Remember a few weeks ago when US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at a National Action Network (Sharpton) gathering, strongly implied racism was behind opposition to both him and his boss – our celebrity President? Here’s a refresher, via PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston:
Holder said, “I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides, and by lasting reforms. Even in the face…even in the face…of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”
The audience applauded.
Holder continued: “Forget about me. You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me. Forget that. What attorney general has ever had that kind of treatment?”
Holder is referring to his exchange with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Gohmert and other Republicans were trying to pin down when Holder’s Department of Justice would fulfill a promise that Holder had made to deliver documents. Holder refused to answer forthrightly. Gohmert called him out, to which Holder replied “You don’t want to go there, buddy!”
Holder continued: “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”
Translation: No President nor his AG have ever had to deal with nasty partisanship on the level we have! Can only be one reason, wink wink!
Fast forward to this week, and we have Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) essentially echoing Holder – but taking it further:
(CNN) – In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Rep. Bennie Thompson doubled down on controversial remarks he made about race over the weekend.
The Mississippi Democrat had argued Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, is an “Uncle Tom” who doesn’t stand up for African Americans.
In his interview with the New Nation of Islam webcast on Sunday, which was first reported by BuzzFeed, the eleven-term African American argued President Barack Obama has been mistreated by other politicians, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, because he is black.
Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.
Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”
Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?
Thompson: “I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”
Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?
Thompson: “Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”
Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were racist?
Thompson: “It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”
Bash: You think it was race based?
Thompson: “Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”
Keep in mind that we’ve known since before President Obama was elected to his first term that the opposition was automatically going to be conveniently painted as “racist” because it happened all during his candidacy – starting in the 2007-2008 Democrat primary where his campaign tried to insinuate Hillary Clinton and her husband and former Prez. Bill Clinton (the original “first black President“) were closet racists. It then went on to the general election campaign season, where the candidate himself – then-Senator Barack Obama – played the race card against the GOP, which his then-chief strategist David Axelrod even acknowledged later. And it’s continued on since his first election and his re-election on a regular basis on any number of issues, from the economy to healthcare to voter ID and other issues.
But this is the first time I can recall a prominent Congressional Democrat try to explain the “rationale” used to determine when the race card should be played. What Holder said above, and Thompson expanded on in detail is this: If you falsely believe (or in Thompson’s and Holder’s cases, pretend) that there have never been any other senior administration officials (including the President) in history that were treated so “nastily” by the opposition , well – it must be racism, then, even if the criticisms themselves don’t have anything whatsoever to do with race. You don’t even have to prove it to be racism. You just slide the insinuation onto the table and hope that it sticks. And sometimes it does.
This is all part and parcel of the modern Democrat party and their ongoing chilling efforts at shutuppery – whether it be by government force or trying to shame and intimidate others from publicly disagreeing with the President and other elected/appointed officials in his party. The two main reasons they do this: 1) to stay in power (obviously) and 2) they think their ideas are just so wonderful and perfect that they just can’t fathom the possibility that people out there might have a legitimate issue with what they advocate, so naturally whoever stands in opposition is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist, etc. It’s their world and you’re just living in it. They believe you must conform to their ideals … or else.
Raise your hand if you’re ready to fall in line.
Yeah, I didn’t think so.