The Political Shell Game Begins On Joe Wilson

Way to go, Joe.

Mr. or Mrs, "predictable" will tell you that this is the umpteenth thread on this issue and will recite a legion of "but they did it, too" excuses.

Don't let them silence you, Joe.

This dirty linen needs to be aired

Dorian

The disintegration of the United States begins.

Two decades of hate radio and TV takes it's toll. Soon the televised fist fights and God knows what will not only be coming from the Taiwanese legislature, it'll be from our Capital building.

When you trade integrity and honor for bombastic BS as a candidate’s credential worth voting for, you get what you vote for….crap.

It is quite telling that so much coverage has been given to Mr. Wilson. It shows how little impact Mr. Obama's speech has had. Not a 'game changer', more like retiring in the second inning. Oh well.....

joe

"something that Republican party elders clearly did not want to happen and moved quickly to get the person involved to rectify. "

You're right about that. The elders never want to be tied to the inaccurate and downright deceitful tactics seen all summer. They wants those attacks to appear coming from an unhappy electorate. That way, they can comment on the sad state of Obama's "partisanship, socialism, and dishonesty" without dirtying their hands.

Karl Rove on Fox laughed about Wilson's outburst. If Obama is not going to call out the Republican hypocrisy, I wish he'd at least cut Joe Biden free to uncover the cock roach political strategy currently passing for Republican participation.

The republican reaction to this is just more (sadly predictable) abdication of responsibility. Apparently accountability is only important to them if, A.) you are claiming credit for something, or B.) it is about something the D's do wrong. In addition, when B.) doesn't apply, opportunities should be taken to create the perception that something is wrong. Unfortunately there are fools who treat that Wilson clown as some kind of hero. Such is the result of dumbed down standards and low expectations in our society. And by the way, Obama's speech was very well done! Any shortage of impression it might have made on deaf ears is hardly a reflection on him.

PWT wrote: "Not a 'game changer', more like retiring in the second inning."

Sorry pal, the games over. The American people are now seeing that the Health Care Reform is winning on points and the other teams been kicked out of the game... unsportsmanlike conduct.

This whole thing is starting to look like several congressional races over the last few years. The ones where a rich guy outspends his opponent by 1000 to 1... and still loses.

Yeah, keep airing the dirty linen, Joe.........keep the newscycle on Wilson and off of Obama's healthcare speech.......pretty soon the latter will be forgotten. And the Dems will be ineffective for another 4 months. Works for me.

God Bless Joe! BO going down now that Republicans are fighting back! WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, OBAMA!

"an attempt to obscure and downplay"

I am not surprised that the foregoing lie is accompanying the hype and childishness on the Left.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were so degenerate that new threads were starting next week on this.

Ok this guy is an ass. So? Sure it will get the partisans worked up and with any luck cost this guy his re ellection but .............. So? I have trouble seeing it as the big game changer some seem to think.

Wilson? It's not a "game-changer" at all, just a handy object of pathology among the lefties, who are still desperate about the failure of the health care effort.

Obama's speech is no "game-changer," either -- it was okay and was a success overall, but was full of garbage in addition to a few serious elements that constitute a more clear set of items than earlier Dem efforts have placed before the public.

Were the Demmies and libs more grown up, they'd start working already on making progress on the issues of actual value in Obama's speech and any others they may actually possess, and decide if they'll base legislation on the House bill (3200) or on the Senate Baucus bill, and get going. After all, they insist childishly and stupidly on rushing, and at least now they have the chance not to do so as sloppily and vaguely or confusingly now that at least one prominent Dem has laid out a list of goals.

But pathology prevails, still, and desperation -- hence the neurotic (if not psychotic) Wilson obscession. (When it's not all-too-typical current HUA behavior by them.)

So I just found out Wilson is not so unique as claimed.
http://faustasblog.com/?p=15406
Just slightly louder at worst.

"Now some are trying to pretend that the issue was something else. It wasn’t: the furor was over an incredibly rude act that has not been seen during a joint session of Congress that violated the way that body has acted for some 200 years. P-e-r-i-o-d."

Proof that the editor-in-chief of TMV is indeed a reasonable moderate. The health care debate has turned this place into partisan shooting gallery. This was a refreshing article.

John,
This site is called "The Moderate Voice" not "redstate.com"....I think you are a little confused and landed up on the wrong site.

The Wilson apologists? Absolutely. Don't. Get. It. By all means, continue helping your party retain it's minority status.

Thanks for keeping the eye on the ball here Joe Gandelman. . .

this incident is best seen as another indication that our Nation is in crisis these daysdue to the lack of HONOR

for Joe Wilson; " honor has not to be won, it must only not be lost." Schopenhauer


" when we fail to exhibit honor, then we are left to deal with the consequences."

And for the record, for all those wishing that our Congress was more like the British Parliment , even there the politicians are NOT allowed to call the PM a "liar". When Margaret Thatcher was making a speech and a member called her a "liar", he was removed from the building.

"[F]or all those wishing that our Congress was more like the British Parliment , even there the politicians are NOT allowed to call the PM a "liar"."

Have no fear. First of all, this was an address, a speech (a special damage-control and recovery attempt), not a question-and-answer session. Second, as with the campaign appearances and with press conferences, any question-and-answer session would be carefully scripted by ObamaCo. No embarrassment or serious challenge, much less anger or attacks, would ever be permitted to occur.

the furor was over an incredibly rude act that has not been seen during a joint session of Congress that violated the way that body has acted for some 200 years. P-e-r-i-o-d.

Needless to say, I completely agree, but I want to add something that I've been thinking more often the more examples we see of the incredible level of disrespect being shown to Obama, and the office of the presidency by extension, over a number of issues. Most recently, there was the schoolchildren speech, and think of how the objections were couched: that Obama was trying to "indoctrinate" their children, that they didn't want Obama "forcing his political agenda" on their kids, etc. Lots of people have pointed out that Bush 41 and Reagan also spoke directly to schoolchildren and there was no fuss, but it goes beyond that. When have we EVER heard this kind of language before? This is the President of the United States! You don't accuse the President of the United States of "indoctrinating" children or forcing "his" political agenda down their throats! HIS agenda is our government's agenda for at least the next four years, and that means it's OUR agenda as a nation. Obviously that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with or support policies they disagree with, but it's not like Obama is some imposter who has usurped the Oval Office and is trying to "take over" the United States! He is the leader of the United States!

Even more along these lines, let me just list off the top of my head:

I want my country (or I want America) back.

He's a Muslim, he's not an American citizen, he was born in Kenya, his birth certificate is fraudulent, let's see his birth certificate, show us your birth certificate, why won't he show us his birth certificate it must mean he has something to hide.

Obama wants to set up death panels to kill your grandma, Obama hates his white mother, his white grandmother, his white relatives. He's a Communist, he's going to turn the country socialist.

I'm sure I could come up with many more examples of this sort of thing if I actually researched news sources going back in time.

And then there is what happened last night. A sitting member of the House of Representatives -- a member of Congress -- yelled "You lie! Lies!" (because he did say it TWICE) at Pres. Obama *while* he was speaking before a joint session of Congress

And Eric Cantor! The man was sitting there TEXTING on his Blackberry for, like, half a minute at least (I saw it replayed on one of those MSNBC videos from the widget at the top of TMV). When you actually see him, with his head down, looking at the Blackberry, and you can see his fingers hitting the keys, and it's SO rude! And then he has the nerve -- the utter, unbelievable gall and chutzpah -- to tell a reporter after the speech that he was "appalled" at some of Obama's proposals. Did he even hear them?

Okay, so what am I getting at with all this? Well, let me keep it open for now. When has ANY President of the United States been treated with such disrespect in our history -- as though he wasn't *really* the President and did not have to be given the respect appropriate to a President? Despite what anyone says, neither Bush 43, nor his father, nor Ronald Reagan, nor even Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, were treated with this kind of contempt and rudeness, in so many ways, over such a lengthy period of time, so consistently. Why does he get at least 30 death threats every day? I mean, the difference really is glaring. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

What is it that makes Barack Obama so different from any other President of the United States, including reviled Democratic ones like Clinton and Carter?

Kathy wrote: "What is it that makes Barack Obama so different from any other President of the United States, including reviled Democratic ones like Clinton and Carter?"

Let me venture a guess... He's black?

It's so funny (not haha funny) listening to the closet racists spew their transparent denials. The good news is their kids see through them and most of the kids don't understand what their problem is and are embarrassed by their parents attitudes.

Kathy,
Your question: "What is it that makes Barack Obama so different from any other President of the United States, including reviled Democratic ones like Clinton and Carter?"
has me wondering. What could it possibly be?
The color of his...hair?
Not here in the USA! We DO NOT discriminate on the basis of... oh wait, I think I know what you meant.
Nevermind.

Listen, just because conservatives disagree with him does not mean they are racists, and the fact every time a white person disagrees with his political views, you scream racist just shows what a short-sighted ignorant fool you are.

Disclaimer: I am an Indian-American

Kathy -- You should know by now that the only racists are the ones who call out racism. I'd watch out. It should also be noted that it merely *coincidence* that the "You lie!" comment was when Obama was trying to cozy up to the other major definitely-not-discriminated-against group of brown people in this country. Eh! -- I know what you're thinking! But if you say it out loud, that makes *you* a racist.

Anyway, just for fun, and since it's obvious that political discussion in general has become mere insults, I leave you with this awesomely funny list of insults: http://joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/
Enjoy!

SteveK, minds that think alike, I just type slower.
Charlie and roro, thanks for proving Kathy's point. The question was "What makes Obama DIFFERENT than other Presidents that people have disagreed with?"
The level of vitriol in the country right now is something I've never seen, but I wasn't alive during the Civil War.

Dear CharlieScene:

"and the fact every time a white person disagrees with his political views, you scream racist just shows what a short-sighted ignorant fool you are....Disclaimer: I am an Indian-American "

I'm Native-American and Mexican, if it matters. Many of we who are 'of so-called color', dont call people who have heritages and other racial mixes different than ours, "white" unless that's what they want to be called. There is far more variety than that in the broad and diverse group some refer to also as Caucasian or Anglo... all names which can be pretty inaccurate for each individual, depending.

Just saying.

When people disagree with President Obama, I dont hear reasoned persons 'screaming' at all. And I dont find people who raise the issue of whether there might be bias.. "short-sighted ignorant fools.'

However, as you would know, yes? your being from a minority group and having grown up not as a person from a far more mainstreamed group, that it is still a dream yet to be filled out... that all people, all genders, all races, all backgrounds, all heritages, can walk this world freely with one another... and without others attacking them based on age old biases, old wounds from war, old clan hatreds, old scar tissue, long memory.

Is there a time for detente? I think there is. Each time someone prominent breaks the peace, as you can see, the fingerpointing in the circular firing squad, as they say, starts all over again.

My two cents: it ought not. A return to a certain kind of honorable propriety without giving up one's soul values, would assist greatly. I can think of several human beings who freed with inspiration, entire nations from the clutches of the greedy and disgraceful. They didnt do it by bringing more disgrace. They did it by bringing, amongst other things, Grace.

dr.e

Perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

I've got an answer, he's a much more radial person with ideas that have been failures everywhere else and a fanbase that won't debate anyone on why they oppose him and instead just call people racists because they can't prove their points.

Listen, just because conservatives disagree with him does not mean they are racists....

"Disagree"? Is that what we're talking about here? I thought we were talking about treating the POTUS as an intruder in American classrooms. I thought we were talking about calling for parents to keep their children home from school to protect them from a dangerous foreigner who wants to indoctrinate them, inject them with his alien political agenda, and poison their minds. I thought we were talking about a member of Congress screaming "You lie! Lies!" at the POTUS as he gives a speech before a joint session of Congress. I thought we were talking about Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck telling their listeners that their POTUS is Hitler and he's trying to turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany. I thought we were talking about Obama Waffles being "sold" at CPAC, and posters of Obama as the Joker as played by Heath Ledger plastered all over L.A. I thought we were talking about Obama was not born in the U.S., and Obama says he's a Christian but he's lying he's really a Muslim, and Obama hates the "white half" of himself.

Is that how you express your political disagreements?

I am 59 years old. The first president I can remember is JFK. I do not remember any president since, and including, JFK, ever being accused of lying about his citizenship, or being a danger to schoolchildren, or taking America away from Americans. I don't remember JFK or any president since JFK, until Obama, going before a joint session of Congress to present a detailed proposal for an important new set of public policies and being shouted at by a congressman screaming "You lie! Lies!" at him. Never. Not one. Pres. Obama is the first.

So let me ask you again. Is it "disagreement" and the "right to disagree" that we are talking about here? I don't really think so.

"ideas that have been failures everywhere else"
Give an example please.

I have tried hard to stay away from the race thing Kathy but I do think that something is happening that makes the Repubs feel that no respect at all should be paid to the office anymore. I am having more and more trouble finding excuses for acts like Wilson's when I put it in context of the history of the Repub party and the history of their feelings about respect to the office and respect to authority in general. I really think a minority of racists in this country are bolstering their numbers and giving them the confidence to act as they will since those backers actually adore it and the larger part of their numbers is filled with partisans that love the sheer red meat. And that small percentage is highly vocal so that is who the Reps see a good deal. Just like the left they dont see Joe and Jane Schmoe they see off the cliff "do I have a cause" people. It will work for the Wilson's and others like him in safe districts but it is a danger to the Repub parties future on the national stage.

I actually think Wilson just gave the Dems the biggest birthday present they could have asked for. They will now be able to pass a bill through reconciliation with hardly a peep out of anyone with the exception of the Repubs. I would exclude Repub moderates but they mostly left the party long ago. Some were, I use the past tense on purpose as I think some will begin to re-think this strategy, trying to re-build the party and turn it in a better direction but as of yet the party is not listening. This is why as the Dems numbers fell the Repubs numbers stayed stagnate. It is looking more and more likely that the Repubs are going the way of the Whigs but the question is what will they be re-placed with? Likely a corporate party after the SC decision. Either way when anyone whines about it going through reconciliation they will play the Wilson video and a handful of videos of the booing and lies at the town halls and well the left/indy lefts and the middle will probably agree. The right leaning moderates though will agree if the plan works and prices come down and it costs little to nothing. If that happens the Repub party will be over and a new party will rise(just my guess from history and the corner that the repubs have painted themselves into).

What could stop that is if certain older Repubs began to join the process in a constructive way and just make a really good bill. Most people will not think about which Repub did it they will just know that some of the "responsible" ones did which will save the image of the party for everyone but the hardcores that will whine and cry, but seriously where are they going anyway? I am specifically thinking of people like McCain and maybe Hatch but they are so dug in they will continue to play the game. If the Dems come out with a bill like Obama outlined they are pretty screwed but if they join in they could also say that it works and is good "because" of them instead of in spite of them.

Look, its gonna pass. Ben Nelson was quoted as calling it a game changer and Ben Nelson is not a friend to health care reform as a general rule. The only question is what happens and what it looks like. No matter what happens the Repubs will call it a political failure, if they dont they would be screwing themselves out of jobs after all and it happened on Obamas watch and no one will be confused on that. Obstructing it or refusing to join in on it just annoys and angers the large percentages that want the reforms or at least some part of them and now that the information is out there everyone gets something right down to tort reform. I would like them to try to negotiate a few more of their grab bag of desired reforms to be honest but understand that they are no longer the majority party and therefore cannot do much but collaborate if they wish. I am pretty sure Obama would make more concessions, he's that guy.

Evan Bayh I would guess will sign on to due to Eli Lilly but they may have an issue with something in it, I think he is just acting skiddish on it to earn his moderate stripes I could be wrong though.

No response?
I'm forced to take the low ground and point out that "radial" is a type of tire.

Kathy, have you been in a cave for the past 8 years? There have been plenty of times Bush was called a danger to children or accused of taking America away from Americans, or have you conveniently forgotten the Bush=Hitler posters, the calls to impeach him, and the level of hate directed at him. The Obama ones, by the way, were put up by LaRouche nutcases. However, I am not going to sit here and defend a bunch of conservative activists who are deranged or trying to make money. What am I saying is that your claim that people who disagree with Obama are racists is false and insulting. Also, Bush was yelled at by a politician who called him a liar, you might recognize him as it is Harry Reid who called Bush a liar in front of a civics class.

Joe, I can give you an example, Hawaii which failed because it couldn't keep costs down which is the inherent problem in Obama's health policy. Personally, I like Wyden-Bennett.

"the Repub party and the history of their feelings about respect to the office and respect to authority in general."
Thank you for clearly identifying that point. When Bush was Prez, no matter how heinous some people believed his actions, they were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had to respect the President or be called "traitors."
How quickly times have changed.

More perspective

Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."

Is that rhetoric appropriate?

SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.

Did Harry Reid apologize?

Nope.

Of course that doesn't matter to the ideologues on the left.

Like the song by the Who goes, "Meet the new boss....same as the old boss"

And instead the left calls the right domestic terrorists or racists

Well, that's not exactly accurate. The goal of providing all children with health care seems like a good one to me, but, according to Breitbart
"Republican governor signed Keiki Care into law in 2007, but it and many other government services are facing cuts as the state deals with a projected $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011."
It was rescinded not because it "couldn't keep costs down" ("it cost the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child") but because the whole economy went down the tubes.
Who the hell was in charge when the economy of the WHOLE country went down the tubes?
Let me think.
Was it the black guy?

"And instead the left calls the right domestic terrorists or racists"

and your point is...?

It's okay to disrespect the Prez NOW, because some people on the left call some people on the right unpleasant names? Excellent.

No it was 2 White guys. I'm not going to go claim Republicans were blameless in the fall of the economy, because they passed Clinton's bills that started this. That being said, Bush tried spotlighting that the housing market was going to bust, and Barney Frank and the democratic leadership basically laughed at him and John Snow (Secretary of the Treasury before Paulson).

Leonidas wrote: "More perspective"

Given the examples you've put forward I don't think you know what the word "perspective" means.

perspective is "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship: Your data is admirably detailed but it lacks perspective." is the definition given at dictionary.com.

I especially liked the example sentence they used as it fits your comments about perspective to a tee.

The economy went bust 8 years after Clinton was gone, but it was his fault?
And George/Dick were powerless to stop the banks and traders from running wild?
To quote Barney Frank:
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Why yes, the definition does fit:

"The faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship"

You know thats like not ignoring the democratic boos at Bush and harry Reid calling him a liar and a loser. You get perspective when you take your head out of the Sands of Ideologues and look at all the information.

I'd rather laugh at the hypocrisy of the left (and right for that matter although I don't recall them getting their panties quiet as much in a bunch over the Senate Majority leaders remarks, although they may have, and certainly have on some other issues) than be a part of that ocean hypocrisy which I've seen people jumping into with great glee. Mat they enjoy their swim.

CharlieScene wrote: "I'm not going to go claim Republicans were blameless in the fall of the economy, because they passed Clinton's bills that started this."

Actually Charlie that's not what got us in the position we are in today but, for the sake of argument, let's accept what you wrote. Except we can't accept what you wrote because it's Congress that WRITES legislation (bills) and it's the President that either signs or vetoes them.

Kathy wrote: "What is it that makes Barack Obama so different from any other President of the United States, including reviled Democratic ones like Clinton and Carter?"

Let me venture a guess... He's black?

*sigh*

Leonidas wrote: *sigh*

Are you jwest in disguise?

Steve, I know that, but he was a driving force behind the legislation, and I am not absolving Republicans of fault, they were too concerned with the attack that they attempted to stop people from getting affordable houses. And Joe, they attempted passing regulation bills but were stopped by Congress, in a bipartisan push to stop regulation of lending practices.

CharlieScene wrote: "... he was a driving force behind the legislation...

Do you really believe that a Democrat President in the process of being impeached by a Republican congress was the "driving force" behind the actions taken by a Republican Majority in both the house and senate?

A driving force, not the driving force. It was a bipartisan bill that not many opposed because they were too scared of being accused of stopping the American dream.

CharlieScene wrote: "It was a bipartisan bill that not many opposed because they were too scared of being accused of stopping the American dream."

Charlie, What bill are you talking about?

Charlie, I had to Google "bipartisan push to stop regulation of lending practices" to get some idea of what you're referring to, because I was certain that it was Republicans who always fought against regulation of any business. Try the google yourself and see if you have any success in backing up your point. If you're not feeling that ambitious here was one of the first articles that popped up (that darn Barney Frank again:)
http://www.house.gov/frank/letters/official/200...

Leonidas wrote: *sigh*

Are you jwest in disguise?

Nope, but I'm sure many people type *sigh* when confronted with someone playing the race card in a blog discussion or some other such silliness.

joeaudio, he might be referring to this

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-...

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

or maybe this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN...

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.

Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.

Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

dear leonidas,

"I don't recall them getting their panties quiet as much in a bunch over the Senate Majority leaders remarks..."

I have to say, I make a lot of mistakes when I type, we all do, but this one of yours made me laugh goodnaturedly Leonidas... imagining politicians panties going 'quiet". Or not.

thanks.

dr.e, who was horrified once to see (after the piece went to press) my spellcheck changed the word Holy Communion (which I'd mispelled) to Holy Communist. gleep. It caused a lot of laughter all around too. Not a bad thing necessarily.

Nope, but I'm sure many people type *sigh* when confronted with someone playing the race card in a blog discussion or some other such silliness.

Your flippant dismissal of the possibility of racial overtones in this says more about you than it says about anything else.

Glad that I'm me and you're you. Enjoy your pessimistic negativism if you like... I'm rather be out in the sunshine with my eclectic, politically diverse friends golfing and laughing at (and with) each other.

Thanks for the info, I'll have to research how my congresscritters voted.
But what about AIG, Lehman, GoldmanSachs and the others?
Fannie and Freddie were only a part of the problem.
Have you read the Matt Taibbi articles?
Lots of really greedy folks grabbing all they could get, while they could get it.

To those who insist on attributing to racism the conservatives' extreme opposition to (hatred of, or whatever you call it) Obama:

You are certainly right that there are some who are motivated by racism, but please stop insinuating that that is the case for all conservatives. a) It is not true, b) even if it is, no one has yet provided nor ever will provide evidence to support the claim, so it it a fruitless endeavor to try, c) it only infuriates those who are not racist and have legitimate concerns, and d) it is hypocritical to condemn conservatives for name-calling when you yourself are unwilling to refrain from the practice.

If you still think it's a good strategy to blame it all on racism, please explain to me why. I just don't see how that accomplishes anything good.

Glad that I'm me and you're you.

