I find myself not only in agreement with Sarah Palin but angry at her treatment by a MSNBC host. Palin recently canceled a NBC interview with Matt Lauer over the failure of MSNBC to discipline host Martin Bashir for saying that someone should defecate in Palin’s mouth after she compared federal debt to slavery. While I once worked for MSNBC, I have been shocked by the effort of the network to be the Fox News of the left — with hosts often blindly supporting the President, seriously comparing Holder to Moses, and even defending the surveillance of journalists (which Bashir did) in defense of the Administration. For civil libertarians, it has been a blow to see MSNBC yield to a type of cult of personality around Obama while basic civil liberties are being denied by this Administration. However, Bashir was able to hit truly a new low and the lack of a serious response beyond an on-air apology sends the message that anything goes when the target is a conservative and critic of the President.
First let’s start off with Palin’s remark:
“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China. When that money comes due… it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”
A bit over-the-top, yes. Unprecedented, no. Many people warn of the dependency on China as the holder of our debt. Moreover, the use of the noun slavery to refer to such dependency is hardly shocking. Standard dictionaries include the following definitions of slavery beyond actual human bondage: “The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence. 4. A condition of hard work and subjection.” In other words, Palin was using the term in a recognized and hardly unprecedented fashion. Moreover, the Chinese debt is a serious problem that has been discussed by both liberals and conservatives.
Bashir however seemed eager to attack Palin on the use of the word slavery as opposed to her obvious point. Indeed, it was Bashir who seemed to go off the deep end with a lecture on horror of slavery which no one (including Palin) had questioned.
He quotes Palin and then says:
“So here’s an example. One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer, who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation.
What is most shocking about Thistlewood’s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime,” Bashir added. “In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.’
This became known as ‘Darby’s Dose,’ a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of inhumanity. And he mentions a similar incident in 1756, his time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. ‘Flogged punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper, made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth’ . . . She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.”
It was unhinged and unfair and disgraceful. However, some Palin critics immediately attacked Palin as insulting African-Americans by even using the word slavery. This was raised by Jake Tapper in a later interview:
TAPPER: You can understand why African Americans or others might be offended by it, though?
PALIN: I — I can if they choose to misinterpret what it is that I’m saying. And, again, you know, I’m sure if we open up the dictionary, we could prove that with semantics that are various, we can prove that there is a definition of slavery that absolutely fits the bill there, when I’m talking about a bankrupt country that will owe somebody something down the line if we don’t change things that is, we will be shackled. We will be enslaved to those who we owe.
Once again, I do not share the condemnation of Palin as somehow dismissing or lessening the crime of slavery in this country. Nor do I think she was lecturing African-Americans. I do not see how any reasonable reading of her comments can produce such interpretation. However, in today’s environment, everyone seems on a hair-trigger to condemn and unleash the type of disgusting retort of Bashir. There seems to be a view that opposing figures like Palin deserve no consideration or decency in the treatment of her comments.
Bashir later apologized:
“I wanted to take this opportunity to say sorry to Mrs. Palin, and to also offer an unreserved apology to her friends and family, her supporters, our viewers, and anyone who may have heard what I said. I deeply regret what I said and that I have learned a sober lesson in these last few days that the politics of vitriol and destruction is a miserable place to be and a miserable person to become.”
What was missing was any discipline from MSNBC.
Perhaps this outrageous comment might produce some needed soul-searching at MSNBC over its decision to become an echo-chamber for the White House. However, there is no evidence of it in the silence from MSNBC.
Various people came forward to defend Bashir and question whether even an apology was needed:
Basically, as Jason Easley pointed out at the time, Palin was essentially telling African-Americans that they don’t really know what slavery is, and it takes someone like Palin to explain it to them. If you think that’s offensive, well congratulations, you are a normal functioning human being. It is with that backdrop that Bashir made the following comments on his show on Friday
I do not see it that way and I am no fan of Palin. I fail to see how her original or later comments sought to tell “African-Americans that they don’t really know what slavery is.” That is equally unfair to Palin. I fail to see why our current political divisions justify taking every comment of an opposing figure to the worst possible meaning, particularly when the meaning seem quite evident.
