Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
According to the right wing, when is it NOT a lynching? It's when someone is actually killed
From 2010:
Just when it seemed the Shirley Sherrod case was receding into Washington's general background noise, some conservative commentators are at it again. This time they're arguing among themselves—about semantics. Specifically, it's about the former Department of Agriculture official's reference, in Andrew Breitbart's now notorious edited video, to a "lynching"—and what the word really means.
It seems the correct definition would determine whether Sherrod lied in remarks she made on the video. In a multipage article in The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord, who like almost everyone else had attacked Sherrod without doing his homework, admits as much, saying he should have waited to see the entire video or read the transcript before congratulating the agriculture secretary for firing her. "So my apologies to Ms. Sherrod." But he has a different beef: "The problem? I have now done exactly what I should have done originally."
Lord then goes on to write—at length—about how, in her speech, Sherrod lied. She spoke of the lynching of a black man, when in fact, says Lord, he was beaten to death, not lynched. Lord says there could be a few understandable reasons for her fuzzy memory, but, "There is also a third possibility for what appears to be a straight-out fabrication. Having watched Ms. Sherrod's speech and read the transcript, I think it's abundantly clear that she is a liberal or progressive political activist."
Lord's own colleagues at the conservative Spectator, like Philip Klein, struck back. "I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to 'get him.' "
https://www.newsweek.com/right-keeps-sherrod-story-alive-214682
It seems the correct definition would determine whether Sherrod lied in remarks she made on the video. In a multipage article in The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord, who like almost everyone else had attacked Sherrod without doing his homework, admits as much, saying he should have waited to see the entire video or read the transcript before congratulating the agriculture secretary for firing her. "So my apologies to Ms. Sherrod." But he has a different beef: "The problem? I have now done exactly what I should have done originally."
Lord then goes on to write—at length—about how, in her speech, Sherrod lied. She spoke of the lynching of a black man, when in fact, says Lord, he was beaten to death, not lynched. Lord says there could be a few understandable reasons for her fuzzy memory, but, "There is also a third possibility for what appears to be a straight-out fabrication. Having watched Ms. Sherrod's speech and read the transcript, I think it's abundantly clear that she is a liberal or progressive political activist."
Lord's own colleagues at the conservative Spectator, like Philip Klein, struck back. "I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to 'get him.' "
https://www.newsweek.com/right-keeps-sherrod-story-alive-214682
It should go without saying that this troglodyte is very strong in the Trump cult.
