White House Criticizes Bennett for Remarks

NYTIMES ^ | 09/30/05 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MAREK FUCHS

[dts32041]

You mean the same one who was the basis for the eugenics laws in germany in the 30's and the south in the 20's.

Naw can't have that coming out, might scare the donors.

[MilleniumBug]

Free speech is never appropriate. That's why those freedom-lovers (ACLU) are rushing to Bennet's support:

"Since 1920, the ACLU has been fighting to preserve our freedom of speech. Use the resources on this page to learn more and take action to protect the right to free speech guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights."

[oceanview]

the white house doesn't need to "take a look" at anything. Bennett's comment are his own, he is not a member of the administration. they need not make any judgement on this either way.

what happens next week, is everything that Rush says now have to be supported or refuted by the white house?

[trustandobey]

Bill Bennett should be applauded for saying what he did. Seems conservative people are not allowed to speak anymore. If we don't stand up and fight we are no better than the opposition. The White House has no busines getting involved.

[alnick]

The White House should have just stayed out of it. Bennett is a private citizen.

[lilylangtree]

With all the reports surfacing about the number of blacks that are incarcerated as to the number of whites plus the issue of racial profiling, Bennett's remarks make sense but like he said, "such abortions would be reprehensible."

[goldstategop]

Blacks do account for most of the crime in inner cities and most of the victims are black. There was an article series written in the Los Angeles Times about South Central L.A. The murder rate is so high that no family's been untouched by the breakdown of civilized existence. Its one of those things no one wants to talk about either. Like you said the stats are there and if, in black ruled or rather black run areas, high crime is a product of white racism, then it stands to reason where blacks are empowered, the crime rate should be comparable to the crime rate in white suburbs. If not, we need to ask why there is such a dramatic difference - and do something about it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Baklava]

You're right--not their man, not their problem. They shouldn't have had to feel like they had to say anthing at all about that.

[durasell]

The White House is blaming Soros? Holy crap. There's a can of worms when the administration openly speculates like that.

[Czar]

"Whatever. You are an embarrassment."

I take it you sit in the Bush amen corner, and no doubt belong to the GOP Big Tent full of RINOs, liberals and moderates. You may be one of the GOP Big Tent cheerleaders, but we can see you're no conservative.

You "GOP at any cost" drones are pathetic.

[MNlurker]

You know a year ago, maybe even a little less I would have fought you tooth and nail because of your statement, but aside from a few issues I really can't disagree anymore. I defend this Administration non-stop against a lot of my friends and they end up saying I'm further right than W (when all I want is controlled spending and immigration reform)!!

[Kokojmudd]

You may be one of the GOP Big Tent cheerleaders, but we can see you're no conservative.

I'll stick with the big tent GOP even if it is full of RINOs until a better alternative is available. Right now the only viable alternative to our RINOs are the likes of hillary clinton and harry Reid....to paraphrase Wes Pruden..the democrats are the best thing the republicans have going for them.

[cgk]

the white house doesn't need to "take a look" at anything. Bennett's comment are his own, he is not a member of the administration. they need not make any judgement on this either way.

You're right they don't... but they already did. And it was wrong. And they should correct it.

As for the White House supporting or refuting something Rush Limbaugh says, we've already been there/done that:

---

Q What's the President's view of the comment that got Rush Limbaugh in trouble?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that Rush Limbaugh addressed the matter.

Q You know, Scott, when you click onto the White House website and you enter the word, "bigotry," the President has addressed this issue 136 times. Why would not -- why wouldn't you, on his behalf, want to address it in this instance, where someone has associated the selection of athletes on the basis of their race for certain positions on the field?

MR. McCLELLAN: I did answer the question, and I think that he addressed the matter -- I think that Rush Limbaugh addressed the matter.

Q Is it because Limbaugh is a political ally and often someone who supports administration causes and so forth that you don't want to address this yourself?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've asked the question, and I've responded to it.

[wolfcreek]

I think someones getting a little to much MSM feces on their lips.

[clintonh8r]

...all I want is controlled spending and immigration reform

I'm with you, but let's add a more aggresive execution of the WOT and a little more push-back on RATs and the media. Then I'll be happy.

[Sir Gawain]

STFU White House.

[MNlurker]

I see no issues with a stronger push in either of those areas.

[joesnuffy]

The issue isn't race; it's culture. We have become of nation of fact-haters.

Exatamundo.....

Like medicos who would put certain diagnosis 'off limits' the disease can never be cured...

imo

[Paulus Invictus]

Did the WH even read a transcript of what he really said? NO! What dummies they are, taking all the blame all the time! Get some cojones! Gah!

[PhilipFreneau]

>>> If the big picture for me wasn't about the Supreme Court, I think I would consider this Administration an embarassment on many levels now. <<<

This Administration is an embarassment on many levels, now!