"We have a lot of reeducation to do” about Obamacare, says Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Someone's going to lose his job over at the Democrat and Chronicle. The only surprise about the paper's story on Sunday, detailing shady and comical misbehavior by the two top executives of the "Center for Disability Rights," Bruce Darling and Chris Hilderbrant, is that it appeared at all.
There must have been a slip-up. It was most unusual for the D&C to publish a story of political scandal perpetrated by Democrats, and a Democratic affiliated "non-profit" such as CDR, with the Republican County Executive as the victim. More unusual still for the paper to name names, of the Democratic City administration staffers to whom the CDR boys instinctively turned for help and advice.
Whoever let the story go knew to cover himself at least a bit. If such a potentially significant political scandal had to go on the front page, at least it took second place to the main headliner: the cutting edge story, of overriding public importance, about ... how cool it is to ride water scooters!
Interesting that when the CDR executives wanted to smear the County administration, they turned to mayoral aid Darryl Porter to get a name of an investigator. It would be even more interesting to know just what is the connection between Porter and the homeless con artist he recommended, who uses different names, and who fleeced the CDR honchos for nine hundred bucks.
Even more interesting why, when they got scared, the CDR execs turned immediately to Mayor-to-be Molly "I'm qualified to be Fire Commissioner because I know how to light a match" Clifford.
A rare, illuminating glimpse into the world of local Democratic officialdom.
We know better than to expect the D&C to be asking these follow-up questions.
We expect that, after the inevitable, de rigueur editorial along the lines of "The CDR execs did a bad thing, but that doesn't mean the County shouldn't be forced to renew their contract," we're unlikely to see any follow-up to the original story pursuing these questions. News that embarrasses their side gets the one-off treatment; news that looks bad for Republicans the D&C hammers repeatedly, daily, seeking to influence public opinion.
Even as a one-off, the story explained some things. Including why it's not surprising that the highly compensated tricksters who would stoop to the conduct reported, wouldn't blanche at leaving a disabled person lying in her own waste for days.
Posted by Philbrick at 5:59 PM
Friday, August 27, 2010
Is it us, or has anyone else noticed that First Assistant District Attorney Sandra Doorley seems to have emerged as chief spokesman for the Monroe County District Attorney's office in recent weeks? It has appeared so ever since the announcement that Nifonging DA Mike Green is likely to receive his payoff, a federal judgeship, for abusing his office for political purposes.
Doorley got the high-profile Merritt Rahn case. From a recent opinion essay in the newspaper, to giving the press quotes that state the position of the DA's office, Doorley is out there, front and center, as the face of the DA's office, rather than her boss Green.
Is Green pushing Doorley as his choice of a successor?
In local political circles it's common knowledge that Democratic Chairman Joe Morelle's choice for appointment to the DA's seat is current Judge Frank Geraci. (We like Judge Geraci. Presiding in the political show trial of James Smith, he had the integrity to ask Green's henchman, Assistant DA Bill Gargan whether, in fact, there was anything at all criminal involved in Smith's actions. Just before the jury acquitted Smith on all counts.)
Is an intra-party battle looming for the appointment?
Posted by Philbrick at 11:24 AM
Thursday, August 26, 2010
• In New York City, the man who stabbed a cab driver after asking, "Are you a Muslim?," turns out to be affiliated with a group advocating the Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, proposed by its "partner organizations." Not with "Fox news, right wing blogs and talk radio" whose "bigotry and hatred" had been blamed for instigating the assault.In Rochester, meanwhile, a total media blackout on any follow-up to last Spring's brick-throwing at Democratic Headquarters makes the incident look all the more like an inside job, contrived to smear tea-partiers.
• In Missouri, Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan confirms that the suspect in a firebombing of his campaign office is a former member of his own staff. Not tea party activists as some in the local media had reported. (Via Gateway Pundit)
Told you so: "... you'll know if it was some misguided teapartier, because the story will be all over the media. If it turns out to have been a unionist from the downtown protest of the Democratic Fundraiser on Saturday night who had too much to drink -- we don't expect much reporting about it."
Posted by Philbrick at 9:13 AM
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Now that Republican Assemblyman Joe Errigo has endorsed Democrat Andrew Cuomo for Governor, all that remains is to see when Errigo gets his cushy job as a payoff from a new Cuomo administration.
Nothing fancy, we're sure. Just something to bump up that state pension and maybe provide Joey access, if he wants it, to the Animal House lifestyle of backbench assemblymen in Albany of a certain type.
We think they'll wait a decent interval, but not too long, so we peg it at Valentine's Day.
Does every man have his price?
No. Just some.
Let the countdown begin!
Posted by Lucy at 11:41 PM
Monday, August 23, 2010
Once again I find myself confused about Rochester City Council and what they are saying. I see that City Council wants “public input” on who will be on the ballot if Cuomo and Duffy win the race to be the next Gov and Lt Gov.
Essentially they have two options if Duffy were to leave office. One, appoint someone, within 30 days, who will fill the seat until election day 2011. They can also call for a special election within 90 days and whomever wins that fills the seat until the end of the original term. I see, per the article in the D&C, that 4 of the 9 Council Members favor a special election. I agree that a special election would be a better option as it would add some stability in the city where it is much needed right now.
Back to the public input. Council President Lovely Warren says that she would like to have some public input on who would be considered for the Democratic nominee for the special election. Why? Put forth your best candidate and run her. It is as easy as that. Unless, are they are concerned that with the current political climate that a Democrat may not walk through to victory as they often do in Rochester? Maybe they are concerned that the two gentlemen that tried to run against Duffy this last time around, Alex White and Tony Micciche, haven’t lost the will to be mayor? Maybe they are concerned that with some of the poor decisions made this past year by City Council, the people of Rochester are not happy with the Democratic city administration?
It sounds to me that they are looking to get the buy-in for someone prior to the election, so they know who they will end up with. (In most cases this would be called a primary).
I find it odd that they are looking for public input, considering they have ignored public input on major decisions recently. Two items that come to mind are the Mortimer Street bus garage and the red light cameras. Plus, if they are so concerned about public input, I have a fantastic idea: show up on time for the “speak to council” section of your own monthly meeting. Other than when the news cameras are present, for something major, there is never a time when they are all there on time.
My suggestion, pick the best candidate you have and run that candidate. You will get all the public input you need on election day.
Posted by Richard Tyson at 10:25 AM
Friday, August 20, 2010
On Monday I posed the question here on Mustard Street, "Ground Zero Mosque: Is Direct Action the Answer?"
Surely there are patriotic members of construction unions in New York --- all of them, I'd bet -- who'd be willing to make sure the thing is never finished, or collapses if it is, before it's ever occupied.Today's New York Daily News carries this story:
Posted by Mycroft at 11:51 AM
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What does opposing, or supporting, a mosque near the World Trade Center site have to do with Constitutional rights? Nothing. Not a thing.
On Friday the President said: "... I believe the Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances."
We don't disagree with a syllable of that.
In the torrent of news reports on the subject since Friday, we haven't heard any critic of the siting of the mosque who does.
The real issue is not whether the mosque may be built, but whether the proposed site is appropriate, under the circumstances -- whether it should be built there.
This distinction apparently is too complicated for editorial writers at the New York Times ("Defending all Americans’ right to worship ... is fundamental to who we are.")
And the poor folks at the Democrat and Chronicle, even in an editorial calling for a different venue for the mosque, can't resist their primal impulses: "Democrats should use the situation to their advantage, to stand up for the Constitution and religious freedom.".
The "constitutional rights" issue is merely a red herring, thrown out to deflect the debate from the real issue -- the appropriateness and decency of siting the mosque in the proposed location. As an argument in this debate, "freedom of religion" is a straw man, used by leftist apologists for this latest outrage to the sensibilities of most ordinary Americans. Invoking it merely diverts from the question of whether the mosque should be built there.
