The Washington Post’s stoning of Texas governor Rick Perry is journalistic malpractice. Instead of calling the newspaper to task, however, other national media outlets have joined in. And now the Post is doubling down on slander.
The newspaper dispatched reporters to the remote hunting grounds of a Perry-linked ranch — “associated” with Perry through “his father, partners or his signature on a lease” — because it once had a rock on it somewhere that had the word “Niggerhead” painted on it. The term is an embarrassing vestige of past racism not just in Texas but on geographical landmarks across the country.
Advertisement
The Post interviewed dozens of people about the legend on the rock, which Perry says his family painted over and turned over years ago. The New York Times piled on Perry with its own crack investigation of hazy memories of bygone days. It unearthed one Perry hunting pal who never saw the sinful stone but “could not be sure it was the same parcel that was the subject of the Post article.” Another friend, Fred McClure, who is black, also could not recall ever seeing the rock and emphatically added that the paper’s stone-cold insinuation that Perry is a bigot “is not only untrue but also extremely unfair.”
But the actual testimony of black Texans counts for nothing at the newspaper that infamously Macacaed former Virginia governor George Allen after he clumsily traded barbs with a young liberal operative of Indian descent during his failed Senate bid. Recycling the tried-and-true “GOP equals racist” narrative, the Post composters published a second Stonegate piece on Tuesday claiming that unidentified “minority legislators” had a problem with Perry’s “complicated record on matters of race.”
Perry appointed the first black Texas Supreme Court justice, hired several minority members as top aides, and “enjoys warm associations with many black leaders,” according to the Post. So what’s “complicated”? Unidentified minorities don’t like his “embrace of the tea-party movement” (which currently favors black GOP candidate Herman Cain, but never mind that). They, whoever “they” are, also seem to be upset that he featured race-hustler Jesse Jackson (you know, the demagogue who called New York City “Hymietown”) in an old campaign ad.
You don’t have to be a Perry supporter (and I am most certainly not) to spot the Post’s boulder-sized double standards. These rubble-rakers vetted the origins and whereabouts of a painted-over inanimate object with far more investigative zeal than they applied to any of the actual living, fire-breathing race-baiters Barack Obama consorted with before and during his first presidential run.
Case in point: the continued whitewashing of Obama’s ties to the New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Shabazz, a Jew-bashing, America-hating, 9/11 conspiracy theorist who inveighed: “If 3,000 people perished in the World Trade Center attacks and the Jewish population is 10 percent, you show me records of 300 Jewish people dying in the World Trade Center. . . . We’re daring anyone to dispute its truth. They got their people out.”
Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams blows the lid off the Obama administration’s coddling of Shabazz and the NBPP’s voter-intimidation thugs in his new book, Injustice — and he uncovered photos of Obama and the race-hustlers appearing at a 2007 civil-rights event in Selma, Ala. The Post’s response to Adams’s whistle-blowing over the past two years? Liberal columnist E. J. Dionne sneeringly dismissed the career civil servant as a “Republican activist.”
But, hey, let’s get back to squeezing blood from stones.
Has Perry himself actually used the racial epithet that was once painted on the rock — you know, the way the late former KKK leader and Democratic senator Robert Byrd did as recently as 2001 when he referred to “white niggers”?
Did Perry condescendingly refer to a black politician as “articulate and bright and clean” the way Joe Biden did when describing Barack Obama in 2007?
Did Perry racially stereotype Hispanics for political gain or refer offensively to President Obama’s “light skin” and “lack of a Negro dialect” the way Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid did just last year?
What does it all say about Rick Perry? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
While the Post cites unnamed minority pols decrying Perry’s right-wing “racially tinged rhetoric,” this is the guy who has indulged in left-wing impulses and disparaged his own base as racist in two separate GOP debates. First, he shamelessly suggested that opponents of in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens were xenophobes who didn’t like the sound of foreign last names. Then, he told them they were haters who lacked compassion: “I don’t think you have a heart.”
That sounds a lot like the very suggestion the Macaca Media are leveling against him.
It stinks to be falsely accused of racism. Maybe Perry, now under siege by the ruthless race-card-playing media, will remember that the next time he’s tempted to accuse conservatives who disagree with him of heartless bigotry.
Cain was choice #1 for me for a long time. Choice #2 became Bachmann. That was before Perry got in the race. Then I was Perry, Cain, Bachmann, in that order.
But Cain showed me that is he willing to play the race card based on incomplete information to slam another GOP candidate. He will not be able to do that if he becomes the front runner when the press goes after him after he said that race should not be an issue. And telling black Americans, who might have voted for him based on nothing but his skin tone, are not going to do so when he tells them they are nothing more than "brainwashed" and can no longer think for themselves. Claiming that he can garner 30% of the black vote is delusional. Especially when he goes around the nation insulting black ability to think for themselves. Insulting people is never a good tactic politically. Cain tried to walk back his comments about Perry, but that egg had already been broken and cannot be put back into the shell.
Bachmann has turned into a one issue candidate. We, as a nation, are more than one issue.
We expect the liberal media to go after conservatives but more despicable is Cain going after Perry, siding with Al Sharpton, before he even knew the facts. I don't trust Cain. I don't like Perry but the way the Repubs. are going after him for saying they don't have a heart sounds mean spirited. I'm an independent voter and will vote for Romney, not because I agree with all his policies, but because he seems to be a man of good character and intelligence. He's made mistakes but won't make them again. Hope Romney puts either Rubio or Paul Ryan on his ticket as VP.
Michelle, while I have cheered you for years for your stalwart support of conservative values, I find your chastising the Compost a bit, well, shall I say hypocritical? I remember that it was not that long ago that you tried to play connect-the-dots about Perry being "pro-Sha'ria" from his association with a Muslim that even the experts such as Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy (who literally wrote the book on Sha'ria in the U.S.) and the Jewish centric, pro-Israel Commentary Magazine said was hyperbole and falsely represented. When experts in the field of Islamism disagree with you, and the person who wrote the article you relied on, perhaps it is time to rethink your stance.
That said, there is one thing missing from your review of the Compost article (they doubled down again yesterday on the "racist" meme) is that the Compost started doing all they could to beat up on Rick Perry weeks before he even threw his hat in the ring.
Yesterday the Compost made references to Jim Hightower, who now is hitting the speech trail with Van Jones, comments from James Hansen, UT professor who is a self proclaimed Marxist and Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) who is Texas' answer to Jesse Jackson and sees racists under his bed. The Compost didn't bother to interview someone like, say, Michael Williams, who was Railroad Commissioner in Texas and is now running for a newly formed Congressional seat. Williams is also black. Or Francisco Canseco, who was supported by Perry, the U.S. Congressman who dethroned Ciro Rodriquez, another race-baiting Democrat from Texas. Canseco now sits on prime committees going after those involved in Fast and Furious and the Solyndra scandal.
I would also suggest you spend some time researching the history Texas has with its Hispanic citizens, which is much like the relationship that New York had/has with Italians and Boston/Chicago had with the Irish. Texans, especially Texas Republicans, resent any smear against Texas' largest minority group whose ancestors fought for Texas independence at the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto and who also signed the first Texas Constitution.
What is clear is that the Washington Compost has a problem with a man who is a member of the last politically correct group to be bigotted against; a white, Southerner who is unapologetically Christian.
And if Herman Cain really takes the lead as front runner, he can expect the same treatment from the lame stream media that Perry is now getting. The LSM is going to go after anyone they think threatens the throne of "The Won."
You go, retire05! I'm on the same page with you on Michelle Malkin.
Her views often go off the deep end and when they do, it is mostly from being too quick out of the gate with uninformed positions. Exactly like the example you gave of the recent attempt to smear Perry as an asleep at the wheel Islamist agenda hugger.
Michelle's problem with that was picking up and running with what others like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were saying. On Perry, they were just dead wrong on their 'facts' and assumptions. Michelle should have done her homework before jumping on that bandwagon.
Ditto to everything you've written on this page, retire05.
I would only double down on your "fence" comments and say it is not only questionable but totally stupid, and anyone who knows anything about the Texas border would agree.
Also, just a side note that Francisco Canseco is my congressman and is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the best members of the freshmen class. He is a principled conservative who won solid Tea Party support in the general. He is also, I might add, the son of Mexican immigrants who has expressed deep concern that the way immigration issues are being addressed is going to costs the GOP dearly -- not so much in terms of any specific proposals, but in terms of the tone and rhetoric we are hearing. Mr. Cain is just the latest example. It is one thing to talk legitimately about border security. It is another when someone with no experience and no knowledge of the issue -- particularly when compared to the three-term governor of the nation's largest border state -- believes that any deviation or even nuance on the issue should disquality any Republican from office.
florin, many Americans are people of good character and intelligence. That doesn't mean they would make good presidents for this nation.
I'm sorry, but I cannot, and will not support Mitt Romney. I remember the Romney who, as a Republican governor of his state, turned it deeper blue. The loss of 31,000 registered Republicans and the gain of 30,000 registered Democrats, the nomination of twice as many Democrats as conservative Republicans to the Massachussets bench, the hiring of illegals and then not firing them, waiting a whole year before it was reported on again before he fired the company using illegal labor and then not turning that company into ICE, being pro-abortion and supporting gay Scout leaders, only to change his tune when he thought he needed to run to the right of John McCain, is not the actions of a man who is even center-right, as most of the nation is.
I am tired of the squishy, center/center-left, go along to git-along Republicans who seem to change opinions depending on what day it is and who they are giving a speech to.
retire05
I was in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. He did, in fact, govern the state as the state wanted to be governed, as opposed to whatever his personal views might be. That's not a bad trait--and let's face it, the actual job of president is going to force the person in it to behave in certain ways.
What you refer to as "squishy, center" is also called "moderate," which is how most Americans identify. What is moderate at a given time will depend largely on what people are able to sell, ideologically, and that's going to have to happen a lot more than a year before an election. You shouldn't be taking your case to the GOP for a different candidate. You should be taking your case for your preferred policies directly to the American people. If they buy, then they politicians will follow. If they don't--if they're moderate--then putting up the politicians you want is only going to see to it that they aren't elected. Americans are sick of fire-breathers. They want someone who will do the job of president--foreign policy, winning the war, etc--and otherwise leave them alone.
As to Perry, he has a bigger problem than the RAAAACISM smears. The meme about him being a secessionist is gaining steam, and it is not endearing to northern voters.
Sorry, I'm not buying that Romney "governed the state as the state wanted to be governed". Romney had to promise to govern like a left winger in order to appeal to Massachussets Democrats who he wanted to vote for him.
But as a Republican, and a so-called conservative, he had a duty to try to move the state into the conservative column. He didn't do that.
And "moderate" has become a catch phrase for Republicans who are not true conservatives, much like liberal has become the new term for "progressive".
Survey after survey shows the nation is moving right. Independents, the "moderates" gave us Obama. That has been a disaster. Now those independents are out of a job and hoping their unemployment checks will cover basic needs. And beginning to realize that the far left concept was not what they really wanted.
And if you haven't noticed, people like me are taking their message, and issues, directly to politicians. Or did you sleep through the 2010 elections? Obviously you have been in a stupor if you think the "secessionist" meme is just now gaining steam. With who? It has been repeated ad naseum in the Lamestream press, but only by misquoting what Perry actually said. And yes, when the first Texas Constitution was written, there was a provision for withdrawing from the union. That provision was elimiated when Texas re-joined the union after the Civil War. If you knew anything about the history of Texas, you would have known what Perry was referencing.
As to caring what Northern voters think, why should anyone care? For decades we have seen what Northern voters have given this country; high-tax bankrupt states, rust belts, massive exodus from those states to the red states where jobs are available, taxes are lower and the cost of living is affordable. And apparently a populace that knows so little about history, other than their own, that they blithly accept quotes taken out of context.
