« Waterboarding - it worked!!! | MiddleClassBill's Blog | When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings »
Why is everyone who disagrees with Obama labelled a racist?
Why is it so many people on here accuse people who disagree with Obama of being racists? It used to be I was just yelled at as being stupid, a "Faux" news disciple or not really "middle class". Now most everyone's favorite slur is "you're a racist!"
If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan? You're a racist.
If you think Van Jones made some moronic comments? You're a racist.
Say anything negative about Skip Gates? You're a racist.
If you're Sen Chambliss and you use the word "humility"? You're a racist.
Even Peggy Noonan used the word "humility" this weekend, so I guess she's a racist too! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574391153099885242.html)
If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan? You're a racist.
If you think Van Jones made some moronic comments? You're a racist.
Say anything negative about Skip Gates? You're a racist.
If you're Sen Chambliss and you use the word "humility"? You're a racist.
Even Peggy Noonan used the word "humility" this weekend, so I guess she's a racist too! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574391153099885242.html)
Advertisement
Not saying the term isn't over used, but other than the dim bulb Chambliss. I think you need to provide some links.
As for Noonan's typically weak piece. Please check how she used "humility" as opposed to Chambliss's use. I'm not going to call Chambliss a racist just a dumb as a post redneck. Who among his many transgressions viciously and wrongfully attacked a decorated veteran to get elected in the first place. And while you may not have heard it Chambliss comment came off sounding more like, "that uppity . . . . ."
September 8, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly didn't think Chambliss' use was racial at all. I think because he's from GA and generally a bonehead - everyone jumps to calling him a racist (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/chambliss-obama-better-show-humility-in-speech-to-congress.php#comment-3591893)
There's lots of middle class average Americans who don't like the healthcare plan and they feel, even though they aren't wearing swastikas, like their government is calling them radical. I think lots of people are angry, rightly or wrongly. Obama wants to get them to calm down. He just needs to do it in a way that doesn't make them feel like they are part of the lunatic fringe. Hopefully he can calm them down in a "humble" way.
September 8, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again
link please.I have only heard the wacko, teabagger, communist under every bed etc etc called over the edge.
If you are against the proposed reforms fine. Offer up a well thought argument with facts and I'll be happy to listen.
September 8, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have done so over and over again with little real traction on this site. I know you are usually willing to have a civil discussion, but many around these parts clearly are not.
Bill's point is solid without out-of-context links to support it. Common sense will dictate that if the majority of the country supported the current legislation, as it has been delivered to date, then the Congress would have passed the bill.
I know it seems like we are all radicalized and whatnot, but I suspect most representatives are actually listening to all of their constituents and not just the most vocal. That's why I have long held that health insurance reform seemed a logical first step, followed my Medicare reform to get to the public option.
It uses the existing systems strengths to cure their weaknesses and ends up being mostly revenue neutral. This isn't rocket science. It just takes ten seconds in the other side's shoes to innovate our way to a true compromise that meets our needs while mending our current political divides.
September 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many different versions of the Bill are there at present? What do they contain? What bill has been "delivered to date?"
My "common sense" says that this is nothing more than a less than artful way of saying "You caught me talking like a man with a paper asshole who has no idea if there is any data to support the claims I make. But I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"
Seriously, if you were to submit your expertise on the way in which government works as an essay to a middle school civics class, the teacher would return it with an "F' scribbled upon it, probably stapled to a job application for Burger King.
BTW: Nearly every poll I've seen shows strong public support for a public option DESPITE all the millions of health insurance industry dollars spent on fear-mongering and demagoguery and "campaign financing" (aka "bribery") targeting the defeat of this popular feature of health care reform. And so please explain why Congress hasn't already passed the bill including the public option in accordance with your common wisdom?
Your words, jason. I look forward to your defense of them.
September 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bill's point" as in MiddleClassBill, of which I believe there is only one as far as I know.
As to the rest of your comment, all this does is confirm to me you don't follow a thread up to its starting point and then read things in the order they were posted. Had you done so, you would realize I what I was responding to, but to the larger point, common sense does indeed dictate that if most of the country supported the current efforts, this legislation would be a slam dunk.
Don't blame the entire country for the failure of a small group of legislators to properly design a solution most of us could support without a subscription to The Nation.
September 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
the questions remain unanswered: How many different versions of the Bill (NOTE FOR THE CIVICS IMPAIRED: "Bill" is a commonly used synonym for "legislation") are there at present?
You challenge my reading skills, which actually are quite serviceable. But it seems I once again make the mistake of responding to what you write instead of what you mean.
Tell you what, when you arrive at a consistent, coherent meaning some day perhaps you might consider spreading it via mental telepathy or something. Meanwhile, I'd give up on the writing if I were you. It only seems to send you down cul de sacs from which you never really emerge with anything like a coherent thought intact.
September 9, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are multiple bills but that has nothing do to with my original comment. Dig?
September 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I have offered my thoughts on health care reform over and over again.
You never seem to grasp what I am talking about - no matter what words I use - so really what is the point in our continuing to talk about anything?
I'll note that it is you and your crew doing all the trolling these days.
September 9, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put. Thanks for the support.
September 9, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. Thanks for hanging in there. Not every liberal is a reactionary whack-job. I am married to one who breaks the mold and there are more than a few around these parts, though you wouldn't know by virtue of the ones who showed up here,
September 9, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unnecessary roughness, 15 yard penalty! What a gratuitous jab that was, just spraying all over the TPM crowd. You got a beef with Sleepin, you guys go at it, but why do you feel like you need to braodcast a cheap shot like that to the whole site? Oh, I know, you just meant a choice few. better to have just said, "MCB, I love you man!" and get busy.
September 9, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you misread what I wrote and then acknowledged that you misread it and then went ahead and hit submit anyway? This place is seriously off it meds.
September 10, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Common sense will dictate that if the majority of the country supported the current legislation, as it has been delivered to date, then the Congress would have passed the bill.
------------------------------------------------
This is nonsense Jason and you should know better. You are not that naive. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll 76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."
So why are we arguing about a public plan?
September 9, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are in favor of some theoretical public plan, just not this particular public plan because the democratic party totally flubbed the roll-out.
I have seen those polls and think they are a great sign that we will get something done on this front both now and in years to come.
I don't want to argue. I am in favor of a public plan, just by way of reforming Medicare instead of building an entire new government system on top of the old one that is getting ready to crap out.
Though I guess sometimes it takes arguments to get to innovation.
September 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not arguing over whether there should be a public plan or not. I'm pointing out the absolute foolishness of your statement.
"Common sense will dictate that if the majority of the country supported the current legislation, as it has been delivered to date, then the Congress would have passed the bill."
As for polls they're worthless most of the time. Latest CBS poll, sept 1:
Do you have an understanding of health care reform ideas?
Yes, I understand them 31%
No they're confusing 67%
So don't tell me Americans don't like the current plan. They quite honestly say they don't have a clue. The reason is the democrats didn't get out the message well, the republicans spread a bunch of lies and the MSM muddied the waters by focusing on the sensational bullshit.
September 9, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, whether you agree or not, the Congress tends to vote the way their constituents tell them to vote. I am not talking polls. I am talking about the people that write to their representative and tell them what they think.
If the majority of the country (which doesn't mean fifty-plu-one percent) wanted the legislation currently being discussed, there wouldn't be any debate. It would already be a done deal.
Stop blaming the American voter for what was essentially a piss-poor job of legislating by the democratically-controlled Congress.
September 10, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
At last, we can agree on something. It is precisely in service to their Insurance Industry Campaign Contributing Constituency that the GOP refuses to allow anything like the public option that might limit the Insurance Industry from continuing their rapacious profiteering.
A majority is in favor of a public option. So we should expect its passage in the bill, right? Is that your point? According to what you write, it would be unreasonable to argue against it. Why do you keep arguing against it, then? Shouldn't you and the GOP and their Health Insurance Industry owners just shut up so we can get some work done around here and pass the health care reform that the people want?
Not surprising, but I gotta' point out that you aren't being very consistent.
So, now tell me once again that I should never respond to what you've actually written, but should instead divine what you meant. My hammer is at the ready for another game of whack-a-mole.
September 10, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What majority are you talking about? What public option do they support? If this debate is such a slam-dunk, why isn't it already signed into law?
Must be a conspiracy.
September 10, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Q: "Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?"
Poll results in response to the above question show support for a public option by a 3-2 margin.
It is you who stated as a truism that:
You made such an asinine statement as a means of implying that the majority do not want the public option. After all, if they did it would already be passed, right?
It's a stupid argument, based upon a very simple understanding of political realities of the kind that that you consistently pass off as true wisdom. And now the facts bear me out on this and make you look foolish.
Yeah, I know. It's gotta suck to be exposed as a poseur, but you should be getting pretty used to it by now.
September 10, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read that poll? It completely backs up what I am saying.
Less than 60 percent in favor is not a majority of the country. Further, since not getting a public option in this round of legislation won't effect the votes of most voters either way, there is certainly no a national mandate for one or even a pressing concern.
Once again, you brandish your sword only to promptly fall on it.
September 10, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: When Americans don't really understand something, they tend to stick with the status quo. Our entire system of law is based on precedent, so that tells you the relative importance in homeostasis to the character of the nation.
September 10, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: it's "on here", as you noted.
(a) they're venting their frustrations,
(b) it's easier to dismiss someone like that.
Don't take it personally or seriously. It's just verbal garbage.
September 8, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, racism has been eradicated and the country is free of racists, so there couldn't be any possibility that someone could be motivated by racism or be trying to stoke racism in the public. Anyone trying to point out such non-existent phenomenon is obviously being delusional.
September 9, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Making the accusation against an entire group of people based on the disgusting actions of a few is the point here. Not that there is no racism.
Clearly there is racism, perpetrated by the left and right.
September 9, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue here is that it systematic to the Repulican party, or institutionalized, or infused culturally, or whatever discipline of thought one wants to use to investigate it. And it is becoming stronger not weaker. Lincoln Chafe where have you gone...
I'm not calling every conservative or Republican a racist. Much of it is distortion of valid threads within the conservative movement. Individualism becomes my right to oppress the hell out of anyone I want (esp. if I can makes some money from it). The nature of the philosophy has attracted the Rushites and Beckites who want to return to being king of the hill and not feeling quilty about it. The GOP is a party that embraced, encouraged and loved those who were calling for theocracy built on Jesus, their Jesus, not anyone else's. Being around these folks you learn pretty quick that it is not only C street that believes that the wealthy and powerful are the choosen ones, and the poor and downtrodden are there because, well, God just doesn't like them very much. Or they deserve it.
And then suddenly there is the firestorm about all those brown people coming across our borders,...
And then...
September 9, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You use extreme ideologies to "prove" your point about a political identity (conservative) that covers at least 50 million voters. The republican party freed the slaves and started the National Park system and our Interstate highways. The history and roots of the GOP are every bit as noble and progressive as the democratic party without the same sort of skeletons in the closet like the KKK and slavery.
You also conveniently ignore each and every place that the democratic party's largess is actually damaging to those they would help most. The damage of unintended consequences. If I was going to design a system of governance that helped every American make the most of their abilities, I certainly wouldn't set up an adversarial relationship that automatically makes the country less stable.
The republican party has been out of its mind for four decades now as has the democratic party. Neither have lived up to their stated ideals and goals, so both are to blame for our current state of affairs.
September 10, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct that not everyone who objects to Obama is a racist! In the same way that not every white man who supports Obama is doing so out of a sense of "white guilt".
Both right & left have a bad habit of lumping everyone together and then asserting that ALL of those people have the same underlying reason for their belief. (And it always is the worst case scenario.)
This is an issue that could be made better if both sides would admit that not everyone on their side is on their side for pure motives.
The truth is that some white people voted for Obama because it was trendy to do so. The truth is that some African-Americans voted for Obama for no other reason than he was black.
But it is also true that some white people voted against Obama because he was black. And sometimes the statements made against Obama are made out of a hatred of him that is based on the fact that he is black.
How much more credible would each side be if they called it like they saw it...rather than ignore the baser motives on their own side.
September 8, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan? You're a racist.
Mostly because (as of 8 September, 2009) he hasn't issued a plan. Only Congress had sat through hearings to put forth legislation. Perhaps a better question is why are opponents of health care reform attacking him for something he hasn't legislated himself?
If you think Van Jones made some moronic comments? You're a racist.
Perhaps the people who defended Van Jones know him better than how he was portrayed by Glenn Beck and by some in this forum who actually called Jones racist. A doctored video or two does not make someone a racist.
Say anything negative about Skip Gates? You're a racist.
Hmm? I read comments critical of Gates on Blackangendareport.com that was more about class than race. BAR is written mostly, if not entirely by black people. There is one more than one perspective--even among black people--about this situation. So saying anything negative about Gates and being automatically being labeled is false.
If you're Sen Chambliss and you use the word "humility"? You're a racist.
I guess I would have to see how he used, humility.
September 9, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious that as of today, we can't have an opinion about Obama's healthcare plan? He must have a plan otherwise he wouldn't have been elected. When he was campaigning I don't think he just said - "I'll make healthcare better, trust me." I guess you haven't been on Obama's website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/)
And I guess you've also missed his earlier speeches? Here's just one of them - http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-president-obamas-health-care-speech
And I guess for the short time he was a US Senator he never spoke about healthcare? Here's one speech - http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaHealthIns.htm
There's plenty of information out there for me and everyone else to develop a view how Obama wants to shape our healthcare system.
Just because he hasn't been a member of Congress over the last few months and physically drafting the document doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan. And he's given us lots of information about what that plan should look like.
September 9, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone can have any opinion they want but it doesn't make that opinion right. Congress actually formulated the bill and he actually gets to formalize it or not.
Isn't there a difference between the office of the president and Congress? There is a 535 to 1 difference. All the president ask was that Congress get it done.
September 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure there's a difference between the President and Congress, but your point was that it's hard to have an opinion on Obama's healthcare stance because he hadn't presented a plan or "legislated" anything.
That's not a very compelling argument. He's said plenty about healthcare over the past few years.
September 10, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to divert your thrust too much but your title brings up an issue I have been thinking about.
What is the race of President Obama?
His mother was a 'white' woman from Kansas, his father a 'black' man from Kenya.
My question is: What 'race' is he?
Has he ever stated what race he considers himself to be?
Is he not as 'white' as he is 'black'? Has he decided that he is 'black'?
Which brings up a broader question: Is any person of African descent whose family has lived in America 'black'?
I think that it is better for all to consider ourselves as citizens, no matter the color of our skin, or the prominence of our alma mater.
Given his protection of the torturers, his subservience to the civil rights abusers and his failure to do what is so clearly the 'right thing' I think he may be 'gold' or 'green'.
September 8, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it is better for all to consider ourselves as citizens, no matter the color of our skin, or the prominence of our alma mater.
Puh-lease!
I consider myself a citizen but it isn't me that I am trying convince.
September 9, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no Mc Bill. They are all teabaggers.
Only some of them are racists.
September 9, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
True enough, Saladin :)
September 9, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disagreeing with the democratic party's "solutions" to health reform makes you a teabagger? The massive broadening of a derogatory term has begun.
September 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason. step away from the computer. go to the video store rent a comedy. I don't know whatever floats your boat, maybe network again. Or a classic woody allen. For some reason I suspect you liked Space balls. Or maybe get some standup- dave chappel is funny, eddie izzard, maybe classic richard pryor or late eighties eddie. I don't know, whatever gives you a chuckle.
Just find a sense of humor. Life is too short.
September 9, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now now now ... It's PNS . . .
Political Newbie Syndrome.
Mister Bluster being the political newbie he is, I mean even in his own words he said he couldn't of given hoot about politics a few years ago, is now going through the common stage of ... why doesn't anyone listen to me I've got all the answers and you don't...
Ten years from now he most likely won't even give a crap...
~OGD~
September 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another example of Old Dog Meets New Tricks Syndrome. Sad.
I suspect ten years from now you won't be be able to argue at all without a bottle of oxygen and a a Viagra, which is why you are so mean and nasty on these boards now while you can still do so unassisted.
Nothing gets that old heart pumping like a little partisan warfare! Really knocks the wrinkles out, huh?
September 9, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the "joke" is to take one group of crazy right-wing freaks and make them the new default explanation for objection instead of the original right-wing freaks. Hilarious!
September 9, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Video store, Jason. Or try youtube.
September 9, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mirror. Shiny thing. Hangs on the wall. Probably one in your bathroom.
September 9, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not wading into the minefield of racist/not racist. You the hell does Senator Chambliss think he is demanding that our president show humility to him and people who think like him. That is completely disrespectful to our president. What would have happened on the right if the liberals 'demanded' that Bush show more 'humility'? Hell we just wanted accountability and were accused of treason.
Fuck Saxby Chambliss and the horse he rode in on.
September 9, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
*s/b "Who the hell..."
September 9, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! It's just plain disrespectful of him and arrogant too. It does beg the question whether it has a racial aspect. If it did not, then Chambliss would apologize for upsetting people who might have interpreted it that way, because it was not his intention. But if he does not, then clearly he does not give a shit about anyone's perception of racism, or he would build a bridge with acknowledging people's feelings, even though they may be misplaced. Not hearing anyapology, I agree, Libertine. I totally agree. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
September 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. When Saxby Chambliss uses *any* word to put Obama down, it's legitimate to question whether it's a racist statement ....... because Chambliss IS a racist. When Peggy Noonan uses the same term it doesn't have racial overtones because, so far as I know, she isn't a racist (or like everyone who hasn't proven otherwise, certainly deserves the benefit of any doubt).
Chambliss has proven otherwise; he is a racist. Trust me, I'm from the area and have family in Georgia. So it is perfectly legitimate and logical, if generally unhelpful, to wonder if a statement from him is racist. --- Aside from statements by Chambliss, where else have you seen charges of racism anytime recently? I would also like the links.
However, my personal .02, is that it doesn't accomplish a thing to speculate about the motivation behind what someone says. I do believe that a good bit of the scraming opposition to anything Obama does, at least the volumne of the screaming, is racially motivated - consciously or unconsciously. But ... where does that get us? I mean, you can't go around saying "oh, stop being racist" to folks and get anywhere but in trouble.
It's not really helpful, or necessary, to know whether someone's position is motivated by racism. The smart thing to do is what Obama is doing and has done, through the campaign and since: simply ignore it. Nothing you can say or do is going to change someone's heart and core beliefs. Instead, you deal in things that can bring about change: accuracy, truth v falsity, logic, and so forth. And you hold them accountable for their actions, regardless of motivation.
So, if someone says "don't believe him because he's black and all blacks lie" - okay, then you can accuse and talk about their being racist - question their asssumptions about blacks and so forth. But otherwise you just take their words and actions at face value and deal with that. If the true, deep motivation for what they say or do is racism ..... well that's a matter for them, and their conscience, and their God.
September 9, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chambliss wanted to "privatize," i.e. eliminate, Social Security (along with many other Republicans).
That's all I need to know about him. I left the state.
September 9, 2009 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans always play innocent when it comes to matters of race. Barry Goldwater touted stes rights for a reason. Ronald Reagan bgan his Presidential run in Philadelphia Mississippi for a reason. The Southern Strategy was developed for a reason. More recently during the race for RNC chair we had a candidate send out a CD with "Barack the Magic Negro". This year, the Young Republicans elected Audra Shay as President despite Shay's responding to a Facebook post that said " we need to take this country back from all of these mad coons" with "You tell em Eric! lol."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-06/new-gop-racist-headache/
There is a suspicion about the motives of Republicans/Conservatives when it comes to race. When we see wingnuts bringing weapons to townhall meetings in opposition to a health care plan proposed by an African-American President, we have concerns.
Republicans are comparing Obama to Hitler. The outrage over the school speech was insane. There is no rational person in power on the right to reach out to regarding issues of race. Your side of the aisle is merely reaping what it has been sowing for years. Audra Shay, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck and the gun-toters are the base of the GOP. When issues of race come up, there will be questions about what the given Conservative actually means.
September 9, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
A vocal fringe being painted as the silent majority. Again. The republican party is inherently racist and is guilty until proven innocent on all matters related to race. Again.
Predictability is a pretty good indication of ideology trumping common sense.
September 9, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Accusation of being predictable myself coming in four, three, tw...
September 9, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grasp your meaning. I gave you Buckley Goldwater's meaning from the height of the Civil rights era. You are an individual with an opinion. Buckley and Goldwater played major roles in forming the modern Conservative movement. Buckley and Goldwater are Conservative icons so their opinions just might matter.
Institutions like banks and colleges have acknowledged their roles in promoting slavery. The GOP needs to acknowledge their racial baggage. They also need to treat prospective voters (African-Americans) with respect.
In the past, you have given advice to Democrats on how they should change to address real America or the rest of America, or risk losing elections. It seems to me that the Republican party is essentially a Whitebread party, having lost the Latino and African-American vote by large numbers. Shouldn't the GOP be taking diversity lessons from the Democratic Party? Demographic shifts seem to make such as change important.
You have also noted that the GOP leadership is faulty and that they may not be ready to reach out to moderate Democrats. The GOP fringe and radio/TV shock jocks are obviously not willing to reach out to moderate Democrats. You state that Democrats are unwilling to reach out to Republican moderates, but if the Republican moderates have not found a voice, how are we to reach them? Your opinion is nice, but where are your the rest of the Republican moderates?
September 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A party can go back to its roots at any given moment in time.
Why is the democratic party so afraid of encouraging the republicans to go back to theirs? Likewise, why is so hard to understand how far their own party has come with regards to these issues?
This constant need to demonize our political opponents while barely taking the time to synthesize what they are saying will ensure we never progress beyond this partisan hell in which we are living.
Namaste.
September 9, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
...........A party can go back to its roots at any given moment in time.
Where are the moderate Republicans that will ignite this change? Shouldn't Republicans have the primary responsibility for changing their own party? Shouldn't the return to it's "roots" be an internal GOP event? Where are the forces that are going to initiate change within the GOP? Besides yourself, I mean.
September 9, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least ten to fifteen percent of the republican party voted for Obama in the last election. When he took office, he had historically high approval ratings.
Grassroots political change starts from such humble beginnings, unless it is killed in the womb by fringe elements in competing parties before it can really take hold.
The surest way to ensure that the GOP will never change is to continuing acting as if it never will.
September 9, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
and I think we need this change. The Democratic party isn't exactly on it's toes either. Probably the best way to invigorate the Democratic party into actually accomplishing things is to invigorate the Republican party.
One big way for invigoration (wow, that's a word? I was just typing and expected squigglies) would be dedication to reality. Both parties (The Republican one way more so recently IMO) like to spin the tales to further their aims. Dreamworlds don't improve the economy, people's lives, competitiveness, or our nation's credibility.
September 9, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument that the GOP is the most recent offender on our perp list and was pretty high on the scale of wrecking government for personal and political gain.
I think you get my point that the only way to do that is to inspire the republican grassroots to demand better. The only way to inspire is through setting a good example.
I am afraid many democrats are failing this particular test of their stated beliefs.
September 9, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be criticizing Democrats for not applauding a grass roots movement in the GOP that is showing no spark of life.
Writing commentary on a blog is easy. Creating your grass roots movement takes hard work. Democrats are trying to get Democratic legislators to pass health care reform against opponents that include insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the GOP and some Democrats. Most of us see zero advantage in mounting a grass roots effort in the mostly Whitebread and even more corporate controlled GOP. MiddleClass Bill has told you that he wants no government involvement in health care.
Most Democrats have an opposite viewpoint and support a public option. What advantage is achieved by mounting a GOP grass roots effort that faces opposition from the GOP leadership, the GOP fringe and GOP supporters like MCB? It would seem to be a great effort for little return.
September 9, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying that confusing fringe ideologies for majority beliefs, no matter how silent or vocal that majority is, does the democratic party no favors.
Since you guys are in charge currently, I figured offering an outsider's view might be helpful given all the very important work your party can't seem to get done.
I may be the first republican to mention the trend as being detrimental, but plenty of your fellows feel the same way.
September 9, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post is word salad. Democrats realize that there are problems within the Democratic Party that need to be addressed.
Moderate Republicans seem to be the ones that cannot address the problems within their own party. So how are these silent GOP moderates going to help the Democratic Party?
Aren't the Democrats confronting their legislators about withdrawing from Iraq, the buildup in Afghanistan, and health care legislation doing the heavy lifting that the silent moderate Republicans are not doing?
What issues that the Democratic House and Senate have failed to address have not been criticized by Democratic activists?
September 9, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about some dressing then - Acting like an asshole makes the democratic party look bad.
This isn't about moderate republicans changing the party over the coming years. It is about having those moderates support democratic plans in the meantime. It is about what GOP will look like when the change is complete and how attitudes such as yours almost guarantee that the whack jobs stay in charge.
Fine for you. Ideologues love self-fulfilling prophecies that prove them right. Not so good for the rest of us as our continued divisions wreck this final opportunity to pull out of our societal tailspin.
September 9, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" makes just as much sense as your post.
So now you degenerate into profanity, and I'm the problem. I don't happen to agree with you about moderate Republicans getting ready to do anything to change the GOP. I have asked where I could find evidence of these GOP moderates. You provided none.
I point out that Democratic activists are attempting to address problems within the Democratic party on several political issues. I asked what issues where not being addressed by Democratic activists. You provided nothing.
Because I deigned to question you about Republican moderates and issues not being covered by Democratic activists to refer to me in gutter language.
Here's a tip, if you are going to be a bridge between the parties, you might first get some lye soap and wash your mouth out before having the conversation.
Show me the moderate activists.
September 9, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Profanity? I didn't call you an asshole. I said acting like an asshole isn't helpful to your party. Notice the purposeful lack of the word "You" in thee offending sentence.
Further, I tried via multiple comment to explain myself in polite terms only to have it called "Word Salad" at the end in obvious dismissal. You continue to use broad generalities that aren't backed up by anything but your own opinion and because you don't employ four letter words that makes you somehow better than those who do.
More martyrdom complex in place of actual conversation.
September 10, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally like the Urban Dictionary's def better. It comes with a caveat too: "The word 'liberal' is sloppily used."
But seriously, no one can live up to your original definition. We all have preconceptions and internal shortcuts. Otherwise, a liberal wouldn't mind a racist, right? A liberal normally isn't tolerant of one who isn't tolerant. I know that I'm not. It's a fault, right?
September 9, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals used to be OK defending racists.
I think if a group is going to allow certain standards to be fungible then they have to allow for the same for their political rivals. Otherwise, all we have are arguments that are little more than one side trying to point out their opponent's faults because they steadfastly refuse to admit they even exist.
Even going by the Urban Dictionary's definition, I find such ideas extremist in nature. There is little proof that government is the best default position for anything and plenty of data to suggest the inverse. At best, government is among dozens of competing power centers where sustainable change could be delivered.
Personally, I am in favor of getting rid of all labels, but in the absence of that happening, perhaps we could learn to disagree with some sense of style and class.
September 9, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Along with the National Socialist Party in Skokie, Ill, the ACLU also defended Col. Oliver North. So is the ACLU a "Liberal" organization or the most overt arm of the wingnuts in the United States?
( I have no clue to what the ACLU does in 5...4...3...2...)
September 9, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ACLU has mostly lived up to their stated liberal ideals which is what this little sub-thread was all about. Whether or not I agree with all of those stances is besides the point.
September 9, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point on the ACLU defending the right for people to use the swastika. It's the "putting the money where the mouth is" point.
As far as your government stance, I have to say that I'm pretty ambivalent on government. It has the potential for good, and the converse as well. The converse is what active constituents and investigative journalism (and in a way, muckraker?) is for. If only journalists actually focused more on doing their jobs and less on Michael Jackson (just using this for a talking point, no disrespect meant)! With safeguards, it can be beneficial.
Way OT: But where are the safeguards with the military wing of the government? Why can they spend so much and to what end? And Medicare? Well, that's something that's at least actively being worked on. So, OK, that's half of government spending: killing and healing. The dregs go to every other government concern.
September 9, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me started on the military spending in this country.
September 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That one was one of your best blogs. I enjoyed reading it again.
September 10, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should be asking why is when someone on the Right is questioned on the (possible or overt) racist content of a comment, email or rally sign, the Right flips out and says we're accusing anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist?
If racism and racists still exist, it is possible that some of them have made their way into the party leadership of GOP and onto the pundit circut. And if we see anyone exhibit this behavior, should we not call them on it, just as posted yesterday Jesse Jackson was called on his one remark about NYC?
Or are you saying racism has been eradicated and there are no more racists in America?
September 9, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because of comments like this one that accuses the entire GOP of having an inherently racist nature. Myopic doesn't begin to describe such a world view.
September 9, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you focus too much on making it clear that every person in the GOP is not a racist. We know that. However, as a party, the GOP is inherently racist (for lack of a better word), both through tradition and ideology.
Remember, this is the party of the infamous Southern Strategy, which is about the only strategy that's still working for them on a regional basis. It is comfortable with, and even encourages, the traditional hierarchies including patriarchy, which is not an altogether dominant theme among other cultures.
In gender as well as race issues, conservatives believe that both are biologically defined and while they have a place in society that may not necessarily be in the board rooms. Rather, the domestic sphere is more or less reserved as the natural order and place for women and non-Western Europeans. Sure, the stray one can escape these confines now and then, but the main point is that they are comfortable with these ordered spheres as the usual and proper way of things.
None of this is my real opinion. It is based on the works of Burke, Kirk, Nesbitt, Buckley, Stanton Evans and others.
So to take offense each time at the idea of Republicans being racist is a losing proposition and far more time consuming for no win at the end than you are probably willing to spend. Yes, some individual Republicans may not be racist, just as some individual Democrats are. But what is really being referred to are the motivations and ideologies, hidden or not, that are an inherent component of the Republican party.
September 9, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The democrats would have kept slavery alive, so I guess that means they are inherently racist as well.
Your broad-brushing of "conservatives" as this or that is totally out-of-line with the historical record that shows both parties with long histories of both negative and positive trends.
I would suggest you have some conversations with actual republicans rather than believing every caricature of a conservative you see on television.
September 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, people do have discussions with actual Republicans. Many Republicans hate government intervention. Liberals and Conservatives wake up to alarm clocks set to Greenwich Time by a government agency timer. They get coffee from a coffee pot with an electrical system standardized by a government agency to not catch fire or explode. Their children remove fire retardant pajamas and brush their teeth with toothpaste that does not contain poison because of standards set by a government agency. They drive to work in cars with government regulated safety features on government built highways. The arrive at offices with work conditions overseen by a government agency. Liberals like the safety of business oversight. Conservative see too much government. Liberals fear that business un-monitored will start feeding us poison like factories in China. Conservatives think we are in Russia under Khrushchev. There are two different world views.
You seem to want Democratic Party members to accept a world view that is uncomfortable for them and ask nothing of Republicans.
There can be compromise on certain issues, but there need to be existing GOP moderates in power to effect legislation. Where are those GOP moderates that can effect policy?
September 9, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More broad generalizations in place of actual ideas. Forgive me if I just ignore everything you say from now on as a matter of course.
September 9, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real question for MiddleClassBill is why the GOP is viewed so negatively on issues of race. Look at how the GOP does nationally among ethnic groups. The Republican responses to Obama and Sotomayor didoes not win voters among African-Americans and Latinos.
If the ethnic voting trends continue, the GOP will have a rough time winning national office in the future. The current GOP technique of denying racial bias within the party has not worked. The GOP is a professional group that knows how to direct a message that is acceptable to specific groups, if it wants. The GOP simply does not consider African-American or Latino voters important. Past Buchanan ha actually advised the GOP to just focus on White voters. Good luck with that for future elections.
Democrats had to convince a public that viewed the party as being "soft" on defense that a Democratic President would protect the country. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did that.
Political parties can craft messages and transform opinions. Al Sharpton could not win the Democratic Party Primary in NYC. Sharpton lost to a White guy. Blacks do not reject the GOP because the GOP has mostly White candidates, Blacks merely give the GOP the same amount of attention that the GOP gives to Blacks...none.
The fact that you can't answer your own post honestly speaks volumes. Listen to the tone that comes from the GOP when issues of race come up.
September 9, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The real question for MiddleClassBill is why the GOP is viewed so negatively on issues of race."
- No it isn't.
The real question is why so commenters who disagrees with Obama are branded a racist, per original post.
September 9, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong. The refusal of the GOP to confront it's image regarding race is why the party got 4% of the African-American vote in the last election.
Keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The image of the GOP now is of gun-toting Whites demanding their country be freed from a Black President.
Buchanan's "Thank Whitey" column on why blacks should be thankful for slavery, Rush's "Obama is an angry Black Man" and "We don't need the Black vote", Glenn Beck's "Obama is a racist", Monkey dolls at McCain/Palin rallies, Michelle Bachmann's "Revolution is a good thing from time to time", the birthers, the death panel idiots, etc all make the GOP appear to be a bag of mixed nuts.
While there may be a few GOP national victories in the future, the changing demographics of the US will make the GOP a regional party in the long run. The GOP cannot gain the Black or Latino vote without a change in tone and message.
But please remain in denial. The Democrats love you for it.
September 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touche!
September 9, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Word.
September 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your image of GOP. I happen to agree to some parts of it and you could write a blog about it.
But it's not "the real question".
If you read the original post a little slower, you will find the following in the very first paragraph:
"Why is it so many people on here accuse people who disagree with Obama of being racists? It used to be I was just yelled at as being stupid, a "Faux" news disciple or not really "middle class"..."
September 9, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If MCB is getting "racist" comments from multiple individuals, it might mean that my impression of the GOP is not an isolated observation. It may indicate that the GOP has a public perception problem that has become manifest during the Presidency of an African-American.
September 9, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean MCB and others are being stereotyped?
September 9, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see young Black male teens, blondes, large breasted women, Democrats on national security and defense .. Oh and Republicans on race..............stereotypes all.
September 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you are.
C
September 9, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touche!
September 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, if anyone at all said that anyone how disagreed with Obama is a racist I'll be quite surprised, and that is one lame, duplicitous, and embarrassing straw-man argument you come feebly trotting out.
People that didn't want him addressing their children about staying in school and working hard and birthers? Yeah, they're racists. GET USED TO IT! You're gonna hear a lot more if I have anything to say about it. PUT IT ON YOUR FRIDGE! I haven't heard enough of Chambliss to know what he is, but it is one obtuse remark - jackass.
I didn't call you a racist but then you said a whole lot of people want their country back and I asked what you the fuck you meant by that truly bizarre remark and you haven't answered. Want your fucking country back; what the devil are you even talking about?
You tend to answer that people were mean to Bush, but that's understandable since he was the worst President since James Buchanan and probably ever and you need to consult historians as to why they believe that so overwhelmingly if you can't work it out for yourself or don't want to. Finally, you want to ask me what is my race and with respect I say it is none your business and I hope that's the end of it, but I see you then needled me over that. If want to claim "aha!" over what my race is, you are all wet.
September 9, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the avoidance of doubt, Chambliss is the disrepectful jackass, I'm not calling you a name.
September 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've already explained what I meant by getting "my country back" - it's less government involvement versus more. Very simple.
September 9, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then that's not appropriate as to the virulently unpatriotic hyperoble "get my country back," so dial down your goddam seditionist rhetoric if you want to call yourself an American.
September 9, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dial it back? I'll say what I want. Lots of people who throw around hyperbole such as "Bush lied!!" and they still consider themselves American.
My saying I want my country back is no different than somebody who says that Bush lied.
September 10, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when was your country taken away from you? February? March? Any other month since January 20th of this year?
Did you consider any part of your country being wrested away from you when the last administration broke laws to eavesdrop on Americans? No? Isn't that the very definition of "more government?"
Sorry, MCB; when you use the same term as the nut-case holding up her Birth Certificate used "I want my country back!" it shows your hiney to anyone with a brain.
And your basic premise is wrong.
"If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan? You're a racist."
Jason, up above; you've met Jason, right? Well, he has said plenty about the Democratic (not just Obama's, FYI) plans for health care reform. He doesn't like it one bit. I don't think anyone has ever accused Jason of racism.
"If you think Van Jones made some moronic comments? You're a racist."
Arianna Huffington said that his remarks about 911 were mistaken, and Dr. Cleveland, who posts here said his remarks prove that he doesn't belong in the White House. No one called THEM racists.
I won't go on, because it is a waste of time.
September 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell accused me of being inherently racist (whatever the hell that means) because I am both a republican and a conservative.
It doesn't matter what criticism I offer in such an environment if everything I say can be painted with shades of beliefs I do not hold.
I won't even both linking to the comments because they are too numerous to keep track of at this point.
September 9, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did NOT call you a racist, although dishonest is sneaking in as an applicable adjective.
This is what I wrote.
By the way, I don't watch much TV. The people I named are some of the intellectuals that are behind the philosophy of the modern conservative party, which was born in the 1950's, I think. So before you call me crazy or whatever, perhaps you should read them and see if I did or did not accurately represent their thinking.
September 9, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apply broad-brushed definitions and then become all offended when someone calls you on it. Classic ideologue debating style. Quoting sources from the 1950s as a way of avoiding debating real people today is yet another way real conversation is turned into partisan warfare.
It is the same tactic as the far right calling all liberals communists.
September 9, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say you are a racist. I will say that your party's champions are racist. And sexist. And classist. This may be built on a reactionary desire to return us to a halcyon age (one with extraordinarily high tax rates, btw) but the proof is in their words. You and MCB may not be racists, but when the party moves in a direction that appeals to racism, classism, and sexism via legislation and framing, then you are a passenger on the ship.
September 9, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is essentially the point I was making, although apparently it's a mistake to refer to the people that actually built the ship. Thanks, Zipperupus.
September 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The democratic party's ship was built with the sweat and blood of slaves. Should we keep bringing that up every time they want to play the martyr in American politics?
September 10, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. - it is the same as saying liberals are communists because liberalism is not congruous to communism. They are separate political philosophies rooted in a different major premise. Racism can curtail to conservatism in a manner that communism can not abide with liberalism.
September 9, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think both charges are idiotic and pollute the waters of discussion.
I don't imagine I have to point out the fact that had the original democratic party had its way, Obama certainly wouldn't be president. Hell, if the party of just a generation ago had their way, he wouldn't be president.
The history of racism (much less political identity) in America is not as linear as these two comments seem to suggest.
September 9, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are (I presumed) discussing the now and the hereafter. Past is prologue.
You say Obama couldn't be President in yesterday's Democratic Party? So be it. Teddy wouldn't win a single primary in today's GOP.
"We all worry about the future, because that is where we will be spending the rest of our lives." - Criswell
Criswell may have been a little daft, but his point stands. For today and quite possibly the FUTURE, the ship of the GOP is being commandeered by racist demagogues exploiting the fears and prejudices of their increasingly regional and ethnic party. This isn't the fault of those pointing it out.
September 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point being that things change and to have such a myopic view of history tends to keep our wounds bleeding rather than binding them up and moving forward as one people.
September 10, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post. Now I understand why you called me a racist. Accusing me of hating Obama for "who and what he is", rather than his policies.
September 10, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB - I did NOT call you a racist. But, I did ask for support of some flimsy reasons why you are anti-Obama's proposals (not legislation, he hasn't written legislation), and all you could say was "I want the good old days back."
This is a refrain we've heard alot throughout the health care debate (variations being, "I want MY America back" and "give me back my country.").
Since many people equate the "old days" with discrimination and oppression (along with the violent fights for equality), I can see where folks are coming from when they start to feel like anyone who is anti-Obama is a racist.
I don't agree with that viewpoint, and I don't believe that people who are against Obama's policies are necessarily racist, but you asked how it happened, and I think that's one reason.
I guess I'd offer a suggestion to everyone - know the policies, come to a personal understanding about what specifically bothers you, and when someone asks "why do you not support this?" give a rational supported answer other than "I want the good old days back." Same goes for the Left, we really need a better answer than "you'd support Bush, why not Obama?" Probably won't solve it, but it would go a long way towards having a real discussion. I think we'll find that on this issue, we agree more than we disagree, but we're all so quick to yell and label that we're getting nowhere.
September 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps they equate the "good old days" to something less specific than you imagine. Or perhaps you could just ask instead of infer?
My guess is that they mostly want to return to a time where the federal government wasn't so intertwined with all our lives and the states had quite a bit more autonomy. States rights doesn't mean the right to be racist. It means the right to self determination independent of Uncle Sam's whims.
It means actually following the Constitution for a change rather than our decidedly flawed modern interpretations of the document.
September 9, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you are one deliberately obtuse guy, I'll grant you that.
Today's Republican Party walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has webbed feet and feathers like a duck, so unless you're careful, you might step in it.
September 9, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obtuse? Your comment hardly supports that assessment. It simply provides an example that your views are decidedly myopic.
A few clowns on TV or even in positions of authority don't make over 50 million people inherently racist. This line of reasoning could only make sense to someone with a long memory and a short supply of logic.
September 9, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody said as MCB ridiculously quoted that anybody who agrees with Obama is a racist. Neither, quite obviously, did anyone say that anyone who is a Republican is a racist, and if one or two somehow did say that although I much doubt it, than that's one or two oddballs.
So stop fighting absurd non-battles and be responsible in your comments. You know better.
But birthers are howling racists and people who want to shield their children from the President are howling racists too, and you can assure every one one of such without doubt whatsoever on my kind behalf, and you can put that up on your Fridge as well with my compliments. And it's absolutely disgraceful and if you're not concerned, you bloody should be.
September 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must have missed this one. Not to mention this one. Do you even read these threads before you comment?
September 9, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy is that ever a non-sequitur.
September 9, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to work on reading comprehension. This entire thread was a justification for thinking the republican party is filled with racists and is guilty until proved innocent by some unattainable standard.
September 10, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not enough information. That they are howling reactionary, do what they're told, fearing, credulous, and ignorant would be a better argument, however.
September 9, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all fine, but they're bigots, too. These demagogues give them a structure to vent their bigotry is all. Socialism? It's all an excuse not to watch the black guy, to reject him.
September 10, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT, I know what you're saying and why. Or, I at least can try to believe that I know. But I can't label all of these people racist. I'm sure that most don't believe that they are racist. Many are just doing what they've been told to do. Now, if you want to argue that Rush or others doing the telling are racist, then I can get behind that.
September 10, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
States Rights meant that a restaurant could refuse service to a thirsty/hungry African-American traveler in a Southern state. During the height of the Civil rights movement both William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater were against government action being taken to correct this situation. That is the legacy of the Conservative movement on Civil Rights. States Rights DID mean the right of an individual restaurant owner to be racist.
In a 1957 National Review editorial Buckley wrote, "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?"
And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:
If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1543/article_detail.asp
September 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
States rights means different things to different people being the main point, which you again fail to grasp.
September 9, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point you fail to grasp is that your statement is incorrect. States rights is a political science term that has a defined meaning. It is not an opinion or a question of taste and beauty. It is not different things to different people. I know you like to argue about this stuff, JEM, but you don't know what you're arguing about and that's why people have a problem with your arguments. You can't define your own terms, when they have already been defined, much as driving on the left has been defined as the American way. Would you say that driving on the left means different things to different people in the US? If so, bring on public transit and get health care reform through soon. We'll need it.
September 9, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion of strong state's right versus a strong federal government goes all the way back to the founding of the republic. It was the primary reason Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams to become the nation's second president.
You apparently still feel the need to lecture in the absence of real data. Your insulting personal asides are simply a way to hide the fact that your knowledge on this subject is really quite shallow, despite the talking points you've memorized.
Here is a link to provide a some missing context to the partisan view you provided above.
September 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't define your own terms, when they have already been defined,"
Wrong. They are always defined as "whatever Jason says whenever Jason says it."
Thus, Democrats are the party of George Wallace, Viet Nam and Strom Thurmond-(D), but not the party of Civil Rights, Social Security and Martin Luther King.
Similarly, Republicans are the party of Abraham Lincoln, abolition of slavery, and Theodore Roosevelt, but not the party of Iraq, "welfare queens" and Strom Thurmond-(R).
See how easy it is?
September 9, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raises paw to forehead. Bangs on forehead.
What was I thinking to think elsehow? It is all clear now.
Except my forehead. It's black and blue. :-)
Thanks, Brew!
September 9, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, also!
September 10, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you only read what you want to see.
September 10, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't get it, do you brewmn61. The "jason's rulz for intellectual whack-a-mole" dictate that you never respond to what jason wrote, but rather to what he "meant." Got that?
September 10, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, perhaps that is the dictionary definition of State's Rights, but connotatively, it has come to be a trigger word for racism - going back to prior to the Civil War when "state's rights" was used to justify slavery. Since then, it has been used in conjunction with racially charged campaigning, and consequently, whenever someone throws that term around they're looked at askance.
Maybe you need to find a better term for what you mean.
September 9, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terms change all the time. Maybe you would be better served by listening to the actual message behind the words rather than any one word that might mean different things to different people?
September 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly did answer your question. I said I wanted less government in our lives. Very similar to what JEM says below. I said, for example, that I wanted the government to have a smaller role in healthcare. You can disagree with that but I'm not here to debate the point. The point is that I should be able to have an opinion about the government's role in healthcare without being called a racist.
September 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink