Scooter's sentence commuted because he's not black? Plus, more from Silky Pone-Pone

So sayeth (or implyeth) the LA Time's "Magic Negro"! From NewsMax:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush's commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.

All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration's record on race relations and poverty.

"We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn't even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison," Obama said to loud cheers.

Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.

While I agree with Obama's take on the Genarlow Wilson incident (it's a crying shame what miscarriage of justice occurred there), I find it repulsive that he has to resort to race-baiting by comparing an unrelated case to Libby. Had Genarlow Wilson been white, would Obama have made that comment or analogy? Of course not, for it would not have had the same racial hysteria overtones.

By the way, Silky Pony must have another about face like he did with Iraq:

Edwards' call for felons' voting rights to be restored also received loud cheers, although as a North Carolina senator in 2002 he voted against a bill allowing felons the right to vote in federal elections.

Well, he was Waffles' running mate, so he must have learned from the best.

Michael Moore a racist?

See the video and judge for yourself. Notes Breitbart TV:

Filmmaker Michael Moore went off on CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer during an interview Monday to promote his latest documentary 'Sicko'. Moore blasted the anchor and the network for not doing enough to stop the Iraq war and for doing a 'crap' report on his new film. Moore also mocked the pronunciation of chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. (Not the type of thing that the eagle-eyed filmmaker would miss if it came out of the mouth of one his political enemies.)

I'm looking forward to seeing how the moonbatosphere spins this.

NAACP does more Katrina racist demagoguery

Same sh#t, different flies: "Blah-blah-blah-'Whitey's out to get us', blah-blah-blah-'Bush hates black folks', blah-blah-blah-'Insert Katrina-and-other-completely-unrelated-and-inappropriate-comparison-here', blah-blah...". From Motown:

NAACP National Board Chair Julian Bond said Sunday that the civil rights organization is needed now more than ever because the Bush Administration has done little to support blacks.
...

...Bond said the possibility that New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward, ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, will never be rebuilt is comparable to a “lynching.”

“It can be said that Katrina, like lynching, not only destroyed the work of generations in a single day, but is resulting in a deliberate effort to dispossess black landholders.”

Actually, if anyone is being "lynched", I would say it is the taxpayers:

Federal agents investigating widespread fraud after the Gulf Coast hurricanes in 2005 are sifting through more than 11,000 potential cases, a backlog that could take years to resolve.

Authorities have fielded so many reports of people cheating aid programs, swindling contracts and scamming charities after the hurricanes that Homeland Security inspectors, who typically police disaster aid scams, have been “swamped,” says David Dugas, the U.S. attorney in Baton Rouge.

“There’s definitely a backlog,” says Dugas, whose office helps coordinate an anti-fraud task force formed after the hurricanes. “Right now, that means we might not get to some cases as quickly as some people might like. If there’s still a backlog in two years when we start running up against the statute of limitations, that’s different.”

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita triggered more than $7 billion in disaster aid to Gulf Coast households, plus billions more in government contracts and rebuilding projects.

But I'm sure to the racebaiters like Bond, that's a different (and more acceptable) kind of "lynching".

SCOTUS shoots down racial preferences, upholds WA voters' wishes

From Michelle Malkin:

If any of you followed my work at the Seattle Times, you know how closely I covered the battle against government racial preferences in Washington state. You may remember that Washington passed Initiative 200 to ban government racial preferences in public hiring and education. Despite massive establishment opposition (led by my then-publisher), the measure was approved overwhelmingly–even in liberal enclaves like Seattle and other parts of western Washington. As in California and Michigan, the Left fought bitterly to undermine the letter and spirit of the law. One of the areas where inequality in the name of “diversity” reigned was the Seattle public school system. Several parents rose to challenge the racial bean-counting and have fought in court since 1998. Their case reached the Supreme Court, which will issue a decision this morning.
...
10:34am Eastern update breaking:

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students’ race.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court’s judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other three liberals.

Chalk one more up for the good guys! With today's shamnesty vote failing, today is turning out to be a darned good day! :-)

Alter defends Obama's outreach to black racist

Tucker Carlson takes leftard Jonathan Alter behind the woodshed on this one. Jonathan Alter, hopelessly leftist "editor" from Newsweak (you know, those guys who made up the whole Koran-flushing story?), tries to whitewash NYC Councilman Charles Barron. Barron, a former Black Panther and big time apologist for Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe (who starves his own people), is remembered for his "I wanna slap Whitey" remarks.

