Quote of the Day: Where Is America’s Partisan Political Ugliness Heading?
Our political Quote of the Day comes from Time’s Joe Klein, who attended a health care reform town hall in Arkansas and asks the question I’ve asked here at TMV many times: just where is America’s accelerating trend towards political ugliness headed?
Klein expresses shock at the number of people at the meeting who were convinced that President Barack Obama is a communist — he talked to one woman who insisted there were four Communists in the administration (she is a talk radio listener) and writes:
I was later told by a local observer that many of these vomitous, disgraceful notions were the fruit of Glenn Beck’s fruitful imagination. “We are living Glenn Beck’s fantasy life,” said this audience member. The amazing thing remains not only the unwillingness of responsible Republicans–a term that is in danger of becoming an oxymoron–to call bull– on this, but also the willingness of many prominent Republicans to join in the slinging of garbage. Michelle Cottle reports that there are Republican-sanctioned efforts afoot to have parents not send their children to school on September 8 because the President is scheduled to address the nation’s school-children that day and they are afraid that he will fill their little heads with socialist propaganda. That is somewhere well beyond disgraceful.
Could I just say that the intensity of this getting pretty scary…and dangerous? We are heading toward a cliff and the usual brakes of civil discourse are not working. Indeed, the Republicans have the pedal to the metal–rushing us toward a tragedy far greater than the California health care forum finger-biting Karen describes below. [See TMV's earlier post on this story about a health care reform supporter biting off the finger of a health care reform opponent.] I’m usually not one to panic or be overly worried about the state of our country–even when we do awful things like invade Iraq and torture people, we usually right our course before long–but I have a sinking feeling about where we’re headed now. I hope I’m wrong.
For instance, putting aside screaming and accusatory partisan old and new media writings and broadcasts, here is how the AP describes Obama’s speech to school kids:
The president will speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don’t have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to tune in.
And here is an AP quote that shows just have much hatred and demonziation of those who do not agree with you has taken hold of America — just as if the bodysnatchers have taken over the bodies of people who might once have raged over issues, rather than try to politically define and discredit someone who sees things differently:
“As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality,” said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. “This is something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”
So far districts in six states are refraining from showing Obama’s speech due to conservative parent complaints.
But Presidents and first ladies have talked to kids before in classrooms or White House encounters about the importance of hard work, staying in school, and thinking about the country. What’s different is that Obama is simply using old and new media to offer his talk to a wider school audience. Yet, in other times when demonization wasn’t king, people belonging to a different political party didn’t make their kids to stay home if JFK, Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, or George Bush (who was at a school on September 11) spoke at a school. It wasn’t “Let’s hide the kids because this President doesn’t agree with me on some policies and if he says hello or stay in school he’ll have a magical power to brainwash them!” There were limits to partisanship. [The LA Times notes -- see update below -- that Democrats criticized President George HW Bush for a 1981 speech televised from an 8th grade classroom. What is different here is the demonization. Ronald Reagan spoke to school kids also and mentioned Republican principles.]
What has changed? The country.
We are now seeing the triumph of the talk radio political culture — a politics that now is framed in terms of high-concept sound bites, trying to affix labels to those who disagree on an issue, trying to push emotional hot buttons so that the political target is hated enough to serve as a catalyst for a goal (in the case of talk shows to grow and maintain an outraged audience; in the case of politics, to mobilize one side).
And when people say they fear where this is headed, just what does that mean? The bottom line is that there are fears that someone will get killed — someone on one side or another, or a political figure — which does not mean only Obama — or that a large number of people could get hurt of killed in some kind of political nutcase act.
But it isn’t just that.
The present frenzy suggests that the seeds are now being sowed for a mega-polarized America that could be almost ungovernable in the 21st century if this trend continues unabated.
If Republicans and conservatives make the very legitimacy of Obama his patriotism — even the safety of allowing little kids listen to him tell them to stay in school and think about helping their community — the issue, and link his name to Hitler and/or Nazism, precisely how do they think Democrats and the left will respond next time a GOPer is in power? How will the next Republican President be treated in terms of legitimacy and doing what he/she feels is in the best interest of the country? The bar on discourse is being lowered and lower and right now it’s touching the soil.
It’s a question that should give thoughtful Republicans — and there still are many of them — pause.
But so far we’re not seeing a pause.
Just a country seemingly heading towards a cliff.
UPDATE: The New Republic’s The Plank on the school boycott:
Tammy Bruce has gone so far as to encourage parents to keep their kids home that day. “Make September 8 Parentally Approved Skip Day. You are your child’s moral tutor, not that shady lawyer from Chicago,” she tweeted.
This is disgraceful. For starters, Obama’s message, as described in a press release from Ed Sec Arne Duncan, will stick to anodyne topics like the need to work hard and take responsibility for one’s own success (which once upon a time were values Republicans could cheer.) Admittedly, I don’t have an advance text, but I’ll bet a year’s supply of Ben & Jerry’s Chunky Monkey that Obama will not be lecturing America’s youth about the joys of bank bailouts, universal health care, or cash-for-clunkers–just as I am confident George W. Bush would never have used school children to hawk the Iraq war, the Medicare drug program, or “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Dick Cheney, maybe. But not Bush.
More broadly, Obama is the leader of this entire nation. It doesn’t matter if you voted for him–or even if your head threatens to explode every time you think about him. He is the president, and, as such, it’s a big deal that he’s speaking directly to students about the importance of education. (Not teachers unions, you hysterics.) And, whatever one’s party registration, the idea that any child should be kept home from class purely so their parents can make a political statement about an apolitical speech is appalling. Is the idea that we should shelter children from any contact with or knowledge of any president we personally dislike? Maybe, during the years our preferred party is out of power, we should just pretend that the president doesn’t exist. That’s a healthy way to run a democracy.
UPDATE II: Some other reaction (these are only excerpts so go to the links and read these posts in full to get a variety of opinions on this issue):
–Political scientist Steven Taylor:
I have two basic reactions. First, what is so controversial (or, for that matter, all that unusual) for a president to extol the youth of America to take education seriously? Second, I have to admit that given all that a given president has to do, that perhaps these kinds of symbolic acts are perhaps not the most efficient usage of time (although I acknowledge that symbolic acts of this type do go along with the president’s role as head of state and the much vaunted “bully pulpit.”)….One can argue whether a back to school speech is the best use of either the president’s or the children’s time. However, it is hardly a prelude to totalitarianism.
I actually agree with every word of that. Granted, “stay in school” is such an innocuous message that it’s hard to object to its being presented. But do we really need to add to the already inflated sense of the president of the United States as our national daddy? The man’s in charge of one branch of the federal government; he’s not king.
Still, as Doug Mataconis points out, this is hardly new. Why, Ronald Reagan himself gave such as speech. So did both Presidents Bush. Indeed, Reagan went to far as to answer questions from the kiddies on federal budget priorities and gun control!
I’ve ignored the furor over Obama’s address to the nation’s schoolchildren about working hard in school because it’s a fake story fueled by misguided outrage.
We eagerly await Mr.Gandelman’s return to our Solar System.
When (if) he returns, perhaps he will contemplate an alternative scenario – Joe Klein and the media on the left are highlighting the zaniest Obama critics they can find with the goal of discrediting all Obama critics. It’s an old, old game and I am surprised that Mr. Gandelman can’t recognize it.
…Again, a challenge, but for those who remember all the way back to 2004, try to think back to the prominent Democrats in attendance at the Fahrenheit 9/11 premieres, and Michael Moore’s guest-of-honor appearance at the Democratic Convention.
In the wake of the uproar, the Department of Education decided to alter its language about one of its activities.
The original version suggested students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” The updated version asks students to “write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”
Individual school districts in at least half a dozen states have indicated they will not show the speech.
Monique Bond, a spokeswoman for Chicago Public Schools, which Duncan headed before joining Obama’s Cabinet, said that no school would be required to participate in the activities surrounding the president’s address. She added that teachers could offer alternative activities for students whose parents elect for them not to participate.
Wayde Byard, public information officer for Loudon County Public Schools in Virginia, said the speech “just doesn’t fit in with the first day of activities.”
In October 1991, President George H.W. Bush delivered a speech from an eighth-grade classroom in Washington, D.C., that was broadcast nationwide. The move was criticized by Democrats at the time.
In 1988, then-President Reagan spoke to students nationwide via C-SPAN telecast. Among other things, he talked about his positions on political issues of the day. Three years later, then-President Bush addressed school kids in a speech broadcast live to school classrooms nationwide. Among other things, he promoted his own administration’s education policies.
President Obama wants to deliver a message to students next week emphasizing hard work, encouraging young people to do their best in school. The temper tantrum the right is throwing in response only helps reinforce how far gone 21st-century conservatives really are.
This is no small, isolated fit, thrown by random nutjobs. The New York Times, Washington Post,LA Times, AP, and others all ran stories this morning about the coordinated national effort to either keep children at home so they can’t hear their president’s pro-education message, or demanding that local schools block the message altogether.
…The administration not only edited the supplementary materials, but has offered to make the text of the address available in advance, just so everyone can see how innocuous it is. It’s made no difference. Conservatives don’t want school kids to hear a message from their president. Those who claim superiority on American patriotism have decided to throw yet another tantrum over the idea that the president of the United States might encourage young people to do well in schools.
--Thoughts of a Conservative Christian:
While it appears the President’s speech will focus on the value of education and personal responsibility, federally-directed lesson plans set a concerning precedent for the government’s role in education. Education analyst Frederick Hess writes at the American Enterprise blog that the lesson plans “were developed with federal funds, devised on taxpayer time, and made available on the Department of Education’s website” and “might be construed as an invitation to engage in advocacy rather than instruction”.
The President, however, clearly wants his own children to be off limits to such classroom politicization. Upon moving to Washington, he chose to enroll his children in the private Sidwell Friends School.
But children in many of the country’s public schools will not be off limits on Tuesday. It is one thing to teach about the historical relevance and accomplishments of past administrations. It is another thing entirely to encourage children to implement a sitting president’s political agenda.
Now even school officials are kowtowing to the right-wing radio loudmouths and their zombie followers. No longer in America can the president give a speech to schoolchildren about the importance of taking education seriously and having aspirations.
Can you imagine this happening if John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan had given this speech? Schools would have devoted the whole day to social studies and patriotic pageants. Now, Obama haters fear he might try to indoctrinate their children. Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday, accused the president of trying to create a personality cult like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il.
…Florida’s Republican Party chairman, Jim Greer, said he “was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”
–Michael Landauer’s Dallas Morning News blog post must be read in FULL. Here is just the beginning:
A few very reasonable people I know have said that there are valid reasons why people worry about the speech the president is giving to schoolchildren. Here’s my best attempt at understanding the three informed lines of reasoning (I just don’t have time to deal with the myriad uninformed opinions on this subject):
1. You’re libertarian to the Nth degree. If you really think this is too much power for the president, then certainly you also think it’s wrong to have the kids say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, too. And you may not even think public education is a great idea. It’s not in the Constitution, after all. Fine. I disagree, but I respect that. And it’s hard to believe when you’re someone who has never done anything but criticize the president. But I’ll just have to take your word for it that you have a pure libertarian point of view.
Read it in full.
–JBS.org:
I wouldn’t send my child to school on September 8, unless I had a strong death wish for America. On September 8, President Obama will be broadcasting a prepared speech to every school child, grades K-12, in America. On September 8, Obama the Change Agent begins his takeover of the schools…but not with my child, and hopefully not with yours.
Consider the implications of his grand plan. In a style typical of dictators, he is preempting the communications into every school in the nation. He has not sought the permission of parents or local school boards. He will not sign in at the office to get clearance and a visitor badge as everyone else must do.
As a parent, I expect the schools to notify me in writing if a controversial person or group would be making any kind of presentation. I could then decide whether to keep my child home, or ask that he be sent to the library to read during that time. But Barack Obama, with one huge broadcast, will dismiss the rights of everyone, ignore laws, and kick dust on the Constitution……The problem with the usurpation of nationwide instructional time on September 8 is not so much the message, but the manner. What gives Obama the legal right to trod upon the Constitution in this, and other matters
On September 8th at 1pm EST, President Obama will be the first U.S. president to speak to America’s school children in an address that is directed specifically to them. I would not agree with this even if it were President Ronald Reagan delivering the speech. It is highly offensive for our children and our schools to be used by the President to push a political agenda. [EDITOR's NOTE: Read above post and links. Other Presidents have talked to schoolkids also..] The U.S. Department of Education event put out an activity package for students to use before, during, and after the speech including making posters that will hang on the walls for several days. I read the activity sheets and I noticed that the questions students were being asked assumed that they would agree with whatever the President’s agenda might be. The questions were written in such a way as to discourage dissent and to seek group consensus on the President’s agenda.
Parents from all political parties should be offended and outraged by this disrespect of parental authority and personal family values and should reveal their disapproval by removing their child from any class period that will broadcast this speech. Take your child or children to lunch and then return them to school when the propaganda program has ended.
Obama is planning to speak with our kiddies live from the White House Sept. 8th at 12:00 Eastern time. Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to School Principals announcing the 20-minute speech by the President and offering questions and suggestions for discussion. All of us can apparently watch this socialist, manipulative speech to our children. The address will be streamed live.
The Dept. of Education is expecting our kids to read books on Barack Obama and his special life. This is supposed to happen before the speech. One of these books is Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope. Let’s have a moment of silence. In reading excerpts from this book you would think you were reading about Abraham or Jesus Christ. It is the story of a disenfranchised, almost hopeless black man who miraculously rose up through the ranks with the motto “Yes! We can!” You can read a few of the Messiah set up excerpts at the PUMA site taken from the official publisher.
Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From he beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.
His mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink…
I never imagined the outbreak of right-wing crazy that Obama’s gesture would provoke, and this time it’s hard not to see racism behind the hysteria. The message is “Obama’s coming for our children!” the standard cry against scary boogeymen in every culture. I mean, really, what besides Obama’s race could make him so scary to these people? That he’s a Marxist socialist fascist Nazi? I’d argue that the only reason those extreme epithets have taken hold goes back to reason No. 1: Our first black president is provoking some outsize and irrational reactions.
Especially since, as has now been well-documented, President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to “the children of the country” to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in ’91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)
But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama’s planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents’ statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama’s plan to spread his “socialist ideology,” claiming “schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president.”
Where the…are the Democrats?
Democrats should be all over this. Republicans have just lobbed the most perfect softball their way – telling kids to study in school is a message Republicans don’t want schoolchildren to hear??? Democrats should let them have it with both barrels. And the counter-attack should come at exactly the same level – state leadership, if not higher.
If you’re serious about 21st Century American politics, you don’t let the insane charge that the President of the United States is trying to corrupt the Youth of America go unanswered when it’s being made at the highest levels of the Republican party. Why?
Because if you refuse to fight back, it creates the distinct impression that there’s some truth to it. These aren’t merely deranged talkshow hosts accusing the President of fomenting subversion; these are leaders of a major political party. They cannot be ignored.
–Daily Kos gives this long excerpt of Ronald Reagan’s talk to school kids. Here is part of the Reagan quote:
Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there’s no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government …
There was talk about having a gun ban in California. It didn’t go through. But I got a letter from a man in San Quentin Prison. And from the prison he wrote me the letter to tell me he was in there for burglary, he was a burglar. And he said, “I just want you to know that if that law goes through, here in San Quentin there will be celebrating throughout the day and night by all the burglars who are in prison.”
Because going over the heads of your own party, government institutions, and public opinion, directly to
the peopleschool children is such an unlikely strategy, it’s utterly devious.Genius, that Obama, securing the second grade vote like this.
President Obama announced that he will give a speech welcoming America’s young students into the new school year. Conservatives, happy to fight about anything this man does, came out swinging against the President’s “socialist” intentions. And they’re winning!
Basically, the speech amounts to nothing more than our nation’s Commander-in-Chief urging kids to stay in school, for, if they do, perhaps one day they’ll be president. Floridian Republican Jim Greer was one of the first to seize up over the news, and called Obama’s September 8th an attempt to “spread” his “socialist ideology.” Greer then got into nitty-gritty politics, and warned that the President would simply be indoctrinating guppies with his liberal politics.
