Yeah, the Tea Partiers went back to Washington on 9-12. Why? Of course, to demonstrate their superior patriotism, as the above banner shows. Because, Tea Partiers are the only true Americans and are willing to shoot people--or at least threaten it. Why? Well, because their President is not even American. Just ask them. They are all convinced that our elected President is not legitimate. And they are threatening a revolution by force if he remains in office.
Because they are fucking morons.
But it isn't just them, of course. The former Speaker of the House and Man who Would Be President spoke out today (of course, while he is releasing a movie that will encourage more Americans to distrust any Muslims they know or meet--Why? Because Racism is good politics for the Republican base. LB, I know you disagree with me, but I would like some evidence to the contrary. Palin does it, and Gingrich does it. Throwing red meat like "fear brown people, they want to blow you up or take your job or whatever" has become the go-to play for the far right). And so Gingrich speaks, and says Obama is a ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial’ thinker:
"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked, according to the report. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”Of course that isn't some kind of race baiting dog whistle, is it? And why is Obama so completely out of our comprehension? What makes him this otherly world figure in Gingrich's mind?
Duh. He thinks that everyone should have health insurance. Hell, he is so crazy that he thinks that even Muslims get religious freedom in this country. He wants--can you imagine the insanity--our government to maybe watch the giant banks who oversee our economy. Hell, he wants to give money to the states so they can pay their bills and keep people employed. The man is clearly just like Hitler. Of course, if Hitler were Kenyan and hated colonialism at a secret dream level that only idiots at the National Review can see.
Just remember. That is what we are dealing with. All this anger and rage and hatred over fucking healthcare.
12 comments:
Well great. Now I'm depressed. As if the Calvin Johnson Touchdown Call-Back wasn't bad enough...but now I have to read a blog post quoting Newt Gingrich?
My therapist is going to make a lot of money this fall.
Ugh, where to begin?
Regarding Gingrich and the anti-colonialism bit, I suspect Gingrich is simply mistaking the term for "post-colonial," a theological/philosophical worldview that leans left and is generally supported by folks who lean toward liberation theology. Interestingly enough, on Fox NewsSunday a few weeks ago, Glen Beck recanted his comments about Obama being a racist and said that Obama's motivating factor was liberation theology. Effectively Gingrich and Beck are saying Obama's a lefty. Well, what else is new? Everyone knows that.
As far as the Kenyan comment, I don't know what Gingrich is driving at there. If you want to make it a racist jab fine, but i suspect it leans more towards the thought process of "Obama has Kenyan heritage and so isn't steeped in American culture" than it does "Obama is Kenyan, Kenyan's are black, blacks aren't fit to be president." The distinction is subtle but important. In the one case Obama isn't fit to be president because he isn't American enough, in the other, it's because Obama isn't white enough.
Evidence to the contrary that Republicans like to play racial politics. How about the fact that during the Democratic primary Rush Limbaugh called no his listeners to vote for Obama at one point because he thought Obama was the weaker candidate between Clinton and Obama. If race were really at the heart of Republican opposition to Obama then something like that would never have happened.
I concede there are racists in the Republican party. However, the heart of the opposition to Obama has little to do with race for most people.
Interestingly enough I think we agree on the final point of your post. All of this rage does have a lot to do with health care.
Good thoughts, LB, though I am still, and quite honestly, not convinced that Obama is a "lefty." Compared to Bush and Cheney? Well, yeah. But not by anyone that led the last big Democratic/Liberal coalition of the 30s-70s. Though that may not be your point, because, as you note, this is really talking about what Gingrich is trying to communicate here.
I see your point about Limbaugh, and think that perhaps I am still not saying what I want to about race. I have noted before that the machine enraged about obama would have been enraged about Hillary, so it isn't just about race. I see that. But what I also see is a tendency for the Republican party to whistle at the racists on the far right, and this entire response to the Muslim center in NYC has seemed like that, as is the Birther thing.
I also think you are right that much of this is Gingrich and others saying that Obama isn't American enough. I find that offensive, though, in the same way I found Franklin Graham's comments offensive. If, as christians, we all are equal as people who chose to be Christians, then as Americans we are all equally American by the nature of our citizenship. And as a natural born citizen of this country, Obama is as American as anyone else. How can people suggest that he isn't American enough?
So if race isn't the driving issue for most people, what is? Why the hatred for someone who wants to expand healthcare and regulate big bankers? What is there to hate? Disagree with on the methods? Absolutely, and there is room on both sides for that. But why do these people hate Obama so much?
Evidence to the contrary that Republicans like to play racial politics...
I don't really see that as evidence, LB. A racist would pick Obama knowing his equally-racist minions would see him as weak and bitch for 4 years straight about everything he does, just as easily as a non-racist would think strategically. Either way, Rush's mandate to his crowd is a means to an end, racist or not.
Obama wants to regulate bankers? Looks like he wants to give them tax money to me, just like the other politicians who voted for T.A.R.P..
Obama wants to regulate bankers? Looks like he wants to give them tax money to me
He gives, he takes away. In return for the Bush-initiated, Obama-continued TARP program for banks and credit companies, they have to live with new regulations that just took effect (in part) that they really dislike...but that help consumers. And not just consumers who have bad credit or no credit, but consumers like me with quite good credit and low-risk...things like doing-away with arbitrary rate increases, not marketing to idiot college kids, timely-mailing of statements to consumers, credit agreements posted online, etc. Good stuff and stuff they hate.
I won't go as far as calling it an even trade, Rothchild, to be sure, but it is at least an end to the most unfair credit-gouging practices of the industry.
I think that the bulk of us think TARP was a bit of a scam, but every economist, from the half-baked Krugman to the most conservative, agree that without it we'd be worse off.
So hats-off to George W Bush for initiating a fix for a huge problem that nobody knew how to deal with, and hats-off to Obama for seeing it through and slamming credit practices in return.
But before anyone accuses me of slobbery kisses, shame on both of those Presidents for still allowing the silly practice of corporate bonuses and the like. No wonder it looked like a reward rather than an admonishment.
And fuck AIG directly in an orifice of your choice.
Rothchild's comment annoys me. No offense, but it sounds like a sound bite, not analysis. Did TARP end up working? I think everyone would say yes. It kept the banks solvent and kept our economy from imploding. In fact, from what I have read, we are getting most of that money back--why is it that conservatives never seem to acknowledge that? As taxpayers, we might even make a little money on the deal.
As for regulation, what about the Financial Regulation package that they just passed? It should have been better, in that it should have broken up some of the bigger banks, but it at least it made them shore up their reserves. Should have stopped them altogether from participating in investment vehicles, but it made it a little harder.
Smitty, the thing about the bonuses, is that conservatives absolutely hammered him when he limted pay and bonuses for those receiving federal money. They called him a socialist and accused him of undermining capitalism.
Rothchild, maybe you can explain why people hate Obama so much.
Rothchild's comment annoys me
Oh, it really super-duper annoyed me as well. But I decided to try to turn over a new leaf and do the non-escalating style of reply as is befitting our mutual friend Monk In Training. You know, provide insight and input, end on a positive note, don't swear...all that.
It felt unnatural.
So what my brain said was "Oh Jesus Fucking H Christ, Rothchild. I'm going to waste my fucking breath on a reply, only to have YOU reply to THAT saying 'YER ALL SOSHLISTS' and then never come back again to substantiate your impotent, limp-dicked comment."
That felt so...so natural to me. Like a comfy blankie.
But like I said..I wanted to try "constructive" for once.
[i]So if race isn't the driving issue for most people, what is? Why the hatred for someone who wants to expand healthcare and regulate big bankers? What is there to hate? Disagree with on the methods? Absolutely, and there is room on both sides for that. But why do these people hate Obama so much?[/i]
I think that you are correct that there is a strong distaste for the methods. Overall, conservatives have strongly disagreed with a legislative agenda that has leaned left (we can debate how far left, but I think you have to admit it is left leaning).
Simply put though, people hate Obama because he is the President. Conservatives dislike Pelosi a lot. Some, like me, dislike her more than Obama. There is a lot of contempt for her. But no one ever gets mad at the leader of the lower house of the legislative branch, in any country. The person we blame is always the leader. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Obama stands as the figurehead of the US government. That government is effectively controlled by one-party. Anything that happens that people don't like, Obama is going to get blamed for it. Fairly or unfairly, the leader gets the blame. If Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore were in charge, and everything else were the same, I think you'd see the same levels of contempt for the President.
Put it in different terms, I think Americans generally hate their Presidents when times aren't good, be they Democrats or Republicans. Lyndon Johnson was a "baby-killer," Jimmy Carter and Herbert hoover were "idiots." Times weren't exactly idyllic when they were in power.
Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton were generally liked because things were fairly good. That doesn't mean that they didn't have stern opponents, but the hate just wasn't there the way it was for President's governing during bad times.
Things aren't great in the country right now and I think Obama hate is part of a historic trend.
(I hope my college history classes have served me well here since you're an American history professor. Hopefully, I haven't said anything too inaccurate).
No, I get it. I certainly understand the difference of opinions over the role of government, but think that is in the realm of where we can agree to disagree--as you and I do. No hatred involved.
Why the personal hatred for Obama, though. And I am willing to eliminate the Tea Partiers here, because I truly think they are unhinged and illogical here. But what about the mainstream conservatives who hate him? Not dislike and disagree with, but hate HATE.
I really grew to dislike Bush, but would argue that had to do with two wars, torture and wiretapping. Why do these people HATE obama for extending healthcare?
Maybe it is just that things are bad, but there appears to be a completely manufactured rage here that I can't quite get at. Race, I have to say, explains it better than some other things, which is why I keep coming back to it. But maybe you are right.
Just a historical note. I think you are right about Carter and would argue that he has gotten a bad rap as president, though he also failed at some very important political issues. Hoover, on the other hand, was disliked primarily because he refused to acknowledge that people were truly in pain. MacArthur didn't help, when he ran the bonus army marchers out of DC.
If I know bankers and politicians as well as I think I do, TARP was a huge scam designed to put taxpayer money in the pockets of both bankers and politicians. And I doubt that the bankers would allow the politicians to put regulations on them that would do them serious harm. They'll probably make more money than before the "regulations".
That is not an argument. It is just pulling an opinion out of your nether region.
Man, I don't get it. Either Obama is a Socialist who hates capitalism or a capitalist who is in bed with the bankers. Or a Muslim who acts out of a Kenyan perspective--hell if I know.
How about we address facts and actual regulatory actions? Some of those will help the consumer and some will help the bankers--it would be naive to suggest otherwise. But we can do better than this.
Post a Comment