Questions Answered Again: How the Sherrod Mess Happened

[alcibiades_mystery]

Last night I speculated that the Sherrod mess occurred because the Obama Administration is uber-sensitive to race issues, which it views as distractions to getting its agenda on track, largely because of the Henry Louis Gates issue. Needless to say, dozens of commentators have made the same claim today. But after listening to all the facets of this thing, I think I was wrong. That theory is way too meta. This didn't happen in a meta or overarching way. It was just the usual kind of minor fuck-ups that happen in organizations.

Here's almost certainly how it happened:

Vilsack gets a panicked email from some undersecretary telling him that Fox has asked for comment on the USDA rural director from Georgia who says she's denied aid to white farmers. They're showing clips, and here's the transcript, sir. It's fucked UP! He flips his lid reading the 2 1/2 minute transcript, and tells the aid to shitcan Sherrod, probably not even asking who she is. He's in Ohio doing actual work for the USDA, not sitting around watching cable news all day, as some do-nothing motherfuckers I won't name seem to do, so that's that. He didn't fucking "investigate" shit, which is the problem. He looked at the transcript, recalled the zero tolerance policy on discrimination - probably because he spends in the area of 40% of his meetings trying to deal with the endless fucking legal gobbledysmack having to do with various discrimination settlement claims - and pressed the button on the eightysixing. He then told the undersecretary of whatever to let the White House point person for USDA know what action they were taking, since they'd certainly call soon if the shit was beaming on network. Undersecretary does so, White House point person says "Whew, good. Thanks for handling that with dispatch." And the fucking thing is in the hands of Ms. Cook, who takes that breath of relief over the quick action from minor White House aid as her cue to both inform Ms. Sherrod that the White House has asked for the resignation and call her three times.

End of story.

There wasn't a fucking strategy session. There wasn't some grand plot. There wasn't even "consistency" with other supposed "cavings" to the supposed 'right wing noise machine." That's fucking media narrative, shit pieced together after the fact; it tells a good story, and one that at least some of you love love love to hear. But it's not actually the way shit happens in large organizations. No, like most shit that happens, this was likely far more simple. The motivator was not fear of the so-called noise machine, but the much more local problem of discrimination lawsuits at USDA. People aren't more Machiavellian than you think. They're much less Machiavellian.

[Skittles]

1. it is a running theme

getting half-assed results by trying to appease right wing assholes - only this time, it truly blew up, for ALL involved

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Had nothing to do with trying to appease anyone

It's a running theme as a narrative pieced together after the fact.

[Skittles]

3. LOL

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Whatevs, kiddo

I know how you will respond to ANY issue having to do with this administration, and the posture is not very compelling or interesting. So have fun with that.

[Skittles]

5. WRONG AGAIN

give it up

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. This conversation is really going places!

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

7. You sir, win the common sense award. So many here have no clue how stuff even works.

They just watched the West wing and catch their favorite blogs and pundits and suddenly think they themselves are political strategists.

[SunsetDreams]

8. K&R

[BootinUp]

9. Very reasonable. nt

[Nay]

10. This may well have been the case--but it doesn't answer the question

of how someone could be fired without an investigation first, especially since the clip came from Breitbart, the promoter of the ACORN lie. Can nothing move through a thoughtful process anymore? Does everything have to be done in an instant with no reflection and deliberation?

[vaberella]

11. Actually it does. Vilsack is HYPERSENSITIVE to anything racial in regards to his Dept.

He said so in his apology. Did you hear it? He even said it in his press release BEFORE his apology. Even the OP stated that Vilsack is dealing with thousands of racially motivated cases. For a worker to be implied as being racist means this would be a nightmare for his department and he just decided to cut it at the start without questioning Brietbart. Secondly, it would seem that Vilsack probably never wasted his time in finding out who was behind it. This was all over the news----because the MEDIA did not follow a "THOUGHTFUL PROCESS." They didn't check the source, they just attacked. All the news networks did. And Vilsack because of his hypersensitivity did as well. He even said he was dealing with "tens of thousands" (something I can't wrap my head around) claims against his departments---this would mean DECADES of build up in the DOA. And when he saw that-the two minute clip, and his zero tolerance, he was like, end this.