Senator Kirstin Gillibrand showcased another emerging diversionary tactic, in her interview with the Democrat and Chronicle on Tuesday. Gillibrand says she "supports the New York City community board's decision" about the mosque. That's the decision that OK'd the mosque.
But expressing it as she did allows a complicit press to render the story not as "Gillibrand backs Ground Zero mosque," but "Gillibrand supports community board on Ground Zero Mosque."
Thus Gillibrand and her media enablers seek to interpose an antiseptic firewall between the candidate and the issue. You can practically see the memo from Democratic Headquarters that the Senator parroted in her D&C interview: "Keep it focused on the rights of local agencies to make the decision."
We expect to be hearing more about the "rights of local agencies to decide" as it becomes clearer each day that the public understands the difference between the whether the mosque may be built and whether it should be.
"New York voters oppose by a nearly 2-to-1 margin plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, according to a new Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday. ... At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it. ...Even a majority of those who oppose building the mosque agree ... that they have the right to build it."The public understands the difference, even if editorial writers don't, or want to wish it away.
And just maybe that difference is grasped more readily by a public that sees the same Democratic-Media Complex that for decades has used bastardized interpretations of the Constitution as a battering ram against religious expression in public, now suddenly discovering the right of Freedom of Religion -- as long as it's practiced by an Imam.
Posted by Philbrick at 8:19 AM
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with the Democrat and Chronicle Editorial Board and Senator Gillibrand for an hour and a half or so. I will agree with many of the comments that have already been made by my fellow board members. She seemed excited to give and take on the issues. Also, she is very in command of her facts and feelings on almost all issues presented to her. As many of the other board members have heaped on the praise I will take a step out and highlight some of the things that I didn’t feel 100% about after leaving.
First would be spending. It seemed to me that she favors the terribly high amount of spending that this admin has done in the name of getting things back on track. We are spending way too much money and not seeing what we were told we would for these efforts. I asked her essentially “Maybe we are on the wrong track. I have watched a large amount of my paycheck being taken for the last number of years and the government uses those funds to pick winners and losers. Is it time for a Federal Income Tax holiday to get the economy going again? Or maybe institute a flat tax and completely get rid of income tax altogether?” Let’s say I didn’t see her jump to the table in support.
Second, I followed up on a question asked about her stance on immigration. I heard “comprehensive immigration reform,” which to me always sounds like backdoor amnesty. I am surprised to hear this as she advised me one on one after the meeting that her husband is an immigrant himself from the UK. I had told her that my fiance is an immigrant and it is an issue discussed much in our home. We both agreed that the way to go about becoming a legal resident of this country for those that do it the right way needs to be looked at.
I was somewhat disappointed, but not really surprised, that she took no stance on the Mosque debate other than to say that whatever the local board wants is what she is OK with. My feeling is that if it is being built in the name of building bridges and the folks that they are looking to build bridges to are upset with it then they have failed. If they are unwilling to move the location then it is not being built in the name of bridge building. She did commend the Gov. for taking a lead on trying to find a new location. Which to me means that she would like to see it moved. If so Senator, just say it. It would help you stand out amongst your Democratic peers.
Lastly, I am somewhat confused. She came out in strong support of working to manage childhood obesity. I am in total favor of ridding our society of childhood obesity, who wouldn’t be? So she is willing to dictate what American children can eat but not willing to tell an Imam to move his building that is being funded from outside the country. I would prefer to see an elected representative tell people who are not Americans what they can do with their personal decisions and not the parents of this country.
Posted by Richard Tyson at 1:16 PM
Monday, August 16, 2010
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court weighed in on the permissibility of a World War I memorial, in the form of an enormous cross, in a national park out West. The cross could stay, said the Court.
You may recall that within days unknown persons, evidently unhappy with the Court's decision, cut the cross from its moorings and removed it.