The northern states have given us Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama. Hardly a winning track record.
So tell me why I, as a southerner, should care about anything northerners have to say when they have totally ruined their own states?
This secessionist controversy was whipped up in the Texas media during the last Governor election race by non-native Texas newspaper people playing to the non-native Texas residents who don't understand the inside joke.
When a native Texan talks about our right to secede from the U.S., it is an inside joke - not to be taken as a serious idea, but as an expression of fierce spirited Texas independence. Texas swagger. (which many want to beat up Perry for, even though they loved Ann Richards for her Texas swagger. Let's face it, some are just looking for things to get their hate on with Perry.)
All native Texans know secession talk is about as serious as the long time rivalry between Dallas and Fort Worth. Good natured teasing.
Anyone who uses secession-ism as a political club to beat Perry with is either a non-native Texan, or is exploiting the lack of understanding of non-native Texans.
DonnaDiorio,
Very good thumbnail of the way the liberal media down here whipped this whole non-issue up. Texans have always joked about reforming the Republic, especially when the rest of the country seems determined to go to Hell in a handbag. It's the same state-pride sentiment that makes the Texas flag such a ubiquitous sight around the state.
Texans are proud of their history, including the fact that we are one of only two states that was an independent nation. Those of us who are multi-generational Native Texans feel linked to our history in a way that I doubt few outsiders would understand.
That being said, some of the things that have been posted on this site do make me wonder if maybe it might not be a good idea to build a fence along the Texas border -- only along the Red instead of the Rio Grande.
You had me Michelle, until you got to the last minute twist of the knife with "heartless bigotry."
I'm a conservative Texan who usually votes Republican, but I have some mighty reservations about the some of sentiments I hear from the Tea Party crowds.
Because of the Depression, we had stringent immigration laws in 1939 when a ship full of Jews fleeing Germany were refused entry into the U.S.
The In-state tuition discount for the 1% that qualify for it in Texas is not on par with the the Voyage of the Damned, but completely hardened American hearts toward the illegal immigrants is also damning.
My fellow conservatives may be okay with cutting off all compassion for illegals, but I would like to see the border secured and the issues resolved with a little more heart than that. I doubt Rick Perry and I are the only ones in Republican circles who are of that conviction.
Solutions to the issues illegal immigrants are posing this country are not going to come from bumper sticker slogans but from thoughtful, strategic actions.
Knee jerk response to our state's in-state tuition position shows me some people are just not willing to even listen.
Michelle, I hope you read this: you just stated on Sean Hannity's show that the Texas Tea Party is demanding that Governor Perry do something about illegal immigration in our state. Notice; there is no ONE Texas Tea Party. We are local TEA Parties and not connected to each other, no matter how hard you want to give erroneous information about us.
What ONE Tea Party in Texas wants is a special session of our Congress to pass the anti-sanctuary city bill that was promoted by Rick Perry and shelved by Joe Strauss, Speaker of the Texas House.
Michelle, do your homework. You are jumping the shark and pimping now for Herman Cain (since Palin is out of the equasion) is not helping your image. Or perhaps you can tell us exactly what Herman Cain's record is on ACTUALLY dealing with illegal immigration?
You have just reduced yourself to another talking head that has only complaints, but no real answers to the problems of border state governors. Why don't you come up with something concrete instead of bashing those who have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration every day?
You make excellent points, retire05. Just because Perry thinks the fence is not a do-able deterrence is no indication that he is soft on controlling the border or illegal immigration issues.
I believe Perry thinks we can get more bang for our buck using other techniques like boots on the ground and technological monitoring. He has probably studied the competing techniques for border control 10 times over the knee-jerk folks who insist a fence must be built.
There may be more efficient and cost effective ways of securing our borders than a fence, but some don't even seem to want to discuss those.
I live in VA and invariably refer to it by its proper name, much to the distress of my liberal acquaintances.
The liberal rag that used to pass for a newspaper has long since gone all in for the Tyranny of Totalitarian Government. Their employees are Propagandists for Socialist Tyranny.
