• Dems Say There’s ‘Lynching’ and Then There’s ‘LYNCHING’ … See the Difference?

    Surge Summary: Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden – and many on the Left – are appalled that President Trump used the word “lynching” to describe the impeachment efforts being directed at him.  Problem is, Biden and other Democratic bigs used the same term back in 1998 when it was Bill Clinton facing impeachment.

    Joe Biden took President Trump to task Tuesday for describing the impeachment inquiry against him as a lynching.  The Democratic presidential candidate also apologized for doing pretty much the same thing twenty-one years ago.

    Kate Seamons over at Newser sketches how it all went down:

    First came Biden’s tweet, in which he chided the president: “Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution. Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.”

    But then an October 1998 clip of Biden being interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the looming impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton surfaced. Biden said, “Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense.”

    USA Today then got involved, relaying that Biden tweeted once again, nine hours after his original tweet – this time expressing an apology for his previous use of the word and an attempting to differentiate himself from the current controversial president.

    And “attempt” is the proper way to frame it because, in fact, all that the seventy-six-year-old former vice-president produces is a distinction without a difference.

    Along with a link to the CNN clip, Biden tweeted:

    “This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that. Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.”

    Seems like VP Biden now counts mind-reading among his political skill set?

    Inconveniently for the White House aspirant, the Washington Post reports he wasn’t alone in uncorking the now-proscribed term lo those score of years ago: It unearthed a batch of House Democrats who used it in various iterations — “lynching,” “lynch mob,” or “lynch mob mentality” — when discussing Clinton at the time.

    New York City Rep. Gregory Meeks was among them. Back in 1998 he protested,

    “What we are doing here is not a prosecution, it is a persecution and indeed it is a political lynching.” Of course, he presently advances to the Post a distinction between his and Trump’s use of the word:

    “Context matters. There is a difference when that word is used by someone of my experience and perspective, whose relatives were the targets of lynch mobs, compared to a president … who called African nations s—holes and urban cities infested. Those he called ‘very fine people’ in Charlottesville were the kind of people who lynched those who looked like me. So, yes—there are certain words I am more at liberty to invoke than Donald J. Trump.”

    A shorthand translation for all that gobbledygook would be: It’s okay for me, but not for DT.

    Democratic representatives Danny Davis (D-Ill) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and former Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash), along with former Democratic Senators Harry Reid and John Kerry also applied the term to the process targeting Clinton at the time.

    So why no “massive outcry” back in 1998? Why no “lynch-gate” scandal rattling the punditocracy? At the Washington Post, Amber Phillips offers some possible explanations:

    [W]e’re more culturally aware now … social media allowed Trump’s words to spread more quickly, and … it matters more when it’s a (white) president saying it.

    So, today we’re — finally! — “culturally aware” and have access to social media. Can we point out Biden was a “(white)” Senator back in ‘98? That he’d already been a (white) presidential candidate (1988) and would be a future (white) vice-president. And he’d take a (white) stab at a White House run two more times (2008, 2019)?

    Do we then get around to holding him accountable for his choice of Trumpian language two decades ago?

    [Phillip’s] leading theory: “The president no longer gets the benefit of the doubt that he is innocently using offensive language. He has a history of making racially inflammatory and even outright racist statements.”

    Note: Undeniably, the president is guilty of frequent, gratuitously boorish and unedifying language. The Left’s frantic “racism” accusations against him, however? Probably overblown. His supposed “outright racist statements” are usually simply awkward, careless or ill-mannered comments from a guy who talks too much. Sloppy or crass? You bet … and unfortunately so. But racist?

    Instapundit’s retort?

    “Yes, all the people who spent the last four years calling Trump a Nazi are suddenly getting the vapors over this ‘unprecedented’ violation of civility.”

    H/T: Kate Seamons/Newser

    H/T: Greg Re/Fox News.com

    Image: Adapted from: Digital Campaign Manager Doug Jones for Senate – Doug Jones for Senate Committee, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64245563

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend