Still Searching for the “Real” Racists Victims
Maybe it’s just that every idiot in the media village was busy discussing Bachman’s incapacitating migraine problem (I guess ‘We can’t elect a woman president, because PMS har har har’ tested a little too paleolithic), but I’m surprised this story didn’t get more attention:
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann pointed to one program in particular Monday when talking about wasteful government spending: a multibillion dollar settlement paid to black farmers, who claim the federal government discriminated against them for decades in awarding loans and other aid.
The issue came up after Bachmann and Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa toured flooded areas along the Missouri River. During a news conference, they fielded a question about whether farmers affected by the flooding also should be worried by proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture cuts.
The two responded by criticizing a 1999 settlement in what is known as the Pigford case, after the original plaintiff, North Carolina farmer Timothy Pigford. Late last year, President Barack Obama signed legislation authorizing a new, nearly $1.2 billion settlement for people who were denied payments in the earlier one because they missed deadlines for filing.
King has likened the Pigford settlement to “modern-day reparations” for African-Americans. He said Monday a large percentage of the settlement “was just paid out in fraudulent claims” and criticized the Obama administration’s plan to resolve separate lawsuits filed by Hispanic and female farmers.
Bachmann seconded King’s criticism, saying, “When money is diverted to inefficient projects, like the Pigford project, where there seems to be proof-positive of fraud, we can’t afford $2 billion in potentially fraudulent claims when that money can be used to benefit the people along the Mississippi River and the Missouri River.”
Adam Serwer at the Washington Post picks apart “Bachmann’s bogus attack“:
Bachmann’s response is almost a liberal parody of how conservatives try to divide and conquer on the issue of government spending. Asked about potential cuts to hundreds of billions in agriculture subsidies, her response in effect is, “you know who doesn’t deserve government money? Black people!” The comedy doesn’t stop there, though. Bachmann’s own family farm has received $260,000 in farm subsidies over the years.
The short story behind the Pigford settlement is that the USDA spent years handing out loans and assistance to white farmers hand over fist while ignoring black farmers who asked for help, and has agreed to help black farmers who asked for but did not receive assistance during that time. Bachmann, echoing conservative bloggers, insisted that there is “proof positive” of fraud in the Pigford settlement. Not so. Claims filing for the second Pigford settlement hasn’t even begun yet, and 31 percent of the claims in the first settlement were denied. Not only that, but the second settlement was passed with an assortment of new anti-fraud provisions. The USDA Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office will both be conducting audits of the claims as they’re being processed, and their findings will be forwarded to the Department of Justice. So if there is fraud, we’ll find out about it.
For months, conservatives alleged that the Pigford settlement represented Obama “reparations” for black people. Of course, the settlement was supported by the decidedly non-black Republican Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, so this doesn’t even pass the laugh test. But it’s telling that when asked about the more than a hundred billion dollars the federal government dishes out in agriculture subsidies a year, Bachmann started complaining about a $1.2 billion settlement for black farmers discriminated against by the federal government. As usual, culture warriors like Bachmann get furious about how government money is being spent only when it’s going to the “wrong” people.
I guess we need to add Pigford to the list of teahadist buzzwords. Steve King, let it never be forgotten, was the only House member willing to vote against “a House measure to erect a plaque in the Capitol Visitors Center, recognizing the history of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol,” because that would denigrate “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage“...
And speaking of bottom-feeders who in a less debased republic would be shunned like a walking papilloma virus, Andrew Breitbart also considers himself a victim:
Lawyers for conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart asked Tuesday that a federal judge throw out a defamation case that former government employee Shirley Sherrod brought against him. [...]
In the first hearing in the case Tuesday, exactly a year to the day Sherrod was ousted, lawyers for Breitbart argued that Sherrod’s case is an attempt to dampen free speech and should be dismissed. They also argued to have it dismissed under a District of Columbia statute that aims to prevent the silencing of critics through lawsuits.
If the case is not dismissed, Breitbart and O’Connor’s lawyers argued to have it moved from the District of Columbia to California, where the two men live. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said he would consider all of the requests but did not indicate how he would rule.
Lying is a protected form of free speech now? I’d hope Sherrod gets awarded Breitbart’s every asset, but I don’t know why she’d want a trunkload of crush porn, the Stormfront mailing list, and a rat-faced houseboy who likes to tape himself playing dress-up.
You are awesome.
July 21st, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I could’ve gone my whole life without imagining Breitbart fapping. But now that you mention it, I’m sure that’s exactly what he goes for. Thanks for ruining my day, AL. :)
July 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Isn’t she supposed to be a tax attorney? Because there is a big difference between a “project” and a “settlement.”
July 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Oh! I hadn’t even thought of the sexist angle to the migraine bullshit!
[Romney Campaign ad]
Voice-over: When the 3AM phone call comes, who do you want answering it?
[Phone ringing]
Michele Bachmann: Not tonight, dear, I have a headache.
Voice-over: Mitt Romney. He can still do it with a headache.
July 21st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Can I ask what crush porn is, and before I hear back….just in case…can I ask where I can find it?
July 21st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Face, no. Just no.
July 21st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Crush porn?
TATG (Too Afraid To Google)
July 21st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I propose that no mention of James O’Keefe be permitted in BJ without “rat-faced houseboy” attached as a modifier.
July 21st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Bachmann’s revealing little comment shows that Cole hit the bulls eye when he said the teabaggers are not against government spending, they are against government spending on anyone but them.