Naturally, there's been no media follow-up on this story since first reported, nor high minded editorials calling for respect for the high Court's edict, as typically follow rulings that flags can be burned, or prayers must be banned, or criminals set free.
Mainstream media, of course, hated the decision and show tolerance lapsing into enthusiasm for any desecration of a Christian or Jewish symbol, whether by vandals in black masks or black robes.
Clearly the Ground Zero mosque is intended as an in-your-face monument of triumph to the 9/11 jihadists. If work on it begins, it calls aloud for direct action. Action in the vein of the efforts of the cross-rustlers out West. Surely there are patriotic members of construction unions in New York --- all of them, I'd bet -- who'd be willing to make sure the thing is never finished, or collapses if it is, before it's ever occupied.
Call it a form of civil disobedience.
By the way, the White House political operation has to be in a shambles for President Obama to have spoken about the mosque as he did on Friday, in prepared, vetted, comments. If you don't think so, every Democratic congressman in a centrist or conservative district does.
Posted by Mycroft at 1:00 PM
Friday, August 13, 2010
Convicted felons, whom Democrats -- recognizing a natural constituency if ever they saw one -- earnestly seek to enfranchise, no longer will be counted in the upstate population for the purpose of legislative redistricting.
Now, in the spirit of the same democratic impulse, we're going to revise the law so college students vote in their home towns, rather than in college towns, right?
Posted by Philbrick at 11:32 AM
Thursday, August 12, 2010
If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period.Full article
In 2004, the poverty rate among blacks who followed that formula was less than 6 percent, as opposed to the overall rate of 24.7 percent.
Even after hearing the earnest musings about employers who are less interested in people with names like Tomika, no one can gainsay the simple truth of that advice. Crucially, neither bigotry nor even structural racism can explain why an individual does not live up to it.
Posted by Steve Zodiac at 12:13 PM
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
“A blow job is just like shaking hands. It’s ridiculous,” ... says [an academic coach to teenage girls]. ... They see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.”
Posted by Lucy at 9:40 PM
We've written before about this operating mantra of our Rochester chapter of the Democratic-Media Complex.
When local institutions controlled by Democrats have the authority and right to make a decision, that right is never questioned. For example, members of the all-Democratic Brighton Town Board fill a vacancy on the Board, or for a Town Justice, with a Democrat (and why would they do otherwise, or should they?) Pure "dog bites man" stuff. No story there.
Let a Republican-controlled institution act within its rights, however, and suddenly, watch out -- the sky is falling. Just let the County Legislature try to appoint a Public Defender, as it is authorized and obligated to do. Heaven forbid that Republican-appointed trustees of the local community college be allowed to exercise their authority to pick the college's president. And when members of an all-Republican Town Board fill a vacancy with a member of their party -- well, that's shutting out the public and closing the process.
Opinion pieces in Sunday's Democrat and Chronicle reminded us of this phenomenon. One by the County Executive, explaining her decision against renewing a contract with the Center for Disability Rights. The other by the CDR's $250,000-a-year Executive Director, challenging that decision.
We wondered: why publish these essays at all? The decision's been made. It's over. A done deal. Yet when the Dem-Media Complex doesn't get its way, things are never over. This was the newspaper's way of treating the matter as open, until it gets the outcome it wants.
The CDR is well tied in to the local Democratic establishment in government and media, with reportedly close ties to the Professor Moriarty of Rochester politics, Louise Slaughter. No surprise, then, this morning's D&C editorial calling for state intervention in the matter. This from an editorial crew that affects to be "fed up with Albany."
A court decision extended the contract termination deadline, an extension the County had already granted, but didn't stop the County from ending its contract with CDR.
Since when has the County government lost its right to contract with whom it chooses, subject to public contract laws?
But that won't stop the usual suspects from their usual routine.
