RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell Targets Asian Actress In Hoekstra Ad, Calls For ‘Dirty Politics’ Boycott

And, so. Here’s this:

My co-worker Jon Bershad was watching this video with me, and he brought up another routine that has a very similar “point,” but was executed quite differently. In Improv Everywhere’s (recently re-released) “Meet A Black Person” sketch, the group set an actual, real-life Black Person™ up in Aspen, Colorado — a place, the video notes, that is but 0.44 percent black. He then proceeded to introduce himself to many white people enjoying a nice ski vacation.

Have a look:

Ha! And cringe! And more ha!

Now, I think Ackerman’s point here (and I’m sure you’ll happily and graciously let me know if you think I’m over-analyzing) is to do more than simply point out ignorance regarding Black History Month and famous black figures throughout history. This bit seems to focus on a wider-ranging ignorance and awkwardness that exists between two groups, as well as point out the manner in which people can sometimes live in a homogenized bubble with very little awareness of or interest in anything that exists outside of that. And that’s ripe for humor. Awesome concept; I’m on board. But. There are problems.

First, I’d like to ask Ackerman (whose work I’m, admittedly, not familiar with) if setting this up at a well-known Mormon school (called out by name in the video) is a deliberate choice. Is this supposed to be commentary on Mormons? Religious education? Religion in general? Conservatives?

And I’d also, you know, like to ask Ackerman about his use of blackface. The video notes that only three people said something about Ackerman not really being black, and that he finds this disturbing. But… why? Was this one of the video’s goals – to try and see whether (mostly) white BYU students would be able to read a dark person as being “not black”?

I guess I’m left with more questions than laughs.

What do you guys think, though? Was the video funny? What worked, what didn’t? And what, my dears, is your take on his use of blackface?

h/t Dave Ackerman, via BuzzFeed

The ad is for Stabenow’s rival, former congressman and current Senatorial candidate Pete Hoekstra. Hoekstra visited America Live Monday afternoon to address claims that his ad is inappropriate and plays on racially-charged stereotypes that, as one group put it, “encourage anti-Asian sentiment.”

“The only group of people that this ad is anti” Hoekstra said, “it’s anti-Debbie Stabenow, it’s anti-Barack Obama, the spending policies of the liberal left.”

RELATED: Ron Paul Supporters Release Racist Ad Depicting Jon Huntsman As Maoist Soldier

“You’ll notice that the ad,” he continued, “points to the opportunities that America’s dumb economic policies — deficit spending, trillion dollars of deficits, trillions and trillions of debt — it creates the opportunities for counties like China and others to take advantage of our weakness.”

Host Megyn Kelly brought up the fact that the young woman speaks broken English. (The actress, Kelly noted, is American and the ad’s dialogue was purposefully written in poor English.)

“Well, it’s not a stereotype at all,” Hoekstra responded. “This is a, you know, through the creative, this is a young woman in China who is speaking English. That’s quite an achievement.”

So, hey. Do you think that, if Hoekstra were able to spin any faster, he’d drill right through the Earth and actually end up in China?

A common pattern I’ve noticed whenever a person or institution is hit with charges of racism is the argument that something cannot be racist unless it displays hatred. But racism exists in many forms and, more often than not, these forms are subtle. This is the great achievement of racists: To promote a sense of inferiority or wrongness or potentially dangerous otherness that is so subtle as to be pervasive, built into the very way we speak and think about one another.

And that is the case with this ad.

Yes, it’s racist. No, you don’t have to be Mickey Rooney portraying a caricature of an East Asian man in Breakfast at Tiffany‘s to be racist, but you do have to remember that we’ve lived in a time when Mickey Rooney portrayed a caricature of an East Asian man in Breakfast at Tiffany‘s. I mean, this is a thing that happened! This was conceived, planned, and executed. Scores of people have gazed upon the finished product, either laughing or cringing or sighing or feel enraged. But it happened. It is the product of a culture that allowed this to exist.

And the same goes for this ad.

The young woman in the ad doesn’t simply happen to be Chinese. She’s not our Chinese pal, riding up to us on her bike to gossip about Michigan politics. She’s our enemy. She’s portrayed as smug, almost taunting us. “Thanks Debbie Spenditnow!” I mean, come on. This woman is awful. She’s annoying. She rubs us the wrong way. She’s glad we’re losing our grip on our economy. And that’s intentional. It’s intentional because we need an enemy to remind us why she shouldn’t vote for Hoekstra’s rival, and it’s easiest to create an enemy that caters to the deep-set, racially-charged fears already pervasive in American history and culture.

And what concerns me most about this isn’t that it’s incredibly lazy to use racist stereotypes in an effort to play upon voters’ fears. It’s not that this ad is insulting to Michigan voters because it operates on the assumption that fear and hatred, not reason or intelligence or thoughtfulness, are what ultimately drive a person to vote. What concerns me most is that this ad is the result of one of two conversations. Either 1) every single person working on this ad is so ignorant or so firmly ensconced in his or her own privilege that not one stopped to say, “Hey, isn’t there anything, you know. Kind of off about this?”, or 2) someone thought this — knew this — and decided it didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that through this ad runs a current of ignorance, hatred and fear. It didn’t matter that not all Chinese people work in fields, or speak English well enough to discuss the U.S. current economic situation yet not quite well enough to be grammatically correct. It doesn’t matter that the Chinese are not “our enemy.”

I wouldn’t vote for Debbie Stabenow (sorry, Senator). But I certainly wouldn’t vote for a person who is perfectly comfortable running on a platform built on fear of “The Other.”

Have at Hoekstra’s explanation, via Fox News:

The video below was posted to YouTube on January 25th by someone who isn’t a Tea Party fan, to say the least, hence the inflammatory subtitles you’ll see running across the bottom of the footage and between segments.

Matthews asked Bergmann whether she is a member of the Tea Party movement, and became dissatisfied with her answer there is no “membership” in the movement and that she is “affiliated” with “every organization.”

RELATED: Soledad O’Brien’s Starting Point Panel Argues Over Newt Gingrich Being ‘Subtly Racist’

“B.S me not,” he pressed on, asking her if the Tea Party is financing her campaign in any way, shape or form. “I would love for them to,” she replied, “but they’re just as broke as I am.” She then noted that, while the Tea Party once endorsed her, it now thinks of her as “a loose canon.”

