Comments on: About Harry Reid and racism

By: Adrian

Adrian — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:48:37 +0000

The more I’ve kicked this around and considered the laughable pathetic defenders of Harry, both Black and White, I’m holding to the assertion that Harry Reid IS a racist with an important distinction.

He’s not merely a racist; he’s what Grocho Marx would designate as “the crummy moronic kind”. That is to say he’s too stupid to even realise he’s a racist or how degrading this viewpoint is. The fact that the words came out of his mouth demonstrates this. He didn’t mis-speak, to invoke the euphemism that liberals love to fall back on when betrayed by the mouth almighty. He said what he meant and he meant what he said, until it became widely known that he said it. Racism is often attributed to ignorance. With regard to that attribute, Harry Reid is over-qualified.

By: Kathi

Kathi — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:14:02 +0000

I don’t know if Reid’s comment indicates racism or not. I don’t really care. The only way to stop dems from crying racist everytime a republican disagrees with their agenda is to start throwing the accusation back and twice as hard. Politics nowadays is a blood sport and we need to draw blood.
Incidentally, one of the reasons Lott had no republican support was because he was an old lady-he didn’t fight the dems at all. The feeling on our side of the aisle was pretty much “Good riddance”.

By: Scrapiron

Scrapiron — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:14:28 +0000

Give Harry a break, he’s a former prize fighter who took too many whacks to the head.

By: Madrussian

Madrussian — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:05:17 +0000

Negative judgments about persons based solely on a person’s race are plainly stupid: every geneticist will tell you that for different populations of the same species individual differences are order of magnitude higher than differences between groups averages, even if latter exist. And more advanced in human genetics will tell you that genetic diversity of black people is at least five time higher than that of Caucasians, so every generalisation about “blacks” usually is false almost by definition, since this is not a natural group. We can with better success muse about Italo-Scandinavians or Mongolo-Spaniards. Such “types” simply do not exist.
I can understand what people mean a century ago when they think about races: they believed that races were species. Nobody believes this anymore, so what “racism'” means now is hard to understand. May be, just stupidity?

By: Vieux Charles

Vieux Charles — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:24:42 +0000

Trent Lott wasn’t waxing nostalgic for segregationism, but it sure sounded like he was. Sadly, like accidentally running a red light, for Lott’s political career his gaff was fatal.

I don’t like that, but I think I understand it.

Sen. Reid’s situation is different. Unlike Lott he wasn’t “caught up in the moment”. Nope, Harry simply claimed he “could have used a better choice of words”. Unlike Sen. Lott he doesn’t regret the sentiment. He doesn’t deny the construct. He just wishes he had said it differently.

If there is indeed a “better choice of words” would someone please ask Senator Reid to kindly rephrase his belief that it’s a good thing that candidate Obama wasn’t too dark and didn’t talk like he came from the hood.

By: Ozyripus

Ozyripus — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:07:57 +0000

I agree with George Will’s comment on the Stephanopolus (sp?) program, that what Reid said was a clear description of fact; his fellow panelists quickly changed the subject, ignored Will, and slid into High School type debate about what “racism” is, or isn’t, which is what I see above.

The problem isn’t racism, rather the dishonesty, indeed, evil of Affirmative Action and all of that Identity politics stuff.

When Republicans, Conservatives, and neoconservatives finally get some balls and support really courageous, patriotic people such as Ward Connerly they will show some understanding of “racism,” and the courage to stand for the old American solution of giving credit or blame to individuals. Individuals, and individual behavior, accomplishment.

By: Ruth H

Ruth H — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:32:19 +0000

I’m in the camp that sees it as cynicism and not racism.
I suspect the man is a racist but this isn’t what proves it.
I am elderly, maybe more so than Mr. Reid, and I was taught the proper, respectful word was Negro. I think that is why he used it. Of course, I know now what the PC word of the moment is and he should, too.

By: J.L. (aka JeanKaufman-in-2012)

J.L. (aka JeanKaufman-in-2012) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:11:04 +0000

My question is: when did so-called "Reverend" Al Sharpton develop into such a respected figure that even Fox asks him on as a commentator? Has he ever apologized for helping to perpetrate one of the biggest hoaxes of the last century ? Has he ever apologized for viciously slandering an innocent public official ? Has he ever made up for his own history of race baiting ? How did this animal manage to get such respectability?

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:10:05 +0000

I don’t think this particular remark was anything other than political calculation, expressed in terms regarded as racist. I suspect that Reid has a good deal of the condescending sort of racism in him, but this episode provides only a smidgen of evidence for it.

For those able to hear, it has been pointed out that Trent Lott’s comment was in about the same territory. No sense going further with it.

By: Mr. Frank

Mr. Frank — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:08:09 +0000

I find it interesting that Reid’s Morman faith has not come up. Had it been Romney’s quote, he would have been pilloried for his racist religion.