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

Isn't this interesting? A few days ago, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times accused Congressman Joe Wilson of being a racist because he virulently opposes President Obama's health care reform plan. Here's the link to her column. Now former president Jimmy Carter has taken the position that nearly all opposition to President Obama is rooted in racism.

The problem with this argument is that it sets up a classic "straw man" situation. I will admit that there are still nincompoops who hate Barack Obama because of his skin tone, but those people are in the minority. The President himself stated that he didn't believe that Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. But if opponents of the health care reform package being pushed by the White House and the Democratic Party have to spend their time defending themselves against a false attack, they won't have time to address the issues of the debate.

No matter what one believes about health care reform in the United States, we should have a civilized debate about it. I agree that Rep. Joe Wilson should not have interrupted the President's speech with his outburst. I do not agree with the assertion that he's a racist because of it. I also do not agree with the assertion that opposing the President's health care reform package is racist.

But that's what some on the liberal side of the aisle are saying. And not only is it offensive to me personally, not only does it take away from debate on the actual issues, it strikes me that if the only defense against such attacks is "You're a racist!" then maybe you're out of ammunition - not to mention out of facts, logic, and reality.

If the President's health care reform initiative is the way to go, then show me the facts. Show me the cost estimates. And show me how we're going to pay for it. At that point, we can sit down and discuss the issues calmly and rationally. But don't point fingers and spew out venom. There's too little civilized discourse going on as it is.

I began this entry asking "Isn't this interesting?" Now, I'm thinking I should have written "Isn't this disgusting?"

I completely agree. It is disgusting. Anytime someone throws the word racist into a debate, it pretty much messes up any chance for a real discussion. And personally, I don't like being called racist just for disagreeing with someone. It annoys me. I don't like the so called health care reform, but that doesn't make me racist by any stretch of a sane mind.

Tara

Ditto both of you...

I'm sure he's a very nice man, but that doesn't mean I agree with what he [and the rest of the yahoos in Washington] are doing.

And it has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin tone.

Carol

But this labelling of opponents as "racist" was a technique used by the Obama campaign rather successfully. Recall how Bill Clinton was labelled as racist, as just one example. So no one should be surprised to see the technique used again.

I happen to agree that reform of US health care is much needed (my Canadian bias ) - but I do agree with Terry that reasoned debate on an issue ought to be how reform gets shaped, passed or defeated. A key element of a democracy is respect for 'the other side(s)' - Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Segwaying into a different aspect of your politics - our Prime Minister is visiting your President to-day. Our key concern is the American govenrment's protectionism (Buy America has hurt the Canadain economy). Anyway, hope the visit gets some decent press coverage in the American media. Our PM is sadly charisma challenged , so it may not.

c.

I've avoided commenting on politics threads in here for a LONG time. But here's one where I can say, Terry, that I agree with you. I heard about that statement by Carter today, and I think it is going to do nothing except make political divisions worse.

There are people out there who are racist, but even their opposition to Obama's policies may or may not be based on his race. There are plenty of people who oppose his policies because they oppose his policies, and who are not racist at all - to claim otherwise is unhelpful, and profoundly divisive, even dangerous. I was pleased to see that the White House issued a statement disagreeing with and distancing themselves from Carter.

Having said that, I have been disgusted at some of the posters and T-shirts used by the Tea Party movement. Political opposition: fine; the witch-doctor posters, the offensive comments about Muslims and the N-word and so on are not, and I would like to see the leaders of that movement distancing themselves from the worst of it. I saw the opposite; on CNN the other night, a spokesman for the campaign (whose name I cannot remember) refused to comment on the racist paraphernalia that was brought to his attention, and did not deny that his website refers to Obama in some quite offensive race-related language.

Wendy

Wendy -

I must say that if you watched CNN that's probably about all you saw was those kinds of signs. Everything I saw on CNN/MSNBC/etc was the radical fringe. The only one I saw carrying the more... normal signs if you will was FOX [which iirc you don't consider 'news' - but that could have been someone else and if so I apologize] and there were TONS of them. From the pictures I've seen around, it seems the radicals were by far the minority, though that's not what was shown on the MSM. I have been to a Tea Party and know many many others across the country who have been as well [including Pam] and there were none of the offensive signs that I saw at ours - which I think is the norm. I didn't see the interview you mentioned so can't comment to that, but all of those I know that are involved [incl. some of the local leadership] has spoken against the racist signs, the Obama with the Hitler moustache etc.

Of course, I also take offense at being called a Nazi...

And a racist...

Edit: To be fair... I think, generally speaking, the crazies on either end of the spectrum generally get more air time on most channels/websites/whathaveyou than the not-crazies, because, let's face it, they're more 'interesting'.

Carol [who needs to get her kids in bed and get ready for class tomorrow :p ]

I think Carter still lives in Georgia and I am sad to say that there is still a lot of racism here. Remember, until 50 years ago this state was still officially segregated. Twenty years ago I saw someone in a KKK robe handing out literature. (But the local PD sent a large Black officer to talk to him and I haven't ever seen the guy in the hood again.) So his statements may be influenced by comments he is hearing. But he is wrong--there are plenty of people opposed to Obama for reasons other than race.

Carol said:

I hoped that was the case, and suspected it might be - but of course that kind of reaction never gets picked up by the media, just as when moderate Muslims condemn Al Qaeda it doesn't get reported. It's not sensational, therefore it's not news

And so you should! That type of behaviour is every bit as unacceptable as the Hitler/witchdoctor posters etc. I may disagree with you politically, but I respect your right to hold your beliefs and don't believe you hold them from any other reason than principle.

I just wish more people, on all sides, would have that same respect for other people's opinions


Wendy

I don't normally rush out to give props to the Obama man, but this was a major pat on the back, imho:

(just insert how much I loathe our media)

I also fell over laughing that the House thinks its their responsibility to reign in Wilson with apologies; he's already apologized to the President, and that's what matters the most, imho. I'm sorry the House Majority leader feels so personally wounded, but how about we work on some, you know, congressional bills?

Cheerio,
JD

I'd have to go double check [and I haven't followed REALLY closely but...]

IIRC, Pelosi was ready to let it go and several others pushed and pushed her into changing her mind - don't remember who off the top of my head, the #2 guy [whose name I don't remember :p ] was one of them, I believe.

But yeah, nothing better to do? Try reading the bill instead or better yet, the Constitution... It won't take nearly as long .

Carol

Posting here, against my better judgment.

I'm not going to comment on the "racism" debate, and I'm not saying anything about whether or not Joe Wilson should have been made to apologize in public or not.

I will say, however, that I think it is very rude to interrupt a person who has been invited to make a speech. Certainly those who disagree should be allowed to state and defend their own position after the invited guest has finished his speech, but they should not be allowed to protest loudly while the guest is speaking.

Terry referred to a columnist at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd. I'm not commenting on her column. However, there is another, slightly more conservative columnist at the New York Times named David Brooks. Just recently, a few days ago, he commented on how the mood in America is very different these days than it was at the end of World War II. Brooks wrote:
When the President of the United States is interrupted while giving a speech by a political opponent calling him a liar, David Brooks' words are something to ponder.

Ann

Ann -

I agree with you completely that it was rude and uncalled for [if technically accurate - only one of four versions specifically addressed the issue of noncitizens, the others didn't specifically include illegals but didn't require any proof for some of the services involved].

However, the Dems booed Bush at his 2005 State of the Union Address and there was no public outcry over that.

Both were out of line. The reaction was vastly different. Had he called Obama a nincompoop however that would have been within House rules. And no Dem EVER called Bush a liar [whether he was or not isn't my point - my point is the seeming double standard].

Anyway - I just mowed for 3 hours and I'm going to go collapse...

Carol

You know, the more certain people shrilly yell about "racism" the more a lot of other people are going to roll their eyes and ignore them, because a lot of it is silly. And that's going to discredit the real instances of racism that do still occur.

I heard about the Maureen Dowd column... from what I read, she quoted Joe Wilson saying "you lie" and then imagined that he added "boy" -- which of course is an insulting term when applied to a black man. And I'm like, can't we stick with what he *actually* said...?

Like Carol said, I've been to a Tea Party, and I didn't see any of those horrible signs. People there were disgusted with government (both parties), and Obama is part of the face of government. But so are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and you can't get much whiter than those two. The anger's about ObamaCare *and* the stimulus *and* cap'n'trade *and* card check *and* bailouts, etc...

And if you stick to CNN or the New York Times, you're going to miss a lot of what's going on, because they're just refusing to cover things, or to cover things fairly. Have they yet done any stories on the series of undercover videos at ACORN offices? (Undercover reporter: "hey, my girlfriend's a prostitute, and we want to buy a house and smuggle in underage girls from El Salvador to turn tricks, and I want to use that money to fund a Congressional campaign; can you help us?" ACORN employees in Baltimore, DC, New York, San Bernadino, and San Diego (so far) "Yeah, sure, no problem, we can help you with all that.") (BigGovernment.com)

Anyway, I need to go to bed now...

I'm glad to know that not all tea bag protests are full of racists. The one I've seen are not only full of racists, but birthers and other nutjobs, who have truly horrific signs that I would think any well-bred person would be ashamed to show.

As far as the outrage over ACORN?

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

I don't want to take up too much space, but for more of why progressives don't sympathize with conservative outrage over ACORN, read the entire piece here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/17/acorn_hysteria/index.html

Thought this article by Gil Troy in this morning's Globe and Mail was a good reminder of the need for context and perspective.

Playing the race card

Shame on media types who've added this "if it's infalmmatory, it leads" corollary to the "if it bleeds, it leads" dictum. (I know, that's judgemental, but really what are they thinking? *Are* they thinking??? Clark Kent and Lois Lane would never stoop so low! Truth, Justice, etc...

Nor would Perry White.

c.

Joy -

Believe me, many conservatives are ticked off over the billions to Wall Street and elsewhere as well. See Pam's list for starters.

Of course, ACORN was also paid well over 800G by the Obama campaign and are being investigated in a number of states for voter fraud. It the culture of corruption and that they are so closely tied to Obama that is a big part of it [does that mean everyone in ACORN is corrupt? Of course not. It's very possible the filmmakers were turned away in places, too, though I haven't heard. But when it happens in multiple places in multiple states, you have to wonder how many people are just turning a blind eye... Even Jon Stewart said:
and to this point, as far as I've seen [though I haven't looked today], you won't find it in the MSM.]

iTunes has now downloaded which means I can activate my 'new' iPhone - off to play .

Carol

Joy,

Actually, I prefer the term coined by the protesters themselves, "Tea Party", after the original Boston Tea Party. "Tea Bag Protest", unfortunately, sounds like a slightly cleaned-up version of the vulgar and sexually explicit term meant to disparage and insult the Tea Party participants. I'm sure that was not your intention, but I hope you can sympathize with my sensitivity regarding this issue, especially here, among friends of all political persuasions.

When you say that the Tea Parties you saw were full of racists, birthers, and other nutjobs, do you mean you saw this in person, or are you referring to your impression of the Tea Parties based on how they were covered by the news networks? If you actually attended a Tea Party and witnessed this first hand, I have to say I am stunned. Where did this Tea Party take place?

I don't read the New York Times; being in Canada, I tend to read the Globe and Mail and the local newspaper here

ACORN has been extensively covered by CNN, both online and on the TV news. I haven't watched a lot of the TV news coverage, but I've seen it in the 'upcoming' summaries. I watch when I'm on the treadmill, and depending on the time of day and what's on I flip between BBC news, CBC (that's Canadian Broadcasting Company!) and CNN.

Is this related to Fox News' allegations that other networks don't cover certain stories? I know Fox paid for an ad in newspapers today making the ludicrous assertion that other networks did not cover the anti-government protest in DC last weekend. That's so untrue that it's laughable; I saw coverage of the march on CNN last Saturday and analysis of it on Sunday. It was a major news story. I saw film of the marches, and interviews with protesters - and they weren't only showing fringe elements; they were showing ordinary people with the kind of anti-big-government and anti-stimulus-spending views that have been reflected throughout what I've seen of those protests on CNN (yes, I've occasionally also seen film of pretty nasty posters, but that might be a one-second moment in a three-minute segment). I don't know what Fox thinks it's up to with that ad; it seems kind of insulting to Fox viewers to me, because it suggests that, on something that's so easily disproved, you wouldn't find out the truth of the matter on your own.


Wendy

Good to hear that CNN's been covering things; they've been caught being very dismissive of conservative protesters before. MSNBC is worse, though. Did you hear anything about Van Jones before he resigned? Lots of conservative blogs claim that the MSM was ignoring it/covering for the White House, but as I don't actually watch much TV, I'm not a good judge.

Haven't seen or read about the FOX ad, but that's never stopped me from commenting on anything before I assume they're trying to increase their market share (or make their own audience feel smug, maybe?), but as you say, when it's something easily disproven, it's not a smart move.

Re the Tea Parties, yes, please, stick with "Tea Party" not that ugly slur. I'm not entirely sure what "teabagging" is but I know it's something dirty/sexual and that I don't want to know any more than that. I've been to two of these now, and my issue is the overall appalling governmental overreach in so many areas. It was bad enough when it started under Bush but with Obama it's quadrupled.

Plus the man doesn't seem to have a clue how businesses work (and why should he? like too many people in government, he's never had a private-sector job). He keeps talking about companies taking profits "off the top" or about them being "overhead." As an accounting major, I can assure you "overhead" is expenses like rent, insurance, salaries, taxes, etc. Profit is whatever's left after you're finished paying your expenses. Anyway... Captain Clueless wants to take over vast sectors of the economy, and I can't help thinking that it's a very very bad idea.

PJ

This is a quote from Glenn Greenwald's column on Salon.com, the same article Joy quoted from. Joy, I think you should have shown the paragraph as a quote; otherwise it looks as if you worded it that way yourself.

Shall we talk about insulting? According to Mr. Greenwald, if I give any credence to Fox News or Beck or Limbaugh, then I'm a "trained follower" who "reveres" the "omnipotent corporate interests" which actually run the Federal government. (If that's true, how'd they let Obama in?) The strong implication is that I'm a zombie who can't think independently and who is protesting against ACORN because my puppet masters told me to.

And Mr. Greenwald seems to think that the ACORN scandal has been welcomed by the conservative nutjobs because it distracts from the health care debate and pulls energy and time away from the righteous efforts to protect the uninsured from being uninsured. Not only that, but if I do disagree, I'm helping to hold down the poor and unfortunate who would be the main beneficiaries of the health care reform's largess.

That's crap.

I am upset about ACORN because the organization has been accused of voter fraud in our last national election and because they really did register a number of dead and indigent "voters" in the registration drive (typical Chicago-style machine politics; been going on since the Roaring Twenties). Now we have videos of some of their staffers (some of whom have by now been fired) telling people how to run illegal businesses and dodge Federal taxes. This organization was going to participate materially in the 2010 census, which would have given the criminals in the organization (I don't believe that everybody in ACORN is a crook) the opportunity to influence the population count upwards in heavily Democratic districts and downwards in heavily Republican districts.

The amount of money they got isn't what makes me angry, it's the demonstrated lack of ethics in the organization. If one claims not to trust conservatives because of the money problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (they're real and someone should be held accountable for every penny), then that one should apply the same ethical standards to ACORN. Outrage over unethical behavior shouldn't have any kind of dollar amount test attached to it. To do one and not the other smacks of partisan politics, no matter which outrage one vents over.

Wendy, the FOX news complaints about the recent protest not being covered refers to outlets directed to the US audience. I, for one, looked for mentions of the protest in the mainstream media and found few. And the ones I found were mostly dismissive or negative in tone. I'm glad you got to see them, because you're more informed than most Americans who didn't watch FOX were at the time. (That doesn't mean that there wasn't coverage, it just means that I had a hard time finding it. And I shouldn't have.)

And I echo the request to call them "Tea Parties" and not to use the other term. It's very close to a vulgar reference to a male homosexual act, and it has been used by those in the media who wish to insult and disparage the protesters. And I didn't know the term before all this came up. I wish I had continued in my ignorance on that particular subject.

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

Thanks, Wendy, for posting that link. I was curious to see how the American list compared to the Canadian one (and specifically what the recs were for people with asthma)

Anyway, here are two passages from the document which may have been the source for Nan's concerns:
"Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza."
-- (note here, the omission of 65+)

also: "However, once vaccine demand among younger age groups has been met, programs and providers should offer vaccination to people 65 or older. "

As a nurse , Nan will be aware of how these programs get implemented. But I can see, based on reading Wendy's link, that a senior might get the feeling he was being encouraged to grab a passing ice floe.

c.

Wendy,

What three countries were these?

Just to clarify, in America insurance companies do not make decisions regarding what treatment patients will recieve; they made decisions regarding what they will pay for. And, yes, there is a difference.

When I had my hernia operation, my insurance company did not cover a special type of mesh used to cover the hernia. I decided I wanted that particular mesh, and paid out of pocket for it. Last month, my family doctor ordered a newly-developed expensive lab test which was not covered by my insurance. In this case, I decided to let my insurance company pay for an older version of the test. In both cases, decisions concerning my body, my health, and my treatment, were made by ME, not the insurance company.

As I understand it, in the UK, this is not the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that NICE dictates which procedures, medications, etc. will be available to patients and which will not. If NICE nixes a treatment, it was my understanding that the treatment is, literally, unavailable to the patient and the doctor/healthcare facility is forbidden from providing it. This, regardless of the doctor's medical opinion regarding the benefits of the treatment. Am I mistaken about this?

In Canada, it was my understanding that the government distributes the funds among the healthcare institutions, which then decide what procedures they will perform, and how many of each. If the hospital will perform, say, 100 MRI's, the 101st patient will not recieve the treatment - at least not that year. This, regardless of the doctor's medical opinion regarding the need for the procedure. Again, am I wrong?

You mention people throwing around false claims on internet, so I would be interested in hearing just how the systems work from people who have experienced them first-hand. What are the falsehoods and what is fact?

The information I mentioned was recently passed along to us in a report on the vaccine (which has its own problems, may I add.) The priority was pregnant women first, and then persons with compromised immune systems, followed by various other categories such as children and healthy adults. But the part that hit me was the specific restrictions on seniors. It was stated that *after* all these others were taken care of, seniors under 64 would be given the vaccine, and then seniors over 65. This was emphasized. I am not mistaken about it. I can't give you the reference because the spokesman was on television, for our area, and I don't remember who he was. However, it was very specific.

I personally don't want the vaccine. It was developed in a rush, without much testing, and apparently a fairly high percentage of the vaccine's test subjects developed Reyes Syndrome, which is a nerve disorder that can kill. Hopefully they'll do something about that, but I choose not to take the risk. However, the point was very clear about seniors. I don't know what their criteria for getting the vaccine are in Canada, Wendy, but I do know what they are here in San Diego.

And my previous statement still applies as well. Medicare is on the chopping block to fund socialized health care. Obama claims that he can cut five hundred billion from the program (while adding millions of persons not currently insured to it) and not harm services. I don't believe it. Especially since 40% of American doctors are threatening to retire if the health care bill passes. For some reason they don't want to treat, and can't afford to treat, more Medicare patients when the government will cut the already reduced and delayed payments for their current Medicare patients. It's very difficult to give the same level of service with more patients, less money and fewer doctors. Obama says he can do this, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but if he can do all that, why doesn't he do it now, instead of waiting for a bill?

Unless the man has magic powers, I don't see how it can be done, and I don't want to discover when I need the treatment that the waiting list is six months to two years -- if I can get a doctor at all.

I'm scared to death of this so-called health care reform, and I'm not the only senior who is scared, either.

But no one in Washington is listening, and I resent that more than ever.

Nan

P.S. Oh, and by the way, I'm glad that in those countries the government doesn't get between the doctor and patient, Wendy. Unfortunately, in the health care bill currently being debated in the Senate, and in the one in the House, that is not the case. There will be a board that decides which treatments are considered appropriate for you, by bureaucrats who are looking at the statistics and their bottom line, who make the decision of what care you receive, or if. That is already a fact. It was slipped into the Stimulus bill and passed months ago.

Back to Jimmy Carter, who claims the protests are racially motivated, stating :

I've read that James Carville repeated Carter's claim about "Bury Obama with Kennedy" signs on CNN's Anderson Cooper show. MSNBC took it one step further, as commentator Ed Schultz repeated the claim that the signs said "Bury Obama with Kennedy", adding "These people are phychos. That's what they are. Sometimes I think they *want* Obama to get shot. I do!"

Only problem is, the sign didn't say to bury Obama. It said to bury the Health Care Bill:

[img]http://newsrealblog.files.wordpress...edshow0911.jpg?w=300&h=269&h=269[/img]

American politics - phooey!

I try to stay out of political discussions on the boards, but I do have one small question regarding something Nan said above:

I have seen people making this exact complaint in just about all of the health care discussions I've followed, and I just don't understand it. By the definition of 'socialized health care' opponents are using, isn't Medicare socialized health care? If everyone objects so much to a socialized health care program, why are they so fiercely protecting Medicare and complaining about potential funding cuts? It seems like a double standard to me.

Just food for thought.

It might seem that way unless you understand that the Medicare agreement is a contract. We paid into the Medicare fund all our working lives, so it isn't a freebie. But the apparent plan now is to cut Medicare funds -- which are meant for senior health care -- and take the money to fund care for the uninsured, leaving the seniors with less, and possibly restricted medical care. Sorry, but I don't want my health care taken from me to fund some twenty-year old who has not spent forty years earning the privilege. Seniors paid plenty of money into the Medicare fund so that they would have guaranteed health care in their senior years, and now the government wants to take it away. Somehow, that seems like the government is violating its contract with seniors.

In the private sector, violating a contract like that would have consequences. When it comes to the government deciding to change the terms, you're up the proverbial creek. Or do you think that it's all right to promise something like that, and have seniors pay into the fund for years, and then say, sorry, we've changed our minds?

Nan

Oh, I understand now. The reason why it doesn't bother me so much is that I'm in the generation that will not be able to collect these benefits (Medicare, Social Security) because that funding pool will be long dried up by the time I reach retirement age (unlike those who are already retired or soon-to-retire, and will actually get to collect their hard-earned benefits).

You said They already take a chunk of my earnings from each paycheck for these programs, but I'll never get that money back. It's just a reality my generation has to live with, so I'm used to it. At least I know my money is helping take care of my elderly mother in her retirement!

On the other hand, I fully expect that to happen to me by the time I get old enough to start claiming some of that Social Security I've been paying into for twenty years... the system's going to crash long before I'd get anything back from it...

