By Tommy Felts
April 12, 2007 08:11 pm
—
COFFEYVILLE, Kan. — On most days, the hypocrisy spewed from the lips of politicians is enough to fill the pages of the nation’s largest newspapers. While newsmakers on both sides of the political aisle often are guilty of such obscene quackery, this week those on the left have provided the most stellar examples.
Consider the reaction to radio personality Don Imus’ now-notorious racial slur against Rutgers University’s women’s basketball team. As most Americans with working ears have heard, Imus jokingly referred to the basketball players as “nappy-headed hos” during a supposedly-comedic rant on his morning talk show.
The Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the self-appointed, but illegitimate leaders of the black community, quickly emerged as the chief foes of Imus’ seemingly unbridled bigotry (at least that’s what they’re selling it as today). Sharpton and Jackson called on CBS Radio and MSNBC (the media outlets that air “Imus in the Morning”) to ditch the radio host and his show as a statement that the networks don’t support the “hate speech” directed at the Rutgers team.
“Somewhere we must draw the line in what is tolerable in mainstream media,” Sharpton said. “We cannot keep going through offending us and then apologizing and then acting like it never happened. Somewhere we’ve got to stop this.”
The so-called Civil Rights leaders — neither of whom is unfamiliar with race-baiting or making contemptible comments about whites, Jews and people of other races, then apologizing later — seem to be suffering from selective outrage. If language such as that used by Imus is so offensive, why haven’t Sharpton and Jackson been loudly urging record labels to dump rappers who use the phrase “ho” or worse? Why haven’t the two been protesting actress Halle Berry’s coming film “Nappily Ever After?” Imus is not the creator of these words, nor is he the first person to utter them on the air.
It is disingenuous, to say the least, that individuals who claim to fight for civil rights would single out one person (largely because of the color of his skin and status) and seek to deny him of his right to free speech. Regardless of how idiotic and inappropriate Imus’ comments might have been, he does have the right to make them. Whether he stays on the job should be a decision for his listeners.
Another stunning example of hypocrisy comes from presidential contender Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and his wife, Elizabeth.
Edwards, who made a name for himself by championing the cause of the poverty-stricken, has a problem with one of his less-affluent neighbors, a Giuliani supporter named Monty Johnson. The Edwardses have derided Johnson, a private citizen, in the media for brandishing a gun on his property — a weapon Johnson says he uses to defend the North Carolina property that has been in his family since before the Great Depression.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Elizabeth Edwards illuminated the couple’s true problem with Johnson, calling him a “rabid Republican” who refuses to clean up his “slummy” property — a 42-acre tract of land that sits next to the $5.3 million, 28,000 square-foot estate the Edwardses bought in 2003.
Johnson, 55, contends that he doesn’t have the money to bring his property up to the Edwards family’s liking and plans on selling. The Edwardses refuse to meet with their lower-class neighbor — perhaps because, as Elizabeth said, “I wouldn’t be nice to him anyway.”
This seems like a strange attitude to come from the home of John Edwards, a man who last year told the National Press Club, “In America today, there are millions of our neighbors who think they’re alone. That no one knows they’re struggling with their bills. That no one cares they can’t afford to turn on the lights. ... Well, I have something to say to those families today: We know; we care; and we will lift you up.”
Maybe he should’ve added, “ ... as long as you’re left-leaning poor folk who don’t live near my mansion.”
Edwards hypocrisy isn’t alone among the Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has also begun dabbling in the well-crafted art of hypocritical political maneuvering.
Obama announced this week that he will not participate in a scheduled Democratic presidential candidate debate this fall. Why? Because Fox News Channel is co-sponsoring the event. Obama and others in his party believe that Fox News displays a conservative bias in its broadcast, thus a debate presented by the network would jeopardize the credibility of the candidates.
By withdrawing from the debate, Obama is making a clear statement: Although he’s a moderate candidate, he will not be cowed by the Republicans and their media thugs. A brave message if ever there was one, right?
But, wait! If Fox News is co-sponsoring the debate, who is the other sponsor?
Surprisingly, it’s the Congressional Black Caucus — a “non-partisan” organization made up of black lawmakers — including Obama himself — with close, some say interwoven, ties to the Democratic Party and its agenda (only two black Republicans have ever been among their ranks — neither of whom is still in office). Yet there hasn’t been a word about candidates pulling out of the debate because of the CBC’s liberal bias. In fact, Obama will be attending a different CBC debate — this one co-sponsored by CNN — in January.
Whose credibility is compromised now?
Tommy Felts writes for the Coffeyville (Kan.) Journal.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.