The American Spectator

ncatty| 7.26.10 @ 11:55AM

Yes, and the comments section on the Lord article is erupting.

Quartermaster| 7.26.10 @ 9:00PM

That Klein would disagree with Jeff Lord on this is no surprise. Klein simply doesn't understand that lynching is a matter of intent to kill and is a mob action to boot. Where was the mob Klein? Can you show intent to kill?

Kleins' misunderstanding is in line with his desire to go after a man who the Israelis had judged wrongly identified a "Ivan the Terrible." Just one more data point on the small, vile man that is Philip Klein.

Nicole| 7.27.10 @ 10:31AM

Jeffrey Lord wasted 4,000 words to split hairs over Ms. Sherrod's use of the word "lynch" to describe the murder of a family member. And all you can do when somebody points out where he was wrong to do so is attack that person on such spurious grounds as this?

But I guess this is the latest stage of the Republican party's ongoing plan to purge itself into majority status. It's so hard to keep up sometimes.

Chris| 7.27.10 @ 2:17PM

Why is Lord's article with its obvious mistake of fact on what was considered a lynching still up, not to mention on page 1, while the coments of those correcting him are buried?

Oldefarte| 7.26.10 @ 12:01PM

I agree with Jeffrey Lord's conclusions, and believe that Philip's arguments are another attempt at POLITICAL CORRECTNESS concerning this issue. Sherrod's use of the term LYNCHING [which is the UNLAWFUL hanging of a person with a rope] is/was to inflame, agitate,etc her target audience, the NAACP morons who previously [falsely] branded/labeled the tea party movement as being RACIST. It all goes to the matter of the TRUTH. It's amazing that the PV crowd attempts to LYNCH Blumenthal, Biden,etc for their political fabrications, yet typically/continually gives a pass to African-Americans in a AFFIRMATIVE ACTION sense. What ever happened to the GD..........'''''TRUTH'''''!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mo| 7.26.10 @ 12:42PM

The is false. Lynching is not solely specific to hanging. All anti-lynching legislation identified lynching based on the extra-judicial mob aspect (I believe it was often defined as 3 or more), rather than the methods used.

Lynching is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings were more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and often were means by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

Charles Lemos| 7.26.10 @ 5:56PM

Lynching is the murder of an individual or individuals by a mob that denies the due process of law.

In the US perhaps an overwhelmingly number of lynchings were by hanging but let's recall that Brandon McClelland, 24, was dragged to death in October 2008 beneath a truck driven by two white men in Paris, Texas and that was a lynching.

You sir are a racist and a race baiter and a coward for hiding behind a pseudonym. At least in the Old South, men had honour. You, sir, have none.

Jeffrey Lord's story is vile and it is to Mr. Klein's credit to take issue with it.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:29PM

If AS were a Rightwing-Only magazine and not a conservative-Right magazine, then there would be no disagreement with Lord's position, or no reason to disagree-- it would be like criticizing Buchanan's American Conservative mag for being too Rightist.

The extreme emotions stirred up by this issue makes it almost appear as if some think whites are going to be forced to live next door to blacks, or forced to have sex with them; or something.

Relax, today race conflict is not about burning down Watts, Newark or Detroit.

Nikki| 7.26.10 @ 12:01PM

"...though I'd take slight issue with the headline, if only because it gives the impression that we're making this argument as an institution..."

Well, since the Lord article was published by the magazine/website for which you write, just about every reference to it will be written as "...according to the American Spectator" or "...the folks at the American Spectator are obviously insane because...". You WILL get tarred with the same brush. Perhaps you need to speak with the powers that be concerning what they are willing to publish under their masthead.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 12:34PM

Pecksniffian! (Don't you love getting to use an O'Reilly word?)

Will you please apply this logic to associate Jeremiah Wright with the Church of Christ. Or perhaps to tar the entire Congress with the acts of Charlie Rangel. Or perhaps, because I post here, the American Spectator is responsible for what I write.

A journal of opinion has an editorial board which when speaking for the journal uses the byline of "The Editors". Jeff Lord speaks for himself.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:34PM

"Jeff Lord speaks for himself."

unfortunately, he doesn't speak for racial ecumenicism. The one issue you have that has legs is that Obama shouldn't have associated with Reverend Wright; however even that is guilt by association.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 7:56PM

I did not make that association except as an example of a double standard.

I'll take your point that Mr. Lord "doesn't speak for racial ecumenicism" and presume to meant to say "racial harmony" (not a lot of religion is these comments). So, how is Lord's article meant to taint (if it can) the entire AmSpec organization unless it is guilt by association? That was the point of the post.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:51PM

Can't speak for others, but I do not think Lord's position taints the other writers, or for that matter Mr. Tyrrell, at all. IMO only if AS were a hard-Right mag --such as American Conservative-- could the other writers be lumped together (you would expect Buchanan to write something not dissimilar to what Lord wrote).
AS is a mixed bag: paleocons, neocons, moderate cons, neoconfederates, libertarians, hard-Rightists.
I'm hoping to read a George F. Will-type writer or two here; perhaps there are that sort at AS already.

Theo Schultz| 7.26.10 @ 12:04PM

It has been a while since I've read anything as jaw-droppingly offensive as the Lord article.

And further -- the fact that the Democratic party contained racist Dixiecrats does not serve to exculpate the Republican Party from a charge of racism. Many of those same Dixiecrats later switched their allegience to the Republican Party -- something Mr. Lord conveniently forgets.

Since Mr. Lord is so fond of rhetorical questions, let me ask one: why did the American Spectator run this offensive article? Is it because it reflects the true view of its editors -- or is it merely to gin up page counts, so that there might be higher advertising revenues? Either way, its disgusting.

Jan| 7.26.10 @ 1:37PM

Did you read the entire article? It was tough to get through, and I completely disagree with Lord criticizing Sherrod for using the term "lynching", but most of the article did a wonderful job of detailing the truth that most racism in this country was spawned and practiced by PROGRESSIVES.

DollyMadison| 7.26.10 @ 1:58PM

The Democrat of today is nothing like the Democrats who propogated lots of racism in the past. For you to ignore that fact, to ignore that the racists in the Democratic Party became Republicans in the 1960's is either really ignorant or intended to mislead people.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 3:14PM

Oh, please! Lincoln was a Republican!

Charles Lemos| 7.26.10 @ 6:39PM

And he would be a Democrat today. Political parties are not static. The two parties have evolved since the 1970s. The GOP once included individuals like Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, Charles Mathias, Margaret Chase Smith, Dwight Eisenhower. None of these individuals would Republicans today. The GOP has dive headlong off a cliff.

John Navratil| 7.26.10 @ 8:06PM

Excellent! I've got a big picture of Lincoln and Jackson sitting astride the same jack-ass.

I could even say that Abscam was a bunch of Democrats and the only Republican of the Keating Five was McCain (a big R if there ever was :p). Charlie Rangel is a closet Republican should bring the house down.

Do the racists of the Democrat Party who became Republican include Ronald Reagan, or was he the exception?

What silliness! I've been independent since right after Bush-the-first presided over what was, at the time, the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

You go ahead and pick your party while channelling Lincoln.

DocAmazing| 7.26.10 @ 8:58PM

Do the racists of the Democrat Party who became Republican include Ronald Reagan, or was he the exception?
The man who opened his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi (site of a rather famous murder of black civil rights workers) with the phrase "I believe in States' Rights" was definitely not the exception.

Benny Cemoli| 7.26.10 @ 2:49PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....uth_to_GOP

The Dems effectively renounced their racist past and those unwilling to change their racial attitudes instead changed their party.

Seriously, does anyone really need to explain the "Southern Strategy" to you, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 6:39PM

"but most of the article did a wonderful job of detailing the truth that most racism in this country was spawned and practiced by PROGRESSIVES."

