Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic American politics - phooey!

I saw the Fox ad, Terry, so I know which news outlets are referred to. And it leaves me absolutely gobsmacked, because I was watching CNN during my treadmill sessions last weekend and the main item on Saturday, and at least close to top billing on Friday and Sunday, was that protest. A short while ago, I saw CNN's response to the Fox ad - they're actually pointing out (1) that Bill O'Reilly on Fox begins one of his items last weekend with CNN covered the Tea Party protest in Washington... (or words very similar to that), and (2) the photo used in the bottom right-hand corner of the Fox ad is actually taken from CNN's tower camera and is the same photo CNN had on its large background screen during studio coverage of the protests. Angle's the same, the Canadian flag in the bottom corner's the same, the crowd formation's the same.

Apparently ABC and MSNBC are also objecting to the claim that they didn't cover the event, and Fox has so far declined to comment.

You're always going to get differing journalistic priorities; even news programmes with pretty much the same political slant editorially (eg the BBC and ITN in the UK) may make different decisions on what to cover, what to lead with and so on. I'd expect coverage to be different regardless of the news outlet, though naturally Fox is going to put a lot more emphasis on protests against a Democratic leadership (though I take the point that some of the reasons for the protest existed under President Bush also).


Wendy

I don't object to thread drift, especially in a thread like this one, but here\'s something to pull us back in the original direction.

I am pleased to see the President taking this stance. And this isn't a reversal for him. To my knowledge, he has never stated publicly that his heritage might be part of the health care debate. I applaud him for directing the discussion back to the issues and away from inflammatory accusations. And I look forward to intelligent and reasoned debate on those issues. I sincerely hope both sides put away the accusations and mean-spirited criticism long enough to think clearly and speak rationally.

Smooth, thank you for posting this, Terry! I may not agree with most of Obama's decisions, but he's really had some admirable statements lately about where our focus should be, instead of where we're letting all these outlandish stories fly.

Best,
JD

I personally have been to 3 Tea Parties and I have seen none of the signs that CNN has managed to dredge up. The signs I saw protested the excessive spending of Congress and the fear for the futures of the children and grandchildren of the Tea Party participants. Nobody compared Obama to Hitler, and nobody claimed anybody was a Nazi. There were people of all races there as well. I had conversations with a very charming lady who had come from China some thirty years ago, and a black veteran of the Navy who was worried sick that his grandkids were going to be paying for Washington's spending spree long after he was gone.

And please don't use the term "teabaggers." That was used by the opponents of the tea parties, meant to slur and insult those that attended.

This screaming of "racist" at anyone who disagrees with the president's policies strikes me as a demonstration that the accusers lack imagination. You don't start insulting your adversary when you have good arguments to advance. Besides, anyone knows that if you use an insult too many times, especially when the recipient knows that it is untrue, it loses its effect. If someone called you a creep, nowadays, would you even pay attention? I recall when one of my kids was angry at his cousin and called him a skateboard. Big insult.

Accusing an opponent of racism has previously worked to shut down debate. It is no longer working very well, and that is a bad sign in some ways, because it means that when real racism is actually demonstrated, people are going to ignore the accusation.

Aesop's fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf had a good point, don't you think?

Nan

No one was saying that ACORN shouldn't be investigated for wrongdoings and no one is saying that all conservatives are lynch mobs BUT the vitriolic name-calling is unbecoming to us as a country. This thread started because someone was upset at being labeled "racist". You may not like to hear the word, and it may not apply to you personally, but if the teapartyers are only protesting policy and not the officeholder, then they are guilty of letting the crazies and the real racists become the public face of their movement.
Vicki, I won't dignify your insinuation by justifying myself. Nan, I'm glad to know that the protests that YOU went to were policy-based and not racist. I have to tell you that CNN did not cherry-pick their images. I saw what I saw. I saw signs or heard oration that said President Obama was really an Indonesian, a Kenyan, an Arab terrorist, a Black nationalist Chirstian, a secret Muslim fundamentalist, a Fascist, a Communist, and affirmative action idiot, an elitist know-it-all, "Captain Clueless" (way to stay classy, Pam)etc. etc. I saw pictures of him with a bone through his nose, juggling watermelons and basketball, with a Hitler moustache, with a swastika on his armband, with Joker makeup, with minstrel makeup, morphed with a gorilla...IT MADE ME SICK. You can tell me that you disagree with his policies and that is fair enough. But you cannot say that racism is not part of the equation. That, to quote the eloquent Terry, is crap.
for sure, what I'm hearing is that a large portion of those who disagree with the President want to label him as somehow illegitimate. He doesn't represent them, and therefore they don't believe that he's really qualified, let alone that he WON the election. The ACORN voter registrations were investigated before the election and would not have been a deciding factor even if Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had really shown up to vote. There are reasons to protest government spending. But many of the ones who are doing it now had nothing to say for the last 8 years as the last "Captain Clueless" bankrupted the country.
Joy

Seriously, Joy, you can't get all your news from CNN. How do you know those signs weren't "cherry picked"? Were you in the editing room? Half of the debate in a media environment is "framing" the issue -- they pick which pictures to show, what percentage of the crowd size to show, what words are used to describe them, etc. CNN is a master at this.

But hey, I've been wrong before. And I'm curious. To the best of your recollection, did CNN show any of these signs ? Or these , from a protest *and* counterprotest side by side, for comparison? The general incivility in our culture is not new. Personally, I think it's less now than it sometimes has been, but estimations differ.

And isn't it one of the principals of our democracy that we're allowed to disagree with or even make fun our our President? You'd never know it, talking to some people (not you, Joy).

So I guess I'm not all that classy. Dang. Still, logically speaking, you can't use a personal attack to discredit an entire line of reasoning. Consider the source, yeah, but don't ignore the argument, especially when it's made by many people. A charge of racism, for instance, is designed to stop the argument cold, not discuss it and see if there's anything valid there. I guess when some people can't argue substance they have to fall back on "because, shut up!" as a response.

Also keep in mind that people who are wrong on a lot of things might occasionally stumble into the right position. For instance, I personally despise former President Carter, for many and varied reasons. But I give him credit for two things -- Habitat for Humanity, and his response to the Three Mile Island crisis. When everybody else in central PA was freaking out and heading for the hills (including my own family), Carter took a tour of the facility. That, I respect.

Anyway, this is rambling.

PJ

Okay, can't resist this one:
First of all, not true. Conservatives appreciated much of Pres. Bush's foreign policy, but his domestic policies were pretty unpopular, and trust me, things were said. Just not on CNN, I guess.

Second, this is a non sequitor. If I didn't object to something, I'm not allowed an opinion on anything subsequent? If I didn't yell loud enough that Bush is bad, I'm forbidden to yell that Obama is four times worse? Bush pushed the deficit way too high, I agree, but Obama is quadrupling it.

Bush made us plenty uncomfortable, and some of us just winced and went along with our lives (the right doesn't have much a protest culture). Now Obama is causing extreme pain, and that is much harder to ignore. The two situations are not incompatible.

I haven't heard any arguments that Obama stole the election. It wasn't that close. The fact that corrupt practices didn't change the outcome (this time) doesn't mean it's okay to ignore them, though. Next time might be different.

I have heard arguments (some quite fervent) that Obama is not technically qualified to be President based on his birthplace. Those people are desperate, foolish, and should give it up.

Though I don't think the Birthers are as bad as the Truthers, who believe that Bush allowed or engineered the 9/11 attacks. Again, desperate, foolish, should give it up -- and far more insulting, IMO. (Plus they give the government credit for *waaaaaay* too much competence. Somebody would have leaked by now.) (And if I were stage-managing such a thing, I'd arrange to be doing something more dignified than reading "My Pet Goat" to school children, but maybe that's just me.)

PJ

Again.
I don't watch CNN. I saw with my own two eyes. I heard from my own two ears. Disagreeing is valid. No one is accusing YOU of racism. But it exists throughout your movement and is your public face. Sorry.

/me drives up in her pink Modmobile.

Just remember to keep it civil, everyone!

No elephant/donkey throwdowns, please!

I apologize, Joy; I missed that detail. But now I'm all curious -- which Tea Party did you go to? My two were both in Raleigh, NC, one in the early spring and another a month ago.

As for the movement's "public face" -- well, that's determined in large part by what the media chooses to show, since, unlike some of us, most people haven't physically been to a Tea Party protest.

PJ

Joy, your statement above is logically inconsistent. If, as you say, that you are getting the bulk of your information from personal experience and observation, then you are necessarily going to have a limited set of data points to draw from, and therefore stating that racism "exists throughout your movement and is your public face" is an awfully strong conclusion to draw with very little evidence. However, if you believe that the racist element is the driving force behind the entire movement and not just part of the demonstrations you have personally observed, then you're getting information from some media outlet or outlets.

I have no doubt that you saw what you say you saw. There are, as others have stated, nutjobs involved in politics on both sides. And I personally object to the Nazi comparisons (from all to all) and the undocumented accusations of criminal activity (again, from all). But I also believe that most of the people involved in the Tea Parties are not racist, and that racism is not the driving force behind these protests. I believe that, for the most part, they are citizens concerned with the direction of the country and the possible consequences of the health care plans being promoted and debated in Congress.

Just as the so-called "birthers" are using a personal attack to distract people on both sides from the real issues we're all facing, calling people "racist" without valid cause because they disagree with you distracts from the real issues. If we're going to talk about the issues, let's talk about them. Let's not call each other names. And I'm not referring to this thread only, but to the dialogue in general.

Calling the president an Indonesian is not racist. Some believe (rightly or wrongly) that Mr. Obama does not meet the citizenship requirements for presidency. They did not choose to call him “Indonesian” because this term has any particular racial connotation. They call him “Indonesian” because Indonesia happens to be the country they believe him to be a citizen of. If they thought he was a citizen of Canada, they would be calling him a “Canadian”.

Calling the president a Kenyan is not racist. See above.

Calling a man who was a member of a self-avowed Black Nationalist Christian church for over 20 years a “Black Nationalist Christian” is not racist.

Calling the president a “secret Muslim fundamentalist” is not racist. Islam is a religion, not a race.

Calling the president a “fascist”, a “Communist”, an elitist know-it-all, or “Captain Clueless” is not racist.

Showing the president with a swastika, a Hitler-moustache, Joker paint, or minstrel makeup is not racist.

In fact, THE VAST MAJORITY of the admittedly disrespectful protests against President Obama listed in Joy’s post cannot even remotely be considered racist. There are a mere handful of exceptions. I seriously doubt that all of the exceptions even came from the same Tea Party. I imagine opponents of the Tea Party movement waded through images of numerous Tea Parties in order to come up with this pitiful handful of racist protesters. They are an overwhelming minority, and clearly do not represent the movement as a whole.

The links Pam provided show protesters calling Bush THE DEVIL, THE ANTI-CHRIST, A PSYCHOTIC MURDERER, HITLER, a FASCIST, and a NAZI.

And, of course, there is the ever-popular bumper sticker proclaiming: Buck Fush.

Bush was repeatedly called a LIAR by the left (does “Bush lied, people died” ring a bell?) Now, we are told that saying, “You lie” is proof of racism.

Vanity Fair depicted Bush with Joker paint, and it was considered “cutting edge political satire”. Now, all of the sudden, Joker paint is considered “racist”.

I issue a challenge to anyone who seriously thinks that the level of civility has fallen with the Tea Party protests. Go to Google Images and google the following:

"kill Bush"
"Bush mass murderer"
"Bush vampire"
"Bush terrorist"
"Bush effigy"

OR, just type in a generic "Bush protest" and view page after page after page of anti-Bush protesters, with signs equal to or worse than any I have seen against Obama.

I hope you will notice also that the sign holders in question are not isolated loonies amid a sea of civility! After you have seen these images, come back and we can talk.

Here's another idea. Go back and learn about the 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. You think politics is nasty today? Those people had it down to a razor's edge. Both Adams and Jefferson were pilloried on religious, moral, physical, mental, moral, and political grounds. It was as if the death of George Washington in 1799 released everyone to be as vulgar as they could be to political opponents.

Abraham Lincoln was vilified by Southern politicians - which was to be expected - but he was also attacked by the generals he commanded (George MacClellan opposed him in the 1864 election), sitting Senators and Congressmen in his own party, and even his own cabinet (Secretary of War William Seward called him an "ape" and Secretary of Treasury Salmon P. Chase was jealous of Lincoln's victory at the 1860 Republican Presidential convention). Northern reporters and newspaper editors took shots at him on a weekly basis, if not more often. It took Lincoln's assassination combined with Lee's surrender at Appomattox to elevate him into the "great president" category. (His successor Andrew Johnson's disastrous administration didn't hurt his memory either.)

Grover Cleveland was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock during his first campaign. When he admitted that it was true, and that he was supporting the child, the voters decided he wasn't such a horrible guy after all and elected him. But the story nearly derailed his political life and gave his opponents fodder all during his terms of office.

Andrew Jackson all but declared war on his opponents when he married during his first term and heard accusations that his new wife's previous marriage had never quite been completely dissolved (the only thing lacking was a legal formality, something many couples - and law enforcement officials - ignored at the time), and the scandal tainted his time in office. In many ways, it limited what he could accomplish and shut off avenues of influence for him.

Politics in any free country has the immediate potential to tip into the dark side at any moment, irrespective of the country of origin. The tone if political commentary we saw for eight years during the second Bush administration and what we're seeing now is really par for the course. This isn't new, folks, and if you think it is, just study some US history.

Our FOLCs from other nations could testify to the vitriol in the politics in their home countries, too. The US isn't the only nation containing people who hold differing political opinions.

Vicki, I admit that I speak not exactly knowing I am right, but only thinking I am right. So yes, I could be wrong.

My impression, however, is that the hatred directed at President Obama is different and worse than the hatred that was directed at President Bush. My impression is that President Obama is generally much more popular abroad than President Bush was. (Not all countries, admittedly, feel that way, and I personally believe that the Poles, for example, miss President Bush.)

However, the situation in the United States is another matter. I don't recall that the kind of "homeland protests" that we see against President Obama were also seen in the same scope, number and perseverence against President Bush.

What I find most interesting is that I read somewhere that those who monitor the level and severity of the threats directed at the President say that the number of what appears to be serious "homeland death threats" against the President has risen 400% during Obama's presidency. In other words, there are four times as many serious homeland death threats directed President Obama as there were serious homeland death threats directed at President Bush.

My impression as a foreigner is that there is more domestic hatred against President Obama than there was against President Bush. If I am right about that, the reason could be either that there are more people who hate President Obama than there were people who hated President Bush. Alternatively, those who hate President Obama may hate him with a greater zeal and intensity than was generally displayed by those who hated President Bush.

Ann

Ann, perhaps you might cite your sources?

Looking at American politics as an outsider, although as one who has studied some American history and politics at the university level (which doesn't mean a whole lot, I know ) I am aware that there has always been a good deal of vitriol, as Terry says, in past American Presidential politics. For a recent example, Just look at the viciousness of the recent campaign for the Democratic nomination, a good proportion of which originated from the Obama camp.

As well, there has been a tendency for most media to avoid analytical and informed discussion of issues in favour of the the irrational. (CNN is a prime example, as is Fox news I suppose athough I've not seen the latter. And don't be taking Maureen Dowd seriously,ever, ever )

Perhaps it seems worse to outsiders because Obama was such a successful charismatic politician? People fell for him, as they've done for other charismatic leaders. But now is the hard part - delivering the goods. And in very tough times. That's a challenge -The before and after contrast of an 'American Idol' style presidential campaign with the grim reality of 2009 'kitchen sink' drama.

Here in Canada, when the American President visited there was much star-struck excitement. But then came the Buy America policy and we are both wary and critical here now. The morning after so to speak.

At least he hasn't been accused of murder yet, as the Clintons were.

Btw, I had no idea what 'tea-bagger' referred to before I read this thread. (am I the only on these mbs who didn't know?)

c.

I only heard the term recently being used by the MSM in reference to Tea Parties. I've been to a tea party and really didn't like being called that after I found out what it meant.

Tara

Ann, re: hatred for the President, if you really want to know, I recommend you check out my link above and/or try some of the google searches that Vicki suggested. That's domestic. I'm sure President Obama is more personally popular overseas than Bush was (which isn't saying much ) but he's not been getting much out of it. Personal preferences are important, but so are national interests. I'll bet you, though, that Bush will be remembered much more fondly than Obama in Poland.

Also I think some of it is inevitable; people had built up incredible amounts of expectation of Obama (he was brilliantly non-specific, so everyone could see whatever they chose to see), and it wouldn't have been possible for anyone to live up to that. So disappointment and disillusionment set in. It's almost like a marriage breaking up; people can get very bitter in a divorce, because they had personal expectations that weren't fulfilled. Does that make sense?

For the record, I don't hate President Obama. I hate what I see him doing to my country, but that's not the same thing. I dislike him... but that's not the same as hating, either. I suspect a lot of people fall into that category.

Last -- the Tea Parties are not about particular politicians, or political parties. I've seen more than one video of a Republican politician taking the stage at a Tea Party and being booed down.

PJ
who remembers the old days, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism... it seems like only a year ago...

I don't have sources, Carol, because I haven't been following American politics that closely lately, and as for the 400% thing I'm sure I read it at least a couple of weeks ago, don't remember where (probably in the New York Times, though they must have quoted someone else), and I don't have the strength to look it up. Sorry.

That's one of the reasons why I started my post by saying that I don't know if I am right.

Ann

For the record, I couldn't care less about President Obama's skin color. But I do dislike him very much because of what he is doing to my country. He is grabbing control of one private industry after another and ramming through socialized medicine with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Democrats in Congress. That last scares me to death. As a senior citizen, I cannot believe him when he says he can cut 5 hundred billion out of Medicare and still let seniors keep the same level of health care that we've been promised.

I don't want to be told that my life isn't worth the cost because someone else is younger and therefore more valuable, so take the pain pill, Nancy, and don't expect us to give you an artificial hip.

There is already a whisper of that with the vaccine for the H1N1 virus. We've been told that everyone else gets the vaccine first and then, if there is any left, those seniors under 64 will be allowed it, and after that, those over 65 will get what's left. That last includes my husband.

I see a very frightening trend here. And it's hard to like someone that scares you.

Nan

Priority list for H1N1 vaccine .

Someone like me would be no more a priority than anyone over 64. I don't see anything that states over-64-year-olds are at the bottom of the list.

And, while I really don't want to get into politics, I just have to comment on this, Nan:

You and I are never going to agree on so-called socialised medicine, although I will say that I have lived in three countries where healthcare is largely free at the point of use, funded by government (but run at arms-length - doctors make decisions, not politicians, or indeed insurance companies), and I wouldn't want to have any other kind of system. That's my preference. It's clearly not yours, or that of many Americans - although I do wish that some of the people throwing claims around on the Internet (I don't mean here; I haven't seen any specific discussion here) would check their information before making some criticisms of the NHS or Canadian healthcare.

But Obama grabbing control of one private industry after another? Bush poured billions into the banks - and he had no choice, unless he wanted a repeat of the Great Depression. Talks were already in progress with respect to the automotive industry before Obama took office - and again, what choice was there, really? I can't see any government, Democrat or Republican, letting that great symbol of American manufacturing, the automotive industry, disappear, as Chrysler and GM might well have. And, again, the knock-on consequences would have been severe. Even as it is, with the companies able to continue trading and undergoing restructuring, I'm seeing the effect of the devastation of the automotive industry on the local community where I live and work as an employment counsellor: unemployment significantly higher in south-western Ontario than the provincial and national averages, and many thousands of people who will never work in their industry or occupation again and, in their 40s and 50s, are facing the prospect of having to retrain. Had Bush still been in power, I don't think he'd have done anything different from Obama on that score. Now, you may still disagree with the principle of investing government money in the banking and automotive industries, whether under Bush or Obama, but it hardly represents a 'grab for control of private industry'. Obama himself said he has no desire to run the car industry.

Yes, there's vague talk of a bailout for the newspaper industry, and I don't know whether that would go ahead or not - but that's a request from the industry, it's not a 'grab' for 'control'. Let's not let rhetoric run away from reality here.


Wendy