July 20, 2010

At WEOZ — ‘Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast’ (See Updates)

The Washington Examiner OpinionZone post is here.

Go there, and you’ll see that this woman is far more than a USDA bureaucrat with a racist attitude, and that her resignation may have occurred very quickly for reasons that have little direct relationship to what she was caught saying on video.

____________________________________________

UPDATE, July 21, early AM: Now the NAACP says it was snookered. Well then, I’m assuming that Tim Vilsack will reinstate Ms. Sherrod immediately, right?

Not if the real reasons she “resigned” from USDA relate what I posited at my WEOZ post, namely that there are problems with “Ms. Sherrod’s previous background, the circumstances surrounding her hiring, and the USDA’s agenda” that threaten to gain unwanted visibility thanks to Andrew Breitbart’s exposure.

If she doesn’t come back even if somehow legitimately vindicated by the full vid (which seems doubtful), I believe that these problems will represent the rationale as to why.

____________________________________________

Update, July 21, 10:45 a.m.: (HT to frequent commenter dscott) — “‘President’ Was in Attendance at Sherrod’s Speech.”

Sherrod doesn’t name ‘the president’ in her speech. Whether it’s Ben Jealous or not isn’t clear. I think the NAACP gives that title to the person in charge of each major chapter. This unrelated link would support that contention.

____________________________________________

UPDATE, July 21, 11:00 a.m.: Sherrod says the White House forced her resignation

The Department of Agriculture employee who resigned after a controversy erupted over recent remarks she made is now saying that the White House forced her resignation.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, however, is taking responsibility for the resignation, and the White House reportedly says it had no part in his decision.

Shirley Sherrod, the USDA’s former director of rural development in Georgia, said USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday and said the White House wanted her to resign, the Associated Press reports.

“They called me twice,” Sherrod told the AP, noting that she was driving when she received the calls. “The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that’s what I did.”

That’s a pretty detailed remembrance.

So the White House decides that someone is expendable. Sherrod, if we are to believe her, doesn’t get a chance to explain herself to Vilsack or anyone else. They just cut her loose.

Isn’t this treatment of a black woman r-r-r-r-r … raaaaaacist?

__________________________________________________

UPDATE, July 22: Concerning the accuracy and relevance of the WEOZ post in light of other Sherrod news during the past two days, here’s my comment at WEOZ –

This post is about “(her) previous background, the circumstances surrounding her hiring, and the USDA’s agenda.” The questions about them remain legitimate.

Share

19 Comments

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ed Driscoll and Tom_Blumer, Sally Weber. Sally Weber said: RT @Tom_Blumer: Bizzy: At WEOZ — ‘Shirley Sherrod’s Disappearing Act: Not So Fast’: It’s here. Go there, and you’ll see that this … http://bit.ly/ccEbGo [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention BizzyBlog -- Topsy.com — July 20, 2010 @ 6:54 pm

  2. TB,

    Until your deeper digging, my thought was that she was cut loose so quickly because she was found to be not racist enough.

    Comment by Joe C. — July 20, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

  3. #2, yeah, the Holder DOJ must have been disturbed by the her conscience bothering her a bit.

    Comment by TBlumer — July 20, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

  4. Here’s another reason for the quick action by the Obama Regime…the NAACP president was IN ATTENDANCE!!!

    via instapundit at gatewaypundit: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/breaking-naacp-president-was-in-attendance-when-audience-cackled-at-plight-of-white-farmer-video/

    It’s nice to know the NAACP prez was quick to condemn Ms Sherrod however telling us what we want to hear kind of takes the sincerity out of the mix… This faux outrage gets ever more cynical as the incidents tally up.

    This wasn’t simply tossing Ms Sherrod under the bus, this was pushing Ms Sherrod IN FRONT of the bus for the distraction of bystanders with the full body blow.

    Comment by dscott — July 21, 2010 @ 9:34 am

  5. #4, A president was in attendance, but not necessarily THE president, as my 10:45 a.m. update points out.

    Comment by TBlumer — July 21, 2010 @ 11:26 am

  6. Breitbart is on target with his focus. The tea party movement is under attack from the progressives and the GOP establishment. Sherrod is a symptom of the cancer that we must destroy (government bloated beyond constitutional authority).

    Comment by Michael — July 21, 2010 @ 11:27 am

  7. I’d like to know for sure if it was “a president” or “the NAACP president” that was there.

    Comment by zf — July 21, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

  8. BTW, the Instapundit post does say that it might not have been Jealous (interesting last name) that was there but a president of a local chapter.

    Comment by zf — July 21, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

  9. Oh, look at this. They have released a ‘full’ video, (which is still obviously edited) and supposedly it shows that she only thought that way but does not now.

    Riiight, than why the constant continual use of race card demagoguery and the racist assumption that anything whites are involved in is racist.

    Despite all the incessant and highly annoying condemning by the right of Breitbart (whose original post is not even specially about Sherrod’s racial views ((it actually about the NAACP as a whole and is more about her class warfare views than her racial ones)) and he does not even call her a “racist”) and accusing the blogosphere of “jumping to conclusions” her “whole” video does zippo to convince me that she is not a bigot, lame excuses aside. It obvious the whole point of her telling the story was to show that she was on their side.

    Comment by zf — July 21, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

  10. Also, if she no longer is a bigot, why did she engage in the typical racist NAACP smearing of conservatives and tea partiers during her speech, and after she was fired use the typical bigoted tactic of accusing everyone involved (expect the Obama admin who actually fired her) of being motivated by racism?

    Sorry, but the syrupy sympathy being shown to her by far too many of the right blogosphere is very misplaced.

    Comment by zf — July 21, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

  11. #5, I believe the implication was the prez of the NAACP not the Racist in Chief.

    Comment by dscott — July 21, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

  12. #10 and #11, I’m not buying it, and no one else should either.

    Comment by TBlumer — July 21, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

  13. Sorry, #11. My phrasing was misleading. What I meant to say is I wonder if it was the president of the whole NAACP or just one of their regional presidents.

    #12, Now we’re supposed to believe she converted from being a racebaiter to a class agitator and that somehow she lost all her bigotry in the ‘transition.’ Horse manure.

    I do think Obama fired her (threw her under the bus) to make the story about Sherrod and how she was “defamed” by righties and take the heat off the expose of the NAACPs attitude. I do not for a minute think it was to appease righties or a genuine desire to punish racism in government.

    Comment by zf — July 22, 2010 @ 12:12 am

  14. To the person whose comment I inadvertently deleted — There is nothing requiring an apology. The audience at the event indicted itself, and her haves-have nots breakdown is class warfare through and through.

    There is much more that is suspicious about this woman and her “story” that I’m choosing not to get into.

    She also lies about racism being behind the opposition to ObamaCare. It has long since been proven that the racist chants certain lawmakers claimed were directed at them by protesters on the day ObamaCare was passed never occurred.

    Also, see this.

    Comment by TBlumer — July 22, 2010 @ 6:51 am

  15. #14, which is why I believe Breitbart was still correct to air the tape and force the Obama Regime to react and NAACP to explain itself. If the Post Racial President wants to move beyond race, let him and the NAACP make the peace, the ball is in their court. We need to stop playing defense every time the race card is tossed out there.

    I for one want Breitbart to air ALL of the tapes he has in his possession, but one by one, forcing ALL the racists to explain themselves ad nausem until the race card has been ripped to shreads. You know the libs are going to claim each tape has been edited and taken out of context which is fine by me, since this forces them to explain themselves and in the process inoculates any Tea Party member and GOP pol from future “Macaca” moments.

    Comment by dscott — July 22, 2010 @ 11:02 am

  16. Oh, this gets better, great analysis by Dick Morris: http://www.breitbart.tv/dick-morris-racial-politics-blows-up-in-presidents-face/

    Obama now owns ALL of Sherrod’s public statements because he hired her back… Bahahahaha, how delicious.

    Comment by dscott — July 22, 2010 @ 11:20 am

  17. zf, I believe this video makes your point about Sherrod: http://www.breitbart.tv/shirley-sherrod-laments-land-being-sold-to-white-man/

    Sherrod is a racist IMO, otherwise why is she constantly mentioning the race of the people involved? She is obsessed with race. She sounds like on of those people who are obsessed with vitamins or health nuts insisting on fresh fruits and vegetables. I guess one could ask where the line is crossed between obsession and racism? I seen first hand some racist people in my time and Sherrod really does talk like them. She’s like the version George Jefferson and Archie Bunker caricatures.

    Breitbart has lots of her videos and they ALL need to be thoroughly discussed.

    Comment by dscott — July 22, 2010 @ 11:35 am

  18. [...] This item went up at the Washington Examiner’s OpinionZone Blog and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Tuesday afternoon, and has garnered quite a bit of visible and not-yet-visible [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — July 22, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

  19. #17 Not only does she constantly mention peoples race, but Caucasians are always the bad guys. Looking at her history, I’d say she crossed the line from obsession to racism long ago and has not turned back.

    Comment by zf — July 24, 2010 @ 5:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.