Do you really believe this? The thousands of blacks lynched by whites were lynched by PROGRESSIVES?

keith| 7.27.10 @ 3:17PM

Jan....to black people they weren't progressives, or conservatives. Just bad white folks.

And I guess that is the larger point with Jeff Lord's article. He missed what was going on at the time. When you were getting beat to a pulp by the police or a mob, you were NOT thinking "damn progressives". Legal definitions were not necessary. One of my friends tried to make this same argument with me last week. I couldn't care less what political party you were affiliated with. If you were a racist, you were bad. What I find funny with politics today is this whole "team" aspect. "Well, your team used to be full of racists, so there!" Well, if we really want to play that game, whose team are the racists on now?

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.26.10 @ 12:28PM

TAS, thanks again for the open forum here.

OKOK...maybe Breitbart screwed up.

Certainly Jeff Lord strained at gnats.

...Speaking of gnats...let's think about the attention span there-to.

Here we are in the middle of a war for American liberty...and everyone goes wandering off on a silly distraction.

OK? Jeff, shame on you. Now let's get back to important stuff.

John - TMF| 7.26.10 @ 1:42PM

Exactly.

Breitbart was not wrong for reporting the circumstances and the reactions.

The Lord conclusion that Sherrod's brother was not "lynched" strains mightily at any sense of credulity or simple justice. From my perspective and understanding (limited though it is) of the circumstances the poor man was in fact lynched. (Nuanced cultural views not withstanding.)

Ms. Sherrod has serious issues with white folks. Those issues look to be a combination of grievous and fatal past injustice, and social re-enforcement. Is she an active racist? There looks to be a case made for her to be justifiably called so.

Does she have justification? No, no one who believes in individual liberty and responsibility can be justified in despising an entire race of people for what nefarious individuals of that race do.

Do I understand why she would carry the grudge and distrust? Yes, I do and I would hope that Ms. Sherrod would eventually find it in her soul to understand that what happened perpetrated by individuals who were filled with hatred and intolerance... not an entire ethnic group.

Is the NAACP beyond that point, as well? No, it seems to live perpetually in that dark, difficult, and unjust age. It's mental image of the world frozen in pictures like the horrid despicable scene at that courthouse.

We really need to get on with more important things. We continue to be baited by the Left's major tactic of changing the subject and attacking.

Ms. Sherrod has to live with her past, her family's past, and society's inequities. So do we all.

Ken is right. We need to get back to more than nasty slap fighting side shows.

r/TMF

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:18PM

What are Sherrods current "issues with white folks"?

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:42PM

"Is she an active racist? There looks to be a case made for her to be justifiably called so. "

Make the case.

DocAmazing| 7.26.10 @ 9:01PM

Ms. Sherrod has serious issues with white folks.
Yes, especially with those who misrepresent her statements libelously.

DB| 7.26.10 @ 9:36PM

Her father was gunned down by a white farmer who was never prosecuted because an all white grand jury refused to indict, another of her relatives was beaten to death by the Sheriff and his deputies, she grew up in segregated schools and yet she tells a story of coming to terms with and overcoming racial animosity only to be thrust into the public eye smeared by a right-wing nut.

And other right-wing nuts like you call her a "racist". You conservatives have gone completely around the bend. Jeffrey Lord's article is a good example of how truly despicable some of you have become.

Bruce Heilbrunn| 7.27.10 @ 10:21PM

Well said, DB.

Sally Mims| 7.26.10 @ 12:35PM

Sherrod did lie when she said it as a "lynching" when it was a horrible beating. Her speech at NCAAP was not about how she came to change her mind about white people. Listen to her speech, it is loaded with racism.

jim x| 7.26.10 @ 2:56PM

Sally Minns, a horrible beating IS A LYNCHING.

Go look up the definition of "lynch" in a dictionary. There is no definition that says ONLY hangings are lynchings.

Sally Mims| 7.26.10 @ 12:35PM

Sherrod did lie when she said it as a "lynching" when it was a horrible beating. Her speech at NCAAP was not about how she came to change her mind about white people. Listen to her speech, it is loaded with racism.

mantis| 7.26.10 @ 1:05PM

"I'd take slight issue with the headline, if only because it gives the impression that we're making this argument as an institution, even though there are those of us at the Spectator who strongly disagree with Lord's piece."

Sorry, if you print it, it belongs to the institution. That's why editors exist.

mantis| 7.26.10 @ 2:37PM

By the way Philip, you work for a publication that employs inveterate racist Robert Stacy McCain. It should not surprise you that us non-confederates view your employer as supporting racism as a matter of policy.

Robert K| 7.26.10 @ 1:23PM

This boils down to two things:
1.Lynching is defined as putting to death without the sanction of law. Hanging is just the most notorious means.
2. Even if lynching referred only to hanging, and Ms. Sherrod had been incorrect on that point, it makes absolutely no moral difference in anything she said. It was a story of her reaction to a terrible wrong perpetrated on her family member.

Comparing a semantic difference (and one Lord is incorrect about), to Breitbart's publishing of the tape is ridiculous, because he did not just publish it, he editorialized it as a smear on Ms. Sherrod.

I honestly dont think someone who likens a speech meant to tell a story of their personal life with a perceived semantic error to an intentional smear, should be called a journalist at all. He's a fanatic struggling to win an argument long lost.

JP| 7.26.10 @ 1:58PM

Perhaps the word "lynch" sits on the same exalted plateau as "holocaust". The orginal term holocaust is of course Jewish. And its orginal definition pertained to relgious sacrifice -especially by flame. The Shoah, which dealt with the extrermination of European Jews, and then the cremation of the victims fit the definition of holocaust. The only thing missing was the religious angle (however, I believe some Jews as well as many Catholics believe in the concept of "victim souls". So, there is also the religious context).

Lynching has gone the same route as holocaust, in that many people have taken advantage of the emotional power of the word. It is certainly misused; however, for a victim of racial violence, that distinction holds very little merit.

ds80| 7.26.10 @ 2:05PM

Many are missing what Breitbart and Lord are pointing out:

Breitbart: Following the charge of racism thrown by the NAACP at all Tea Party members, Breitbart offered a portion of a longer speech that clearly showed NAACP members cheering Sherrod's description of her own racism against whites. So of course he would use that portion of the tape to illustrate the point: there is little evidence but many false claims of Tea Party racism - NAACP claims included - yet here we have documented evidence of racism by NAACP members.

In other words, it never was about Sherrod herself, and it's not about "selective editing". It's about the NAACP's own racism.

Lord uses what Breitbart did to drive the skewer even deeper: "To think he [Breitbart] would willfully put out a selectively edited tape -- knowing full well someone somewhere would surely appear to make him look like a lying idiot -- is idiocy on its face. Be that as it may, that's the charge. And as the saying goes, if one lives by the sword, one can die by the sword. Having now insisted that the slightest deviation from the truth can only be deliberate falsehood that ruins credibility rather than a mistake, Sherrod's defenders are staring at the cold, hard text of a 65-year old Supreme Court case in which nine Supreme Court Justices, eight of them FDR appointees, have unanimously agreed to the facts in the Bobby Hall murder."

In other words, it's not about the definition of "lynching". It's about shouting "discredited!" while not applying the same standards to one's self.

I think Breitbart and Lord have doe a masterful job, one that is unfortunately lost on consumers of sound bites too lazy to engage their noodle.

mantis| 7.26.10 @ 2:30PM

Following the charge of racism thrown by the NAACP at all Tea Party members

Lie #1: The NAACP specifically called on the Tea Party movement to "condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches." The NAACP did not claim all Tea Party members are racist. You lie.

Breitbart offered a portion of a longer speech

Correction: Brietbart dishonestly edited video to knowingly portray the speaker as saying the opposite of her point.

learly showed NAACP members cheering Sherrod's description of her own racism against whites.

Lie #2. There is no cheering, and Sherrod's description was not of racism against whites. You lie.

there is little evidence but many false claims of Tea Party racism

Lie #3. There is an abundance of evidence. You lie.

yet here we have documented evidence of racism by NAACP members.

No you don't.

In other words, it never was about Sherrod herself

What a laughably stupid lie to tell. You know full well it was about Shirley Sherrod. And it was a lie. If Brietbart wanted to shine a light on NAACP racism, he wouldn't have dishonestly edited the video to show the opposite of what was being said, keeping the context hidden. If he had evidence of NAACP racism, he would have used that. He didn't, so he invented some. You lie.

To think he [Breitbart] would willfully put out a selectively edited tape -- knowing full well someone somewhere would surely appear to make him look like a lying idiot -- is idiocy on its face.

Yes, Andrew Brietbart is an idiot. This is not news.

In other words, it's not about the definition of "lynching". It's about shouting "discredited!" while not applying the same standards to one's self.

Actually, it's about hand waving in an attempt to distract people from the real story: the endemic racism of the conservative movement and their dedication to destroying all who oppose them (or their families, or people who are just caught in the crossfire).

I think Breitbart and Lord have doe a masterful job, one that is unfortunately lost on consumers of sound bites too lazy to engage their noodle.

Yeah, if only we could engage our noodle enough to sign on to absolutely absurd attempts to spin this away from what it so obviously is.

ds80| 7.26.10 @ 6:12PM

Invincibly ignorant. But you'll keep on singin in chorus with the template.

mantis| 7.27.10 @ 10:46AM

Oh, you concede? Very well, I accept.

Flee| 7.26.10 @ 3:37PM

Her speech proved she was racist at the time but supposedly came to her senses and decided she had to help a white man too. Sounds a bit like Robt Byrd joining the Klan to get elected but bringing home the Federal bacon to one and all through his long career. Does that mean he was no longer a racist deep in his being? Not likely. Guilt is a powerful force and I think we can all relate to its pull. It doesn't necessarily change us but may change how we act. I still believe Sherrod harbors racist feelings towards whites and NAACP harbors them as well since they had her as a speaker at their event. This was the overriding point behind the Breitbart piece and he has reiterated that time and again. Criticize the message not the messenger.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:24PM

"I still believe Sherrod harbors racist feelings towards whites"

Your gut feelings on someone shouldn't be enough to label that someone a racist. Yet there you go...

You've never met her. You know nothing of the woman today. You've never even heard of her before two weeks ago. But you "still believe" she is a racist, without giving ANY current evidence. How do you sleep at night?

Bob| 7.26.10 @ 4:02PM

Doesn't the American Spectator have a single editor or proofreader? Where is the retraction?

rob| 7.26.10 @ 4:12PM

Nice to see so many people supporting the beating death of a black man as proper a way to bring together the community.

ecmic| 7.26.10 @ 4:29PM

Yeah, and I was pleased to learn that being beaten to death is more about semantics and less about murder.

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:55PM

Think of it as a black crucifixion.

kravitz| 7.26.10 @ 4:51PM

The conservatives have proven they will try rewriting any concrete fact, then shout it enough times that some idiot thinks the actual fact is false or weak. Only those who prefer living out of this sewer can keep the whole GOP from tanking.

mantis| 7.26.10 @ 4:54PM

Apparently the American Spectator believes that having some of your research funding cut due to poor scientific practices which are embarrassing the university you work is a lynching, but being beaten to death on the steps of a courthouse by a racist mob of murderous police is not. Good to know.

Via

Jack Lord| 7.26.10 @ 5:32PM

did Jeff Lords ever kill a man?

Charles| 7.26.10 @ 5:42PM

The "original term 'Holocaust'"is NOT JEWISH. It is GREEK.

No event in human history has been studied more thoroughly and carefully than the Holocaust. Thousands of thesis and dissertations papers have poured over mountains of data, from physical evidence and anecdotal testimony to captured German war documents. Virtually everyone with a PhD in History will stake their career on the fact that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. One can no more "revise" this fact than one can revise the existence of gravity. Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazis planned the extermination of Jews as, "The Final Solution." German concentration camp records prove that it was carried out.

Whenever we stand up to those who deny or minimize genocide we send a critical message to the world. As we continue to live in an age of genocide and ethnic cleansing, we must repel the broken ethics of our ancestors, or risk a dreadful repeat of past transgressions.

Holocaust deniers ply their mendacious poison everywhere, especially with young people on the Internet. Deniers seek to distort the truth in a way that promotes antagonism against the object of their hatred, or to deny the culpability of their ancestors and heroes. If we ignore them, they will twist the minds of countless young people, creating a new generation of those who deny the facts of the worst episode of genocide in history. Freedom of speech and the press is a symbol of a healthy society. Yet, since no crime in history is as heinous as the Holocaust, its memory must be accurately preserved, to protect our children and grandchildren.

Museums and mandatory public education are tools to dispel bigotry, especially racial and ethnic hatred. Books, plays, films and presentations can reinforce the veracity of past and present genocides. They help to tell the true story of the perpetrators of genocide; and they reveal the abject terror, humiliation and degradation resulting from blind prejudice. It is therefore essential that we disclose the factual brutality and horror of genocide, combating the deniers’ virulent, inaccurate historical revision. We must protect vulnerable future generations from making the same mistakes.

A world that continues to allow genocide requires ethical remediation. We must insist that religious, racial, ethnic, gender and orientation persecution is wrong; and that tolerance is our progeny's only hope. Only through such efforts can we reveal the true horror of genocide and promote the triumphant spirit of humankind.

Charles Weinblatt
Author, "Jacob's Courage"
http://jacobscourage.wordpress.com/

Jonathan Dursi| 7.26.10 @ 5:58PM

"I'd take slight issue with the headline, if only because it gives the impression that we're making this argument as an institution, "

Dude -- it's on the very frickin top of the institution's front webpage; its the most prominently featured story, occupying twice the space of any other and with a huge picture; and it remains there, 12 hours later.

The institution *is* making this argument.

For comparison, this blogpost on the same page consists of a three word title with link and your name, below the fold, with no picture and in a font size a small fraction of even the subtitle, "So said the Supreme Court", much less the title, "Sherrod Story False".

Alan Brooks| 7.26.10 @ 11:59PM

Attempting to portray Sherrod as a seviceable villain doesn't work,
she isn't a Tawana Brawley.

martin j smith| 7.27.10 @ 7:14AM

The article by Mr Lord deserves an F grade. This is what is telling about it. It reminds of the story of the guy who went looking for sharks. He didn't see any so he age his lunch meat while keeping his feet in the water. Some of the meat dropped into the water and before he could say " Sharrod" they ate his legs off..( the sharks did ). So too were the trolls around as sharks. This is a very interesting lesson.

Bob K| 7.27.10 @ 9:06AM

David Pryce-Jones got it right in his blog in National Review Online yesterday at 4:23PM ttitled "Unpacking Kafka." It describes everybody criticizing Jeff Lord perfectly except for those who are whipping up this feeling of guilt. They, like the "progressives" running this country and the police agents in Kafka's novels have no feelings of guilt, or of shame, for that matter!

"Kafka's great theme is that everyone feels guilt without ever being able quite to find out why. Nobody before him had taken the measure of our times like that, but he has been proved right as Totalitarianisms, Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Positive Discrimination, The Culture of Apology and Compensation and all the rest of it tie up the tangles of guilt about things for which we are not responsible-and in such a way that struggling to get free of guilt only makes it worse."

Bryan| 7.27.10 @ 3:05PM

Mr. Klein — perhaps you should seek employment at a publication that wouldn't publish such ignorant nonsense.

BSR| 7.27.10 @ 3:29PM

Mr. Klien, surely you know the Spectator also employs the racist peice of human garbage Robert Stacy Mccain? It's a little late to cry innocent now.

What self respecting individual would allow themselves to work for a vile rag that would publish such filth?