Evan Gahr writes: New York Post Editorial page staffer Robert George, perhaps the page's only black writer ever, is refusing to condemn his boss, Bob "Edith Bunker" McManus for racist humor far more serious than the bigoted and inane comments which he and other putative conservatives seized upon to drive Trent Lott out of office.
McManus, who Eric Breindel has described as having "a pea for a brain", pleasures himself immensely by likening black businessmen to criminals.
McManus has said with a huge smile on his big fat Irish Catholic face that the 100 Black Businessmen is really 100 Black Men with their parole officer. Anybody laughing? Humor is serious. To poke fun or even make crass jokes about the disproportionate number of blacks involved in criminal activity is one thing; you're dealing with a fact and then responding in kind. But what does it say about McManus that he equates black businessmen with criminals? What does that say about his mindset in general? His attitude towards blacks?
McManus also enjoys surfing the internet on company time. Back in 1996 hit pay dirt on his little fishing expedition when he came across a mock inner-city math quiz, which he printed out and gave to the junior member of his predecessor's staff. It had stuff like "if the bitch steals five grams of coke from Rufus and he started with ten how much is left?"
Again how much time did he spend finding this stuff?
Who else did he give it to?
Why?
When?
Ugly stuff, but mum's the word from his staff when questioned yesterday. Marc Cunningham and Adam Brodsky hung up when the caller identified himself. Robert George was even more abrupt.
Any problem with Bob's racist humor?
"Click."
When David Brock published his confessional memoir, Jill Abramson, the elitist pc snob who answers her own phone, asked if Brock lied previously why should we believe him now.
Similarly, if Robert George refuses to disassociate himself from his own boss's disgusting why should anybody take him seriously if he takes issue with liberals
association with unseemly characters, such as Al Sharpton?
Moreover, doesn't this render his glorification by the New York Times, which
quoted him trashing Trent Lott, for supposedly breaking ranks, outdated and in need of correction?
Did he really break ranks or simply join the lynch mob that was determined to crucify Trent Lott to attone for the original sin by such conservatives as William Buckley for opposing the landmark civil rights act?
Taking Lott to the woodshed was a calculated political move by players who
risked nothing, contrary to the NYTimes depiction of the low-tech lynching as
some kind of moment of great soul searching.
Robert George would do well to try the genuine kind and ask himself whether he's nothing but Bob's bitch and just a sorry excuse for a man, journalist and black man when he countenances the kind of ugly bigotry for which many liberals, such as John Lewis, risked their personal safety to defeat.