The racist subtext is a little bonus.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Hahaha, love it!
July 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Just to save everyone the brain bleach: “crush porn” involves killing. Google at your own risk.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@Han’s Big Snark Solo:
Sure, but you’re assuming that she cares more about the truth than making a point. Since she has shown a flagrant disregard for the truth throughout her career, it seems entirely possible that she’s just lying through her teeth in an attempt to demagogue the issue. Incompetence as a tax attorney also seems like a plausible explanation.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Dimbart was the first to obsess about Pigford.
Bachmann does know the difference between projects and settlements. She’s deliberately implying that this settlement in a court case filed in 1997, covering discrimination in the 80’s and 90’s, is solely the work of that n****r currently in the executive branch who is giving away our money as reparations to his people.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
How is it that the Washington Post is only now writing about these maneuvers in the Sherrod case? If you’ve been following along in Pacer, they were arguing over this months ago. And Brietbart’s lawyers are incompetent. Sherrod’s lawyers have been tearing them up into shredded wheat, eating them as part of a healthy breakfast, and then shitting them out by lunch time ever since the case was first filed.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Hungry Joe, from now on, I shall refer to him as “James O’Keefe, Breitbart’s rat-faced houseboy.”
With all credit to Anne Laurie!
July 21st, 2011 at 5:09 pm
@I have issues with Baltimore:
That’s the best thing I’ve heard all week. Thanks.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
@Thoughtcrime: Crush porn is porn that involves women crushing things. Usually with high heels on. And usually the thing being crushed is a man’s jingle berries.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@I have issues with Baltimore:
Are they really incompetent, or do they just not have any facts or law on their side that they could use to produce plausible sounding arguments? I’m perfectly willing to believe either explanation.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Face: The Supreme Court has ruled that it’s okay for professional pornographers to sell mail-order DVDs of mostly-naked people stepping on… worms, and other life forms… as erotic aids, even though it’s illegal for the same professionals to sell DVDs of dog fights. Because dogfighting is illegal, but animal torture is just unsavory. Unrestricted interstate commerce FTW!
And yet people make fun of furries.
So, you really don’t want to Google this. Especially at work.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@Anne Laurie:
I would assume that any subject that includes “porn” in it’s name is so self-evidently NSFW that the tag is unnecessary. But that’s just me.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Sounds like the debate they’re having up in SF. Selling cats and dogs should be illegal, but goldfish? Hmm. There’s a line around here somewhere. Let us desperately try and find it.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:27 pm
@Roger Moore
From what I remember reading, it’s the latter. Just their arguments to move the case to California were easily punched down by Sherrod’s lawyers. I mean, I’m a scientist, not a lawyer, so I’m basing my judgment of this on the number of precedents cited by both sides and general persuasiveness. If someone knows a quick and easy file sharing site, I can post the court docs. Wait, is that even legal? Pacer is free to use as long as you don’t incur charges greater than $10 per quarter….
July 21st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Oh, classy. Was that really called for?
I really don’t think it’s fair to papilloma virus to put it in the same class as Breitbart.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Ah, GOPpers. Undisputed masters of projection.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I could have gone a lifetime without knowing that, just like I could have gone a lifetime without knowing about “Two Girls, One Cup”.
For my addition to this little exercise, I’ll just point out something else for fun – midget porn. I once made the mistake of googling it.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Roger Moore: I believe it was a Dahlia Lithwick column in Slate where I first read about that particular interstate commerce ruling. And she resisted the easy Big John/Little Nino jokes, because she’s a professional lawyer, and has lots of practice.
On a semi-related topic, because of a certain BONES episode, ever since Gawker first told me about ‘Bronies’ (twenty-something men who watch the new, improved My Little Pony anime), I’ve wondered how many of those innocents learned more than they really wanted to know after Googling pony play...
July 21st, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Note that they’re dog-whistling the Mississippi/Missouri issue, which has become Fox’s latest attempt to hit back on Katrina (because “hitting back” on an American tragedy never struck them or their viewers as sick and bizarre).
What Bachmann is saying is: why are we giving money to these lazy black beggars when we should be giving it to these industrious white landowners?
July 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
And, um, Pigford isn’t a “government program.” It’s a legal settlement of a court case.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Yes, with very limited exceptions, lies are protected speech.
July 21st, 2011 at 6:24 pm
@Stefan:
Yeah, but when you say “settlement”, it sounds like something wrong happened, and THAT’S NOT MY AMERICA
July 21st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Lying has been found as free speech in some instances:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1EVG92.DTL
But you probably already knew that.
July 21st, 2011 at 7:27 pm
So, when Breitbart tries to sue me on the grounds that O’Keefe is actually a ‘research assistant’ according to his quarterly IRS filings, I am protected!
Never thought I’d be considered too subtle for the room…
July 21st, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Lies about a person are of course protected speech. What they are not is privileged speech, meaning that while they are protected from government restriction or ban, they are still actionable.
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:05 am
I saw this and I honestly do not know how anyone misses the huge, blaring dog whistle here.
“You’re not getting federal money because black people stole it!”
I mean, good Lord. Could she get any more disgusting?
Any conservative who defends this as anything other than a blatant appeal to the absolute worst in people is dumb as a fucking rock.
She’s not stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing. Mean-spirited, inaccurate and wholly divisive. But it works, right Michele?
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:18 am