The interview took a turn when Matthews asked Bergmann if she was a “token of white folk” being used by white people to harm the black community, then telling her to “shut up for a moment” when she tried to respond. Later on, he referred to her as a “token negro” and informed her she was “full of shit” after she’d given him unsatisfactory responses to his questions about her efforts in the 9th congressional district’s black communities.

Have a listen to Part I of the video:

As the interview continues, Matthews threatens to cut his guest’s mic, telling her “don’t be as stupid as I think you are.” When she remains unwilling to give him direct answers, he threatens to “put your ass up out of here.”

When Bergmann cuts off the interview, Matthews tells her to “get your ass up out of here, get your stupid, ignorant ass up out of my studio. Another token-ass negro,” refusing to shake her hand as she leaves.

“I’m scared,” he continued, “because some of that whiteness might rub off on me.”

Here’s Part 2:

h/t The Blaze

RELATED: Newt Gingrich: ‘If Obama Is Re-Elected, It Will Be A Disaster For The U.S.’

“He’s going after a southern mentality, and racial allusions, always wrapped around when he refers to the president, when he talks about this food stamp stuff,” MSNBC anchor Rev. Al Sharpton observed. “These are — Newt Gingrich is many things, stupid is not one of them. He knows exactly what he’s saying, he knows exactly who he’s playing to, when you look at that map, when you deal with the northern border of Florida, which is southern Alabama, he knows what card he’s playing.”

Watch the MSNBC panelists call Gingrich out below:

Kelly opened the segment by playing back radio host Joe Madison‘s recent comments to MSNBC’s Al Sharpton about the widely-circulated photo of Governor Jan Brewer wagging her finger in President Barack Obama‘s face. There are simply some people, Madison had said, “who cannot stand the fact that this is an African-American who is now one of the most powerful individuals on the planet.” Which is to say: Brewer’s decision was motivated by racism aimed at the President.

RELATED: Al Sharpton Guest: Jan Brewer Incident Is More Race-Related Disrespect For President Obama

Greene started things off by making it clear that, as she sees it, Brewer is not a racist person. “But the reality is,” she continued, “we live in a country, we live in a world where there is, you know, bias that we have that is subconscious.” Greene also wondered whether Brewer would have, as she put it, “felt threatened” had the President been white. Perhaps, she ventured, that reaction is result of subconsciously racist behavior.

Webb noted that women (of any race) can often feel threatened by men (regardless of race). Greene wasn’t buying it. “By the President?” she asked. “In front of cameras, in front of an entire audience, in front of the press corps?”

Webb moved on to Sharpton, Madison and Jesse Jackson’s analysis of the confrontation. “Did Jan Brewer’s finger,” he asked, “have the N-word written on it? Maybe that would’ve made it racist. Or is this a case where the President and his acolytes need to call out the ‘Black Mafia’ — which is what they are — to turn it into racism?”

Kelly then brought up the fact the White House is suing the state of Arizona, and that Obama had essentially “started” the argument by bringing up Brewer’s negative depiction of him in her book. Greene praised Brewer for her ambition and mettle, but opined that the Governor had nonetheless “wanted a confrontation on immigration” because it’s good for her, politically, to show aggression against the President:

And that is where I do point fault at her. Because she may not be be a racist, but she also understands, by her taking that stance, she is tapping into some of those racial undertones that we have in this country. And for David to deny that they exist is ludicrous.

Webb, meanwhile, thinks the “Black Mafia” would do well to focus their efforts and energies elsewhere — like, say, on accusations of racial discrimination within the Occupy movement. Greene had just about enough at that point, calling out Webb for his repeated use of the term “Black Mafia,” which, as she sees it, serves to criminalize members of the black community for their opinions. It is disrespectful, offensive and uncalled for, she added.

Remember, Webb added later, that Obama is biracial. “He’s half white,” he said. “Which side do they hate?”

Watch what happened, via Fox News:

RELATED: Drama Clubbed: Jan Brewer Says ‘I Felt A Little Bit Threatened’ By President Obama

Rev. Al opened the segment by calling Gov. Brewer’s finger-pointing “unacceptable” and “disrespectful,” noting “but she’s not apologizing.”

He played video of Brewer recounting the incident to reporters, calling the President “thin-skinned,” and saying she “felt a little bit threatened.”

To his credit, Rev. Sharpton is one of the few commentators to key in on the racial subtext of Brewer’s remarks. “Thin skinned? You felt threatened?” he said. “What does that even mean, you felt threatened? By the President of the United States? This is yet another example of disrespect and delegitimatizing this president.”

RELATED: Why Won’t Black People Let Newt Gingrich Help Them?

Rev. Al then played a fairly comprehensive rundown of clips that featured prominent Republicans behaving disrespectfully toward the President, including Rep. Joe Wilson‘s infamous “You lie!” moment. Speaking of lying, Sharpton also noted Gov. Brewer’s dueling descriptions of her 2010 meeting with the President, which was the genesis of the tarmac dispute.

“So Governor Brewer,” Rev. Sharpton said, “when were you telling the truth? When you just walked out of the meeting and told the press in front of the White House, with a smile on your face, how it was cordial and how the tone was very good, positive, or when you wrote a book saying it was condescending, and he was lecturing you?”

He also characterized Brewer’s handing of a letter to the President as political grandstanding. That letter centers around what sounds like an invitation for the President to be lectured by Brewer, to learn at her knee, if you will. “I’d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones,” it reads.

Joe Madison weighed in by pointing out that even a small child knows it is disrespectful to point in someone’s face, and related some suggestions he got from his radio audience, including bending back her finger, to having the Secret Service jack Brewer up. “I give the President of the United States credit for doing what?” Madison said. “Walking away.”

Madison also told Rev. Al to add to his dis list Newt Gingrich’s (and others) tendency to refer to the President simply as “Obama,” and Republicans’ demands to see the President’s grades. “Excuse me,” Madison said, “what 50-year-old-plus man has to provide his grades? What, getting elected as the president of the Harvard Review is not enough?”

He continued, “This is nothing more, and I’ll just say it straight up. There are some people, not all, in this country who cannot stand the fact that this is an African-American who is now one of the most powerful individuals on the planet. And there are those who cannot consciously and subconsciously handle it.”

“You know you’re not going to get a debate from me,” Rev. Al replied. “They brought race in. They put a race deck on the table. If you pull a card, it’s a race card because they set the deck.”

What you have to ask yourself is not whether Republican leaders have been disrespectful to this president, but whether they have done so in ways that white presidents have not had to deal with. The same holds true for liberal critics of the President, are they treating him as they would a white Democratic president?

This doesn’t have to mean that all of these folks hate black people. People like Gov. Brewer and Speaker Gingrich ought to ask themselves if they have succumbed to something more insidious, this tendency in white media culture (or as I call it, “media culture”) to promote, at best, informality with (and among) black people, the effect of which is to lower the inhibition to behave bluntly.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

“My sincerest apologies go out to the East Haven community and, in particular, the Latino community for the insensitive and off-collar comment that I made to WPIX reporter Mario Diaz yesterday regarding the recent events affecting our community and our police department,” Maturo said in a statement. “Unfortunately, I let the stress of the situation get the best of me and inflamed what is already a serious and unfortunate situation.”

RELATED: John McCain: ‘We Have To Fix Our Problems With The Hispanics’

“Just tell us, do you think the apology would be enough?” grilled Carroll. “I think that would help.”

“I certainly hope so,” exclaimed Maturo. “I created something that went viral. It was something that the media says gotcha, and ran with it. I accept full responsibility. I have apologized profusely!”

“It would be helpful if you at least tried to explain what you were trying to say about the Latino community?” Caroll continued. “That’s what I’m saying.”

“There dare I go getting myself in trouble again!” Maturo dodged.

“What were you trying to say?” Carroll pressed.

“All I meant was I don’t feel bad going into any community — I didn’t feel persecuted by what happened in our town prior to that, so by going into another section — that’s all it meant, is that I could go into a different section of the community and have a bite to eat. I didn’t feel — I didn’t feel as though I was being for our town was being discriminatory or that I was — I wasn’t afraid to talk to or be in the company of anybody.”

Watch the segment below via CNN:

(h/t CNN)

I thought I’d put Fineman’s claim to the test, using last night’s debate. The results were surprising.

Huffpo‘s Howard Fineman and host Chris Matthews were discussing tonight’s State of the Union Address, and Matthews began by criticizing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for “blasting what he hasn’t heard yet” in a “pre-buttal” in Florida earlier today. Maybe Romney has watched Minority Report too many times, because he accused the President of “us(ing) the State of the Union to divide our nation.”

Fineman called out the kettle in Romney’s premonition, pointing out that “You and I just spent the last month immersed in and covering some of the most divisive rhetoric I have heard on the campaign trail for years.”

“They don’t accept the President’s legitimacy in many ways,” he continued. “I have never heard Newt Gingrich call President Obama ‘President Obama.’ It’s usually just ‘Obama.’

“And I know that sounds like a trivial thing,” Fineman added, “but it’s not. It’s very important.”

The trend that Fineman identifies has even been cause for outrage among the President’s supporters coming from liberal critics of the President, and while there most certainly plenty of people who dismissively referred to “Bush” during the last administration, that level of informality becomes outright disrespect when practiced by those seeking the office.

While it’s true that Gingrich uses the President’s full title when he’s appending it with “food stamps,” I took a look at last night’s debate transcript, and found something surprising. The unsurprising part is that Speaker Gingrich mentioned the President by name seven times, and didn’t once address him as “President Obama,” calling him “Barack Obama” four times, and spitting out “Obama” three times.

What is surprising is that only one of the four candidates, who collectively mentioned the President 14 times (not including “Obamacare”), referred to him as “President Obama” at all. If you guessed it was “Don’t I look presidential?” Mitt Romney, you would be wrong.

It was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who used the title 3 out of the 5 times he mentioned him. Of the other two instances, one was a reference to “Barack Obama” while he was in the Senate, and the other was in a sentence that immediately followed a reference to President Obama: “Iran is not just another country, or a little, small country, as President Obama said classically during the campaign. Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.”

There’s probably not a lot of crossover between Sen. Santorum’s supporters and the President’s, but at least Santorum has the decency to address our president (and his) with the respect he has earned.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s Hardball:

Schultz began the segment with a clip of Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) telling CNN, “Newt Gingrich is throwing red meat to the base, saying little words and phrases that we are very familiar here in the South. I’m saying he’s appealing to an element in this party that will see President Obama as different from all other presidents that we have had.”

Gingrich responded to that generous critique (it’s really not coded at all) by saying “It’s unfornate that liberal leaders, whatever their ethnic background, can’t have an honest open debate about policies that fail. The fact is far more whites than blacks are on food stamps, and liberals shouldn’t get away with hiding the consequence of their bad policies by yelling racism.”

This is a strange statement by Gingrich, because he appears to be correcting himself. It wasn’t “liberal leaders” who singled out black people as being “satisfied with food stamps,” it was Newton Leroy Gingrich. It wasn’t “liberal leaders” who singled out urban poor kids to become 9 year-old janitors, it was Gingrich. He appears to want it both ways, to be a “teller of uncomfortable truths” about race to his base, while whitewashing his rhetoric for the CNNs of the world.

Panelist Martin Bashir tried to correct Gingrich, telling Schultz “We know today that more people were collecting food stamps under George W. Bush than are under President Obama. Something like a difference of half a million people.”

Bashir misstates the case somewhat, but he’s referring to the fact that Gingrich’s assertion that more people have been added to the food stamp rolls under President Obama than any other president is false. Under Bush, the number of food stamp recipients rose by 14.7. Under President Obama, 14.2 million have been added, but the number actually declined in the most recent month available.

Walsh then tied Gingrich’s race-baiting to Mitt Romney‘s economic opportunism, telling Ed “We have a really interesting case study in the Republican party in these two candidates because Mitt is the candidate, a vulture capitalist that hollowed out the middle class and represented and enriched the top 1%. Newt is the face of the politics of resentment and racism and angry white male rage that let guys like Mitt do that to the economy. They work hand-in-hand.”

Unfortunately, they will continue to work hand-in-hand as long as the mainstream media continues to let Gingrich skate on his explicit uses of race to stir up the base. When he gets in the polite company of mainstream journalists, he claims he was talking about all people, and far too few of those mainstreamers have the stomach for this fight, for simply saying, “No, that’s not what you said.”

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

RELATED: Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: Bill Maher’s Racial Stereotypes Were Worse Than Eric Bolling’s

The right loves to hold up the frequently over-the-line things that Bill Maher says as examples of “lefty hate,” but just because he spends most of his time attacking Republicans doesn’t mean he’s one of us. Politically, he’s a left-leaning libertarian (“libertarian” is a word for conservatives who reserve the right to smoke pot and screw), but philosophically, he’s a privileged contrarian dick. His SOPA rant is perfect evidence of this, as he begins by stipulating that he knows nothing about the proposed legislation, then gives his uninformed opinion, anyway.

That opinion appears to be that online piracy costs him money, so even if the proposed law might chill free speech (again, without bothering to read it), let’s not be too hasty. “Moral dimension” notwithstanding, most of the people who watched Religulous for free online probably weren’t the same people who would have otherwise paid twenty bucks for the DVD, so Maher should calm down about the real dollars he lost. Online piracy is wrong, but as today’s Up with Chris Hayes panel pointed out, it’s not nearly worth the risk this proposed solution presents.

Of a piece with that sense of entitlement (to a completely uninformed opinion, to even more money than he’s already got, possibly at the expense of free speech) is Maher’s remark about “Caucasian looting,” which not only posits IRL looting as the exclusive province of black people, but conversely evinces a belief that black people generally lack the capability or opportunity to engage in online piracy. From Maher’s perch, he’s not insulting black people, he’s simply slamming white people using an observation that, let’s face it, “we” all know is true, wink, wink. It’s the flip-side of the so-called “race realism” that Newt Gingrich is driving ‘em wild with down in South Carolina.

In much the same way, Maher probably views his constant references to President Obama as a ghetto gang thug as compliments, “positive” uses of stereotypes to illustrate the President’s toughness. It helps to be part of a racial majority for whom no such marginal character exists.

Because he’s so very good at trashing Republicans, Maher doesn’t take much heat for this sort of thing from the left. That’s a shame, because Maher is an often-gifted comedian and sharp cultural critic whose gender and race issues severely undermine him. If the people he listens to would call him out on it, maybe Bill Maher would adjust his attitude.

Here’s the clip, from HBO:

RELATED: Why Won’t Black People Let Newt Gingrich Help Them?

To catch you up, Fox News debate moderator Juan Williams challenged Gingrich, Monday night, on his recent escalation of his decades-long pattern of denigrating black people and other minorities. Gingrich explained that he wants to help black people (he winkingly referred to “all Americans,” but Williams’ question was about his singling-out of black people; the crowd understood) learn how to get jobs, and get off of the food stamps that our “Food Stamp President” has them strung out on. The debate crowd erupted in a standing ovation that Gingrich’s campaign immediately turned into a campaign ad.

Later in the week, Gingrich thanked a woman who congratulated him for “putting that Juan Williams in his place.”

In the clip from Friday, Gingrich talks to a crowd of South Carolina voters about his putting of Juan Williams in his place at that debate, and says “The right to pursue happiness, in my judgment, implies pursuit or activity, which implies the work ethic. I had an interesting dialogue Monday night in Myrtle Beach with Juan Williams about the idea of work. which seemed to Juan Williams to be a strange, distant concept. Something worthy of study in an academic environment, but certainly not something to be subjected to young people.”

Hayes reacted strongly to the clip, saying “That is so racist, it makes me want to curse on air. That is…”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein was incredulous. “I hadn’t seen that before. That is unbelievable. That’s worse than anything NPR ever said about Juan Williams. Way worse.

The Daily Beast‘s Michelle Goldberg said “I kept thinking I bet Juan Williams wishes he had stayed at NPR.”

RELATED: Melissa Harris-Perry To Host MSNBC Weekend Show Starting In February

“I think this is part of the point,” future Up lead-out Melissa Harris Perry began. “The fact you can name three jobs Juan Williams has had in the last week, I mean, I certainly have a lot of ideological disagreements with Juan Williams, but the idea that he is not a hard worker is bizarre.”

“More than that,” Harris-Perry continued, “the other thing that’s bizarre, most of Juan Williams’ ideological discourse, at least over the course of the past decade, has tracked closer to this scenario about, you know, hard work. In fact, I recently heard him talk about how the poor have to defer gratification, they can’t — they’re not going to be able to buy the consumer items. They have to make different sorts of choices. It has a strong narrative, not only personal work ethic but a strong narrative. The sense this could be about anything other than race is pretty appalling.”

I shared Klein’s surprise at this newest clip, and I think that’s a symptom of how the mainstream media has given Gingrich a pass on his race-baiting rhetoric, reporting his gains in the horse race, but doing a poor job of reporting how he has been buoyed by this stoking of racial resentment. Hayes & company go on to say that this sort of thing will hamstring Gingrich in a general election, but I’m not so sure.

Gingrich and his erectly-ovating supporters have convinced themselves that he’s not being racist, he’s just telling uncomfortable truths about black people that the liberal media is too cowardly to say out loud. If they’re also too cowardly to say, out loud, that Gingrich is using reprehensible racial politics, you might be surprised at how Gingrich’s rhetoric resonates with “independents,” a notoriously malleable (and white) bunch.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

RELATED: Jimmy Carter Tells Piers Morgan That Gingrich Has ‘Subtlety Of Racism’

“Let me just say,” O’Brien noted, “that we have the most black people ever around the table for Starting Point in the history of Starting Point!” A true thing!

Getting back on topic, former Republican candidate Herman Cain said he was not amused by Carter’s comments. “I usually don’t get this intense: That is ridiculous. When they talk about coded words,” he said, “that’s talking about race. Take race out of it. It has nothing to do with it.”

Fellow panelist Roland Martin disagreed, pointing out that it was Gingrich who made race an issue by specifically mentioning the NAACP.

South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott and O’Brien then spoke over one another in voicing their disagreement over what, exactly, Gingrich had said. “I won’t talk over you because you’re a lovely woman,” said Scott.

“I know,” she replied. “It’s my show, though. I’ve got to get a point in occasionally.”

Watch the disagreement, via CNN:

RELATED: Why Won’t Black People Let Newt Gingrich Help Them?

In 2000, the state of South Carolina reached a compromise on the issue of the Confederate flag, which used to fly over the capitol dome, but is now relegated to a less-prominent position in front of the capitol. That compromise, though, was overwhelmingly rejected by the state’s black caucus, and by the NAACP. The NCAA still boycotts South Carolina over the decision.

Gingrich was recently asked about flying the flag in South Carolina (the questioner was booed), and responded with the predictable “states’ rights” argument, then undercut that argument by claiming he was against segregation and slavery, two other issues that have historically been tied to states’ rights, under that same flag. Here’s the exchange, via ThinkProgress:

Newt’s reasoning flies in the face of the Civil Rights movement, which seeks to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. It’s a convenient, winking dodge.

RELATED: President Obama Invokes States’ Rights In Speech At LGBT Gala

Current frontrunner Mitt Romney, on the other hand, spoke out so strongly against the Confederate flag in 2008, a pro-Confederate group actually ran ads against him (and John McCain). When Romney was asked about it at that 2008 debate, he began with that realpolitik look of discomfort, hemming a bit and saying, “I’m not going to get involved in a flag like that” (translation: I wish you weren’t asking me this!), but to his credit, went on to say he agreed with the rest of America’s decision not to fly that flag, and spoke about its divisiveness:

There are probably a lot of conservatives who will groan at this question and consider it a trap, but really, it is a great crucible to judge the courage and conviction of these candidates. Avoiding the question of whether the Confederate flag is a racist symbol by evoking “states’ rights” is sheer (ironic) cowardice. If you believe all of that “Heritage, Not Hate” guff (funny, you never hear German-Americans clamoring to fly a Nazi flag on public property), you ought to be willing and able to articulate that point.

If you believe it is a symbol of racism, of those who fought under it to protect the enslavement of other Americans, you should say so, even if you think it might cost you some votes in South Carolina. Hell, if you make your case well enough, you might change a few minds.

Nobody is saying you can’t fly the flag on your lawn or at your business. State property, however, belongs to members of the United States of America. When I want to show that I’m proud to be from New Jersey, I fly the Jets flag, but I don’t expect anyone to run it up the flagpole in Trenton. If only.

There may be a legitimate gray area (pardon the pun) with regard to the historical significance of the flag and those who died for it, but the folks I see displaying it don’t really look all that much like historians. Any reasonable person would see that whatever weight is on that side of the scale is a feather compared to the weight of terror and misery on the other.

Even if you just want to display the flag because you’re a bigot, that’s fine. This is a free country, and all in all, I think we’d rather know who you are. I just don’t think that decent people should have to pass under it on their way into a state capitol, just because 51% or more of their neighbors are knuckleheads.

Romney hasn’t weighed in on the flag during this election cycle, and perhaps he would rather not, but if CNN is at all worth their salt, they’ll ask him about it tonight.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich And Juan Williams Rumble Over Proposed ‘Child Janitors’ Claim

I’ve been critical of Gingrich in the past, but his stirring performance at that debate, buoyed by the cheering of my fellow whites, ripped the scales from my eyes. He doesn’t want to feed white resentment of black people, he wants to help black people learn how to get jobs, and get off of the food stamps that our “Food Stamp President” has them strung out on.

In case you missed it, here’s Newt’s tour de force from Monday night:

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Newt paid lip service to the PC crowd by throwing in references to “all Americans,” but we know who he’s talking about. Not because we’re psychic, but because he has bravely said so. In New Hampshire, he courageously voiced what so many white people wish they could say out loud, that black people “should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

RELATED: Gingrich Would Tell The NAACP To ‘Demand Paychecks And Not Be Satisfied With Food Stamps’

At the time, I was still confused, and thought Gingrich was just race-baiting, but now, I realize that his statement, like so many others, was based on facts and truth. Fact: black people are disproportionately represented on food stamp rolls, as a percentage of the population. I’ll get to why that is in a minute, but first, I’d like to fight back against the talking point that most food stamp recipients are white.

That is true, but you have to realize that there’s a key difference. White people on food stamps are just down on their luck, and mostly because of the one black guy who hasn’t lost his job in this economy, if you catch my drift. Newt’s far more subtle rival Mitt Romney explained it well when he said “Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my opinion is still middle class.”

RELATED: Mitt Romney Says People Who Fall Into Poverty Are ‘Still Middle Class’

Those are the white people, and the good ones (the good ones are the black people that Newt isn’t talking about. You know, the exceptions to the rule). Why the difference? You think it’s because of skin color, but it’s not. As Newt has explained, time and again, it’s because black people haven’t learned how to work. That sounds racist, but he’s not saying they can’t work, or don’t want to work, but that America (and more specifically, liberals) haven’t taught them how to work. Newt’s a historian, remember, and black people do have a history of disproportionate poverty and unemployment that white people don’t.

My fellow liberals attacked Newt Gingrich when he made a series of factual observations about black children, and the example their parents set for them. First, he sensibly recommended that 9-12 year-old children in “poor neighborhoods” (you know what that means, right? “Urban?”) should clean toilets so they would learn to “show up on Monday.”

He referenced this again at Monday’s debate, explaining that if after-school jobs were good enough for white children who choose to work because they are thriving in school, they ought to be twice as beneficial to children in poor, failing schools, whose families desperately need the money after the real janitor got fired. But this isn’t just about “exploiting” child labor, it’s about turning around a destructive, observable cultural phenomenon. Here’s Newt speaking that truth:

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

Again, it sounds racist, but it is an observable fact that black people are disproportionately unemployed, and they’re way over-represented in our prisons. Ironically, the disparity in drug sentencing between black people and white people would seem to indicate that they haven’t even gotten all that good at the illegal jobs, amiright?

Rather than curse the darkness (oops! Did I say that?), Newt has agreed to light a burning, brilliant candle (perhaps in the shape of a cross, to emphasize faith) that will show the wayward blacks of this country how to “find a job, get a job, and learn someday to own the job.”

Here’s your first lesson, brothers and sisters: do something about your names so you don’t get put into the “special pile” of job applications. (You think it’s an accident that “Leroy” is Newt’s middle name?) Once you get your foot in the door, you can use all of your Google-assisted knowledge to make sure you don’t use “the language of living in a ghetto.”

Monday night’s debate was a real turning point for me. When Speaker Gingrich put that uppity Juan Williams in his place with that delicious pronunciation of his name – “No, Hwan…” – the penny finally dropped for me. I realized that Newt wasn’t playing to the racial resentment of that South Carolina crowd (how great is it that Newt made his stand in the home of the greatest black-people job-training program in human history?), but rather, he was marshaling our opposition to the Kenyan mau-mau President and his Democrat plantation masters who have kept black people down lo these many three years.

“Really?” Morgan exclaimed as Carter spoke, later adding, “That’s a pretty serious charge to level at Newt Gingrich, that he’s being racist.”

“I’m not saying he’s racist, but he knows the subtle words to use to appeal to a racist group,” Carter responded.

“Same thing, isn’t it?” Morgan interjected.

“Not quite,” President Carter replied, adding “Newt Gingrich is probably as enlightened as I am about being gratified that we’re in the desegregation years in the South,” but “when you emphasize, over and over, welfare, food stamps, and ‘why don’t the black people get jobs,’ and if I’m president, I’ll make sure they turn toward a work ethic, rather than an ethic of welfare and food stamps, that’s appealing to the wrong element in South Carolina.”

