Let's take them in order. Adam asserts: "Republican congressmen Lamar Smith and Darrell Issa are literally accusing the Obama administration of favoring 'a political ally -- the New Black Panther Party.'" This is wrong. The issue is whether a meritorious claim of voter intimidation was dismissed under pressure from left-leaning civil rights groups and whether there is reason to believe there is a sentiment against a color-blind application of civil rights laws. This point has been made repeatedly by the now-House Judiciary chairman, as well as by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.).
Next, Adam claims that the case was not dismissed. This is inaccurate. It was dismissed against the New Black Panther Party and two individual defendants. The remedy sought against the remaining defendant (not to brandish a weapon near a Philadelphia polling place) is meaningless, since such action is already prohibited by law.
Adam also errs in claiming that U.S Commission on Civil Rights co-chairman Abigail Thernstrom contends that the case lacks merit. In fact, since the testimony of Chris Coates and the revelations from the Judicial Watch FOIA, Thernstrom has been silent publicly and refused to vote on the interim report or sign letters seeking additional information. I would encourage Adam to interview her to obtain her latest take on the case. Frankly, the refusal of the Democratic members of the commission to address the substantive claims, their opposition to even commencing an investigation, and the close coordination in messaging between the Justice Department and commissioner Michael Yaki should be of concern to those who value an independent-minded commission.
As to the accusations against Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, the accounts of two former Justice Department employees are in full agreement on the essential fact: Fernandes instructed the attorneys not to bring cases against black defendants. But let's call Fernandes to the stand and get her take.
As for Adam's reference to a case brought against a black defendant, the Ike Brown case was filed during the Bush administration over the extreme objection of liberal department attorneys and civil rights groups who don't believe non-traditional victims of civil rights laws should have the benefit of the government's protection.
In order then, we have two "Well he's right but technically..." followed by a "It's clear that he's hiding something so that means I'm right as far as I'm concerned", then a "Yes you're right but what about...", and finally she ends with "But this proves my point in my view."
In other words, Rubin is doing her best Jonah Goldberg.
When she does have facts, they show Adam Serwer is right. When she doesn't have facts, she brings in conjecture and theory and claims victory over Serwer's "misinformation". She doesn't disprove anything, other than the theory that she knows what the hell she's talking about.
Adam Serwer then responds himself at the Plum Line and decimates Rubin.
A slight tug on thread of this accusation reveals the feverish alternate universe of racial resentment in which some conservatives seem to reside. It's not just that they casually accuse the president and the attorney general of being "allies" with a black hate group, it's the implication that there was some political benefit to this relationship, as though the black community as a whole is somehow deeply moved by the NBPP's racial hatred, and the narrowing of the case represents a kind of quid pro quo. We're supposed to believe that without the racist rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party, black people would never have been motivated to go to the polls for Barack Obama? That black separatism has some broad mainstream appeal among African-Americans? This gets more disgusting the more one thinks about it, which is why conservatives rarely go beyond mere implication.
Read the whole thing, it's one of the best pure dismantlings I have read in a long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment