Can we also say the same for BO and his appointees during recess?

Since the "Tea Party" is not an actual organisation you will always find racists and non-racists calling whatever they support a "Tea Party movement" or part of it.

I have seen videos and reports of "Tea Party" protests staged by both people that even I wouldn't consider very right-wing and by complete and utter racists and everything in between.

The typical strategy here is for the left to use racist self-proclaimed "Tea Party" supporters and point out how all of them are like that and for the right to point to non-racist "Tea Party" supporters and scream about leftie lies. The truth is that both exist and will exist until an actual Tea Party is founded with a constitution of some kind that defines what the movement actually wants.

European politics is currently undergoing the same problem: how do you create a new conservative movement without being called a racist? However, in Europe the left are more vicious. Instead of facing a loose federation of groups that use the same name but aren't organised together, Europe faces actual organisations. And the European left still calls them racists, simply because OTHER organisations, which have NOTHING to do with the new conservative groups are racist.

So, yes, it's true. The Tea Party movement is racist. It's also not racist. It depends on the views of whoever calls himself a representative of the movement at any given day. Sarah Palin is absolutely not a racist. But the Paulians have definite connections to white supremacists and other "Tea Party" are even worse.

This is the problem. When a conservative Republican sees the Tea Party movement, he sees normal Americans, black and white, with family values standing against big government because of the bad things big government does.

But when liberal Democrats see the movement, they see WHITE Americans with reactionary values standing against necessary government because of the good things government does. And that's if they see the same people as the Republican just did. It gets worse when the libdem sees the racists who also flock to the Tea Party movement and see them as representative of the movement.

The solution is the same in both the European and the American case: preserve the movement, drop the racists even if they agree with the principles of the movement, and get representatives from minority groups!

I expect it of politicians, so if the NAACP were a bunch of politicians, it would not be news.  But like NOW and all the other liberal advocacy groups, they are short on character and long on dishonesty.

The sad part is they are just cheap hookers to the democrat party.  They are used and abused and told what to do and say.  And get only lip service in return.

No.  That is to say that all democrat senators are card carrying members of the KKK because "Sheets" Byrd was.  clearly there are klan members in the democrat party, but like the tea party, they do not constitute all the party nor the basic tenets of the party.

The Tea Party has a mission, and those who support it do flock around it.  However, some will be liberal, some racists, and some morons.  But none of them define the party.  The NAACP and democrats have tried to define the party based upon the actions of one (or few, it does not matter).  Just as Code Pink, while being supported by Neo Nazis, are not Neo Nazis.

That is because they see everything in terms or race.  That is THEIR racist problem.  But they are supported by their sycophants in the press, so the truth takes a back seat to their racist views.

Which runs absolutely contrary to the very purpose of their founding agenda and ALSO is a violation of their tax exempt status.  

He who has the power makes the rules.  Just ask Christian Adams.

Nevertheless, if the Democratic Party were not an organisation with rules, it would be fair to say that they are racist if they count KKK members (present or former) in their ranks without saying that they do not share their racist opinions.

As I said the Tea Party is no actual organisation and hence nobody can speak for the entire movement and reject the racist opinions of some of its members. Hence it is not wrong to say that the Tea Party movement is racist, because some of them are.

That's the point. It doesn't.

The Tea Party has a few words and momentum, but it doesn't have a mission until somebody organises the thing and says what the movement is about.

At the moment anybody who wants can be part of the movement, regardless of views. At the moment the Tea Party movement has as many missions as it has supporters.

Hence any of those missions can be called a Tea Party mission. And if some supporters of the movement advocate racist views, than these views are Tea Party views until the Tea Party organises and makes it clear that those views aren't Tea Party views but views of individuals who might or might not support the Tea Party for the movement's other views.

I was under the impression that Ms Sherood was describing in her own words a moment of personal transformation and therefore the allegation of recism was not quite true. In any event racism is an ideology of power and domination and the underpreviledged and terefore a black woman can hardly be accued of racism and her dismissal seems excessive and I do hope that President Obama sets this matter to rest as it will dent his political profile, and credibility.

Racism is simply the belief that differences between races should have an impact on subjects which they have nothing to do with. It has nothing to do with "power" or "domination" necessarily. Racism is also if one wants people to be segregated based on race even if the distinct groups would have equal power and wealth.

Basically racism is anything that makes references to alleged differences between the races in fields where such differences are of no concern.

Racism is not treating medical cases differently because black and white have a different likelyhood of certain genetic diseases.

But racism is treating votes differently because black and white look different (or have a different likelyhood of certain genetic diseases or whatever real difference we want to choose).

Sorting people according to race for political purposes is as useful as sorting them according to length of uncut hair or by height. And it's wrong. There are many differences between randomly chosen groups of people and the only reason many think that the difference between black and white skin is somehow important is because it's very visible. But in reality it's a ridiculously minor difference. It's one bit of difference, just like the colour of eyes.

Ultimately it's perfectly possible for someone to believe that all races are equal and still be a racist because he still believes in a relevant difference between the races. When it comes to rights, everyone is equal (or should be), and it doesn't matter where you draw the line between people (and there is no reason to draw it between white people and black people), you will always end up with two groups of individuals with equal rights.

This assumes that you draw the line randomly or based on irrelevant features. It's perfectly rational and certainly not racist to draw the line based on significant differences for the subject in question, for example citizenship (for political rights) and nationality (for immigration).

It's too late to worry about that!

The Slam on Shirley Sherrod is unjustified.  The criticism on the NAACP was too mild.  In addition to lacking character, they also lack integrity.  I listened to the entire speech, and Shirley is correct.  it was taken out of context and the part that was excerpted was about her journey out of racism, not endorsing it.  However the audience (which perhaps Breitbart wanted to point out) clearly was reveling in the early part of the story and enjoying her discrimination against Whites.

She has the big government mentality, but she appears to be a sincere person who is gaming a system she did not create.  But Shirley Sherrod is not racist.  The NAACP is.

You confuse institutional organizations with all organizations.  The Tea Party is a Grass Roots organization.  It is in its infancy with a mission and core belief.  But it is not institutionalized.  My analogy stands.  It is no more racist than a Sunday tea party of old ladies. 

You do not have to be a government to govern.  You are confusing institutions with organizations.  It has a mission, a core belief, and a goal.  That is it not well organized is a given, but then most groups did not blossom full blown.  It is growing and becoming institutionalized (as recently demonstrated by the Congress recognizing it as a Caucus).

Bahu, see Comment #12. While the initial video portrayed her as racist, I do not believe she is, nor the actions of the USDA or NAACP justified (the NAACP reversed course even though they HAD the entire tape the ENTIRE time).  This has always been about the NAACP, although I was using Shirley Sherrod's out-take to make the point.

Indeed, I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology.  And I offer it here (like she will ever read this blog).  I do not agree with her politics, but I admire the lady.