never vote for what they want, they don't care), neither side does it because of what was actually said.

[indianasmith]

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't know that I entirely agree.  I mean, Trent Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond at the old man's 100th birthday party . . . speculating what it might have been like if Thurmond had been elected President in 1948.  Thurmond, of course, was running on a segregationist ticket, with the usual "state's rights" fig leaf sown over it.  I seriously doubt Lott thinks the world would be a better place if a segregationist had beaten Harry Truman . . . but he resigned as majority leader the next week, when the media had a frenzy over his remarks.
   At Robert Byrd's recent funeral, Bill Clinton flat out lied about him having a "brief association" with the Klan!  Byrd was a Klan member for 10 years, held an officer's rank,  and was a segregationist for most of his adult life until he finally reversed his views in the 1980's.  The media, with the exception of talk radio and Fox News, gave Byrd (and Clinton) a complete free pass on this.
  I think that Republicans/conservatives are generally held to a MUCH stricter standard by the media than leftist politicians and commentators are.

   Anyway, all that being said, kudos to the Tea Party for policing its ranks and dispensing with an obvious wing nut.  There are too many of those on both sides as it is.

[Allhallowsday]

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't know that I entirely agree.  I mean, Trent Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond at the old man's 100th birthday party . . . speculating what it might have been like if Thurmond had been elected President in 1948.  Thurmond, of course, was running on a segregationist ticket, with the usual "state's rights" fig leaf sown over it.  I seriously doubt Lott thinks the world would be a better place if a segregationist had beaten Harry Truman . . . but he resigned as majority leader the next week, when the media had a frenzy over his remarks.
   At Robert Byrd's recent funeral, Bill Clinton flat out lied about him having a "brief association" with the Klan!  Byrd was a Klan member for 10 years, held an officer's rank,  and was a segregationist for most of his adult life until he finally reversed his views in the 1980's.  The media, with the exception of talk radio and Fox News, gave Byrd (and Clinton) a complete free pass on this.
  I think that Republicans/conservatives are generally held to a MUCH stricter standard by the media than leftist politicians and commentators are.
   Anyway, all that being said, kudos to the Tea Party for policing its ranks and dispensing with an obvious wing nut.  There are too many of those on both sides as it is.

CLINTON didn't lie.  He suggested that BYRD had spent the rest of his life making up for his grave mistake.  BYRD himself certainly apologized enough, but I remain unimpressed myself by that.  He certainly got elected enough, and started out apologizing in the '50s!  Nonetheless, Indy, me old buddy, you need to reconsider that almost none of this membership are partisan politicians, so get over the branding. 

[indianasmith]

But I LIKE being branded!!!!

That I referred to as a "lie" was the line "fleeting involvement."  TEN YEARS is not fleeting, and holding the office of Kleagle (recruiter) implies pretty strong involvement.

Yes, Byrd apologized repeatedly for his involvement in the Klan, and I imagine he meant it.

But I do believe the media applies a double standard to hateful speech depending on whether it is uttered by a liberal or conservative.

That was my point.

[Allhallowsday]

But I LIKE being branded!!!!

That I referred to as a "lie" was the line "fleeting involvement."  TEN YEARS is not fleeting, and holding the office of Kleagle (recruiter) implies pretty strong involvement.

Yes, Byrd apologized repeatedly for his involvement in the Klan, and I imagine he meant it.

But I do believe the media applies a double standard to hateful speech depending on whether it is uttered by a liberal or conservative.

That was my point.

It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.)  I still think your characterization of a "flat out lie" is expedient, but inaccurate, which brings me back to my point about partisan politics.

[ulthar]

It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.) 

Am I understanding you correctly if I interpret your comment here to mean that 3 or 4 years is an acceptable period of time to have been a violent racist? 

Also, do you assert that if any conservative politician like, I don't know, let's say Jim DeMint, even served 1 year in the KKK that he would NOT be CRUCIFIED in the media?

Are you defending Byrd's history with the KKK, the double standard in the media or both?

I heard the Clinton speech, and the language used was in fact "fleeting involvement."  But, it goes much deeper than just those two words; Clinton's inflection depicts just how strongly he is trying to downplay this part of Byrd's history.  The remark was so egregious that at the time I heard it (before hearing any commentary about it), I was incredulous that even Clinton had the stones to say it...or, that ANYONE would dismiss that history so easily.

Indiana is correct...this is a very good example of the 'free pass' double standard that the media applies.  Both sides do do this, but one side is clearly favored by the media, and THAT is his point (I think...I don't want to speak for him).

