That remark was one where Cassidy
compared the Senate leadership of the chamber political head, Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, as overseeing
a plantation – orders are given, and the party out of power has no input
into any of them, which does violate the collegial norms of the Senate. It’s
not a new or even controversial assessment, as political
historians have noted that Reid runs the Senate in one of the most closed,
iron-fisted fashions ever.
And the idea, proffered by both
Reid himself and minor Republican Senate candidate Rob Maness that there’s something
objectionable about the terminology Cassidy used – presumably because
plantations in America historically used blacks first as slaves and then until
only a few decades ago as virtually indentured servants – seems hardly
credible. Former Sen. Hillary Clinton used just such an
analogy to describe House of Representative’s Republican leadership in 2006
to an almost-exclusively black audience and was asked to apologize by GOP
leaders.
That criticism made some sense,
because of the audience involved, an outright spoken pandering to racial
division intended to rile its members on that year’s Martin Luther King
holiday. But Cassidy’s was in print to a general audience without any racial
context whatsoever. Nevertheless, Cassidy’s provoked Reid to demand an apology
(which he didn’t get).
That Reid showed the audacity to
request such is itself a howler, given his consistent record of delivering
racially insensitive remarks. The last publicized instance of exhibiting that
attitude towards blacks came in 2010 with the
revelation that he had said prior to the election of Pres. Barack Obama
that Obama would fare well in his White House quest because of a lack of “Negro
dialect” and his “light-skinned” appearance. But to show that the leopard
doesn’t change his posts and is an equal opportunity lout, just
last month he insulted (with lame jokes and to their faces) Las Vegas
businessmen of Asian descent. Reid has zero credibility to lecture anybody
about presumed racial insensitivities.
Of course, not a peep has been
heard out of Landrieu on this matter – and wisely so, because to make any
comment about a Cassidy who’s not backing down on this only invites him to tie
her to the issue that in 2015 her first vote would be for Reid as Senate
leader, and that Reid works hand-in-hand with the non-Negro-speaking and
non-dark-skinned Obama to prevent changes to odious policy Landrieu helped them
to shove down Louisiana’s throat, and Reid and Obama are only slightly more
popular in Louisiana than is Nick Saban. Fortunately for her, she has surrogates outside and a useful idiot inside the contest to do her dirty work for her.
That would be Maness, who made
common cause with Reid by making a similar apology request. One reason why
Maness continues as a minor candidate is that he’s seen as unserious, as
someone who’s bored in his retirement from the military and decided it would be
a neat thing to be a senator, and it’s remarks like this that only fuel the
impression that he’s a dilettante.
Maness hopped in bed with Reid,
with Landrieu the approving voyeur, because one of the twin pillars of this
campaign is that, despite Cassidy having a very conservative voting record in
the House, that Cassidy isn’t conservative enough (the other critique being
Cassidy, like Landrieu, is too Washington, D.C. politician, not Louisiana
enough, even though Maness has hardly lived any time in Louisiana and worked
for the federal government, completed now with generous pension, most of his
adult life). But when Cassidy complains that Reid is such a dictator that
government enslaves free people, this concisely captures a conservative brief
against liberal Democrats like Reid and Landrieu – that they support oppressive
big government at the expense of the liberty of the people.
Do not think that Maness (who
once already used this gambit, last year) deigns to be upset over this in
solidarity with ethnic studies departments everywhere in academia, but rather
he feigns upset because it spoils his narrative about Cassidy not being
conservative enough. The remark will make some conservatives who think Cassidy
is too soft of a conservative to think again, not because they want to repeal
the Civil War Amendments, but because this presents to them a Cassidy that is
unafraid to tackle the totalitarian impulse in liberalism that has infected
Democrats.
Because in this instance it's not about trying to demonstrate Landrieu's unsuitability for office but to tear down Cassidy instead, Maness fought back in the only
way he knew how. Which to the attentive political right – the ones who will get
asked who they recommend should be voted for by the much larger subset of
voters who are inattentive of the Senate 71 out of every 72 months – only
signals he is to be taken as seriously as the Al
Sharptons of the world. Meaning this episode reaffirms that he isn’t Senate
material and it will not affect Cassidy’s frontrunner status.
So now a Louisiana conservative presumes to lecture the world on race matters? The issue is not whether this leader or that leader said something touchy about race, the issue is that Louisiana is one of the most segregated, most racially unequal, and most disgracefully backwards on race relations. Mention the American South anywhere in the world and one of the first thing that people think of is the hideous racism is persists because of antiquated conservatives amped up on self-righteous perversions of religion and economics. Not that you would ever get any thoughtful commentary on this from Jeff Sadow. The piercing whine emanating from Shreveport is pathetic.
ReplyDelete