Make No Mistake, Resistance To Obama Is Racially Driven
Let's be candid and perfectly clear on this. Republican and right wing resistance to President Obama's plans and policies is racially motivated.
The arguments against anything that President Obama has proposed or done thus far in his administration are not based on political ideology or alternative plans or proposals. The opposition to Obama is simple and clear, there will be no cooperation or bipartisan support for the black man in the White House.
Here is a list/summary of the opposition arguments:
1) He is not a citizen.
2) He is a socialist.
3) He is a fascist.
4) He is a not a Christian.
5) He is a racist.
The Republican wisdom has been to let the falsehoods run their course and when possible be supportive of people who maitain such views or positions.
The Republicans are focused and singleminded in their desire to "break him". There has not been nor will there be any effort to support plans or proposals that can result in any real change. Hence the Republican Party is not simply the party of "NO" but they have hitched their political futures and fortunes to being the party of the status quo...no change at all.......
The plan is simple. If they can keep Obama from making any changes for the good of the general public, they believe that people will become less enamored of Obama and his administration and thus be more disposed to voting against Obama and the Democratic Party during the next round of elections in 2010 and then in 2012.
The Republican Party has chosen to be the party that represents the protection and preservation of white peoples' interests while at the same time doing all that it can to promote the notion that anything that Obama does is for the benefit of and in the interests of black people, which are, they would have the less enlightened among us believe, by definition diametrically in oppsition to the interests of white people...In short the Republican party has become the party of and for racists.....Bill Maher said it best on his program ...."If you are a racist you are most likely a Republican." AMEN Bill, AMEN.........
I think they've also got a few ideological turds thrown in there along with the racist turds.
July 30, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but the ideological turds deserve rebuttal while the racist turds deserved to be flushed...
July 30, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
July 30, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile some of us admire Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, but think of Obama as a compulsive liar who conned his way into the White House with David Axelrod's slogans and Penny Pritzker's unlimited financial support, and if we only judged by "race," it would be virtually impossible to explain how we could admire some members of the same "race" and dislike others...
But maybe what Ron really means is that Obama doesn't belong to the same "race" as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, and insofar as a word like "race" has any meaning whatsoever beyond color...
If you redefine Obama's "race" to mean the "race" of hypocrites and sell-outs and con-men, then I guess it might be fair to say that those of us who would admire Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela no matter what color they might be would also dislike Obama whatever color he might be...
Because it's screamingly obvious that Obama has nothing in common with Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King except color, and except for Ron P and a very few others like him, color isn't particularly significant to most of us who post on TPMCafe...
But Ron P has played the "race card" over and over and over in almost every diary he ever posted on TPMCafe, and if he had any other card to play, he probably would have played it by now, so...
I guess it's fair to consign Ron P to the category of bigots who elevate "race" above all other characteristics of every human being they consider, and forget him.
July 30, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even leaving aside great world-historical figures like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, and moving way down the great chain of being to Al Sharpton, I still have to say that I even like Al Sharpton more than I like Barack Obama, because even though Al Sharpton is a colossal liar, and the very big lie that he promoted about Tawana Brawley was just about as disgraceful as any lie I can imagine, except for the sort of lies that get millions of people killed in phony wars, and that's more of a question of where the liar is situated than the relative shamelessness of one particular liar or another...
I still like Al Sharpton better because liar that he is, Al Sharpton never sold out exactly the people who supported him, the way Barack Obama has sold out just about everybody who voted for him and elected him President.
But apart from examples admirable or otherwise, it would be fascinating to see how the clown Ron P explains...
Why Black Agenda Report gave Obama a grade of F on his Presidency so far, and in general Black Agenda Report is at least criticial of Barack Obama as anyone who posts on TPMCafe, although it would be very difficult indeed to sustain the thesis that Black Agenda Report is full of the sort of "racists" Ron P claims are the only people who criticize or oppose Barack Obama...
It would be fascinating to hear the clown Ron P explain why the black left has been just as critical of Barack Obama as the white left...
It would be fascinating if I were fascinated by watching clowns like Ron P try to wriggle out of the absurd conclusions of their own bullshit...
But I'm not.
July 30, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should get extra points for "moving way down the great chain of being to Al Sharpton", and then credibly defending him. Agree or disagree, baga, you often make me smile.
July 30, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great job promoting stereotypes. Things like his religion, citizenship, etc. are not the main discussion topics these days. But thanks for bringing them up again.