See we can agree on something. As for " eclectic, politically diverse friends" I'm pretty sure I can match you there. I can't imagine many groups or political beliefs (excepting truthers and birthers) that I don't have friends that count themselves among the members. From bikers, the gay male strippers, to church people, to sushi chefs, to business professionals, to doctors, to teachers, etc. Not to mention members of two dozen or so ethnic groups. But I'm glad you like your friends as well. We have that in common as well, a love and appreciate of our friends in all their variety.

Just thought I'd share that, since I don't think you really know me like you might think you do.

Just thought I'd share that, since I don't think you really know me like you might think you do.

Thanks for sharing. And, you're right I only know you from how you have presented yourself at TMV.

In your last comment I saw the possibility that there might be more to you than it has seemed. Shall we try to actually, rationally communicate and debate our opposing positions?.. or shall we just maintain the status quo?

"If you still think it's a good strategy to blame it all on racism, please explain to me why. I just don't see how that accomplishes anything good."

Well, the thing is, I don't think anybody here believes that racism is the whole problem, just a big part of it for many in the "Loyal Opposition" party. I don't think that all Republicans are racists. There I said it. I do know some Republicans whose fears of not being the party in power are amplified by the fact that the President is "black."
I've also observed that many of these same people (without anyone suggesting it in the first place) automatically add "but I'm not a racist" to their arguments against anything Obama says or does.
I'm not accusing anyone here of being a racist, but it's very difficult to understand the total lack of civility exhibited by folks like the jackass from South Carolina, without thinking that race has some part in the equation.

Yes, D.E..... They did it too.

It was wrong when the dems did it. It was wrong when Wilson did it.

It is simply wrong to disrupt any joint session, and it is wrong to disrespect the President (and anyone else) when he is speaking to that joint session.

Here's the major difference, my liberal American brother....

After the democrats booed President Bush, no one was asked to resign and no ethics committees adjourned.

Joe Wilson shouts "You Lie", and suddenly the liberal lynch mob forms in the corridor.

"lack of HONOR"

Amen, Sparrow!

If there were more honor, on the parts of both the government and the citizens, corruption would be nil.
Scandal would be nil.

Anyone other than me remember when BOTH parties stood against common enemies and with God?
Democrats sold out to the faux-environmentalists and entities benefitting from a welfare state.
Republicans sold out to Wall Street and entities benefiting from lack of regulation.

"...racism is (not) the whole problem, just a big part of it..."

You must remember. The Republican party brought Emancipation. The Repbulican party brought voting rights to blacks. The Republican party brought sweeping civil rights. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, was Republican. (for those unlearned of you that don't believe those tidbits....go look them up).

In more cases than not, when I hear "racism" or see distinctions brought among a group of people - the person at the front is a Democrat. The very reason that the South became predominantly Democrat was a reaction to the Republican embrace of the "colored".

And here is a shock, I myself, am a registered Democrat..... Just a VERY conservative one.
I happen to LIVE Dr. King's message. I judge SOULY upon the content of a man's character, not the color of his skin. If my daughter or son were to bring home a person of color, I'd not take issue with it (as long as he/she comes from a good family, is Godly, and has a measure of honor and respect). And that's not a holier-than-thow statement. I just wish the Democrats would embrace Dr. King's message as well.

How can they claim to be "for" a black man, when they wish to keep him in a constant state of welfare dependence. Dr. King recognized that fact.

Shall we try to actually, rationally communicate and debate our opposing positions?.. or shall we just maintain the status quo?

Sure a new start is something I welcome. Sometimes people get bad initial impressions of each other for whatever reason and things deteriorate, from your post I see there is indeed a possibility of rational debate with you despite differences in the political field. I never shy from a good reasoned debate and enjoy it as a way to evaluate my own views in my own mind, I just don't shy away from throwing barbs if I see them come at me, I tend to respond in kind whatever the nature of comments sent my way. You treat me with civility and I will make my best honest effort to do the same.

We all really can be friends, or at least friendly.

"Joe Wilson shouts 'You Lie', and suddenly the liberal lynch mob forms in the corridor."

Consider the nature of the mob and their current desperation, and hatred of opposition and any of the many inconvenient truths they are facing.

These are the same people who formed the lynch mob when Reagan told a cretin to "Shut up!"

I've heard nothing by anyone else about this event, and it was also amusing that several hours elapsed after I made numerous remarks about South Carolina and "the cane," before someone else who was aware of this event started a thread on it, and other libs on this lib site wrote to say this was something new they didn't know before. What many, many other things don't they know, is the obvious question.

The bogus racism issue about criticism of Obama fortunately has been limited largely about Obama's stupid remark related to the Gates affair, which encouraged many worse (often white) extremist fools to emerge and spout their idiocy about our systemically evil society, et cetera...it has been recently in New York where the idiotic Dem government in Albany's failure to correct its worst financial misdealings has led to accusations that critics of Albany and its governor are "racist." So far, the bogus "racism" charge in general against widespread criticism of Obama and Congressional lib Dem misconduct has not been that commonplace, except among the fringe (unsurprisingly, in their case).

Put Wilson's bad behavior in proper context (please grow up, for a change, this year!). His and other Republicans' "town hall excesses" during Obama's address only demonstrated the pathetic position the Republicans are in right now. [sigh] The Dems are wrong to rush bad legislation through, and the more far-left Dems increasingly offend better Americans, and they aren't being fair with the Republicans, but the Republicans still have their own, separate problems. I don't understand anyone expecting another 1994 next year, no matter how badly the Dems continue to be, or even if they are worse.

Most of your examples are countered by a simple "That was then, this is now.". They all predate the introduction of the Republican Southern Strategy.

"Most of your examples are countered by a simple 'That was then, this is now.'"

If you meant by that what I wrote, it does not follow.

Wilson's outburst is not a means to mischaracterizing the South or the GOP (or the public increasingly opposed to lib Dem excess and wrongdoing), of course.

"You must remember. The Republican party brought Emancipation. The Repbulican party brought voting rights to blacks. The Republican party brought sweeping civil rights. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, was Republican. (for those unlearned of you that don't believe those tidbits....go look them up)."

Yeah, not so much on the history of the Republican party there, eh JeffersonDavis? God, you FAIL at seeing the irony there, don't you? I mean, your moniker indicates that you might know that the South fell strongly on the Dem side when Jefferson Davis was around? All the *individuals* who were Dixiecrat racists are now Republicans. Perhaps you also know that Joe Wilson is a Republican and a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans? As in one of the "magnificent" seven who fought tooth and nail to keep the Confederate flag in SC? Something tells me that the Republicans of Lincoln's time would think that fact pretty heartbreaking.

In addition, during MLK Jr's time, the conservatives spent huge amounts of time calling him a socialist and a communist. If you think really hard, you may realize that those terms are being screamed by one of the parties toward another powerful black man now. (Hint: it's not the Democrats.)

In other words, what Jim_Satterfield said.

The is, sadly, racism in both parties and some would expolit if for political gain. But most of Democrats aren't Jesse Jackson, and most Republicans aren't George Allen.

What I find distressing is the way some would embrace or justify it on one side and condemn it on the other. This applies to both parties. When people tried to defend George Allen for his "Macaca" remark I found it disgusting. I also am disgusted upon the fact that there is a "Congressional Black Caucus", that has kept out white membership, like that applied for by Rep.Steve Cohen, who was elected by a predominately black district but not allowed to join. Of course such a blatantly racist group shouldn't exist anyway among our political leaders. Imagine the outrage if there was a "Congressional White Caucus" formed.

Racism is disgusting in all its forms IMHO, whether currently socially acceptable or not.

Leonidas -- You don't really "get" the whole racism thing, do you?