Vote Or Die (Really!): Sheila Jackson Lee Blames Katrina Deaths On "Suppression" of Black Vote

Dagnabit, if only George Bush would stop being so "divisive" we could finally return to a pre-impeachment-war period of civility and reasoned political discourse.

The Bush administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina may be the result of minority votes being suppressed and Democratic candidates losing the last two presidential elections, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus has alleged.

"Watching family members and others cling to rooftops in Hurricane Katrina, I wonder whether or not the absence of attention [to the recovery effort] is attributable to the loss of a vote in 2000 and 2004," U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, said.

She added that the government's hurricane response gave her the feeling of "deja vu," following the Republican Party's alleged attempts to undermine the black vote in those two presidential elections.

Let me put aside that this is yet another high Democratic official engaging in moonbat conspiracy theorizing that would make a run-of-the-mill paranoid schizophrenic blush. "There there now Old Man," the razor-cut-striped lunatic would say. "Let's not go off the deep end here now, eh? Let's be a tad more rational about all this."

It's crazy, yes. But it's worse than crazy, which I've come to expect. It's fucking stupid. It doesn't even make any fucking sense.

How does the "suppression of the black vote" lead to killing blacks (or deliberately letting them be killed) by a hurricane? I mean, you know, if we're already effectively suppressing their votes, why do we have to kill them, too?

When you think about it, these "suppressed black voters," being Democrats, would have a much better chance of having their votes registered at the polls if they were dead than if they were still alive.

Let's grant her her premises:

A) The racist white Republican power structure ("The Man") suppressed black turnout in 2000 and 2004.

B) Some blacks couldn't vote, although, as usual of late, they did vote in pretty high numbers.

C) Therefore... we killed them.

What? How do you get from A to C? If anything, the failure to effectively suppress the black vote would lead to killing them. If we can't suppress them, I guess, we gots to takes them out.

Seriously. Most conspiracy theories, no matter how batshit crazy, make a kind of sense if you accept the dubious premises that undergird them. This one just doesn't make any kind of sense, except, perhaps, to a partisan retard like Sheila Jackson Lee.

Note the operation reporting this is the conservative-leaning on-line CNSN. Do you expect the MSM to take Ms. Lee to task for her hateful lunacies?

Of course not. We need a diversity of viewpoints, and the poisonous rantings of the bitter left are important to hear... but not important enough to hear, I guess, for the MSM to actually bother reporting on to a broader audience. The MSM is very protective of the Democratic Party, and doesn't want this sort of fever-swamp fantasia heard by anyone except the hardcore Democratic base, always in need of being "excited."

"News judgment" and "years of journalistic experience" dictate that moderate voters, who might be swayed in the wrong direction by such demented dipshittery, just don't need to hear stuff like this, and so the MSM won't trouble them by repeating it.

And Eff Off, Bill! Update: Okay, Bill doesn't really have to eff off. But he'll probably say something about neutral evaluation of a story's newsworthiness leading to this one getting little play. There are other reasons, apart from partisan bias, that animate the MSM's choice of what to report, and what to embargo.

What poppycock, if I may use such bold language. I'm getting weary of of hearing about these supposedly "neutral considerations" when time and time again these "neutral considerations" dictate, we are told, balls-to-the-wall flood-the-zone coverage of embarassments for conservatives and total disinterest in, bordering on active suppression of, any story that might tend to hurt the Democratic Party.

If these considerations are indeed "neutral," wouldn't one expect that about half the time they would help the Republicans, and only the other half they would help the Democrats? How does this coin-flip of a situation always seem to come up heads liberals win, tails conservatives lose?

Don't believe me? Hypothetical: A conservative Congressman wonders if swaths of the black population of New Orleans deliberately engaged in criminal behavior in order to garner political sympathy and federal dollars.

Think Ted Koppel might lead with that story tonight? And tomorrow night? And the night after tomorrow?

If we're going to have an "honest discussion about race" in this country, there has to be some, you know, actual honesty involved. Whether it hurts the Democratic Party or not, and whether or not it hurts the feelings of blacks to hear that many of the conspiracy theories their leaders offer (and which many believe) are simply insane and as viciously, unhingedly racist as any of the crap the Ku Klux Klan ever cooked up.

posted by Ace at 05:54 PM

| Access Comments