As Rachel Maddow observed in a must-see segment last night, what happened to Shirley Sherrod is nothing new, it's just the latest in the pattern of right-wing noise machine smears aimed at scaring low-information white voters about the alleged threats from African American appointees.
Indeed, I pointed this out in a post about Van Jones last year. No great credit for that, it's obvious to anyone who bothers to look. So why doesn't the Obama administration get it? And, in the bargain, why doesn't Obama use this as an opportunity from Heaven to weaken Fox news and the right wing in general? Let me explain what I mean below the jump.
First of all, I immodestly provide this link to what I wrote about the Van Jones phony controversy last year:
Jones Diary
Unfortunately, it seems that the White House has learned none of the lessons the Van Jones episode should have taught it. Instead, it cringed in fear at a totally baseless right-wing echo chamber attack. As I wrote last September:
I don't give Bush credit for much, but he did know how to fight -- unfortunately, for the wrong causes. He would have gloried in the opportunity to turn the attack back on his attackers. Remember the Bush administration reaction when the New York Times disclosed his secret, obviously illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program? Did he say "In an effort to protect America we perhaps were a bit too overzealous, but we've dropped the program and it will never happen again"? Hell no, he called it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and not only didn't apologize, but campaigned on it! . . .
[The Democrats] seem to be stuck in the seventies, believing the Republicans may be a bit more conservative than they are, but that they are dealing in good faith and want to help solve the country's problems. Well, wake up, guys -- that's not true now, if it ever was. This present-day Republican movement conservative party is out for blood, and does not -- and never will -- deal in good faith. The only way to deal with them is to crush them. . . .
Instead of caving in to pressure, Obama and the Democrats must realize they can never appease the howler monkeys. The right wing, Fox, Glenn Beck, Hannity, McConnell, teabaggers, birthers, deathers -- all of them --will never be appeased because they are not dealing in good faith. They don't give a rat's ass about Van Jones or David Michaels or Acorn [or Shirley Sherrod or] anyone else -- they just want to weaken Obama and make Democrats look bad.
There's not a whole lot to add to that. And again, I don't take any particular credit -- it's obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it for six seconds.
The one thing different in this case, is that the attack was so obviously baseless, that it was almost immediately refuted. And that creates a great opportunity to show that the right-wing media, led by Fox News but with many many others (Limbaugh, Colter, Hannity, Levin, Savage, etc.) are not independent fair-minded muckrakers, but calculated propagandists who will stop at nothing to advance their cause -- no lie or deceit is off-limits, as long as they think they can get away with it. And why shouldn't they? They have gotten away with it, repeatedly, over the last several years. The attacks on Acorn and Van Jones and Dawn Johnsen had no more merit that this most recent Fox outrage. But the unfair, obviously agenda-driven nature of those attacks wasn't as immediately obvious and clear-cut.
Rove and Bush knew how to take advantage of such a slip by their opponents. They would have been all over this already. But what does Obama do? He sends Gibbs out to stammer around an apology. Yes, Ms Sherrod definitely deserves an apology -- and obviously, Obama et al made a crucial mistake in caving so rapidly to the attack in the first place --but due to their mismanagment of the issue, that's the whole story here. The administration looks weak, feckless, and indecisive. (Indeed, Fox and the other conservatives now have the gall to attack Obama for unfairly jumping to conclusions!)
So why not take advantage of this golden opportunity? Go on the attack. Obama himself should make a statement:
"My administration treated Ms Sherrod unfairly, and I take full responsibility for that. I've spoken to her and made a commitment that we will do whatever it takes to make her whole.
But this points out a bigger, more important problem. There's a group of people in the media that takes every opportunity to attack me and my administration. Now I'm a firm believer in Harry Truman's adage that "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." And I think I've shown I can take the heat over the last couple of years. But here's the problem: it's one thing to disagree on the issues. My opponents have a very different view of what we need to do to get America moving again. They want to return to the failed Bush policies, while I want to move forward. That's fine. I welcome that debate. I know we win on the merits.
What isn't fine is that in too many cases they've substituted dishonest personal attacks for policy disputes. Let me say it clearly: That video of Ms Sherrod was deliberately edited to create the exact opposite impression of what she really said. Where I come from that's called a lie. And there's no place for that in our politics. We'll never be able to make any progress and come to agreement if one side is constantly making untrue attacks designed to mislead the public. Look at the healthcare debate. The Republicans don't agree with my approach; I get that, that's OK. But it's not OK to lie to our seniors and tell them I want to create death panels that will pull the plug on Grandma. And it's not OK to say that Van Jones is a communist. And it's not OK for Michelle Bachman to say that Democrats in Congress are un-American.
Now Fox News likes to call itself "fair and balanced." But let's face it, Fox News isn't interested in getting the objective truth out and letting Americans make up their minds about the issues. Fox is a propaganda machine. It continually spins stories to put me and Democrats in general in a bad light. All too often, they resort to dishonesty to do that. Look at this recent story about the New Black Panthers they've ginned up. To hear them tell it, there was an outrageous incident of voter intimidation that the Bush administration was all set to prosecute, until I came into office. Then I supposedly ordered the prosecution dropped because I don't want to protect white voters. I can't say it in any plainer English: That's a despicable lie. The Bush administration made the decision not to prosecute. My Justice Department took the case as far as we could, based on the evidence. Not one voter ever complained that they were intimidated. The Republican head of the Civil Rights Commission has said this is a manufactured controversy, without merit. But Fox News and the other right-wing, agenda-driven media outlets have not let that story go.
So my point is this: We love a good dispute on issues and policy. Bring it on. The Democrats will win on the merits. But it's harmful to Democracy to spread lies in order to discredit your opponents. And as we've seen in Ms Sherrod's case, it can destroy blameless -- in fact, admirable -- individuals. Is it really worth all that, just to protect the vested interests behind the Republican party?"
I'm sure the more gifted wordsmiths among us could come up with a lot better statement; but you get the idea. Go on the offensive. Discredit Fox News and Breitbart and their Congressional enablers.
To repeat my prior diary, "The Democrats need to learn how to fight."