Conservatives are easily swayed, almost collective organism, so their calls for prohibition only grew more voracious. They took particular offense over the announcement that students would be encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”
Rush Limbaugh was soon on board. So was Glenn Beck. And then Greer reared his head on Hardball this evening. Though he and his knows Presidents often address students, this is different, because Obama’s a proselytizer of anti-American madness.
–Economist.com’s Democracy in America:
The opposition to Mr Obama’s speech is fundamentally an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the president. It should be resisted. No liberal parents pulled their kindergardeners out of class to avoid having George W. Bush indoctrinate them with the esoteric neoconservative messages embedded in the text of “The Pet Goat”. (No wonder he was so insistent on finishing the reading!) But it’s also part of a broader atmosphere of paranoia that has taken root in American child-rearing in recent decades. In 1969, 50% of American children walked to school; that is down to less than 15%, in part due to fears that their children will be kidnapped, even though violent crime against children hasn’t grown at all. Those parents are increasingly reluctant to vaccinate their kids, for fear that vaccines are secretly harmful—i.e., that the entire edifice of modern scientific medicine is an elaborate conspiracy to harm their children. Teachers have their licenses revoked for letting kids climb up hills. And so forth.
It’s nuts. Walking to school is safe. Vaccines are good for you. Climbing hills is healthy. And if conservatives are worried that Obama will beam his mind-rays through the television screens and turn their children into…pro-business moderate liberals, or something, they should chill out: the mind-rays don’t work. In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed the nation’s schoolchildren via television, and in 1991, George H.W. Bush did the same. And in 2008, those kids, now aged roughly 24 to 38, voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. If, on the other hand, conservatives make the president’s speech seem like something forbidden and cool, that they’re not allowed to watch…that just might ensure those kids vote Democratic when they get the chance.
239 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Where Is America’s Partisan Political Ugliness Heading?”
“I neither think I'm “on high” nor am I cynical. And it's a fact that both parties play the same equally stupid back and forth game. And I wear my heart on my sleeve: in declaring the stupidity and recklessness of the Big 2's constantly escalating rhetoric.”
I don't think you are T-Steel. It's more of a warning that disgust with the Big 2 can be partisan attitude as well, as well as the dogma that Republican=Democrat, and moderate>>Democrat or Republican. It's not a bad dogma, I think it comes out of many peoples' desire for more than 2 parties. It's just that many, many on both the Right and Left MSM use “moderation” as a defensive shield to advocate their own views on an issue without fear of partisan reprisal, as if any response from a Democratic or Republican perspective is therefore invalid. If that's true, then we should probably all start flipping coins marked with Ds and Rs (or just vote for Bob Barr! lol jk T-Steel plz plz plz don't ban me).
Actually I think Boehner did not intend it that way and stumbled into a badly phrased tweet. Having said that those “dog whistles” are not really dog whistles, they are pretty straight forward like the Willie Horton ads were. If you are of the offended race you are offended, if you agree you are happy to be validated and if you dont agree but do not care enough to be offended then it does not effect your vote. That is how the southern strategy was planned, the aggrieved group would not vote for them anyway and they get the larger voting pool.
Acting like it does not exist though makes you sound either sheltered or defensive though. I think he should have been more careful while they are supposedly trying to attract minority voters. How exactly did that offend your sensibilities? Boehner is not a bad guy, just an old partisan but if memory serves he has a history of insensitive gaffs, and no not the race baiting types but what always seemed to me to be mistakes. I will say though that any Southern Strategy type ad for any candidate that I see is an instant deal breaker for my vote. I was raised in the 70's/80's and saw them as racist ads at the time, now that I am old enough to vote I will use my vote to ensure that strategies like it are not condoned and not forgotten. Oh yea and I am neon white just in case you think I am being hyper sensitive because of a personal trauma. My only trauma was reading Nixon and Lee Atwater's campaigning habits.
I guess the disconnect here, Kathy, is that even when I disagree with people who argue from the left (as in what we're discussing here, the left's opposition to Bush) I don't consider their reasons for opposing a conservative to be 'invalid'. I think it's important to give people their say, and sometimes when you take the time to listen you agree more than you think you will.
So no, I don't “realize that those 'very valid reasons'” I referred to are only 'very valid' to myself and the people who share my opinion, and I don't think that the opinions of people on the left are only valid to them. I can acknowledge that people who have valid concerns should be heard, and then I can consider their points and decide if I agree with some or all of them. Most often, of course, I end up disagreeing with a lot but sometimes I agree with some (the Bush example concerning civil liberties is a good example- I think they went too far in some instances but not to the degree that you feel they did.)
CSTanley-Akk sorry then I thought I had read a message from you saying Bush was not so extreme early on but of course he was. The deficit is a legit discussion and complaint but the debate is about how to fix it and I tend to side with the current admin's policies instead of the Repubs favored policies which makes it more a matter of opinion than extremity. Also sorry if the Southern Strategy message was a little heated its a topic I get very bent out of shape about but again I think he mis-spoke but I also note that the people old enough to get his reference are the Repub's base so I could be wrong. Either way though I was more saying that he should have been more careful but blaming the left for “mis-quoting” him is akin to the left whining when the right complained about their hunger to take away the peoples guns. Dont whine, fix the problem.
Kathy, does this seem at all similar to you? I wrote it in the context of guns at the town halls, as it happens.
“Ahhh… August. The hot, steamy, heart of summer — that time of year when violent crime goes up as fuses grow short. Truly, it's a difficult time for heated debate — and the town halls that have been going on around the country this month have, if nothing else, been heated.”
What Boehner initially said on July 30th was ” they’re likely to have a very, very hot summer.” His site (he?) re-emphasized his initial prediction that Dems were likely to have a difficult August with a second release on his site after the initial heated town halls. In context, Kathy, I conclude that he meant it exactly the way I did. And I wasn't talking about weather, either.
I definitely remember a lot of those. And number 48 directly affected ME.
[...] As my fellow blogmate Joe Gandleman notes, this could lead to a hyper-partisan America that becomes ungovernable: [...]
Obama's recent legislative agenda has been controversial, because Republicans have made it so. It's hard to see why his agenda would be controversial, though, because everything on it is what he campaigned on for the last two years.Contrast that with George W. Bush, who implemented that long agenda Davebo gave us, after running a campaign in which he told us repeatedly that he would be a uniter not a divider, and didn't drop so much as a hint that the primary requirement to head a cabinet-level agency in his administration would be implacable hostility toward the mission of that agency.
But Bush is responsible for mass murder. 100 detainees died in custody before they could even be tortured. 1.5 million died in Iraq and not all of them could be construed to be guilty of anything.
The right wing crazies are so ideologically blinkered that they continue not only to do what they complain the other side is doing, they are planning to do things they will attribute to their ideological enemies in advance. I don't see how this isn't heading towards some kind of civil unrest with the caveat that fat, old, uneducated people can't sustain armed conflict for very long. This latest delusional reverie is only another escalation by an anti-constitutional minority rebelling against lawful authority and pushing for anarchy or fascism, just like the brownshirts of Germany, blackshirts of Italy, and silver shirts of the US of A.
CS:
“That the bills have nice sounding names doesn't prove a thing- even a lot of GOP bills that I disagree with would have pleasant, sometimes Orwellian, names so that listing them by title doesn't allow people to form an opinion one way or another on the content or effect of the bill.”
OK, let's then agree that the list of Bush's “achievements” also had nice sounding names…
By the way, the link provided takes you to a place that gives a short description of the various bills.
Well, you've already informed us that he's been pretty busy in his first seven months so let's give him a little time shall we?
If Obama agreed with those who felt that Bush shredded the Constitution, wouldn't you think that reversing those policies would be priority #1, Davebo?
Surely we can all agree that if you believe that Obama telling school kids to stay in school and work hard is some type of indoctrination, you're really, really stupid. And that the greatest threat to your children's welfare is not a speech by Obama, but indeed, it's you.
Right?
Yes, Dorian, that link to Nancy Pelosi's website also included short descriptions. Surely you aren't saying that Bush's nice sounding achievements would be given a balanced description on the website of a partisan Republican who was instrumental in helping him achieve those things?
Obama's recent legislative agenda has been controversial, because Republicans have made it so
Too bad we can't all be reasonable and see things your way, Kathy!
The fact is that nearly half the country didn't vote for Obama and a portion of those who did were either voting against the GOP or were hoping that Obama really was going to change the tone of debate. The people in those categories are the ones who are losing 'hope'.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying otherwise regarding a simple message by Obama to schoolkids about the importance of staying in school and working hard (some have pointed out that the DOE materials sought to do more than that, and there was some politicization there which was inappropriate.) I don't get your statement about parents being a threat to their children's welfare though.
“The people in those categories are the ones who are losing 'hope'.”
Yeah… but some of us all still trying to hang in there.
I have a “suspicion” that this may get better but I could be way off. I think that the bill that the White House is putting together is the bill that he suggested during the debates when he said “if nothing else I will make sure they have the same coverage as congress”. Which of course is a portal to multiple providers to choose from as I have read, but I could be wrong. I think this is what will happen if the debate over the public option vs trigger blows up. It would pass I think in large numbers and the moderates would swoon while still keeping the left calm with the knowledge that their ideas died a natural death. I also think his will either link to medi. or a trigger to keep them happy but I think he is about to throw the punch which seems to come with this version of the rope a dope strategy.
Lit3 – Actually, you had it right the first time. Those of us who proclaim some shade of moderation actually do believe we are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of the species. And for good reason. Our perceived moderation gives us near god-like powers of observation and analysis.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have a modesty class to teach.
Oh dear god Rambi, are you braindead? There was no 'Bush is not my President'??
Sorry, I have nothing that can convince the willfully stupid, and won't bother, except to point out a simple Google of 'Bush is not my President' results in 30,300,000 matches.
[...] . . . has already occurred. Joe Gandelman of The Moderately Amusing (And Reliably Liberal) Voice pens on political polarization in the US and challenges our imaginations with this toughie: If Republicans and conservatives make [...]
AR:
“Sorry, I have nothing that can convince the willfully stupid, and won't bother, except to point out a simple Google of 'Bush is not my President' results in 30,300,000 matches”
I don't remember that one, AR. But I do remember all the controversy of when googling “failure” one was taken to Bush's White House web site, or something like that
(Did I do the smile ok?)
How is your daughter doing?
Dorian
…surely you're not saying that he was calling on you and your cohorts to incite riots?
LOL, Christine. I guess it's like a joke, even though it's no joke. Either you get it or you don't, and you clearly don't, and it just feels ridiculous to explain it, so forget it.
I think it's important to give people their say, and sometimes when you take the time to listen you agree more than you think you will.
For sure, but “giving people their say” does not imply — or shouldn't imply — rude, offensive, boorish, and even physically threatening behavior. And such behavior cannot be excused by saying that people are “upset” for “valid reasons” and that's how it comes out.
