Apparently the new conservative and libertarian hero Cliven Bundy, who does not recognize the existence of the US and feels his cows have the right to graze on federal land as a result of his belief, has developed a yearning for the media spotlight that has descended upon him and holds a press conference every day.
Of course, the media lost interest as soon as the chances of a firefight decreased and last Saturday it drew just one reporter and one photographer. But the conference was a doozy as Bundy started musing about his views on many issues including race and wondered whether black people might have been better off as slaves than on welfare.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Suddenly, people who had been praising Bundy as a freedom fighter and couldn’t get enough of him decided that it might be time to put some distance between Bundy and themselves. Catherine Thompson rounds up some more backtrackers.
I wonder how long it will be before they declare that Bundy is actually a secret liberal Hillary Clinton supporter who manufactured this controversy to distract attention from Benghazi.
Hasn’t Bundy technically been on government subsidy for 20 years, getting free use of land that everyone else has to pay for?
I know, he’s the secret father of Hillary Clinton’s grandchild-to-be!
No “technically” about it. Even when he WAS paying his grazing fees, they were heavily subsidized by the gov’t.
Well, actually:
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/459467916950245377
While Bundy is a nutcase on both issues, land use and race, and anyone supporting him on either is wrong, to be fair, there’s no contradiction in those various “pundits” supporting him on his land use position and, subsequently, decrying his views on race.
It is possible to agree with someone on one issue and disagree with them on another.
@3,
In other words, he’s more of a welfare cheat than an ordinary welfare recipient.
DaveL: You mean, at all?
Mano: Catherine Thompson, not David Kurtz
Hatchetfish,
Thanks, I corrected it. I initially had linked to Kurtz and forgot to update.
Is is t racist that I can’t imagine Mister Bundy having much first hand experience picking cotton?
The far right are not backtracking because what Bundy said was appalling.
The far right are backtracking because Bundy said it publicly.
The extreme right prefer to say such things behind closed doors, and only in code when in public (e.g. Gingrich’s “failure of citizenship”).
Mr Bundy’s attitudes on race have nothing to do with his disagreements with the Federal Government. The salient issue here is that he signed a contract in which the Feds agreed to provide him with the use of grazing territory for his cattle for an agreedupon fee. Bundy didn’t pay, apparently willfully because he is still in the cattle business after 20 years of non-payment and still solvent, therefore his cattle and the facilities he constructed on Federal Land should be confiscated and sold at public auction to satisfy his contracted debt.
If Bundy so profoundly disagrees with Federal policies, why is he doing business with them. He should have been charged with fraud years ago.