ACORN is not in the same area as this situation. So Breitbart may have lied but most news agencies and anyone who was paying attention would know ONLY two anchors covered that Breitbart lied. TWO!! Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann---were the only two anchors between all three channels that discussed Breitbart's lies. No one else, so if you randomly picked someone from the street who had relative knowledge of the ACORN story and let's say they watched CNN and their local news they would NEVER have known that Breitbart lied. This is the reality here.

[vaberella]

12. What you said is how I understood it. Vilsack admitted he was hypersensitive to racial topics. n/t

[Paladin]

13. So: Vilsack's Being "Hypersensitive To Racial Topics"......

....made him crater to the uber-conservative media and to conduct an electronic and public lynching of a black professional woman, with the White House following merrily along. Yeah, this really worked out well, didn't it?

Vilsack ought to tender his resignation immediately, along with any of his staff who were involved in this cluster-fuck. If Vilsack can't manage to keep from being a punchline for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, he sure as hell shouldn't be holding a Cabinet-level position. Ms. Sherrod would make a good replacement---but I don't think there's enough guts or imagination in the current administration to pull that off.....

[vaberella]

14. And some of your statements are why we go to war.

We have a need for vengeance. It was not Vilsack who destroyed Ms. Sherrod's reputation---that was entirely FauxNoise. They did it and her reputation will NEVER be the same again. He fired her after that edited tape was aired on FN and used to create this image of a racist Black woman. Added to that, this is AFTER the NAACP ended up lambasting her on FN. So these are the people who have destroyed her reputation. Not many of the FN viewers even watch CNN or MSNBC. So if she was on those shows and listened to what the White farmer's family said or the apology by Vilsack---the FN viewers didn't see it or would read it differently. But the damage was done.

I'm not defending or condoning Vilsack's actions or inaction, as the case may be---which was to investigate further. He said so himself that it was his own fault he didn't research this issue more. However, he also said he was has been dealing with "Tens of Thousands" of complaints about his workers and the clip that was edited was damaging. This is undeniable---Vilsack however forgot his professionalism and ran on emotion upon hearing the comments. That's his fault and he's owned up it.

As for the WH. Give me a break. Are you intentionally ignoring the coverage on this and Vilsack's own worlds. Even Cheryl Cook who is deputy assistant reports to the Department in charge of the firing---ie Department of Agriculture not the WH or Obama as so many people want to do blame here. She was following the orders as perposed by Vilsack---not the WH. Vilsack is dealing with enough crap and I'm taking him at his word on this because it's logical. The OP already touched on this.

On the last point and in relation to my comment---Ms. Sherrod forgave Vilsack and supports the WH and President and yet we have posters here who are calling for a public lynching of their own for Vilsack's mistake. Which is bad but it not in any the same thing as FN or what Cheney did to that CIA agent. He did this, I unfortunately hate the mistake but he is repetentant and Ms. Sherrod forgave him for his reaction. As for Ms. Sherrod making a great replacement? She was hired on board by Vilsack. Do you have the full record of Ms. Sherrod and compared to Vilsack to believe that Vilsack should be ousted and replaced by Ms. Sherrod?! Where is this coming from? Further more how does that change the fact or even make anything really better by doing that? Her reputation would still have been tarnished by FN and it would seem you think once Ms. Sherrod gets this all is right in the world---while FN who "publicly lynched" her has no punishment, when in the end they are the real culprits. Well, thankfully Ms. Sherrod is aware of who the real culprits are.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Come on, dude. That's ludicrous

Vilsack actually had good motivations. He comes to USDA with some grand ambitions about changing the face of agriculture, and finds himself instead buried in minutia over half a century of lawsuits dealing with USDA discrimination against farmers seeking aid. That is, against precisely the sort of shit that this appears to be, if you only look at the 2.5 minutes tape (he didn't even do that, as he was in Ohio and had just the transcript!). He shitcans her.

Big mistake, sure, but it didn't have a damn thing to do with "guts" or "imagination," or even the "right wing media." It had to do with the specific local history of the department of ag, and probably with Vilsack's personal frustration of the amount of time he has to spend dealing with old discrimination cases. Rush to judgment? Sure. Fear of right wing media? I don't think so. Looks much more simple and local than that.

And to fire him over this, and others to boot? Stupid. He has a department to run. You don't cause Cabinet-level disruptions over minor errors in judgment.

[CTyankee]

16. You make a good case but I have mixed feelings about this.

While it is entirely possible that this thing got screwed up at a basic level, it can also be argued the exact opposite way. That people higher up (I'm not implicating Obama) saw this as a big threat, precisely because it is the WH of the first AA president.

I usually go somewhere in between two extremes in these kinds of sitations but here I suspect a more black and white, rather than gray, truth...

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. I wouldn't frame them as "two extremes"

that we have to split the difference on. I have no doubt that the WH contact person for USDA wanted this dealt with, but not as part of some grand plot. Rather, it would be one less thing to worry about. But as I see it, that person was informed of Vilsack's hasty decision and just said "OK, that settles it." Even in government, people plot and scheme much less than we think. We have the luxury to imagine all kinds of scenarios after the fact. But most people in situ just do what they're doin, try to look good to superiors, have personal frustrations and goals they try to meet, and above all try to get through the day. That's not an extreme, though it's certainly an empirical approach that can be juxtaposed with the transcendental approach of imagining a grand narrative.

[CTyankee]

18. What I do not understand is why both the WH and the NAACP didn't know

about her husband, who was well known in civil rights history. Melissa Lace Blackwell spoke to this point this a.m. on MJ. The Sherrod name should have been recognized by SOMEONE in both those places and that really shocks me (more with NAACP than WH). Altho, a case "could" be made that they DID know the Sherrod name and thought there might be some truth to the story "because" he was so pro-civil rights and her background of having her father murdered by the KKK might suggest to them that she was holding a grudge...

I know that gets a little bit "out there." You are certainly right to suggest that people in government mainly try to keep their heads down and just make it thru the day without an eff up. But the statement of Cheryl Cook that Shirley quoted "You're going to be on Glenn Beck" sort of suggests a larger panic.

We may never know the who and the why... :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. I think that's actually evidence

for how quick and thoughtless this all was, and evidence for how low-level and routine it was at WH. That is, the contact person for goings-on at USDA is probably a lower level staff person who would have no idea of Sherrod's background. That's why they didn't seem to know. Vilsack, for his part, would seem to have been pre-occupied and extremely rash.

In terms of Cook's comments, she probably received a call from the GB show, which is why she mentioned it. There's no doubt that there was a panic reaction at her level, but that's all we really have evidence for. I think the "panic" narrative relative to Fox/right wing media is, indeed, overblown.

[CTyankee]

22. Yep, good observation about Cook. These mid level people have the most turf to

protect and I can see how she could have been in full panic mode and acted accordingly. It could be that she threw in the "White House" without knowing just how high the official in the WH was who spoke to her was.

In yesterday's presser, Gibbs did say that the upper level communications folks had discussed the issue at their Tuesday meeting. I bet that's when they informed Obama. It could well be that the firing was a desperate attempt to keep the lid on it by lower level WH people before it got into the RW media.

However, that NOBODY at the WH bothered to check the story out is very disturbing to me...I hate to say this, but do you think some of them really thought the story could be true?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. I suspect everybody who dealt with it

In the WH and at USDA thought the story was true when they acted on it. The question becomes, "Why did they think it was true?"

A couple of answers:

1. Vilsack thought it was true because he didn't give it time and because it goes directly to an issue that's probably the biggest annoyance of his life: the discrimination settlement issues at USDA. He was off on a trip, and received a transcript, probably alongside a panicked email from undersecretary. It was, to his mind, and for the probably 5 minutes that he dealt with it, vouched for by the undersecretary. The 2.5 minutes are themselves damning. Just as an example of how minor things can fuck up organizational processes, consider Vilsack's story of the bad email address. Sherrod had a heads up that this would hit the news last Thursday. She sought to email Vilsack the full transcript in an attempt to head off the whole issue, but apparently spelled his email address incorrectly! Or maybe she used commas instead of semicolons, or vice versa. Who knows! But for a missing comma...

Should Vilsack have spent more than five minutes and investigated the matter fully? Of course he should have.

2. Undersecretary is the key point of the problem, in my view. She thinks the story is true because she's looking at the video and hearing the comments, and she just flips. Why? Because shit travels downhill, and she knows that her boss (that is, Big V) does nothing but complain about the discrimination shit and how much time it takes up. Ouch! This goes directly to the discrimination stuff. Fuck! We have to get ahead of this, plus it'll make me look like I'm taking the initiative! Faster. Faster. And so it goes.

3. White House Contact Person for USDA - Why does he or she believe it? It almost doesn't matter. She calls USDA for general updates, and this comes up. Yeah, I saw something about that. What're y'all doing on this thing. She sounds crazy! Oh, yah, says the undersecretary. Already all over it it. Ah, good, says WH stooge. So, why does WH stooge think it's true? Because he or she didn't give it much thought at all. Thoughtless. WEhy not check out the story? Why should he or she? USDA's already handling this shit, and it's one less thing for me to worry about. I can also go to communications people and have an answer for them on this issue. Finis! Booyakasha - I'm hitting that Georgetown bar tonight!

They all thought it was true. Why? Is it because they implicitly believe 'right wing slurs' or because they're scared of right wing media? No. It's because they didn't devote enough time to something, and because they were operating on local conditions and personal goals, and probably because they had other shit to do and the thing seems clear cut at first glance. When are we fooled by first glance? When we don't have time or energy to make a second. Let's remember that Sherrod was a political appointee, not a lifelong federal employee. Process can go out the windopw in such cases, and it did here, for sure. It should not happen again, like, ever, but I think many people are making excessive claims about motivation and strategy, when the things was probably a series of small fuck-ups that cascaded.

[CTyankee]

24. What you are saying is that at a deeper level staff in both the ag dept and the WH

truly believed that Sherrod could make such an assertion...in other words, "I've heard enough to make me believe it" rather than "Wait a minute, something's 'off' here." Now that is disturbing. The fact that in both places there were people who COULD accept that statement as god's honest truth without ANY questioning is just mind blowing to me. At the very least, could it not have been said "That's sounds crazy to me..." or "I can't believe anyone thinks this way..."

Do you get what I'm saying here?

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. I get it, but it's not crazy to me

The NAACP believed it, and so did many people.

If one good thing has come of this, it's that more TIME will be devoted to such things in the future, because nobody wants to be Vilsack, Ms. Cook, or the WH stooge contact right about now.

[CTyankee]

26. No doubt this is a teachable moment as Gibbs said.

I want to believe that what these folks did was believe that a black employee could feel that way, perhaps because her father was murdered by the Klan and she has a grudge. That, at least, I could understand about their way of thinking...kind of "excusing" it in their own mindset at the outset of the story.

I think at long last the WH has learned a lesson. These are smart people and CAN learn...

[derby378]

19. A good summary, but I would still insist...

...that as soon as Vilsack hear it was FOX asking for comment, he should have told them to go to Hell. But he didn't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Vilsack likely looked over the transcript and acted based on the

local USDA issues.

I understand that you think they should have told them to go to hell. They should have done a lot of things, as is clear enough. They didn't. True. It was a colossal blunder. Yup. I just don't think it happened according to the dominant narratives coming out of the MSM and parroted by chronic Obama critics here. I think it was far more localized, and not evidence of some overarching strategy.