Note: I found these emails on a secret thumb drive that was given to me around the same time that Laura Ingraham apparently got secret copies of the Obama Diaries. The emails below are as verifiable as Ms. Ingraham’s book. — Sally
Date: July 16, 2010 5:55 PM EDT
Subject: they’re the racists!
How dare those people at the NAACP call the Tea Party racist. The New Black Panther Party attack is clearly too ludicrous and won’t stick. We have to find something to make clear to America that it’s the NAACP and Obama who are really racist. Obviously!
Date: July 16, 2010 6:00 PM EDT
Subject: Re: they’re the racists!
Hang on. I’m working on it.
Date: July 19, 2010 8:20 AM EDT
That video you dug up of the black lady from big government showing how the Obamacrats discriminate against whites is amazing. I heart you. Take that, NAACP!
Date: July 19, 2010 8:25 AM EDT
Subject: Re: awesomeness
You are the wind beneath my wings.
Date: July 19, 2010 8:26 AM EDT
I should mention it was edited a bit. But trust me, the rest of the video isn’t that important.
Date: July 19, 2010 6:00 PM EDT
Subject: that was fast!
NAACP condemned Sherrod. Vilsack axed her. This is awesome! I bet Obama will be pissed when he finds out his administration fired a black person…
PS – I think on tomorrow’s show, I’ll suggest Obama make her czar of his anti-white agenda. Ha!
Date: July 19, 2010 6:00 PM EDT
Subject: Re: that was fast!
Just doin’ my level best to expose the left-wing conspiracy.
Date: July 20, 2010 2:24 PM EDT
The entire video is NOT not important. She was trying to say she learned to OVERCOME her racism. Shit! You’re the total friggin’ racist for manipulating the video — and me. You hate black people AND white people! Especially white people! I feel oppressed.
Date: July 20, 2010 2:26 PM EDT
Subject: Calm down
Not my bad. If the NAACP and Obama weren’t so racist, they wouldn’t have fired her. I mean, really, it’s just a video. Don’t these people pay attention to context. I’m the one who should feel oppressed!
Date: July 20, 2010 2:28 PM EDT
Subject: Re: Calm down
You’re right. They’re total racists. Thank God America has us to expose their hate.
PS – You’re coming to my rally in DC in August, right? I’m doing it on the anniversary of Dr. King’s March on Washington. I think Dr. King would be honored.
For those who saw me on the Fox Strategy Room this morning and want to know more about Edda Lopez, here’s a video (which I was proud to help film) telling Edda’s awful story about how the banking industry — and lack of regulation — failed her and her family.
Edda’s story had a happy ending — because the community organizing group National People’s Action joined forces with Edda and finally got Bank of America to agree to her original mortgage adjustment. But millions of people like Edda aren’t as fortunate — which is why financial reform was so urgently needed.
My latest popular education video dissects the confidential memorandum that Louis Powell (who went on to be Supreme Court Justice Louis Powell) wrote to the US Chamber of Commerce and titans of business in 1971 warning of the potential demise of corporate domination in America.
Watch the video to learn how big business’ secret plan led to the political situation — and financial wreck — we’re in today.
Originally written for the Women’s Media Center blog.
Dear Ms. Palin,
I’m a little confused by your recent video calling for an uprising of “Mama Grizzlies”—the label you give to conservative women who allegedly have their conservative undergarments in a bunch over President Obama’s health care reform, financial regulation and environmental conservation, which will undoubtedly make the world a better place for little cubs for generations but are nonetheless cast by you as anti-mom. I’m not confused by your nonsensical ideological narrow-mindedness. That I’ve come to expect. What I am confused by is how you are now casting your nonsensical ideological narrow-mindedness as protecting “Mama Grizzlies.” Aren’t you the one who hunts bears from helicopters?
I’m asking because, lately, you’ve been shellacking yourself with the varnish of feminism. A few months ago, you gave a speech describing yourself as leading an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity.” Now I don’t want to second guess an experienced, political operative such as yourself, but I imagine you’re trying to broaden your base from beer cozy-carrying white men to breast milk-carrying white women. Smart. Especially given that black folks, Latino immigrants and those latte-drinking upper-middle class whites seem rather cold to your aw-shucks-statesmanship and thinly veiled cultural warfare.
But in courting the mommy set, doncha you think that your anti-mom policies—like opposing efforts to guarantee equal pay for equal work, supporting tax cuts for the super rich that will kill funding for public schools the rest of us rely on, objecting to federally subsidized health care and child care—make you, what’s that big word… hypocritical? Like, um, claiming to champion “Mama Grizzlies” while personally owning several dead grizzly bears? Should the fact that, as governor of Alaska, you passed laws to encourage the extinction of bears be seen as a warning? Are you luring America’s women into the same sort of trap?
Just as your “nature” strategies have systematically killed off the bear population in Alaska, the policies you promote have been shown to kill jobs, economic prosperity, the pursuit of higher education and retirement savings—in other words, making the secure and prosperous American family all but extinct. Seems to me you’re about as pro-woman as you are pro-bear.
As a potentially explanatory digression, I understand that sport hunters like yourself mainly target male grizzly bears. If in fact you have some covert agenda to grow the lesbian bear population, killing the male grizzlies in order to create a Sapphic grizzly heaven, then frankly that’s an armed helicopter I might be able to board. You say, “Gay bears!” I say, “Grrrrrreat!”
Or, now that I think of it, perhaps the real trajectory of your strange bedfellows political base-building is to sidle up to gay male bears. I assume you know that, for decades, rotund and hairy men in the gay community have been nicknamed “bears.” Google “gay male bears” and you’ll get a very graphic idea of what I’m talking about. Given the aforementioned unlikelihood of the Republican big tent bending its ideological tent poles enough to welcome blacks and Latinos and the white upper-middle class, I can see the Palinesque logic of where you’re headed.
The inherent alignment between you and the hairy homosexual population is obvious. You both represent extremely fringe but nonetheless influential subcultures. You both have an affinity for animal skins. And, in both cases, your ideal man looks a lot like Todd. It’s a political match made in San Francisco.
But, um, if that’s not where you’re headed well, then, I’m lost. I cannot think of a more anti-woman candidacy than your vice presidential bid in 2008, which suggested that women’s assent to leadership can and should be based solely on cute looks and folksy sweetness rather than serious experience and competence equal to any man. The fact that there are hundreds of women far more qualified than you to be vice president of the United States of America but you emerged from the election as the new figurehead of women in politics undermines the fight of other women to be taken seriously in the public arena.
Even more, your conquest for cultural and political power through co-opting “Mama Grizzlies” is nothing more than a big business, anti-family agenda in drag. You said in an interview that the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would lengthen the period of time for which men and women could sue regarding very overt cases of pay discrimination, would be a “boon to trial lawyers.” Uh, yes, women who had been systematically discriminated against on the basis of their sex and paid less than male colleagues would need to hire lawyers. But the law (which passed despite your objections) is really a boon to fairness and equal opportunity. It only hurts big business that, over the years, has relied on paying women less in order to increase their own margins of profit. You’d think that would be something to growl about…
In a nutshell, Ms. Palin, you are no feminist—and women across the country, whether they’re soccer moms or hockey moms or “Mama Grizzlies” or not even mothers at all, can see through your hypocrisy and easily spot your fangs and claws.
I was on Fox News this morning and, in the wake of the NAACP resolution calling on the Tea Party to denounce its racist extremist elements, the panel debate was about whether or not there are explicit racist elements in the Tea Party. Come on. Of course there are.
The folks denying Obama is a citizen despite a clear birth certificate and birth announcement. The signs that say “we have a lyin’ African in the White House” or “monkey see, monkey do” or my personal favorite, “What you talkin’ ‘bout Willis?” The fact that overt White Supremacist organizations have called for support of the Tea Party movement and Tea Party candidates, including Rand Paul, have explicitly drawn on White Supremacist groups like Stormfront to raise money for their causes. There is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that very ugly, very vitriolic racists have linked up with the Tea Party.
If you Tea Party folks find this accusation so offensive, I would think you’d be all in favor of the NAACP resolution. Seems to me it’s just calling on the Tea Party affiliates to do exactly what, defensively, you’re doing in reaction to the resolution — distance yourselves from this explicitly hateful wing of your movement. Why not?
So what’s more interesting, I think, than pointing out the obvious existence of explicit racist extremists in the Tea Party is examining whether the Tea Party as a whole, by its very nature, is intentionally, implicitly built on racial resentment. In this regard, the NAACP resolution might be considered tame — it goes to great pains, as many other liberals have, to suggest that only a few folks in the Tea Party are racist but by no means the entire enterprise. I say: Not so fast…
Now, racism is a loaded word. And it tends to (though by no means needs to) connote personal animus. Colloquially, when we call someone a racist, we generally mean that they think themselves and their race inherently superior to another race by virtue of the color of their skin. I’m not going to wade into the question of whether all Tea Party individual members are racist. For full disclosure, the fact of the matter is I think everyone born in America grows up to unconsciously believe that white people are superior to people of color, just as we grow up to believe men are superior to women, straight people are superior to gay people and so on. No, it’s not taught explicitly in schools, but we humans are good at picking up the coded residues of inequality throughout our society. When we see only white men in power, we internalize the idea that only white men should be in power. When most media representations of black folks focus on poverty, drugs and crime, we internalize the idea that black people have a greater inherent tendency toward troubled behavior. This is the way inequality replicates itself — not by a bunch of folks sitting around in a room and deciding, yes, black people should still have higher rates of unemployment and women should earn only $0.76 for a man’s dollar — but because patterns of injustice play out all around us and, like the proverbial fish swimming in water, we don’t notice the bias because it’s all we’ve ever known. We learn to notice race but not racism — so the swimming in bias continues.
Which means, don’t tell me you haven’t noticed the President is black…
In this context, racism remains a perfect political trigger point, especially for white Americans. It always has been. From the beginning of American history, the Founders — who were wealthy white landowners — tapped into racial resentment and the (then explicit) sense of racial superiority among poor white folks to get buy in for a political system that for a long time disenfranchised not only black folks in America but un-landed white folks too. The argument that you should support policies that help the white elite and privileged still holds sway today, as working class white folks voice support for tax cuts and slashing of government programs the result of which very explicitly helps the rich and hurts the rest of us (including working class white folks themselves).
But over the years, it’s become less acceptable to be overtly racist. So code words became the norm. In the 60s it was “state’s rights”. In the 80s and 90s it was “personal responsibility”. And as much as I consider myself a proud American, I’m afraid to say that the code word today is “patriotism”. It avoids being explicitly racist while very clearly harkening back to a time when not only all our political leaders were white (and male) but where black folks were enslaved. And it has a very scary, violence-threatening edge — see, for instance, the campaign video by the thankfully-defeated Alabama Tea Party candidate Rick Barber calling on “good patriots” to “gather your armies”.
No, Tea Party folks protest — this is all about fiscal responsibility and the deficit. Then where were you during George W. Bush’s presidency when he took the nation from a record surplus to a record deficit and created the economic mess we’re in? Why didn’t you question his competence? Or his citizenship? In February 2009, a poll revealed that the deficit ranked sixth on a list of concerns voters have nationally, behind ending the war in Iraq and fixing our broken health care system. The deficit is nothing but a seemingly non-partisan, non-racialized shill. The Tea Party has no problem with deficit spending to finance wars and tax breaks for the rich and big business. But it does have a problem with government spending that is presumably helping poor people and people of color. Never mind that Obama’s policies help even more working white folks. Conservatives and the Tea Party are tarnishing the idea of government spending — and, by extension, government in general — by implying that government helps black people and immigrants but hurts white people, while big business helps whites. Facts and forty years of economic and social history otherwise be damned!