Given the South Carolina debate crowd’s reaction to Gingrich, they may be, as Carter says, the “wrong crowd,” but they’re a big one.

You can see the rest of Piers Morgan’s interview with former President Jimmy Carter tonight at 9pm, on CNN.

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

RELATED: MSNBC Ousts Pat Buchanan: Are His Views Different Now? Or Just MSNBC’s?

“On Drudge Report, somebody said I’ve been suspended,” Buchanan added. “I don’t know anything about that. I hope to get back full up here in January, but I’ve been out for a couple of months.”

Earlier, it was reported that network president Phil Griffin had placed Buchanan on indefinite suspension over controversial passages in his book, Suicide of a Superpower.

“I don’t think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth [in the book] are appropriate for national dialogue on MSNBC,” Griffin reportedly said. “He won’t be coming back during the book tour.” Respondng to a question over whether Buchanan would be back at all, Griffin replied “I have not made my decision.”

Listen to Buchanan dispute reports he’s been suspended below, via The Hugh Hewitt Show:

(h/t Daily Caller)

RELATED: Rick Santorum To John King: I Didn’t Say Black People, I Said ‘Blah’ People

“There are people out there who will say that you and I are more sensitive because we happen to be African-American,” Lemon said to Taylor.

Taylor said race didn’t make a difference. “This is a human rights issue,” Taylor opined. “So whether you’re black, brown, white, you know, asian, or gay, lesbian, straight, this is a human rights issue.

Lemon then played the clip of Rick Santorum explaining how he didn’t say he didn’t want to make “black peoples” lives better. The two gave a deadpanned paused, then completely cracked up.

“This is a result of running with scissors!” Taylor quipped.

“The narrative that seems to be coming out of this GOP field seems to be that we don’t want to give our hard earned dollars to people who don’t work — to people who are lazy, to people who are, you know, involved in criminal behavior, to other people who have not earned what we have earned. That seems to be what Newt Gingrich is saying. That seems to be what Ron Paul has been saying. It certainly seems to be what our friend, Rick Santorum was saying on that tape. If he didn’t get the rest of the word out, I’m still not giving him a discount.”

Watch Lemon and Taylor criticize some of the GOP candidates on race issues below via CNN:

RELATED: Ghost Of Christmas Past: Ron Paul Favored Federal Slaveowner Bailout Over Civil War

Paul acknowledged the private property rights of small business owners, no matter what the circumstance, while decrying Jim Crow laws as government-sanctioned segregation. He made the case that if you are for personal liberty and less government intervention, you must be willing to protect all private property, whether it be the bedroom in one’s house or a restaurant owned by a racist businessman.

However, Paul did not exactly address the main thrust of Wallace’s question, which was specifically about the right to segregate on said property. Wallace asked again, and Paul’s first line of defense was to dismiss the notion that any sensible businessman in the 21st century would lack the business savvy to welcome in all customers regardless of creed or color. He personally believes that such practices are “morally wrong,” but Paul stated he placed a higher value on property rights.

RELATED: Ron Paul Tells CNN’s Candy Crowley: Civil Rights Act ‘Destroyed’ Privacy

And as for anyone who might think Paul harbors racist views because of this position, he suggested the bigger culprit in this case was the federal government for implementing slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation in the military.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Angered by the employee’s racism, Cho tweeted at Papa John’s, sending them a photo of the receipt in question.

“Hey @PapaJohns just FYI my name isn’t ‘lady chinky eyes,’”

The tweet soon went viral and the picture has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

Embarrassed by the incident, Papa John’s apologized via Facebook and Twitter:

We were extremely concerned to learn of the receipt issue in New York. This act goes against our company values, and we’ve confirmed with the franchisee that this matter was addressed immediately and that the employee is being terminated. We are truly sorry for this customer’s experience.

This is the second incident involving Asian-American targeted racism to occur at a Fast Food restaurant in recent weeks. In December, a Chick-fil-A in Irvine, California gave two Asian-American students receipts with the terms “Ching” and “Chong”.

UPDATE: According to Gothamist’s Ben Yakas, Papa John’s “fired the 16-year-old high school girl who wrote it.” The New York Post notes that employees at the pizza franchise believed the woman overreacted: “I think the lady put it out there just to get some attention—some people like that type of attention,” said a manager. “I truly don’t think it’s fair. It’s been taking up all our time. It’s been very disruptive.”

(h/t HuffPo)

When asked to explain “how it was possible that those kind of comments went out under your name without you knowing about them,” Paul noted that he has already done so several times, reiterating once again that he did not write the remarks in question. Furthermore, he noted, this wasn’t the right question to have asked about the contents of those newsletters:

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview

[T]he inference is obvious that… and you even bring up the word, racial overtones. More importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship is for racial relationships. And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks. But also, I’m the only one up here — and the only one in the Democratic party — that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system, and it has to do with enforcing the drug laws. Look at the percentages. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately.

RELATED: Ron Paul SuperPAC Ad Pushes Back Against Racism Charge

Minorities also suffer more, he added, when it comes to being drafted into war.

Have a listen to his response, via ABC:

RELATED: Ron Paul Supporters Release Racist Ad Depicting Jon Huntsman As Maoist Soldier

“My two little sisters are the love of my dad’s life. They came from unfortunate circumstances. and we are blessed every day to have them in our lives. Unfortunately, the Ron Paul supporters don’t understand this affects the Ron Paul campaign.”

Kelly wondered if inflammatory campaign ads like this keep people away from politics.

“I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like this,” Livingston added. “It’s unfortunate that it happened…my dad loves his daughters more than anything in the world. I hope this stuff doesn’t continue to happen anymore.”

Watch Livingston discuss the ad with Megyn Kelly below via Fox News:

Watch the original controversial ad below:

RELATED: Herman Cain Seems To Reveal That He Was Unaware Of China’s Nuclear Capability

The ad begins asking of Huntsman, “The Manchurian Candidate,” “What’s he hiding?” It features “traditional” Chinese music and clips of Huntsman doing things in China: speaking Mandarin, taking interviews from Chinese press, walking around in China– you get the idea. It then asks a series of questions during the montage like, “American values, or Chinese?” and “Weak on China? Wonder why?” It also takes a detour to slam him for being Mormon (“A man of faith?”) before the coup de grace, a doctored photo of Huntsman in what appears to be Maoist military garb. Essentially, it makes “Willie Horton” look like Will.I.Am’s “Yes We Can” ad.