Anywho, Alter gets schooled, as seen here on Newsbusters:

Understanding fellow, that Jonathan Alter . . .

On this afternoon's "Tucker Carlson" on MSNBC, the eponymous host mentioned that Barack Obama had travelled to NYC to seek the support of Charles Barron of Brooklyn. Carlson knows Barron well, the NYC Councilman being a frequent guest on Tucker's show. Carlson described Barron as a "pretty straightforward racist, pretty straightforward black nationalist, anti-white character, exactly the kind of person you would not expect Obama to be courting." He then asked guest Jonathan Alter: "What is Obama doing?

SENIOR NEWSWEEK EDITOR JONATHAN ALTER: "Well, I think Obama wants the support of everybody, and I think the question is whether he can have a tent that's actually as big as the United States . . . The whole point of his campaign Tucker is to say "don't judge me by any one of my supporters, I'm trying to get a super-big tent here" . . . I think it would be unfair to hold any of his supporter's politics, you know, hold him accountable for what Charles Barron thinks.

Tucker wasn't buying, and drew the logical analogy.

MSNBC HOST TUCKER CARLSON: If Rudy Giuliani went down and asked David Duke for his support, would you say, "you know, it's unfair to hold Rudy Giuliani accountable for what David Duke said?" No, of course not! You'd write a cover story attacking him. That's a ludicrous point.

ALTER: Charles Barron is not David Duke, so let's not let that slide through, he's not David Duke.

CARLSON: I would say he's pretty close.

ALTER: If he was David Duke, you really wouldn't have him on your show, Tucker. Even you have limits.

CARLSON: No, actually, I don't.
...
Whether Barron is a black David Duke can be debated. But it is beyond cavil that Alter would vociferously condemn a Republican candidate who sought the support of a white leader with views mirroring Barron's.

Score this one for Tucker.

Score, indeed. Alter is typical of what I generally expect to get from the left: a P.C. panderer who speaks before he thinks (since he also "feels" before he thinks). Carlson nailed him with an appropriate analogy, and the best that Alter could muster was "it's not the same thing"...when actually, yeah, it is the same thing.

So, to recap Alter's position: shmoozing with a black racist is "super big-tent outreach", but shmoozing with a white racist would be horrible. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Duke lacrosse fallout

Brilliant column by Thomas Sowell:

The disbarment of Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong should be just the first step in remedying the gross and cynical fraud of last year's "rape" case against Duke University lacrosse players.

Not only is Nifong still liable to civil lawsuits from the three young men whose lives he tried to ruin, and criminal prosecution for his obstruction of justice and making false statements to a judge, there are many other people who disgraced themselves in hyping a lynch mob atmosphere when this case first broke last year.

The New York Times, which splashed these Duke students' pictures on the front page, along with inflammatory charges against them, and went ballistic on its editorial page, carried the story of Nifong's disbarment for prosecuting them on page 16.

The 88 Duke University faculty members who took out a hysterical ad, supporting those local loudmouths who were denouncing and threatening the Duke students, have apparently had nothing at all to say now.

Not only did many Duke University professors join the lynch mob atmosphere, so did the Duke University administration, which got rid of the lacrosse coach and cancelled the team's season, without a speck of evidence that anybody was guilty of anything.

This is one of the few times when Jesse Jackson is speechless, even though he was loudly supporting the bogus "rape" charges last year.

A local civil rights activist even had the gall to accost the mother of one of the accused students at Nifong's disbarment hearings to say that she still believes they were guilty.

The sad and tragic fact is that the civil rights movement, despite its honorable and courageous past, has over the years degenerated into a demagogic hustle, promoting the mindless racism they once fought against.

Although the committee that disbarred Michael Nifong said many things that needed to be said, they muddied the waters by saying that Nifong may have deceived himself before he deceived others.

Nothing that District Attorney Nifong did suggests that he ever thought these players were guilty or that he ever intended to bring them to trial.

The photo lineup presented to the stripper was so completely different from standard procedure that it was virtually an invitation for a judge to throw out any identification resulting from it -- and without that identification, there was no case.

This was not about winning a case. It was about winning an election.

Nifong could not allow a standard lineup to be used to have the accuser identify her alleged attackers, or else her unreliability would have been exposed early on, depriving him of a case to use to get the black vote in his election.

There is not the slightest reason to believe that Nifong was deceived or mistaken. He was not some kid fresh out of law school. He had decades of experience as a prosecutor. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Nor was the New York Times a naive ingenue in these matters. It had backed Al Sharpton's fraudulent accusations of rape in the Tawana Brawley case, which had the same politically correct elements of a black woman accusing white men of rape.

Nor were the 88 Duke faculty members who promoted a lynch mob atmosphere naive. Most were from departments promoting the "race, class, and gender" vision of victimhood.

This case served their purposes. That trumped any question about whether the charges were true or not.

Don't expect any of these people to recant or apologize. But be aware of how wide and how deep the moral dry rot goes.

That such people are teaching students at an elite university is a chilling thought. That they promote a campus atmosphere where political correctness trumps the search for truth is painful.

That such attitudes and such atmospheres are not peculiar to Duke University, but are common on elite college campuses from coast to coast is a time bomb with the potential to destroy individuals and ultimately undermine the whole society.

Personally, I think these Duke boys ought to do like Richard Jewell and sue the MSM outlets (especially the NYT) for their over-the-top piling-on. It worked for Jewell, though considering how the MSM worked this Duke case, one sees that the MSM learned nothing from the Jewell situation.

Linda Chavez: OK, not all who oppose amnesty are racist

Mighty big of her to acknowledge that, though I suspect the damage has been done. Here's the quasi-apology, from the race-baiter herself:

On May 25, I wrote a column entitled “Latino Fear and Loathing” that has provoked considerable anger and recriminations among my fellow conservatives. In the column I asserted that, “Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border,” and described some of the fears shaping these sentiments: “They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent, and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.” I said that those holding these views constituted less than ten percent of the population — an extrapolation of attitudes on race from several studies done over the years.

But it was a subsequent assertion that caused the most furor: namely that among this ten percent were “a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy ‘experts’ at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like The Minutemen.”

On reflection, I went too far. I blew off some steam and in the process offended some erstwhile allies. I should have been more careful in my wording and not tarred with such a broad brush. I should have been clearer that not everyone who opposes the Senate bill does so for illegitimate reasons. What I should have said was that those in positions of influence, whether elected leaders or talk-show hosts, have a special responsibility not to inflame racial passions and animosities by appealing to the small minority of Americans who are motivated by bigotry. I should have emphasized that the exploitation of prejudice, even if it is not shared or intended, is a danger to conservatives and the Republican party — and we should explicitly disavow it. But I’m not altogether unhappy I wrote the column, or a subsequent one describing the reaction it provoked. There are only so many times that you can be told to “go back to Mexico” and far worse before your blood starts to boil (and I’m talking about thousands of such responses over the last year). The immigration debate has stirred up some pretty ugly sentiments and conservatives need to be especially careful in this regard. We are, after all, the ones who argue for colorblind policies.
...
And one can certainly be concerned about illegal immigration — as I am — without being a racist, nativist, or xenophobe. ...
...

In summary, let me reiterate: There are good and decent people who oppose the current immigration bill for reasons that have nothing to do with disliking Mexicans. The legislation was put together in a short time frame and marks a dramatic change in U.S. immigration policy, some of which I’m not entirely comfortable with. And there are plenty of reasons to worry about illegal immigration and the burdens it imposes on communities. If people break the law, they should pay a price — the debate is over what that price should be. And there is no question that border security must be tightened — again the debate is, or should be, over how best to do that. ...

Gee, thanks for throwing us that bone. One wouldn't know that our concerns are legitimate by reading your prior words, or those of your apologists who accuse us of "quacking" to the beat of a bigoted drum.

Basically, it's a Durbinesque apology: I'm sorry if you're offended, not for what I said. Ms. Chavez, you can't just impugn the humanity and decency of your friends, colleagues, and ideological brethren by implying they're racist and expect us to just forget about it. Accusations like that hurt, and while you are busy lecturing us about what you expect from your fellow righties, you may want to heed your own advice and abstain from the race-baiting intellectual bankruptcy that we have come to expect from the other side. Otherwise, you're likely to lose friendships and comity with people that you know (or we thought you knew) by irrationally siding with people you will never know.

Linda Chavez: Why do Republicans hate Mexicans?

Linda Chavez, conservative in nearly all ways, penned a nice little race-baiting screed against people with principled objections to the amnesty plan in Congress. From Junkyard Blog:

Ragnar's Really Mad At Linda Chavez
And I can't say I blame him, because she's really making a scene, dragging out the ad hominems against anybody who disagrees with her:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

...
What a divisive hack Chavez is. I'm beyond sick of being called a racist by these open-borders zealots because I have a good-faith bee in my bonnet--and whether or not it's a concern you share, please accept this isn't some proxy issue for my secret phobia of Peruvian janitors--about the idea of terrorists, gangs, drugs, and weapons sneaking over the border. I spent some time and political capital defending Chavez's self-scuttled appointment to my friends, back in the day. Now, I'm very glad someone with that much ill-disguised contempt for her party's base isn't Secretary of Labor.

