You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1891)

PLAYS: (8754)

From The Colbert Report May 6, 2009. Stephen salutes Byron York for his column at the Washington Examiner: The black-white divide in Obama's popularity:

Colbert: Mr. York and I have tremendous respect for the opinions of African Americans. Except when they make it hard to measure the opinions of actual Americans.

That's why I think, for accuracy's sake, polls in the future should include the standard disclaimer, "plus or minus black people."

By the way, a lot of people called York's column offensive. But if you eliminate people who hate racism, it's not.

He actually said that:

On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

So you African-Americans? According to Byron York, you don't actually count. My buddy and former C&L contributer Steve Benen:

For crying out loud, what the hell does that mean, exactly? I read the rest of the piece, hoping to see York explain why the president's seemingly popular positions are exaggerated or inflated. Why, in other words, these positions "appear" more popular "than they actually are."

But all the piece tells me is that African Americans tend to support Obama in greater numbers than white Americans.

The problem, of course, is that damn phrase "than they actually are." York argues that we can see polls gauging public opinion, but if we want to really understand the popularity of the president's positions, and not be fooled by "appearances," then we have to exclude black people.

There's really no other credible way to read this. York effectively argues that black people shouldn't count. We can look at polls measuring the attitudes of Americans, but if we want to see the truth -- appreciate the numbers as "they actually are" -- then it's best if we focus our attention on white people, and only white people.

I swear the next thing York will suggest is calling for polling companies to consider African-Americans as only 3/5th a person to more accurately reflect reality. I'm sure you can find the historical precedence for it if you try really hard.

You stay classy, Byron.

Dave N: This is actually a not-uncommon species of eliminationist rhetoric, since these kinds of discussions are essentially exercises in imagining the world with a whole class of people effectively excised.

As Adam Serwer observes: "This is another example of a really bizarre genre of conservative writing, which I call 'If Only Those People Weren't Here.'"

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1387)

PLAYS: (4565)

Anyone notice how right-wing behavior toward President Obama so far is mimicking, structurally speaking, their behavior toward President Clinton in the 1990s: encourage anti-government hysteria, freak out about incipient totalitarianism, accuse him of destroying the country and making it weaker, and then constantly attack his appointees and demand their firing? What's next, an investigation of his investments?

Does it surprise anyone, then, that the first object of Republicans' ire -- the first Cabinet appointment whose resignation they're demanding -- would be a woman named Janet?

Greta Van Susteren and Byron York last night on Fox were fairly representative (check out the Limbaugh rant at the beginning), though the fire-Napolitano talk has been bubbling up everywhere. As Amanda Terkel notes this morning, John McCain even went so far as to falsely claim that the person responsible for the report had been fired.

Still, as York says, the cold reality is that Napolitano is on perfectly solid ground and there is no likelihood, imminent or otherwise, that she'll be forced out. But the reason for that is that not only was what the report said in fact perfectly accurate, she only bears glancing responsibility for it: It had, after all, been commissioned by the Bush administration and authored by Bush administration hirees.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (22)

PLAY (51)

On Washington Journal the NRO's Byron York is asked how he thinks the GOP needs to redefine itself.

York: You know I think that there is actually a danger that the Republican party can over think and over analyze what has gone wrong. I mean there's been a lot of useful thinking among Republicans about uh, do Republicans need to keep pushing tax cuts for ever and ever and ever. Have they really done enough to address health care issues and these are serious things Republicans need to think about, but, you have to remember that we've just come from a Presidential election in which a significant portion of the Republican base just didn't like the candidate. And a large portion of the electorate ah, didn't like the President that the candidate was trying to succeed.

So those are maybe not unique but kind of unusual situations which will probably not come again. So while I think Republicans need to clearly rethink some issues, I don't think they need to blow up the whole place and start again because they lost in part due to some really quite unique situations this year.

I hate to break it to York but if he really thinks the only reason McCain lost the election is that voters didn't like McCain and Bush, he's got some reality checks coming.

Byron York attacked Scott McClellan on FNS Sunday by calling him a very naive man to think that Bush would be a unitier. Wasn't that what he campaigned on? These is are the type of attacks that are coming from the BushCo. supporters. A common criticism of McClellan is that he was incompetent and if he felt this way about bush then why didn't he leave sooner. Well, if Byron thought Scotty was so awful then why didn't he tell the White House to dump from the very beginning? You see , it works both ways.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

York: Yes it, yes it does. I mean he was not a terribly good spokesman. There was some really excruciating moments in the White House briefing room. You could look at the other people, I, another person I mentioned Alberto Gonzales was a guy who got in a job way over, over his head. But I think the thing that kind of distinguishes McClellan is he was amazingly naive and his belief that George W. Bush would kind of bring us all together which was why he comes to Washington. Uh, if you remember that conference where Bush is asked to name a mistake that he's made. And he gives an awful performance. He can't name a mistake and this is terrible. And, but Bush realizes, and he told McClellan, he said look if I name a mistake my enemies are just going to keep pushing for more and more and more. And McClellan doesn't see if that way. He actually writes in the book "I believe that by embracing openness and forthrightness, he could have, it could have redeemed him. It could have transcended partisanship and brought together leaders of both parties to try to consensus his way forward on Iraq. (crosstalk) That is a naive point of view.

From a Salon article in 1999:

Bush: I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. Second, I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.

Bush used the phrase I'm a uniter not a divider, over and over again.

I believe all laws and public policy should support strong families. I believe in individual responsibility, that all individuals are responsible for their actions and decisions. A responsible leader sets a clear agenda and brings people together to achieve it.

Responsible leadership sets a tone of civility and bipartisanship that gets things done. I am a uniter, not a divider and, as the governor of Texas, that is how I have led. It is how I will lead in the White House.

Finally, together we can give this nation a fresh start after a season of cynicism. In that spirit, I make this pledge to you, the American people: Next January, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear not only to uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.