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.