Also, part of the thing with Medicare is actually about the Medicare Advantage program, which is private insurance subsidized by the government, so Medicare recipients can purchase more coverage. Medicare Advantage is going to go bye-bye, and that will be a de facto cut for everyone now on that program...

PJ

To get back to comparing protests...

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/25/10155/

Tea Party vs. G20 anarchists

PJ

There's a dirty little secret about all those Medicare and SS trust funds that the government doesn't like to tell you. There is no trust fund, so they'll begin going bankrupt in 2017, not 2050 like they're telling you.

The trust fund is a filing cabinet in West Virginia that contains paper IOU's from the Treasury. All the "surplus" for Medicare and SS is spent in the general fund every year with those paper IOU's (they're not even treasuries, just worthless paper) stuffed into the filing cabinet year after year.

So while most people think there is a trust fund earning interest that can be drawn on after the two systems begin going into the red, in reality there isn't. So the real bankruptcy begins in 2017. Every dime spent on Medicare and SS after 2017 will need to be borrowed from the private sector or foreign investors in order to keep funding them. If you think deficits are big now, just wait until those payments are no longer lowering the deficit but are adding to it since the surplus is currently counted to lower the deficit.

Just an "I told you so" moment. Wendy challenged me when I said they are rationing the H1N1 vaccine here in the US. They are. People up to 64, with an underlying condition can get it. Those without are out of luck, and so are those 65 and older.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/elderly-question-flu-shot-controls-78063362.html

Nan

Interesting article, Nan. We don't have compromised immune systems, so are not looking to get the swine flu shot. We did get the regular flu shot. I agree, elderly with underlying conditions should get it. It seems there is no mechanism for that.

Artemis

Quick question: in the States, do you guys have to pay for an H1N1 shot or is it free?

ML

The government is paying for the H1N1 vaccine. The issue is still the short supply. The regular flu shots are covered by insurance. If you don't have insurance, you pay $20 (I think). Medicare paid for our regular flu shots. We're in the group that isn't likely to get H1N1 because we lived through something similar in our youth.
I learned from the LA Times today that the elderly with heart trouble, even though they are being treated with medicine, are at risk of a heart attack from the flu vaccine. That is why some doctors are not giving them the H1N1.
BTW, son and his family (wife, 2 sons 2 and 6) got the swine flu and came through O.K. They got it before the shots arrived.


Artemis One Doctor\'s Story

Thanks for the info, Artemis. I was curious about that.

That's interesting. My mom, who is over 65 - not sure she'd appreciate me saying how far over - had a triple by-pass ten years ago and she had the H1N1 shot with no complications. Glad I hadn't heard that info before she got the shot. But then, she and my dad get the flu shots every year.

ML

Here in Sweden everyone gets a flu shot for free. I got my shot yesterday - they started out with the young children and worked their way up through the progressively older parts of the population. Obviously the shots are paid for by our tax money, which is perfectly fine with me.

There are some risks linked to the vaccine, primarily to people who have had transplantations. A man who had had a heart transplant here in Sweden actually died. The shot boosts your immune system, which has to be suppressed in patients who have had an organ transplanted into their bodies. The man with the transplanted heart got an immune reaction which caused his body to reject (is that the word you use?) his new heart.

Ann

Glad your Mom is O.K., ML
There are 2 shots this year. The H1N1, which is in short supply and the regular flu shot. The regular shot shouldn't give her any trouble.

Artemis

She's already had both, Artemis. So have I for that matter. No shortage of H1N1 shots up here. We were vacinating the regular population before the rest of Canada was, Not sure how that happened, but, hey, for once I'm not complaining .

Of course, flu shots in Canada are always free. No different with the H1N1 shots. What surprised me was that I didn't even have to show identification or my health card. They just had us fill out a form that gave our address and answered some questions about alergies and, presto, instant flu shot. Guess they figured most of us wouldn't want to come back for a second one

ML