Posted by Philbrick at 11:06 AM
Monday, August 9, 2010
I would like to extend a thank you to Ed Koch for running this campaign (NY Uprising) of getting elected officials on board for true reform in Albany. A man at the age of 85 has better things to do with his time than run around NYS making noise. I can only hope to have as much energy and enthusiasm at his age as he does.
One thing that I don’t quite understand is the folks that are “poo-pooing” his efforts or the ones that seem to think he “isn’t the man for the job”. If we are continuing to look for our knight in shining armor they are correct. NYS and more specifically Rochester needs to get out of the mindset of looking for one man or entity to solve all of our issues. Be it Ed Koch, PAETEC, Mayor Duffy, U of R President…
And to those that say he is not the man for the job, you are right. It is up to the VOTERS to ensure that reform takes place. If you are voting for someone that is hurting NYS then you are part of the problem as well. Assemblymen/women and Senators do not retain office unless we the voters let them. So get behind the good ones and throw out the bad. It is really as easy as that.
So to Ed, thanks for bringing continued attention to the issues that plague NYS and thanks for giving of your Golden Years for the cause!
Posted by Richard Tyson at 9:10 PM
Sunday, August 8, 2010
A Field Report
Called 2 Vine late last week for a Saturday reservation. Nothing available between 6pm and 8:00. Took the 8:00. Parking lot crammed to the gills at 7:30. Desperate would-be parkers circle the lot, waiting for any space to open.
Two-hour wait at Mr. Dominic’s the week before, on Friday.
Hour wait for table at Hose 22 in Charlotte. Three deep at the bar at Jojo’s in Pittsford. Standing-room only for a drink at Pelican’s; 45 minutes for a table. Ditto at Salena’s in Village Gate, Joey B’s in Fairport and Mario's. No parking in sight in vicinity of Bistro 135 and Lemoncello in East Rochester. Hour wait for a table at The Cottage in Mendon. Same at Good Luck, Veneto, Henry B’s in the City, the Next Door Bar and Grill. At every venue a jam-packed parking lot.
Saturday nights in the chain-restaurant corridors of Henrietta, Greece, Pittsford, Irondequoit, Webster: queues of the gullible, sweltering in the heat, snake from restaurant entrances deep into choked car parks, waiting to overpay for a pile of salted fat on a plate at the Obese Garden, the Slopcake Factory, the International House of Lard, and others of the type of place that advertises on TV.
Observing this, and thinking of the experiences of the past year and more, recounted above, I turn to Venus and ask, “Recession? What recession? Where is it?”
Yet unemployment sticks stubbornly to just under 10%. Can people afford to go out to eat because they have the money, yet unemployment stays high because, as Kudlow suggests, "cash-rich businesses are mostly avoiding new hires in the face of the Obamacare regulatory threats and the uncertainty about future tax burdens"?
What’s your explanation?
Posted by Steve Zodiac at 6:49 AM
Friday, August 6, 2010
Last week, in a praiseworthy, bipartisan vote, the County Legislature's Ways and Means Committee rejected a plan to mount the City's red-light cameras on county-owned utility poles.
If you read this blog, you know something about red-light cameras, those miraculous machines that caused the President of City Council to exclaim:
We imagine that Republican legislators are under pressure right now to undo, in full Legislature, the sensible and principled act of the Ways and Means Committee. Pressure coming from their own side.
We imagine that Democratic legislators who joined the winning vote in committee -- and that included the Democratic Leader and the Assistant Democratic Leader -- will be under similar pressure about now, from their side.
THEREFORE, TO MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE:
Before you cave, have a seat in Professor Philbrick's classroom, to learn something about red-light cameras.
And pay attention. This will be on the final exam.
1. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.
Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.
This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous -- but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue.
2. As the Virginia Department of Transportation showed in a 2007 report, accidents increased 29 percent at the commonwealth's intersections that had robotic cameras ticketing drivers. These devices make streets less safe, not more safe. Getting rid of intersection cameras, then, is the right way to kick off a "stop on red" week that focuses on saving lives.
3. The University of South Florida's College of Public Health concluded that instead of improving safety, the cameras actually make intersections more dangerous. Further, its study said, the cameras give insurance companies a reason to jack up rates for those who get tickets.
Etienne Pracht, an associate professor of health policy and management, along with Barbara Langland-Orban and John T. Large, did the research. The three surveyed several major studies of red light cameras.
One such study was by the Urban Transit Institute at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. It compiled 57 months of before-and-after data that showed red light cameras were associated with a 40 percent increase in accident rates and no decrease in severe crashes. Two other studies the researchers deemed reliable showed crashes climbed after cameras were installed.
USF researchers determined that studies supporting cameras used flawed methods. One oft-cited study was financed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 2002.
Pracht and Langland-Orban said that the institute's study, like most that show cameras are effective, didn't use scientific methods.
Relying on information about cameras from insurance companies is ill advised, the USF study concluded, because insurers can profit if tickets are moving violations because they can charge higher premiums.
The genesis of USF's College of Public Health's research on red light cameras was in 2005. Trauma center hospitals, facing budget cuts, were in search of revenue. They had been approached by vendors of red light cameras to support bills in the Legislature that would make them legal in the state. In exchange, they'd get a cut of the money, according to the researchers.
"Locally, the reception has been to ignore our research," [Langland-Orban] said. "If you want the money from cameras, you don't want to know what their impact is."
When Red Light Cameras Go In, Yellow Light Times Go Down
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund red light camera fines to motorists trapped by an illegally shortened yellow light.
2. Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in Dallas, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation.
3. Lubbock, Texas
KBCD, a local television station, exposed the city’s short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.
The city of Springfield prepared for installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city.
Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time.
In 2005, Union City, California was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines.
While cities claim that safety, deterrence, and cost-reduction are their ultimate priorities in camera system installations, revenue statements indicate otherwise. Cities that employ the devices see a dramatic spike in revenue.
City budgeters are counting on these fines as a revenue stream and simply using the argument of safety as cover.
Mustard Street's entries regarding red light cameras:
The People Win One - 7/30/2010
Ka-Ching: To Serve and Collect - 5/7/2010
"We're Going to Make a Lot of Money" - 2/3/2010
COUNTY LEGISLATORS: Stick to your guns. Stand up to this sleaze.
Posted by Philbrick at 7:44 AM
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Posted by Lucy at 8:01 PM
So I heard the other day on the news that Sherrod is going to sue Breitbart? I am terribly confused as to why she would be go after a guy who posted a video of her on his own website and not after the folks that forced her to step down from her position.
Andrew Brietbart posted that video in response to the NAACP coming out against the Tea Party and telling them to rid their ranks of racists. To this day no one has come forward with solid evidence that there are strong undertones of racism in the Tea Party movement. Breitbart himself offered $100k to anyone who could produce video evidence of the Congressmen and woman having racist remarks thrown at them as they claimed to have had. Breitbart still has his $100k. So he put this video online to show that while she was discussing how she intentionally mistreated a white man because he was white, and no other reason, the folks in the crowd were supportive of this. THAT is evidence of racist feelings and undertones within the NAACP.
In her defense she does go on to say that she learned from her experience that doing what she did was not right. That is awesome that she moved away from those feelings from her past. So Breitbart pointed out to the NAACP that they should be focused on cleaning their own back yard and not worrying about telling the Tea Party to clean up. We haven’t seen any strong evidence of racist feelings within the Tea Party in a large enough scale to claim that the movement is based in it. So Breitbart did exactly what he wanted to. Now the media is claiming that he somehow did something wrong and there are certainly some that claim it is because he himself is a racist. I think Sherrod ought to go after her previous boss and the folks in the administration who forced her to step down without watching the whole video. Although, not reading or watching things prior to making a statement or decision seems to be this admin’s strong suit. I think that someone acted stupidly in this case and I don’t think it was Breitbart.
Posted by Richard Tyson at 7:26 PM