Now we’re in a financial crisis and everyone is feeling the pinch. Our natural human inclination and political necessity is to find someone to blame. If you’re a working class white person in this situation, you have two options. First, you can blame the super-rich (mostly) white elite who have rigged our economic and political system for their sole gain over the last 40 years and stuffed their pockets while your real income and quality of life has declined. But frankly, that would mean rejecting the myth that’s been propelling you all these years — that if you worked hard enough, you too could be Bill Gates — and instead accepting the unfortunate fact that, in America, extreme wealth is much more often a product of inherited position and pre-existing status than hard work. Because that’s how the existing elite have written the rules of our economy. But that’s a hard pill to swallow. So let’s blame people of color and immigrants. You’re in the sinking ship that is the American economy and a convenient solution is simply shoving some people overboard. You’re not struggling to make ends meet because the economy is fundamentally unfair and rigged against you and most of the rest of us. No! You’re struggling because black folks and immigrants are cheating and loafing off government and getting a free ride. Which makes me wonder if you’ve visited an inner-city housing project or immigrant farmworker camp and seen just how un-cushy some folks have it…
Conservative elites and big business have for some time intentionally triggered the racial resentment option instead of — gasp! — exposing their own protection and perpetuation of extreme economic inequality and thus risking all their power and fortune. Luckily for them, just when the economy as we know it was teetering at the precipice of public confidence — when we finally saw the horrors that deregulation and run amuck Wall Street greed create — America elected its first black president. It was a perfectly convenient way for the super-rich elite to, again, fan the flames of racial resentment as the scapegoat for our economic mess to avoid the blame being placed where it really belongs. This is why poor people were blamed for bad loans, not lenders. And this is why the Tea Party is questioning Obama’s fundamental competence and contending he wants to help black Americans but not whites.
How else can you explain the fact that the Tea Party supposedly grew out of public anger about the big bank bailouts but is now opposing financial sector reforms that would hold big banks accountable and make the financial sector work for average investors again? I do not think most of the Tea Party leaderships’ agenda is about explicitly perpetuating racism and racial insensitivity. But I do think the Tea Party is intentionally fanning flames of racial resentment to distract attention from the real problems — and real solutions — that would put big business and big banks in check and actually help all working Americans, including white folks.
So, do I agree with the NAACP resolution? Absolutely. With two caveats. First, it’s pretty safe for the NAACP to indeed play to its base with this (still relatively tame and incontrovertible) resolution. But what I’d really like to see are white liberal organizations take the same level of responsibility to call out racism in the Tea Party as well as throughout the political and social sphere — left and right, by the way — and be strong advocates for racial justice. There are a few examples of white groups and leaders doing this but nearly enough. Second, I do think that the NAACP is clearly drawing on the Tea Party’s current publicity to activate NAACP membership and generate attention and energy for the organization’s efforts at revitalization. That’s understandable, but it’s emblematic of a general trend on the left right now to jealously ogle at the seemingly vast and energetic Tea Party on the right while bemoaning the ossified, stale, centralized organizations on the left that are vestiges of vibrant movements of the past but lack that character today. This is exemplified in the debate as to whether the left right now is disappointed and dejected, in part by the rise of the Tea Party at the same time as the failure to pass truly progressive legislation in the context of Obama’s centrist approach to policy and power. Much more could be said on this (stay tuned) but suffice it to say I think the left should pay less attention to the Tea Party minority and more attention to the vast majority of Americans who are hurting in this economy and desperate for real solutions, the kind of bold and transformative solutions that frankly neither political party is putting out. Let’s build a vast and vibrant new movement around our agenda, not merely on the back of Obama’s election or, now, in reaction to the Tea Party.
In my exclusive interview with a Tea Bag, the true story of the Tea Party is revealed. Who knew that a bag of loose leaf could be so loose lipped?!?!
Please watch, “like” on Facebook and share with everyone you’ve ever met!
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
JOIN SALLY’S EMAIL LIST
FOR A GOOD TIME, FOLLOW
RUMORS ABOUT MELoading Quotes...
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLSMake a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
POPULAR TAGS2012 Election 2012 Elections barack obama budget capitalism civility Congress corporations debt deficit democrats economy feminism financial reform Fox News gay rights Glenn Beck government greed ideology inequality jobs marriage equality Mitt Romney Obama occupy wall st occupy wall street Paul Ryan popular education populism president obama progressive protests race racism Republicans Right wing sexism social movements strategy taxes Tea Party unions values Wall Street