Let Them Eat Nothing
What kind of people go to Republican candidate debates these days? What kind of people cheer when one of the aspirants at the podium in this field of bad dreams makes fun of food stamp recipients, the majority of whom are children.
What kind of country do we live in today when a candidate for the presidency from one of our national parties not only seeks to protect the wealth of the wealthiest at all costs, but would take food out of the mouths of the needy?
We no longer seem to dwell in a land of humane politics and honorable disagreements. Instead, potential national leaders can smirk at hunger and be cheered.
This being a moderate website, I will not speak my feelings toward the likes of Mr. Gingrich. I will say they are not respectful.
More from this writer at: This God-Awful Political Season (In Verse)
13 Responses to “Let Them Eat Nothing”
Continuing with your question “What kind of people go to Republican candidate debates these days?”, one could add:
People who enthusiastically applaud Rick Perry’s record-setting 234 executions as Governor of Texas
People who shout “Yeah!” when a moderator asks “Should society just let [an uninsured healthy 30-year-old who suddenly needs urgent medical care] die?”
People who boo a gay soldier while he is asking the candidates, “Do you intend to circumvent the progress’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”
People who cheer as Pawlenty, Santorum, and Cain rais their hands in support of using torture—or as Cain called it, “enhanced interrogation.”
I could go on…
Truly evil folks……………
Much more sensible than what we’ve seen at Obama campaign appearances, that’s for sure.
Hopefully now that reality has cleared at least some stupid worshipers’ heads, Obama 2012 may be not so ridiculous. Not that it won’t be that way at least sometimes (99 vs 1 per cent, “fair share,” GOP the party of job killers, and so on … brace yourselves)
Although I think Mr Silverstein mischaracterizes the audience responses to some degree, in general I agree the audiences have been an embarrassment and have propagated an image of Republicans as intolerant and uncaring. Most of this stems from a belief in individual responsibility as opposed to communal. Instead of articulating that coherently they instead come across more like a bunch of drunken yahoos at a sporting event. It’s really too bad that they reinforce their own worst stereotypes.
They (GOP audiences) may well even be goading the media liberals as a kind of lark. Deliberate excess, in other words, in retaliation against liberals in the media and everywhere else (White House?)
Note that it’s less irresponsible for a few uncouths in a GOP audience to be as they are than Obama, our President(!) in any campaign (which is no excuse, even given what Democrat audiences and so many typical voters are like even without any coaching or stunts.
I just hope it’s not so bad this year because of how crummy the GOP is this year.
@DG
Although you were addressing your comments to Silverstein’s post, forgive me for jumping in here since I also quoted some Republican debates audiences’ reactions.
First, let me give you kudos for acknowledging that there may be some basis for “an image of Republicans as intolerant and uncaring.”
Having said that — and strictly referring to my comments — let me say two things:
First, everywhere I say “[Republican][p]eople” this and that, in all honesty I should have said “some” as of course the boos, cheering and applause were not representative of all Republicans.
Second, I do not believe that my comments on audience reactions “mis-characterize” them as they are taken verbatim from debate transcripts — nor do I believe Silverstein’s observations are “mis-characterizations” but rather an honest opinion, but I am sure he can speak for himself.
Oh Brewhouse, you are too, too funny.
“I agree the audiences have been an embarrassment and have propagated an image of Republicans as intolerant and uncaring.”
I would be inclined to agree with that rather restrained comment, but I think it suggests the “image” is either a fluke or mistaken, when in fact, a glaring empathy deficit has been part and parcel of the republican philosophy for what seems like ages now. Another thing, this absurd notion the GOP is somehow the party of personal responsibily is farcical in the extreme. Propaganda much? Silverstein’s sentiments resonate clearly and loudly enough – for anyone who is listening as much as they are talking that is.
DDW I did not include you in my “mischaracterization” comment since your post was accurate and those things really did happen. I think we could debate what the underlying reasons for the audience responses were and we would probably disagree, but where we would agree is that many of the responses were ill-timed, ill-advised, stupid and short-sighted.
I’ll preface by saying I don’t want to defend Gingrich who I think is a terrible candidate and who would be a terrible president. I haven’t heard all of Gingrich’s comments but I haven’t heard him “mak(ing) fun” of food stamp recipients, and even if he did I doubt very much it was directed at children. I believe he did talk about food stamps leading to a culture of dependence. There is some merit to that and that theory actually was part of the basis for welfare reform under Clinton. I think Gingrich is wrong though, and that the great majority of adult food stamp recipients are on them due to a true need due to the recession.
Where I think Gingrich’s comments have some teeth is in saying more jobs are better than more food stamps. Obama has not done a good job solving the unemployment problem. Again we could debate why that is but the lack of jobs under Obama seems to me a fair criticism.
I think these candidates must have sat through a few screenings of “The Iron Lady”– because it sure seems as if Thatcher, even more than Reagan, is their true hero. Its just hard for me to stomach their Dickensian economic plans on the one hand paired with their holier than thou Christianity. These men are Sunday Christians at best–and dog eat dog the rest of the week.
Brewhouse– what behavior are you referring to at Obama rallies??
It irks me to hear all the criticism about Obama’s performance on jobs. He can’t hire people using federal funding to repair infrastructure etc. as that was voted down. Companies who took the bailout and stimulus money did not by and large use it to hire unemployed Americans– can he force them to do that?
Jobs are largely a creation of private industry — my guess is that many of the backers of Mitt Romney are pouring money into the race and holding off until he wins (they hope) so that he can sign deregulation and even more tax breaks for them. Certainly, many companies are making record profits — but must think they will really clean up when the next Republican occupies the WH. Then it will be a free-for-all for private equity firms and the rest will have to hope something trickles down. Why do voters keep falling for this??
Bluebelle I actually agree with you that Obama doesn’t have much control over unemployment. However he was foolish enough to stand up with his stimulus chart and tell people he could predict and influence the unemployment rate. Given that he deserves to take some flak, and I don’t have much sympathy for him.
ok- I agree that its fair to let him take some blame. He was on a learning curve. But that doesn’t excuse the partisans in Congress who would rather seen the US fall to its knees than work with the president as they are elected to do.
President Obama had projected an 8.5% unemployment w/o his stimulus; he projected an 8% unemployment with it. He did not know that the situation was far worse. That is (at least partially) his fault.
Having said that: do not count on Mitt Romney (or any other Republican candidate) to make the situation for the poor better. These are the same people who criticize the Food Stamp program and in the next breath want to eliminate minimum wage. Eliminate minimum wage so…everyone will get paid more? How the hell would that work?
As for each individual being responsible for making it on his own: “…provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY…” Is this the same Constitution you guys read? Maybe I have something misquoted here?
I will give the Republicans this: they have a more sound way to fix Social Security. Make sure that most people die before they can collect. Thus: eliminate affordable health care.