So no, I don't “realize that those 'very valid reasons'” I referred to are only 'very valid' to myself and the people who share my opinion, and I don't think that the opinions of people on the left are only valid to them. I can acknowledge that people who have valid concerns should be heard, and then I can consider their points and decide if I agree with some or all of them.
Okay, so then would I be correct in thinking that you would find the following statement:
“And when it appears that the Bush administration's goals have been to ride the crest of Bush's post-9/11 opularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (and without any real public discussion or debate in Congress), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current (Bush) administration and Congress.”
is just as reasonable and just as fair — even if you don't agree with it — as the statement you wrote, repeated below?
“And when it appears that the Dem leadership's goals have been to ride the crest of Obama's popularity to push sweeping legislation through very quickly (before 2010 can potentially bring a shift in power), there are very valid reasons for pushing back rather than reserving judgement on the current administration and Congress.”
Kathy, does this seem at all similar to you?
No, it doesn't. And it isn't.
If I said to you that Americans are having a long, dark night of the soul, would that seem at all similar in meaning to saying that it's September, nights are getting longer, and soon the cold will chill my soul right to the marrow?
And I don't know what you mean by Boehner's “site” and what he said on it. The Twitter site does not belong to John Boehner; he just gets to register for a page on the site where he can post brief thoughts of 140 characters or less. And what he wrote on his Twitter page was “Dems' Long, Hot Summer: Americans Express Growing Opposition to Dems' Job-Killing Plans on Energy, Health Care.” If, in some other venue, he wrote or said that the Dems are “likely to have a very, very hot summer,” then clearly he was using the phrase “hot summer” metaphorically and not literally, because why would the Dems have a hot summer while everyone else had a cool summer? Using the phrase “long, hot summer” to mean a summer of confrontations with angry, threatening, screaming crowds of constituents (of course, hopefully staying just this side of rioting, smashing chairs and microphones, and attacking lawmakers) just makes the metaphor more, um, specific and recognizable.
I haven't read the entire comment trail here, but there were a couple comments asking why Republicans weren't pushing back against the more extreme parts of their constituency. I was just checking out a blog “the Next Right” that I think I'll be monitoring more for a bit. They've got one blogger who's spitting out the normal stuff (in fact it's a post about Obama and Chairman Mao because of Obama's Stay in School speech) but the posts by the normal editors of the blog, Patrick Ruffini and John Henke, are all very nicely done conservative posts. Henke's recent posts are about urging Republican leaders to distance themselves from the conspiracy theories. thenextright.com
So I guess everyone here was locked up somewhere during the past 8 years with no access to the Internet or radio or television?
So no one ever saw Code Pink try to throw fake blood on Condi Rice as she gave testimony, or camped outside Bush's Crawford ranch; no saw the marchers carrying posters of a big fist punching Sarah Palin's tooth out, captioned MILP – Mother I'd Like to Punch; no one saw the Sarah Palin and John McCain posters with fangs dripping blood; or the assassination porn movies, or the Snipers Wanted caption over Bush's face? Stone throwing protesters chanting “Bush is a terrorist” and trying to disrupt his motorcade in Portland? Innumerable protest signs featuring variations of “Kill Bush Bomb His F____ House”, “I'm Here to Kill Bush Shoot Me?” etc. etc.? An artist doing a series of stamps depicting Bush's assassination?
How about the posters from any peace protest – there were lots of them, I promise – at any time between 2002 and 2008?
Does any of this ring any bells?
No? Nothing?
Hey. Too bad Republicans were hoping that Obama didn't mean exactly what he said during his two years of campaigning on strong health care reform. I certainly would consider them to be more reasonable than I do now, if they didn't apparently think that two years of campaigning on hcr that achieved universal coverage meant nothing.
The fact is that nearly half the country didn't vote for Obama and a portion of those who did were either voting against the GOP or were hoping that Obama was going to change the tone of debate.
Well, here are some thoughts, in no particular order:
1. Obama has done headstands and turned himself inside out and into the shape of a pretzel trying to change “the tone of the debate.” It's not Obama who has said NO! to every single item on Obama's agenda w/o any ideas of their own. It's not Obama who has sworn to vote against hcr even if the public option is taken out, and no matter what Obama does. It's not Obama who said that non-profit co-ops are a trojan horse for single-payer. It's not Obama who has welcomed the most vile individual in talk radio — a man who, among many other achievements, said that Obama was Hitler and his admin was the Third Reich — to be their putative leader. It's not Obama who has made up, out of whole cloth, the most outrageous lies about Democratic health care reform proposals. It's not the Dems who have set themselves up as the wrecking crew, with the job of tearing down whatever the Dems try to build with no interest in putting anything up of their own. Republicans are not interested in governance. That's not the Dems' fault.
2. The fact is that in 2000, more than half the country voted for the candidate who did NOT occupy the Oval Office for the next eight years. If YOU feel that Obama isn't listening to the almost half of the electorate that didn't vote for Obama, etc., you can at least comfort yourself with the knowledge that Obama did win with a healthy majority of the popular vote and a HUGE majority of the electoral vote. Imagine how WE have felt for the last eight years. I am not exaggerating when I say that for much of the last eight years, I have wanted to slit my wrists thinking about who was in the White House. I thought the nightmare would never end. Although it sounds mean, Christine: Now you know how I, and millions of other Americans felt, for so very, very, very long.
[...] Gandelman of The Moderately Amusing (And Reliably Liberal) Voice pens on political polarization in the US and challenges our imaginations with this toughie: If Republicans and conservatives make [...]
Have to agree with AR on this one. I was one of the people who said “Bush is not my president,” so I know we were out there.
What bothers me more than the people now who say “Obama is not my president” is the parents who want to keep their children from having any contact at all with ideas, opinions, and values different from theirs.How are children going to become independent thinkers if they're being told what to think, and led to believe that the whole wide world thinks the same way?
Actually a simple google of “Bush is not my president” in quotes as it must be to be meaningful to this discussion produces 50,100 hits. Too many, but not as insane as what AR posted.
Actually I commented on this multiple times. The difference as you yourself stated is that it began around 2002 which was in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Up until that took place around 2003 he had a pretty smooth run though he pushed through a good deal of very partisan legislation. The question I and others continue to pose is what has Obama done to deserve such a reaction so quickly? Considering that most of the most extreme venom is coming from those that either believe the conspiracy theories or are spreading them it is a bit hard to believe that they are due to the same issues Bush had to deal with: removal of rights done for “our protection”(I have huge problems with this but I will save you the speech), a war created on trumped up intelligence, torture of prisoners that at the time was not only being denied but we were not even admitting to what has been well documented now, rounding up of all protestors into “free speech zones” with nice shiny metal fencing.
Now on the other side we have a guy that has been in office around 9 months and is trying to pass healthcare which was part of the platform he ran on and people are showing up at his rallies with guns and calling him and anyone linked to him communist nazis(nazi is far right and communist is far left and they do not mix as the ideologies are opposites). So the question again since you obviously did not read the comment string is what are they so freaked out about? I have your answer, they are afraid of the projections fueled by right wing media(the other side was afraid of the projections of left wing blogs). Now would you like to make a point now that you are caught up?
For any keeping tallies.
Bush Not My President receives 30,100,000 hits on a google search
Obama Not My President receives 57,500,000
So in 9 months, actually shy of 9 months Obama is receiving more hate(by around 27,000,000) than Bush did after 8 years. Anyone want to take back the equivalence they have been speaking of?
Whatever the reasons for the anti-Bush protests, the fact remains that there were many, many, many people talking about killing him, calling for his assassination, making jokes about killing him, etc. None of them were ever arrested – nor do I think they should have been. Now suddenly Joe and others are worried about polarization and divisions and hateful rhetoric and wetting their pants over the prospect of some right wing loonies driving other right wing loonies to do violence. Yet they never seemed to be afraid of all that rhetorical violence driving anyone to actual violence during the Bush years.
Why not?
I think there is indeed a lot of projection going on here.
And BTW – I too had huge problems with Bush's assault on civil liberties and his relentless expansion of Presidential powers. None of which Obama has done anything to remedy or curtail and, indeed, has only expanded (FISA, “post-acquittal” imprisonment, presidential signing statements, and I know that you know that Gitmo will not be closed a year from now, or a year after that). The Democrats objected to the imperial presidency only until a Democrat became President.
[...] a bit surprising that the notable and commendable Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice would play the role of liberal demagogue by blaming the current political climate on the standard [...]
I have no reason to think that he [Boehner] was being stupid or overly provocative in making a prediction that the Dems were going to face heat from their constituents during the August recess.
But that is exactly what he did say. That was the clear and plain meaning of his tweet. Only he didn't say “face heat.” That would not have packed the punch he obviously wanted. He said that this was the Dems' “long, hot summer.” He was not talking about the weather.
First, all of this was after he had actually DONE SOMETHING, not how he was treated immediately. The supposedly “liberal media” oddly treated him a whole lot nicer than they have Obama, or even Clinton for that matter. They were kind enough to not bring up any bad news until 6 months before the election and then they did not find new info they just finally reported what had been all over the web since the Iraq invasion and before.
The concern is due to the people carrying guns to political rallies which of course would not be an issue if he used free speech zones like Bush did but unlike you I actually see that our current president seems to have some respect for the constitution. I of course would like him to go further but seeing as how he has already done more on my oh so special if only I could get a president that would talk this way or do this thing list that I am giving him some time on the rest. You have to understand the first president I could have voted for was H.W. Bush so the current guy has a whole lot of rope to hang himself with because we are grading on a curve. Why you ask? Because if you do not grade on a curve we have not had a good president with any morals since the 1950's or before and that is incredibly sad and I refuse to accept it. Every president is just worse than the last, the good news is that if that holds true we will not even have a country in a few years but at least no one will tell me that cutting taxes would fix it all.
“What has Obama done to deserve such a reaction so quickly?”
Failed to sell his agenda to the public. Mr. Bush had it much easier, since 9/11 handed him not only a crisis but broad public support for hawkish policies.
Here you go Jim. Apparently Google is too complicated for you to use properly:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bush+is+not+my+P…
And as uysing google IS too hard for you, here is a cut and paste from the result screen:
Results 1 – 10 of about 30,300,000 for Bush is not my President. (0.22 seconds)
Thanks for admitting the truth. But neither side should say it, and I haven't commented on the actual fact of Obama wanting to speak to schoolchildren, and the reaction against it.
The speaking itself is admirable, and I fail to see why the commotion. The original lesson plans for teachers was a little slanted, but not even this 'I believe that Obama uses socialist governing techniques' person thinks the scale of the reaction is warranted.
To paraphrase one of the great American philosophers, 'sometimes a speech to children is just a speech'.
Actually by then some of his agenda had already been passed. Again with little or no venom and no one was calling for his head. That had to wait until 2003, when he had actually screwed something up. People are saying that the calls for Bush's head on a platter was for the full 8 years, mostly so they can make it ok that they are already doing it to Obama in my opinion. That is not how it went down though and re-writing history will not make it ok. You are right though he had the shield of 911 for much of it and I would argue a conservative media that is socially liberal to ignore and not report anything like they do when a Dem is in office. Of course during the Bush years few major media figures nor political leaders jumped on the crazy train and those that did are now memories career wise(think Rosie Odonnel), for some reason we are ignoring that the voices that the left is taking issue with are those coming from elected leaders and major media figures.
I can't imagine the mental gymnastics it would take to convince yourself that the press ever, at any time, treated Obama worse than it treated Bush. It kinda boggles the mind but, like the man said, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Or maybe it's just youth. I believed a hell of a lot of silly things at your age myself.
Well, AR, thanks for the sanity. It's a relief from the general tenor of this discussion.
By the way, totally OFF-TOPIC, but I'm thinking of getting another dog. A small dog, preferably a mini-doxie. I just have to convince my daughter to feel okay about it, because she made me promise I would not get another dog while I have these two cats because she doesn't want them to be upset (esp. one of them, who is extremely alpha).
Dorian -
I guess you missed the update I gave the other day (here is a link to the original update), and there is another now.
She has received her orders, and will be home on September 10th.
YEAH!!!
Thanks so much for inquiring.
My take is if you want a dog, get a dog. It is your happiness you are aiming for. Animals almost always quickly adjust to each other in a loving home environment.
I have a simple technique that has worked every time for me. Don't force it, and don't get involved, even when they chase, hiss, and even fight a little. They are establishing their ground rules for each other, and always seem to figure out for themselves within a week or two.
Let us know what you decide (and what you end up getting, because it sounds to me like you HAVE decided!)
“Again with little or no venom and no one was calling for his head. That had to wait until 2003, when he had actually screwed something up.”
And no one was calling for Mr. Obama's head after a very questionable stimulus package.
He is now in trouble over selling the Democratic health care reform as a way to control runaway costs, exactly like Mr. Bush got in trouble selling Iraq as a way to control dangerous weapons. The promised cost savings have eluded the inspectors as surely as the Iraqi anthrax, and people are now feeling uncomfortable and even swindled with a “reform” package that just buys more of the same runaway costs that got us into this mess.
What I liked about Mr. Obama when I voted for him, and what I still believe in, is his ability to learn and adapt. I think it was a big mistake to delegate implementation of his post-partisan vision to Nancy Pelosi on some of these huge measures. I'm interested to see what strategic shifts 2010 will bring.
First stop listening to opinion news.
Second watch the coverage from day one not from the election day one(the media picks their favored person and that person always wins, it was true from Reagan on and continues to be true. This may go back further but I have no clue.)
Third when a scandal or issue starts on the fringe does the media listen and investigate?
From the last twenty years of paying attention I have found that a republican president gets the benefit of the doubt until right before an election and the Dem gets investigated just after the election
This could be due to a media that is overcompensating(which would still mean a right leaning bias)
This could be due to a media that is socially liberal enough to scare people but are economically conservative trying to “even the playing field” a bit
This could be due to all Dems being evil and all Repubs being saints but I have my doubts about that.
I missed out on the 70's, all that lived through it see commies everywhere but they are missing from my experience. My media has always looked liberal but they do love those tax cuts and media consolidation not to mention those fun little Repub wars that helps out the media companies military industrial complex contracts. I think the media was liberal pre-80's, but that changed slowly with the ad revenue and media consolidation.
So for scandal investigations we have
Reagan-Iran Contra (its okay he doesnt remember)
Bush Sr-No new taxes pledge hit him just before the election
Clinton-Flowers/White Water/Lewinsky/Pardons (I actually do not remember a time when the media was not investigating him on something and they, like the GOP always came up empty or nearly so(thinking of Lewinsky). THis could be part of my problem constant investigations under Clinton made me think it was the norm so when no oversight nor journalism was done under Bush to me it looks like playing favorites especially considering the guy did have a lot to investigate.
Bush Jr.-Torture/fraudulent evidence for war in Iraq/Bungled 911/close personal ties to the family of the leader of the group that attacked us(sorry if this was Obama Fox would be nuclear by now)/Meyer's and Harriet Meyer's was the only thing the media would touch until right before the election AND they still held the warrentless wiretapping stories until after the 2004 election
Obama-Health care/birth cert/anti Obama protesters/Shorts gate/the Cheney fiasco…I am sure there is more and I just have tried to forget.
I do not listen to talk radio nor do I watch opinion journalism so I may have missed the “liberal” in the media but I think more than anything people that lived through the 70's really think the media is now how it once was and it is a much more classically corporate marketing entity now, news included.
I do not listen to talk radio nor do I watch opinion journalism
Too busy creating tin-foil hats?
Sorry, AR, but in fact the shoe is on the other foot. If we are going to discuss who does and does not understand the use of Google you lose. As I pointed out, for the search term concerning Bush and those who did not view him as their president to have meaning the phrase must be enclosed in quotes to make it a phrase search. If you want to exchange methodologies here is how the term I used appears in a link:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rl…
If my search term is entered in Google and then the Advanced search option is clicked it shows you that my term appears in the box labeled this exact wording or phrase:. Your search term turns into one in the box labeled all these words:. In terms of search results it makes a world of difference. Not so sorry to ruin your snark.
Sadly I missed the Fox News seminar.