Do you think an apology is enough in this circumstance when a host says that someone should defecate in the mouth of a conservative leader?
david,
the only thing wrong with the Newt story about his wife in the hospital is that she wasn’t on her deathbed. She was recovering from cancer surgery and he wanted to talk about divorce issues. He was already cheating on this wife when he brought up the divorce issue in the hospital.
rafflaw wrote: “…the only thing wrong with the Newt story about his wife in the hospital is that she wasn’t on her deathbed.”
There is more wrong than just that. The left painted a picture of a callous man marching to the hospital and surprising his wife with divorce papers while she lay dying with cancer. The truth was that she never had cancer. The hospital visit involved surgery on a benign tumor. According to his ex-wife, the divorce discussion came up before she ever even went to the hospital. In the hospital, there was never any discussion of the pending divorce. According to Newt and also according to Newt’s daughter, the mother asked Newt to file for the divorce. Newt was unfaithful to her during the marriage.
david,
if you read the Huffington Post story that you linked you will see that the database of lottery winners in Michigan who were or are on welfare started at winning $1,000 and the article only mentions a couple of winners who won a million and two million, I believe. It also states that the state was successfully deleting the abusers off the rolls when it can, because under current state laws at the time, not all benefits were lost if you had additional income. So the system was working by removing the fraud it has found and I don’t think winning $1,000 at one time should remove you permanently from welfare or food stamps.
I’m really amused that anyone would consider what Michael Savage does as thinking. It’s more like MadLibs with political terminology.
For years, politicians and pundits have been defecating in my ears, on my newspapers and all over my web browser. So, as an aging anarchist with an equal amount of disdain for all fascists regardless of how they label themselves, I would be happy if people like Palin and Bashir take turns defecating in each others mouths. I would make a special effort to tune and watch Hannity and Maddow go at it. In fact, it would probably boost ratings for presidential debates.
After all, these authoritarian shills have been defecating out of their mouths forever, it’s time some went back in. There is even an old joke that goes:
Q – How do know when a Republicrat is defecating?
A – When their mouth is open.
DavidM, When I would do surveillance I would listen to talk radio. I would listen to NPR mostly but I would flip to Air America, Limbaugh, local talk, ESPN radio, etc. A retired homicide detective I had working for me would listen to Limbaugh religiously and so I put him in the rotation back in the mid 90’s. The thing I liked the most about him was his humor. He was funny, and not just about politics. But, the Clinton years turned him more and more bitter. And then when he went through the pain med rehab he seemed to lose his sense of humor and was pretty bitter. I have maybe listened to him 2-3 times in the past 5 years or so. I have satellite radio the past 5-6 years which gives me much more options. I mostly listen to classical music and opera now, it soothes the soul. I wish more folks would! If Olbermann were here spewing his unique venom I think you would win the “Worst Person in the World” award.
david,
Palin was asked a simple question and for some reason you think asking simple questions to politicians is unfair. If you honestly think that unfair questions have not been asked of Obama, you might want to get your vision or hearing tested or actually pay attention to what has transpired during the last 5 years. And one more thing, if Newt Gingrich was so brilliant, why was he so stupid in shutting down the government?
rafflaw wrote: “Palin was asked a simple question and for some reason you think asking simple questions to politicians is unfair.”
No, simple questions are fair, but stupid questions are… well… stupid. That’s what she asked.
I just put myself in Palin’s situation. Someone asks me what newspapers and magazines I regularly read before I was tapped to run for VP. How would I answer that? I read a lot of stuff, and why is she being specific about newspapers and magazines, which are probably lowest on my reading list. Does Couric really want me to just rattle off a list of news sources? What a stupid question. Palin answers most of them, with appreciation for the press and media. Couric is not satisfied, “what specifically”? Palin responds, all of them that have been in front of me. Couric still not satisfied, presses a third time, “Can you name a few”? Palin’s frustration surfaces, “A variety of sources… Alaska isn’t a foreign country…”
rafflaw wrote: “If you honestly think that unfair questions have not been asked of Obama… ”
No, that was not my point. A lot of people have posed unfair questions to Obama. If you look at the Couric interview, the questions were all extremely slanted as a gotcha game. She was clearly trying to trip her up in a gaffe. I cannot imagine Couric asking the President what newspapers and magazines he read before running for the office of the President, and then pressing in on him three times to give some specific names. She has no interest in doing that, because she would not play that game with somebody she already respects as having a good worldview.
rafflaw wrote: “… if Newt Gingrich was so brilliant, why was he so stupid in shutting down the government?”
I don’t see it as stupid. He stuck to his guns to accomplish welfare reform, and he got it because he had a President who actually met with him and worked things out. I wish all Congressmen had the integrity, passion, and determination that Gingrich had to fix things in Washington.
“I think I’ve finally got David’s number: he’s a troll. He’s just here to stir things up, to bait us.” (bettykath)
He’s usually off on weekends … probably pairing poor people up in threes.
I’ve said this previously and this thread just reinforces my take on venomous politics. In my lifetime, and I was in college during the Nixon administration, the two politicians who have been the recipient of the most over the top, hateful comments, are both women; Hillary and Palin.
Gene,
It’s a true myth but weirdly normal in a clearly confused way.
Nal, thanks for the research. I knew China wasn’t number one but I didn’t know that my social security was! I’m not surprised about the fed/banksters.
I believe that debt is more likely to make you an indentured servant, not a slave. Palin’s use of the word slavery may be benign to those of white privilege but African Americans whose ancestors lived in slavery relate more to Bashir’s view.
Palin’s reference to the “free stuff” we get as the reason for the debt is so superficial as to be a joke. The money the Pentagon and CIA, and their various contractors, get for destroying other countries is the real reason make the “free stuff” (whatever she’s including) pale in comparison. She might also consider the enormous amount in corporate welfare.
I, too, am disappointed in the Obama-can-do-no-wrong of MSNBC.
I think I’ve finally got David’s number: he’s a troll. He’s just here to stir things up, to bait us.
Pete, Gene, Blouise,
P.T. Barnum has a school of philosophy that some most certainly adhere to…..
I have come to have a great level of respect for what I perceive to be genius on his part. I really enjoy the way he interacts with callers. He is much slower and methodical about it than I would be, but in the end, the analysis ends up being rather poignant and enlightening. He basically walks people slowly toward a conclusion that was hidden from them beforehand.
==========================================================
great, david, great
now tell us your opinion of glenn beck.
srsly you write for ” the onion” right?
pete wrote: “now tell us your opinion of glenn beck.”
I’m not much of a fan of Glenn Beck’s radio broadcast. Although I agree with many of his libertarian positions, he is too silly and sarcastic for my tastes.
I’m not much of a fan of Sean Hannity because he is so ideological. He is unable to hear anyone working from a different set of premises. Hannity is kind of like Tony C, but on the right instead of the left.
Strangely, I like Michael Savage broadcasts. At first I thought, who is this nut case, but as I listened more and more to him, I grew an admiration for his genius and ability to think independently from others. It has always amazed me how he was banned from Britain for nothing more than his speech, yet very few with a passion for liberty have vocally come to his defense. He is a hot potato that almost nobody on the left or the right wants to be associated with. Yet, he continues onward, content with millions of non-famous people who tune in to listen to him pontificate. He is an unusual Jewish voice crying from the wilderness.
“Oxymoron” is a noun that describes a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
I believe that davidm2575 is one of the best examples of a compassionate conservative that we have ever had on this blog.
Ok David,
I stand corrected….
Well, I’m definitely a fan of Sara Palin and Ron Paul and others who speak the truth in defense of the U.S. Constitution. As a Constitution lawyer, why don’t you support her and Ron Paul??
Considering the totality of Sarah Palin’s rhetoric over the past five years or so, there isn’t anything Bashir could say about her that could be worse than the stuff she herself has said and, more importantly, done. (Remember the gunsight superimposed over Gabby Giffords’ congressional district?)
But anyway, in light of the controversy, I’ve decided to adopt a new catchphrase: “Hey, gotta be better than sh*tting in Sara Palin’s mouth!”
David, I think I now know all I need to know about your politics. I sometimes used to wonder how Americans became SO polarized.
Sorry, Palin and her ilk who have belonged to secessionist movements are treasonous in my book. Whatever is dished out to her, she deserves.
Whine all you want, the fact that you have failed to pay attention to the recent desperate attempt by Republicans to influence African American voting with the slavery meme says more about your inattention to the political straw men being generated by the shrinking white-wing Republicon party than it does about any percieved failure to exhibit broadcast standards by MSNBC.