Busting NewsBusters September 24, 2007
You see, it’s things like this that get me angry at right-wing pundits who imagine themselves as “catching liberals in a lie” or “exposing liberals for what they are”.
Paul Krugman, writing in an op-ed piece for the New York Times (a publication of which I am by no means a fan) entitled “Politics in Black and White”, says what basically all of us non-white Americans have known for quite some time: voting GOP is not necessarily voting our “best interest”. Giving the past few decades’ electoral history in a nutshell, Mr. Krugman shows how the GOP has played into the pervasive racism that plagues this country in order to get votes:
Racial tension, especially in the South, has never gone away, and has never stopped being important. And race remains one of the defining factors in modern American politics…And yes, Southern white exceptionalism is about race, much more than it is about moral values, religion, support for the military or other explanations sometimes offered. There’s a large statistical literature on the subject, whose conclusion is summed up by the political scientist Thomas F. Schaller in his book “Whistling Past Dixie”: “Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters to depict American conservatism as a nonracial phenomenon, the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past.”
Republican politicians…have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism. Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California’s Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered. In 2000, Mr. Bush made a pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, famed at the time for its ban on interracial dating…
One of the truly remarkable things about the contest for the Republican nomination is the way the contenders have snubbed not just blacks…but Hispanics. In July, all the major contenders refused invitations to address the National Council of La Raza, which Mr. Bush addressed in 2000. Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, had to cancel a debate scheduled for Sept. 16 because only John McCain was willing to come.
Glimpse at the past, tying it in to present behavior — a well-written opinion piece.
Would you believe that some people are calling this a blanket accusation that “Republicans are racist”? Noel Sheppard, blogging for Newsbusters.org says in bluntly-titled piece, “NYT’s Paul Krugman Calls Republicans Racists”, that Mr. Krugman is “shameless” and engages in “racist finger-pointing”:
I wonder how many NewsBusters readers knew they were racist.
After all, if the New York Times publishes a column saying that we are, it’s got to be so given that it is the paper of record in this country, correct?
Ironically, it does seem fitting days after the civil rights protests in Jena, Louisiana, that one of the Times’ leading columnists would point fingers at the Party largely responsible for getting civil rights laws passed four decades ago.
Yet, that didn’t stop the Times’ Paul Krugman, as facts never seem to matter whenever he puts his fingers on a keyboard…This man is so much a part of the problem in this country that I refuse to reprint another word of this detritus…
America’s press want a Democrat in the White House, and they’re willing to say anything to accomplish that goal, including calling all of us racists!
Calling “all of us” racists? Did someone have a little extra paranoia mixed in with their oatmeal this morning?
First of all, Mr. Krugman was referring to decisions made by presidential campaign strategists. This is reflective of Republican leadership. Not Mr. Average-Republican. To say that millions of people were branded as foaming racists by this op-ed piece is just living a lie. Second of all, save one link to CNN.com giving 2006 poll results, Mr. Sheppard’s article amounts to little more than a verbose “tsk tsk” with no content. Mr. Sheppard can not argue with the bare facts: there was no Univision debate, Bush dissed the Urban League, there was no La Raza meeting.
An accounting for these types of things was what Mr. Krugman was offering. No more. This amount of oversensitivity implies that Mr. Sheppard thought Mr. Krugman was hitting a little close to home.
I mean, hey, if the hood fits…
The British 