[Jim H]

On further reflection, I think my attitude on this is probably colored by my knowledge of the tolerance right winger pundits/mouthpieces get.  Consider the sorts of things Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and others get away with.  They might get yelled at, but at most they give an apology and go right back to saying such things again. 

But, this isn't the same thing as the tolerance of people saying the same sorts of things in positions within a political organization.  And I'm trying to think of some examples of left wingers getting tossed out of a group like that for what they said, but can't think of any.  Then again, I also can't remember a time off the top of my head I thought it was deserved.

[ulthar]

Consider the sorts of things Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and others get away with.

Okay, let's consider them.  Name some specific things Glenn Beck has said for which he has apologized for or should apologize.

But, this isn't the same thing as the tolerance of people saying the same sorts of things in positions within a political organization.  And I'm trying to think of some examples of left wingers getting tossed out of a group like that for what they said, but can't think of any.  Then again, I also can't remember a time off the top of my head I thought it was deserved.

Since it was a blog posting that got this OP cat into 'trouble,' I think that as Indiana mentioned before, moveon.org is an EXCELLENT example.  I don't hear any screaming to 'silence' that organization, and some of the things they say are down right nasty, and I don't mean in a 'boo hoo, he hurt my feelings' sort of way.  Where's Sierra Club (or any other mostly left leaning group) disavowing the moveon.org crowd to avoid "guilt by association?"

[3mnkids]

What has anyone in a top position of moveon.org said? What nasty things?

I also dont hear anyone saying "silence the organization".. Hell, I say put a microphone in front of them every chance they get. Let them post on their blogs, facebook, and twitter. 

[indianasmith]

Taking out a full page ad in the New York Times that referred to a highly decorated four star general as "General Betray-us", for starters.  That was atrocious.

And how did Gen. Petraeus "betray us", exactly?

By advocating victory in warfare instead of the shameless retreat and withdrawal that Moveon and everybody else on the left was screaming for.  Remember Harry Reid saying "This war is lost, Mr. President!"???

He was wrong.  The war in Iraq was not only winnable, it was, for all purposes, won by George W. Bush before Obama ever took office.

From the moment our troops went in, groups like Moveon.org found it preferable to lobby for America's defeat rather than to see a conservative President get credit for a victory.

Call me partisan, call me a shill for Bush, call me whatever you like.  I still think that Reid and Moveon were damn close to treason in those utterances.

[Jim H]

Okay, let's consider them.  Name some specific things Glenn Beck has said for which he has apologized for or should apologize.

Glenn Beck has apologized a couple times, if memory serves.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/glenn-beck-apologizes-for-making-fun-of-barack-obamas-daughter-malia/19496426

I thought he'd done it once before, but I can't find a link for it.  He should apologize to the various people and organizations he has compared to Nazis (something he's done a number of times).  So should moveon.org, for that matter.

And he should apologize to the world for sounding like an idiot about 90% of the time.  

[Allhallowsday]

It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.)

Am I understanding you correctly if I interpret your comment here to mean that 3 or 4 years is an acceptable period of time to have been a violent racist?  

Why would you interpret it that way?  Please read more closely.  I did use the words "might" and "gloss".  

Also, do you assert that if any conservative politician like, I don't know, let's say Jim DeMint, even served 1 year in the KKK that he would NOT be CRUCIFIED in the media?
Are you defending Byrd's history with the KKK, the double standard in the media or both?

Not in the least and I'm not defending BYRD.  However, I might be defending CLINTON's remarks at BYRD's funeral.  And I don't think "fleeting involvement" is accurate, I merely point out that it may be a fair characterization.  Read of that what you will, but read closely.  Let me make it clear: I don't admire BYRD and I never liked the guy.

Taking out a full page ad in the New York Times that referred to a highly decorated four star general as "General Betray-us", for starters.  That was atrocious.
And how did Gen. Petraeus "betray us", exactly?
By advocating victory in warfare instead of the shameless retreat and withdrawal that Moveon and everybody else on the left was screaming for.  Remember Harry Reid saying "This war is lost, Mr. President!"???
He was wrong.  The war in Iraq was not only winnable, it was, for all purposes, won by George W. Bush before Obama ever took office.
From the moment our troops went in, groups like Moveon.org found it preferable to lobby for America's defeat rather than to see a conservative President get credit for a victory.
Call me partisan, call me a shill for Bush, call me whatever you like.  I still think that Reid and Moveon were damn close to treason in those utterances.

When there is no American blood shed on Iraqi soil, I'll give you BUSH's "victory".