Speaking of which, that 2001 nomination of Chavez as Sec. of Labor gives a clear indication as to why she's all gung-ho about granting amnesty to criminal aliens. If you recall, she withdrew her nomination upon revelations that she once housed and employed...yup, you guessed it...a criminal alien. Hey, if nothing else, at least she's consistent!

This is truly pathetic. When it comes to issues like gerrymandered districts, affirmative action, quotas, or hate crimes, we've come to expect the left to abandon all pretense of honest political dialogue and go straight to the intellectually lazy and dishonest tactic of race-baiting, portraying all opponents of those things as being closet Klansmen. Now we're beginning to see the same lazy and dishonest (and shameful) approach from parts of the right. Well, screw them. Just as I won't cower in fear from some leftard breaking out the "bigot" label to describe my genuine opposition to race-based laws and policies, I certainly won't back down from a purported conservative trying the same crappy tactic.

AP: Do as we say, not as we do

My friends, pardon me for referencing yet another "good enough for me, but not for thee" situation, but this stuff just presents itself. From Michelle Malkin:

Associated Press writer Nancy Benac plays the "diversity" card with a piece tallying up how many women and minorities service in power positions for the various presidential candidates. The hit piece slamming Republicans for not promoting enough non-white people is titled "Democrats seek diversity in advisers:"

When the leading Republican presidential candidates sit down with their top advisers, those with a seat at the table don't exactly look like America, to use the phrase popularized by former President Clinton.
The 2008 presidential race is notable for the presence of a woman and a black among the leading Democratic candidates. But progress is much slower when it comes to diversifying the ranks of top decision-makers within the various campaigns, especially those of the Republicans.

The campaigns of the top GOP candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani — couldn't point to any key advisers who are black, although there are some women in the top tier. Not unsurprisingly, those campaigns with the most women and minorities among top staff members are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"Not unsurprisingly," eh? Fair and balanced at the AP, as always.

Perhaps Ms. Benac--journalistic concern troll for "diversity"--should start counting the racial and ethnic beans at her own organization. Take a look at the AP Board of Directors. Not unsurprisingly, it's "Do as we say, not as we do" with the liberal media elite. ...
...
Let's tally up so far...Here's your final tally:

22 members of the AP Board of Directors.

19 out of 22 are men.

0 out of 22 are "women of color."

1 out of 22 is a "man of color."

Ahem: Perhaps journalists who live in non-"diverse" houses...

In other words, Republicans are bigoted if they're "too white", but the AP just wants the most qualified person to fill a spot regardless of gender or race. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

"Diversity" at the AP

Liz Edwards: Bush rushed to VT instead of NO due to race

It is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to sympathize with Mrs. Silky Pony for her cancer when she continues to foment the cancer of racism in America. From Hot Air:

Elizabeth Edwards, playing the race card, says the President went to the Virginia Tech campus sooner than he went to see the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina because of race and the “prettier picture” (that’s a euphemism for white people).

This is BDS at its finest. These people complain President Bush waited too long to go to Katrina and now they’re complaining he went to Virginia Tech too soon. And they make race part of the issue both times, even though he’s appointed two black Secretaries of State and held on to Norm Mineta far too long past his sell-by date.

If the electorate can’t tell what a fake Elizabeth Edwards and her husband are by now, there is something seriously wrong.

It's hard for me to image why someone with a terminal disease like Liz Edwards has would want to spend her last days on Earth being a hateful, crazy #ss race-hustling moonbat.

Duke lacrosse players to sue? Plus, parallels with Imus

From Breitbart/AP:

The disgraced district attorney in the Duke lacrosse rape case apologized to the three athletes in a carefully worded statement Thursday as their lawyers weighed whether to sue him—and some legal experts say they have a case.

While prosecutors generally have immunity for what they do inside the courtroom, experts said that protection probably doesn't cover some of Mike Nifong's more questionable actions in his handling of the case—such as calling the lacrosse players "a bunch of hooligans" in one of several interviews deemed unethical by the state bar.

"I think their chances of success suing Mr. Nifong are reasonably good, despite what we call prosecutorial immunity," said John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.

Sue him into submission, gentlemen! Speaking of the Duke lacrosse players, this from Drudge:

On Imus' radio program (no longer simulcast on MSNBC) this morning, Chris Carlin, who covers sports for the program, discussed yesterday's dismissal of charges against the Duke lacrosse players.

(rough transcript)


DON IMUS: When will Al Sharpton be apologizing to them?

(LAUGHTER)

CARLIN: I'm unaware of such a press conference.

IMUS: I'll be darned...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: What Imus said was stupid, ignorant, and hurtful. However, I can only take so much of this leftist double-standard shizit for so long.

Let's recap:

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and a bunch of other race-hustling poverty pimps tar and feather the Duke lacrosse players as racist, using "white privilege" to terrorize a black stripper, being sexual predators, etc. Now that the charges against the players have been dropped, no apologies have come from these racebaiters. In other words, defame a group of innocent white males, and who cares?

In contrast, Don Imus calls the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed ho's" (or is it "hos" or "hoes"? But I digress.), and he loses his radio and TV shows. In other words, defame a group of innocent black females, and everyone cares!

Hey, it's not like black females are to be protected from these kinds of references. As Michelle points out, a cursory glance at certain rap songs (and these are but a drop in the bucket) use language and objectification astronomically worse than what Imus said. What happens to these rap artists? They sell millions of records, t-shirts, posters, etc., and are adored by fans world-wide. As Texas Rainmaker notes, "if only Imus had been young, black and full of rage..."

Then again, we can't fault Snoop D-o-double-jizzle or the pedophile R. Kelly for the way they objectify women, since it's all George W's fault...as in George Washington! Of course, Snoop says the ho's he raps about are completely different kinds of ho's...be-yotch. Cool...that clears it up for me. Thanks, Mr. Dizzle.

My heart doesn't bleed for Imus, but it weeps for the carnage that political correctness has levied upon this country.

Obama ticking off blacks for not stating the obvious

I've avoided the Imus flap for two main reasons: (1) it's getting enough coverage everywhere else that there's not much for me to add; and (2) it doesn't take a genius to see that the man said something so monumentally stupid.

Though I am obviously no fan of the empty suit from Illinois who'd like to be president (despite his pledge a couple of years ago to not seek the Oval Office), it seems to me that Sen. Barack Obama is catching hell for nothing. From the Boston fishwrap:

With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day.

Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host, did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." Obama did not address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air.

The episode is the first test of how Obama -- who is of mixed-race background -- is handling the contentious issue of race in his presidential campaign. Even as polls have shown other Democrats attracting a large share of the black vote, Obama has steered clear of the kind of activism symbolized by Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who were both highly visible in the Imus episode but whose aggressiveness on race issues has alienated some white voters in the past.

Quick sidebar: Sharpton's and Jackson's race-baiting as alienated SOME white voters IN THE PAST?? Earth to Boston: their race-baiting alienates MOST non-black voters PAST, PRESENT, and foreseeable FUTURE! That racist Shartpon has yet to apologize or be held fully accountable for his actions that have led to the death and assault and smearing of others: falsely accusing Steven Pagones of rape and mutilation of little Tawana Brawley (a crime that never occurred and cost Al $345k in defamation damages); inciting murder of "white interlopers" and arson at Freddie's Fashion Mart in Harlem; inciting the Crown Heights Riot because a Jewish cabbie had accidentally killed a black youth (an innocent Jew was stabbed to death in Sharpton's incited riot); etc. Until such time as that son of a b#tch apologizes or is held fully accountable, I have little tolerance for his calls for an apology from anyone! Now, back to the main point...

But with Obama battling other Democrats -- most notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -- for the support of black voters, the candidate's reticence on the Imus issue set off alarms yesterday among some black activists who are anxious to see him more forcefully push for racial justice.

Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, said Obama missed an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.

Lambasting an easy target qualifies as "leadership" in liberal circles? Wow. Good thing they're not overly concerned with terrorism or defense matters, since they clearly have bigger fish (an idiot broadcaster) to fry.

Barry O must not be black enough, since he's not piling on Imus like everyone else is. I have little sympathy for Imus here, but why is it news for a politician NOT to say something that really doesn't need to be said? Is our society so driven by the sound bite that Osamabama's failure to follow the sheep is newsworthy? I suppose ALL politicians have to find a camera or microphone ASAP, so as not to give the appearance of condoning Imus' remarks? How ludicrous!