I can't stand Obama's economic policies and neither can most of the Republicans in Congress. Most people I know hate Obama for his policies, not the color of his skin. President Bush spent money like a drunken sailor and his annual deficits were in the 100-500bn range, but what Obama is planning goes well beyond that. The CBO is now projecting annual deficits average $1,000,000,000,000 per year through 2019, and that number will go higher once healthcare reform gets finalized.
But I guess that makes me a racist.
July 30, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, did those self same Republican in congress hate Bush for his deficit exploding policies? If not, why not, and why should they now hate Obama's fiscal policies?
July 30, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's deficits are a lot bigger than the previous President's. Bush may have driven the car to the edge of the cliff, but Obama is now slamming his foot on the accelerator.
July 30, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. Republicans did hate Bush's policies, only not as much as they hate Obama's.
Alrighty then, now point me to the quotes of Republican congressman expressing hate for Bush's economic policies. Don't worry, I won't expect such examples to express quite the same level of hate as shown to Obama's policies. Okay, I'm now clearing space on my hard-drive in preparation for all of the examples you'll provide. I wait.
Hey, while you're at it, include examples of where you too expressed hatred for Bush's economic/fiscal policies.
July 30, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between the deficits is quite large and makes a difference. You can't make the argument that since Republicans didn't mind Bush's deficits that they therefore must approve Obama's.
July 30, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you referring to Obama's projected cumulative deficits, while ignoring Bush's actual cumulative deficits?
There's a reason the national debt broke 10 trillion dollars before Bush left office. And it ain't Obama, or Congressional Democrats(though many of those gave Bush cover by acting "bi-partisan".
July 30, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course it's projected (other than 2009 which is a combination of Bush/Obama). But that's all we have to go on at this point. I am referring to the CBO's latest estimates which you can find on www.cbo.gov
The deficit through 2008 is on Bush's shoulders. But given the state of the economy right now maybe it's not the time to have massive increases in government spending.
July 30, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still waiting for you to show that Republicans hated Bush's fiscal policies at all, let alone a hate merely short of the hate they feel for Obama's (cough) "policies" (cough).
When you fail to deliver anything more substantive than Ron Paul on that account, you are will kindly go back to explaining why Republican hate for Obama's "policies" doesn't have a strong component of bigotry.
July 30, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Obama's policies but I don't believe I am a bigot. Like I said earlier, you can't even compare the Bush deficits to the Obama deficits. The deficit this year is approximately 3x as large as anything we've seen in our lifetimes.
Bush's deficits were largely driven by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I felt that we needed to be fighting in those wars and therefore I didn't protest the deficits. They were still, as a % of GDP, mid single digits and within historical levels.
But when the deficits are instead driven by increased spending on universal healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that's when people have problems with deficit spending. And the deficit as a % of GDP will be well into double digits, which is a level we haven't seen since WWII.
That's why I don't think it's at all hypocritical to be wary of the current proposed deficits because they aren't really comparable in size to the ones we've seen over the last 20 or 30 years
July 30, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
BILL WROTE: "Bush's deficits were largely driven by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I felt that we needed to be fighting in those wars and therefore I didn't protest the deficits....But when the deficits are instead driven by increased spending on universal healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that's when people have problems with deficit spending."
Yes, now you finally come to the nub of it. You don't really object to deficits, you only object to certain types of spending with which you personally disagree. That's fine, but don't sanctimoniously wrap yourself in the cloak of a deficit-hawk. Doing that is a classic conservative rationalization, to claim we don't have the funds for some social program, but we do have the funds to build and use a huge military. The total cost of the Iraq war is projected to be as high as TWO TRILLION dollars, twice what any healthcare program is projected to cost, and not counting the human cost of both American and Iraqi injured and dead.
So, rather than your not being "at all hypocritical", you are quite clearly and fully being hypocritical. What's worse, you will, no doubt, continue to piously claim otherwise despite your own words having already exposed you.
July 31, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever dude. I object to massive spending when the economy is in the tank and we are already running massive deficits in 2008 and 2009.
If the last few years were budget surpluses, then I wouldn't mind Obama's spending spree for the next 8 years. But like I said earlier, you don't slam your foot on the accelerator when the car is teetering on the edge of the cliff.
If Bush had projected running a $1 trillion annual deficit for the next 10 years, I would have screamed bloody murder too. But even during the peak years of those wars, our deficit never exceed half a trillion.
I never said I was against deficits. I said I was against the size of the deficits that Obama is proposing. It's unchartered territory.
July 31, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like shootin' fish in a barrel.
July 31, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument is completely ridiculous. How can you compare a deficit in the 200-300mm range with ones that AVERAGE $1 trillion every year for 10 years? It's silly to say that if you're OK with the former that you must be OK with the latter.
July 31, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hypocrites, unite!
July 31, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the best you can do to answer my question?
July 31, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious that further argument would be a waste. You're too predictable and too self-deluded to present much of an interesting challenge. I wish that weren't true, but it clearly is.
August 1, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So typical of you to resort to that type of response.
Your arguments that all deficits are created equally and Obama's budget deficits are OK because Bush ran deficits just don't make sense.
I guess using your logic someone who drives their car 5mph over the speed limit should get the same fine as someone who drives their car 50mph over the speed limit. They're both speeding so they're equally reckless!
August 1, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read my last comment, but this time, actually think on it.
August 1, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try re-reading my last question and please give me an honest answer.
August 1, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible to disagree with a point of view, ideology, philosophy, policy, proposal, or program without "hating" the person proposing, asserting or expressing it....I hate ignorance and stupidity but I don't hate people who are ignorant and stupid. I guess that would make me what? Progressive? Liberal? or simply Intelligent....
July 30, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I hate ignorance and stupidity but I don't hate people who are ignorant and stupid"
- Really? Remember a woman called Sarah Palin?
If you're going to tell me that you're consistently able to separate Palin's intelligence from Palin the person, then you slipped badly in this post (as in most others).
Because this post is exactly the opposite of your comment.
-The Republicans are focused and singleminded in their desire to "break him".
-the Republican Party is not simply the party of "NO"
-the Republican party has become the party of and for racists
-If you are a racist you are most likely a Republican."
"that would make me what? Progressive? Liberal? or simply Intelligent"
- No. It would make you ignorant and stupid, talking from both sides of your mouth at the same time.
July 30, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hatred is an emotional pitfall or land-mine that we all could do well to avoid...Yes, I can sparate Palin's stupidity and ignorance from her persona. In regard to the question of hating her or anyone else with whom I might disagree, including those of you who have reason to disagree with me here, if by your comment you are saying that you "hate" me, then I would put it to the judgement of any reasonble person, which of us does indeed suffer from stupidity and ignorance....
July 30, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your racial premise, at least in the way you've presented it here. Because even if Obama were white, the Republican opposition would be just as strong and the attacks you list would be exactly the same.
July 30, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of people are saying they love him long time.
July 30, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that, as this comment thread plays out, that there are a lot of white people telling a black person "hey, there's no racism here...move along......" And even more interesting is the fact that Middleclassbill, Lalo and readytoblow all show up to the party.
July 30, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that there isn't racism, it's that the writer hasn't proved it.
July 30, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I interpreted the post as being incredibly stereotypical. It seemed to say that everyone who doesn't like Obama's policies does so because they are a racist. I took offense to that. Are there racists in this country? Of course. But it is incredibly naive given all the major changes going on right now (healthcare, energy, mortgages, preferential treatment of Big Labor in recent bankruptcies, etc) to paint the picture that if you're against Obama it's because you're a racist.
August 2, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. So glad they are trying to obtain the Black vote, isn't it?
July 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative leaders are stoking the passions of the conservative base. Passions can, of course, be positive or negative. These right-wing passions are negative fueled on hate and fear, never compassion and courage. They do this to zealously motivate the non-rational, otherwise known as the Republican base.
Conservative leaders, which includes media figures, worked to stoke negative passions against Bill Clinton. Vince Foster, Whitewater, Slick Willy, draft-dodger, etc., until Clinton finally gave them the weapon they needed with the Lewinsky affair. Now, with President Obama, they are leveraging the weapons which are easiest to deploy against him. His father's nationality, his middle name, his ethnicity. The objective of these tactics is, I believe, the same for both Clinton and Obama. To de-legitimize their presidency. To overturn the constitutional will of the majority. In short, to knock over the checkerboard in a tantrum when they lose. To cheat.
I view what the right is up to as, using whatever means necessary to achieve a specific end. For Clinton, the means was to question his character. With Obama, the means is to question his being "one-of-us", his "American-ness" - a question which is particularly familiar and hurtful to African-Americans. The ends in cases of both Democratic Presidents is the reversal of their election.
To be clear, just because I suspect that the racist and bigoted attacks on Obama are a means to an end, it doesn't mean that those involved are not also truly racist and bigoted. On the contrary, the reason it works is because so many in the Republican base do, indeed, harbor such negative feelings.
July 30, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lee Atwater politics taken to a degree that would make even Lee Atwater shudder.
July 30, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a bit more diabolical. Race is being used as the wedge issue to undermine Obama's domestic agenda. If he is not successful on domestic issues he loses independents.
It's a very risky strategy because you can't also put the haters back in the closet.
July 30, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see race as much of an issue, other than the fringe group of real racists. And, lets be honest, the real racists are on both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone who thinks the Republicans are the only real racists have never been to a white union bar in Chicago.
The main goal of the Country Clubbers is to get more money. It is that simple. They don't really care about race anymore than they do abortion. The want more money. Their God. And they will buy up the media to confuse the middle class whites (yea, you MCB. I like you but you have been totally fooled by a conspiracy of the wealthy) and the fundamentalist Christians and whoever else is pretty easy to fool.
July 30, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How have I been fooled by a "conspiracy of the wealthy"???
August 2, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, first of all, I like you. And, I often agree with you. Many lefties are out in left field still smoking the goofy cigarettes.
Still, many on the right are equally wrong. You, it seems to me, have the so- called "conservative" viewpoint on every point. You agree with Hannity and Limbaugh across the board. In my opinion, the very wealthy are controlling this country through the media and political spending and many who should be on the other side have bought into the Hannity/Limbaugh diatribe.
One example is the health care mess, (this is only one example, there are many). It is an absolute shameful situation. Why does health care cost so much? Insurance companies rake off about 20%. Know who that money goes to? Very high priced executives and the very wealthy who own insurance stock. Pharmacuticals, same, same. And I could go on and on. Europe has "socialized medicine' and it works great. Some things, such as health care, should not be turned over to the so-called "free market" that ain't at all free. It is, instead, owned by the ultra wealthy.
All I am saying, Bill, is think for yourself. I can tell you are bright and think clearly. Consider that Hannity and Limbaugh are as wacko as some on the left.
August 4, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I agree the wealthy are controlling the media. But who's viewpoints are the wealthy promoting?
As for health care, nothing is free. Everything has a cost. Is it a mess? Yes. Does it need reform? Of course. But one of the important reasons that I think it costs so much is driven by the quality of the care which is available. People want 2009 health care to still have a 1990's price tag. And the fact is that there's a lot of R&D that the US pharma and bio-tech companies are pouring into developing new drugs and new treatments. So it's going to have a big price tag. And now my taxes are going to be raised so I can finance health care for everybody that doesn't have it today. And my employer will soon be forced to conform to standards set by Congress which will make it more expensive to cover me, even though I think today my healthcare plan is completely adequate. This is not just the addition of a public option and those of us that want to "keep our current insurance will be left alone". The House bill (at least the last version that I read) says that after a 5-year grace period all ERISA insurance offerings will be subject to government approval. I know a neighbor of mine that owns a small business plans to drop the healthcare coverage of his employees, because it's cheaper for him to pay the 8% payroll tax than continuing to pay an even greater sum on healthcare for his small business. Way to go Obama - that's a great plan!!
So I am really ticked about this healthcare bill. Sorry to rant but you brought it up. There's lots of things about healthcare I want changed that I've wrote about many times on TPM. And do you know why it will never be fixed by Congress? Because they will continue to have a far superior healthcare plan, the likes of which the American public will never see. Therefore, Congress really doesn't give a rats ass about what type of coverage we get as long as they get their gold-plated options and they can say they passed something which they hope will get them re-elected.
As for Hannity and Limbaugh - I don't even watch them except when people here post a clip on YouTube. I do watch O'Reilly, and quite often flip over to MSNBC and CNN. I also read BOTH the NYT and WSJ every day so I can understand how communist pigs like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd think.
So I am sorry if you think that I have somehow been brainwashed by certain people. But I don't think that's close to reality. I am trying to be polite but it's really insulting to be slapped with the stereotype that I must just sit at home all day and get brainwashed by Hannity and Rush.
August 4, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink