Doing what they do best: The left foams at the mouth with outrage over a non-issue … again

Posted by: ST on May 8, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Gosh, I’ve lost count the number of times they’ve done this. Is ad infinitum a number (heh)?

Today’s big ‘controversy’ involved Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), who, according to the insinuations by the Nutroots, is nothing more than a flaming racist because he quoted the founder of the KKK on the House floor – thus proving that he is part of the widespread racist society that exists within the Republican party.

Only one problem with that, though. Here’s what he quoted (via Captain Ed):

On Monday, Rep. Ted Poe took to the House floor to discuss foreign policy matters. To make a point, the Texas Republican invoked the words of Civil War Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: “Git thar fustest with the mostest.”

The quotation got some floor watchers’ attention pretty quickly. Forrest is a controversial figure who was one of the Klan’s first grand wizards. Although the Civil War hero (if you were a Confederate, that is) ultimately abandoned the Klan for its violent tactics, he continues to kick up dust.

Allah nails it here:

Ace, surprisingly, chalks it up to ignorance of the context: the (mis-)quote in question belongs to Nathan Bedford Forrest, who, in addition to being a terrorist and a moral monster, was an almost universally recognized military genius. (If you’ve seen Ken Burns’s documentary on the Civil War, you’ll remember Shelby Foote talking about him.) “Git thar fustest with the mostest” is his most famous military aphorism. Ted Poe, the congressman, was quoting him on a basic point of strategy, not a point of morals. Ace seems to believe the left doesn’t know that … but of course they do. It’s all readily available on Wikipedia and Google. They simply choose to ignore it, much like when Think Progress — which is leading the outrage parade on this story — demanded an explanation from Tony Snow last year after he used the phrase “hug the tar baby” even though they admitted they knew he didn’t mean it in a racist sense. The point isn’t to prove that Ted Poe is racist, it’s to float a facially credible charge of racism against Republicans in hopes of getting it into the wider media where most people will glance at it without checking to see if it has merit.

Yep. And the countdown is on to see how many mediot outlets pick it up.

I wrote this in the comments section to Allah’s post:

Incidentally, isn’t it almost comical to see them foaming at the mouth over this when their beloved ACLU was founded by Communists? And where was their outrage when Howard Dean. embraced European Socialists by shaking hands with Ségolène Royal and making a speech at the PES-Congress of European Socialists Parties convention last December? Oh that’s right. They love that sort of thing. When a GOP congressman uses a quote by a military genius to make a larger point, of course it’s ignored in order to paint the entire GOP as a group of filthy racists. When the head of the DNC openly supports Socialism, and when virtually the entire Democratic party embraces the ACLU even though it was founded by Communists, well, that’s ok, because, like, they mean well.

It’s enough to make you wanna hurl.

Also blogging about this: Eugene Volokh, Blue Crab Boulevard, Iowa Voice, Dan Riehl

Update: ST reader Sev provides a history lesson for the ignorant clueless lefties who think this is such a big deal:

[...] Nathan Bedford Forrest did indeed found the KKK after the War Between The States, but it was founded to counter the radicalist Union Leagues that rabid, fanatical, anti-Southern nutjobs (sound vaguely like modern liberals?) set up in the South. They did such lovely things as help make it illegal for Southerners to vote, stuff local governments with Pro-Union types who then raised taxes, knowing the poor, distressed Southerners couldn’t pay them, so they could seize them and sell them for pennies to their political allies and friends, encourage racial tension, stage the odd riot, etc. All the totalitarian, hypocritical, unethical things the modern liberal just looooves to this day.

Forrest started the Klan with that in mind. He was not a bigot, unlike Sherman. When the Klan began to veer off from the organization he had envisioned and founded, he sought to rein it in, when he proved unsuccessful, he quit it and “officially” disbanded it in 1869, less than 4 years after it was founded. It continued on, but as a radically different organization than he intended, and he had no part in it, had disowned it, and sought to stifle it. And was invited to speak at the founding of one of the first all black schools in the South, an invitation he said he was honored to accept, and gave a moving and sincere speech of encouragement and support to the school. An honorable man who was capable of changing his mind and working towards the betterment of the country, and a damned sharp military mind.

But, never let the facts of history get in the way of a good accusation of bigotry or racism eh lefties? You have to keep wailing about other people’s alleged racism to divert attention from the endemic racism and anti-Semitism in the modern liberal movement. :-?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 Responses to “Doing what they do best: The left foams at the mouth with outrage over a non-issue … again”

Comments

  1. Severian says:

    Typical hypocrisy, considering they have an allegedly ex KKK Klegal in the Democrat party. That means he joined the Klan well after it was nothing but a racist, hate filled organization.

    But let’s review history shall we? I know, I know, history is not a strong suit of liberals, but we all know how often it provides illumination and insight.

    Nathan Bedford Forrest did indeed found the KKK after the War Between The States, but it was founded to counter the radicalist Union Leagues that rabid, fanatical, anti-Southern nutjobs (sound vaguely like modern liberals?) set up in the South. They did such lovely things as help make it illegal for Southerners to vote, stuff local governments with Pro-Union types who then raised taxes, knowing the poor, distressed Southerners couldn’t pay them, so they could seize them and sell them for pennies to their political allies and friends, encourage racial tension, stage the odd riot, etc. All the totalitarian, hypocritical, unethical things the modern liberal just looooves to this day.

    Forrest started the Klan with that in mind. He was not a bigot, unlike Sherman. When the Klan began to veer off from the organization he had envisioned and founded, he sought to rein it in, when he proved unsuccessful, he quit it and “officially” disbanded it in 1869, less than 4 years after it was founded. It continued on, but as a radically different organization than he intended, and he had no part in it, had disowned it, and sought to stifle it. And was invited to speak at the founding of one of the first all black schools in the South, an invitation he said he was honored to accept, and gave a moving and sincere speech of encouragement and support to the school. An honorable man who was capable of changing his mind and working towards the betterment of the country, and a damned sharp military mind.

    But, never let the facts of history get in the way of a good accusation of bigotry or racism eh lefties? You have to keep wailing about other people’s alleged racism to divert attention from the endemic racism and anti-Semitism in the modern liberal movement. :-?

  2. Great White Rat says:

    Excellent history lesson, Sev. Thanks! =d>

  3. skh.pcola says:

    Also don’t forget that Billiam Clinton honored the man (somehow…can’t remember, exactly. Monument, holiday, ?) when he was guvnah of Arkansas. Liberals are so practiced in making mountains out of molehills that their hypocrisy doesn’t slow them down one bit, even when they are “objective journalists.”

  4. Severian says:

    Also, given the standards used by todays left and Democrats, the “evil” Klan should be compared with Islamic Insurgents and Terrorists, you know, Freedom Fighters on a par with the original Minute Men, fighting against Imperialist US (aka Union) aggression!;)

    Also, in the above, I meant seize Southerner’s property, obviously they didn’t seize and sell “them,” the Southerner’s themselves. :-"

  5. LOL Sev – you’re on a roll tonight! ^:)^

  6. Lorica says:

    Wasn’t Forrest Gump named after Nathan Bedford Forrest?? =)) – Lorica

  7. Eric Jacobson says:

    Speaking of Confederates (my ancestors called them ‘secesh’, or ‘Johnny Reb’), and the Confederacy…over the last few years I’ve decided that, indeed, the Old South had a valid point. It’s a pity that they lost (heresy!), because any objective reading of the Constitution will indicate that nowhere are states prohibited from leaving the Union should they choose. Of course, a million boys in blue said otherwise, but what if–just as hypothetical–states still COULD secede? Might make our liberal nutcases a bit more circumspect.

    This staunch Yankee and Unionist has the greatest respect for Nathan Bedford Forrest, Robert E. Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, and the rest–and the South’s treatment after the Civil War was indeed pretty horrendous.

    Of course, with our so-sophisticated, so-tolerant 20/20 hindsight, we can damn Forrest for founding the KKK; we can damn Lee for being a ‘defender of slavery’; we can thrice damn Jackson for being a Christian, a ruthlessly capable defender of his home, AND for ‘defending slavery’. And we can insist that the South refuse to honor her heroes, that she remove all reference to the Stainless Banner or the Battle Flag, and that she essentially obliterate a proud heritage in service to political correctness.

    It’s odd, because those who actually fought against the South–people like Joshua Chamberlain, Winfield Hancock, George Custer, Grant, Sherman, and all the rest–Lincoln not least–held their opponents in high esteem, though they felt that the South fought for a deeply flawed cause. If those men, who killed, and were killed by, Southerners, could extend wartime respect, admiration and post-war friendship, then why do we, their distant descendants, feel it obligatory to traduce the South’s heroes?

    Shame on us; and this Yank says, ‘I’m so very sorry–some of us Northerners recognize valor and honor in our long-ago opponents, and refuse to traduce their memory’.

    Okay, no more ranting….

  8. Severian says:

    Eric, I can only say…^:)^

    A most well reasoned and thoughtful post. The way the Union handled the whole succession issue forms the basis for the overly rigid, and powerful, central federal government we’ve all grown to dislike and distrust (at least us conservatives). The three presidents that did the most to pervert the course of US government away from the original intent were, IMO, Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ. Lincoln gave us an overweaning central govt, FDR legitimized socialism with the New Deal (and prolonged the Depression), and LBJ took it to it’s extremes with his New Society. This sure ain’t the government our forefathers signed up for.

  9. Severian says:

    Err, Great Society, it’s still early here…

  10. Drewsmom says:

    WHY IS IT robert KKK byrd gets a pass everytime and if a conservative says ANYTHING, I am really getting weary of all this Bu**sh^$ — Calgone, take me away.:((

  11. NC Cop says:

    Geez Sev,

    You didn’t even wait for our resident rabid libs to post about how this proves that we are all a bunch of racist, warmongering, fascists before posting actual facts to completely shut them down.

    Where’s the fun in that?? ;)

  12. Severian says:

    Sorry NC Cop, for short circuiting all the fun! Mea culpa!o:-)