The ad is part of an account labeled “New Hampshire Liberty 4 Paul” on YouTube and appears to have no connections to any actual Rep. Paul SuperPAC or his official campaign. But it has been floating around the blogosphere and, given that the reaction in many circles to it has been something to the effect of “those crazy Ron Paul fans strike again!” rather than “This is a joke, right?” is just as much of a problem– in fact– possibly the central problem– the Rep. Paul campaign faces in this election. The predominant attitude towards this campaign is that it would, entirely seriously, have supporters who would launch attacks like this. And even in the event that this ad is revealed to be a joke, the fact that most take it at face value is indicative of precisely the challenge Rep. Paul faces and what kind of campaign many– rightfully or otherwise– believe he is capable of.

Then there is the actual content of the ad, which is problematic (though not entirely surprising) in itself. There is a long and storied tradition on American history of discrimination against far east Asians, particularly of Chinese descent. While this ad, ridiculous as it is, may remind many of you of myriad different political attacks in the election sphere, the quote that came most to mind for me was from Justice Harlan’s dissent in the “separate but equal” case Plessy v. Ferguson. In short, this is what “non-racist” people sounded like, not so long ago in America:

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

And that’s not even mentioned the (still totally legal!) internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans for no reason during WWII. Even when overt discrimination against black Americans became entirely socially unacceptable (some may argue it is still not entirely so), the alternative discrimination against Asian Americans was considered a responsible alternative. As far as history goes, Rep. Paul’s supporters may then be onto something here, igniting racial thoughts in voters that will cause Republicans to distrust Huntsman. But that doesn’t make it any less vile, and toxic for Rep. Paul himself should he not denounce it.

Watch the ad below:

According to reports, Santorum said ”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”

The comment was first reported by NPR’s Ted Robbins, who added, “Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn’t seem to care.”

We tracked down a clip of Santorum’s comment, from Wichita, KS CBS affiliate KWCH, in which the anchor appears to be reading at least some copy from the NPR report, but the clip doesn’t include the question that prompted Santorum’s response. We reached out to the Santorum campaign for a transcript of the event, but they have not responded as yet. The anchor reports the comment as one that “some say is racist,” and in this clip, it sounds like he’s just invoking the plight of black people out of thin air, which, to a crowd of voters in “too white” Iowa, would smack of the “welfare queen” race-baiting outgrowth of the Republican Southern Strategy. Here’s that clip, from Kansas CBS affiliate KWCH:

A review of a clearer version of the video, however, casts serious doubt on whether Santorum actually said “black people’s lives.”

CBS News has posted a cleaner version of Santorum’s remarks, and it seems as though Santorum did not actually say “black people’s lives,” but rather, that he stumbled in mid-sentence with a verbal tic that sounded like that.

“I don’t want to make…mmbligh…people’s lives better” is what it sounds like to me, although CBS News also transcribes it as “”make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Given the preceding context, in which he talks about the government trying to get more Iowans enrolled in Medicaid, the former explanation makes much more sense than the latter.

The Santorum campaign has still not returned our request for comment.

Here’s the CBS clip. The viewer can judge, but even as an LGBT-friendly liberal, I’m inclined to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt here:

Bret Baier brought up Newt Gingrich‘s response to Holder’s accusations, and asked the panel why Holder said what he did. ABC’s Rick Klein thought it an odd move that called into question Holder’s political sensibilities, because the public scrutiny will certainly not go away after comments like those.

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out At Eric Holder Over Black Panther Comments

Steve Hayes had a different theory for why Republicans in Congress have been so strong in going after Holder: his refusal to answer questions during testimonies, especially in the midst of the “Fast & Furious” scandal, have particularly irked them. Race has not necessarily played a big role in criticism of the Attorney General.

But the biggest shots at Holder came from Krauthammer, who spared no detail in explaining what he thought of the comments.

“It’s clearly the cheap shot of an Attorney General who thinks he’s in trouble. And the reason he is is because he’s one of the most incompetent Attorneys General in US history. He’s the guy who brought on gratuitously the fiasco of the KSM trial in New York that even Democrats rebelled against. He’s the guy that’s led the department that’s been either totally ignorant or disingenuous or worse of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal. And now he plays the race card. To use his words, I think it’s a cowardly use of the race card. And it’s unbecoming.”

RELATED: Report: Congressional Investigators Prepare To Subpoena Eric Holder Regarding ‘Fast And Furious’

Of course, in the spirit of the holiday season, Krauthammer ended his remarks by wishing Holder a Merry Christmas. And isn’t that what the holiday season is all about? No matter how incompetent or corrupt you might find someone, wishing them a happy holiday season makes all the difference in the world.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox News:

Schultz’s pointed to Paul’s most recent CNN interview, during which the candidate told Gloria Borger that he did not write racist material contained in various newsletters bearing his name, and that he “disavows” their content.

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview

Schultz then mentioned a recently re-discovered interview Paul had given to C-SPAN back in 1995, where he described starting a “a political type of business investment newsletter” that covered, among other topics, “a lot about what was going on in Washington.”

RELATED: Flashback! Rep. Ron Paul Discussed His Newsletters With C-SPAN In 1995

Schultz noted that Paul likely knew the contents of / topics covered within these newsletters, and has written some of their articles himself, as Paul himself has shared. He brought on Lehigh University’s Dr. James Peterson to discuss whether the racist opinions espoused in these newsletters — particularly those directly attributed to Dr. Paul himself — should disqualify him from continuing to run. Peterson feels they should, adding that the newsletters contain not only racist ideology, but also opinions that are sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. What you’ve said or done in the past, Peterson said, has bearing on what you will do in the future, and he believes Dr. Paul should come forward and “explain” these newsletters, particularly since he feels Paul knew more about their contents than he’s let on so far.

Furthermore, he feels that Paul’s decision to walk away from Borger shows he’s “not ready to be the front-runner” in this race. Not mentioned was the fact that Paul had given CNN an interview the day before, and had referenced this when responding to Borger’s line of questioning.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

So. Are you and Ron Paul having, like. A thing?

Yesterday, when Paul sat down with Ali Velshi, Velshi brought up a newsletter (or, at this point, The Newsletter™), sent out two decades ago, which espoused some pretty problematic racist beliefs. Paul, as he has done each and every time he’s been asked about The Newsletter in recent years, maintained that he did not write those things, adding that “those aren’t my beliefs. So I sleep well.” Velshi pressed on, and Paul advised doubters to actually read what he’s written, read the newsletter in question, and find out the truth for themselves.

RELATED: Ron Paul And Ali Velshi Engage In Spirited Debate Over Alleged Media Bias

Then, today, Gloria Borger asked Paul about the newsletter yet again.

Here’s how Paul responded:

Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them. That’s it.

Borger, like Velshi before her, pressed on, telling Paul that, whether or not he agrees with the sentiments expressed in the newsletter, he made money off them. She then continued to ask if it was “legitimate” to ask about the newsletter. Paul eventually removed his mic and walked off, possibly because one can only answer the same question so many times before doing the politician’s equivalent of taking off one’s earrings and reaching for the Vaseline.

“I did have to ask them,” Borger later said of her line of questioning. “He clearly thinks its irrelevant. He thinks it’s been asked and answered…It’s clearly a question he’d rather not be asked.”

RELATED: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview

Now, tonight, you go after the guy again. Sanjay Gupta, sitting in for Anderson Cooper, reported that Paul has a tendency to get “kind of prickly” when asked about the newsletter, which is an interesting way of spinning the fact that the guy is tired of answering the same question from your network. Dr. Gupta then added that Paul’s story regarding the newsletter has “changed over the years,” before looking back on an interview Paul had given to Wolf Blitzer back in 2008. In that interview, Paul said that he didn’t know who wrote the offending articles, and that it was the job of the newsletters’ editor (and, thus, not their publisher) to take a close look at these writers and their content. What’s more, he said, he was busy traveling and tending to his medical practice at the time and, thus, did not have the luxury of being able to read through each and every newsletter.

In an effort to “keep him honest,” Gupta noted that, in 1996, Democrats had brought to light other articles — ones that Paul admitted to have written — including one in which he surmised that the activities of 95 percent of DC’s black male population is “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” When asked about these, Paul denied being a racist or resorting to racist stereotypes in his articles.

Five years later, however, Paul said that these were “never his words,” but that he nonetheless had “some moral responsibility for them.”

Now, ten years after that, Gupta says that Paul is “blaming the media for bringing it up again.” (But perhaps that’s because the media is bringing it up again?) and adds that Paul isn’t doing much to “clear the air” about the newsletter.

To discuss it even further — because, of course — Gupta brought on Borger, Ari Fleischer, and Erick Erickson. And Elmo and Jon Bon Jovi and Keyboard Cat.

Tell me, CNN. Is all this because he’s gained traction in Iowa? Is he just the latest Notmitt Notromney to have captured the media’s attention and, as such, its subsequent ire? Put more plainly: Why cover this now? And why so much? You’re not looking at a decades-old story from a different angle, you’re not revealing new information, you’re merely reheating the same embarrassing, racist meal (just…. go with it) you keep serving us every few years. This is becoming, at this point, the McRib of Embarrassing Political Stories. Why?

Watch the CNN segment for yourselves. And, as always, let me know what you think:

Those who believe the rise in power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.

ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, asked its members to sign a petition urging MSNBC to fire Buchanan, rattling off a series of questionable comments he has made over the years. The Anti-Defamation League also chimed in, labeling Buchanan a racist and anti-Semite. Calderone even spoke with a station executive, who told him that, “the network is taking the concerns seriously.” He also stressed that the decision to freeze out Buchanan was made long before the groups started rallying against him.

The issue at hand, the executive said, was the views expressed in the book rather than any policy against promoting books written by on-air talent. Although Buchanan made one appearance since the book was published, it was not discussed on air.

According to TV Eyes (which, Calderone points out, does miss the occasional mention), Buchanan’s name has only been mentioned on MSNBC eight times in the last 30 days. By comparison, he has 41 hits on Fox Business Network, 17 on FOX News, and 15 on CNN:

MSNBC had no official comment for Mediaite or Huffington Post, so the guessing game is on as to when Buchanan may return. For now, though, it’s 18 days of no Buchanan and counting. And it can’t be that good of a sign that it took anyone this long to notice.

“I think what these attempted character assassins don’t realize is they underestimate the decency of the American people,” Innis continued. “And they underestimate the ability of the American people to read past this BS, that’s exactly what I think it is.”

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh: ‘Shame On The Republicans Who Piled On Herman Cain’

Happening Now anchor Jon Scott noted that Karl Rove said he thought the allegations were going to take a serious toll on the former Godfather Pizza CEO.

“I would caution Karl, I would caution members of the political elite, that sexual harassment today is being used as a powerful political weapon the same way that the race card today is used as a powerful political weapon,” Innis exclaimed. “And I would caution these elites in the conservative media, as well as the liberal media — do you really think it’s just going to end? This political tool is just going to end with Herrman Cain? I caution them to be careful about what they say.”

Watch Niger Innis slam the charges being made against Herman Cain below via Fox News:

(h/t Breitbart)

RELATED: Fox News Panel Reacts To Mark Block’s Allegations Against Perry: ‘Who Cares?’

O’Donnell referenced his favorite media figure, Donald Trump, saying that Cain’s report would come out when Trump’s Hawaii-based research into Obama’s birth certificate does. “I would not be holding our breath,” said Touré:

We don’t see them dealing with this in a forthright way at all; it’s certainly not a presidential way. It’s not even really a professional way to deal with it, as a politician. But this is a major moment for the GOP because Cain is a really important candidate, perhaps more important than any of the other candidates because he serves a massive psychological purpose. Because there’s a lot of people in the GOP who’ve been critical of Obama and have been made to feel that they are racist because of their criticism. Some of it has been racist, some of it has been reasonable, some of it has been business as usual Republican/Democrat stuff. Ok. Cain comes along, offering salvation, liberation. You’re not racist if you support Herman Cain. So now they have this Herman Cain card they can throw at us any time they are made to feel racist. So this is like a beautiful thing for them. So they need him to succeed as long as they can deal with him so that they can get their Cain card and make it as valuable as possible.

But this whole mode of thinking is a canard, Touré added, because Cain ends up, essentially, “giving comfort to racists.”

Have a look at the segment, from MSNBC:

“I’m someone who doesn’t believe in playing the race card on either side,” Rice told Norah O’Donnell, who asked her to comment on the possibility that black conservatives face more criticism than liberal minorities. She noted that it was “not good for the country” to play the race card and that the right course of action would be for everyone to “take a step back and let Herman Cain answer the questions.” She added that she did not say this exclusively for conservatives, as “I don’t like the race card when people say that people are criticizing President Obama because he is black.”

The segment via CBS below: