Racism? Really?

[Anonymous]

OP, I oppose the reforms, and I am African American.

That said, many Americans are still angry that a black man is in the White House, trying to tell them what to do. Some are protesting b/c he is black.

[Anonymous]

PP it would be silly to argue that none are racists - there are racists of all colors and ethnicities among us. To label the movement ( whether it be tea parties or simply opposition to health care reform as proposed) racist however IMHO goes too far over the line and simply shuts down dialogue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP it would be silly to argue that none are racists - there are racists of all colors and ethnicities among us. To label the movement ( whether it be tea parties or simply opposition to health care reform as proposed) racist however IMHO goes too far over the line and simply shuts down dialogue.

What also shuts down dialogue is the extremism of the protesters themselves, which is also the case when the far left does it. I was disgusted by Bush, but I was also disgusted when I saw people on the left reducing legitimate things to be disgusted about to grotesque images and soundbites. Even a cursory glance at this "teabagging" crowd shows that they have taken even this kind of caricature to new lows. Can you argue that doctoring a photo of Obama to look like Hitler fosters dialogue? Is someone who is willing to carry a sign like this someone really looking for solutions? Or are they just getting off on comparing a Democratic, duly-elected president to the greatest mass murderer of the 2oth century? At what point did they think it was legitimate to equate a man who spent the better part of a decade systematically devising ways to exterminate an entire culture (and, indeed, even more than that) with a man who has been in office less than 8 months and is trying to improve acces to and quality of healthcare? Whether you agree with that mission or its approach, as a sane person you must agree that these teabaggers do not advance the cause of democracy. Or of dialogue on a subject on which many have legitimate differences.

Anyone with a brain and a soul should be disowning these crude, evil, ignorant people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about racism but I do know that some of the protesters at the Tea Party rally are nuts.

When you have a group of 10 people together, probably at least one of them is going to be "nuts". When you have tens or hundreds of thousands of people gathered together there will be many "nuts" in the crowd. I have seen some "nuts" with pretty vile posters about W at anti-Iraq war protests and "nuts" with rather offensive posters about McCain/Palin at Obama rallies. Let's talk about the "nuts" that destroy property at IMF protests or the PETA "nuts" who throw blood on people, or environmental "nuts"... By no means do the few "nuts" in a movement define the whole cause. "Nuts" come in all political stripes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even a cursory glance at this "teabagging" crowd shows that they have taken even this kind of caricature to new lows. Can you argue that doctoring a photo of Obama to look like Hitler fosters dialogue? Is someone who is willing to carry a sign like this someone really looking for solutions? Or are they just getting off on comparing a Democratic, duly-elected president to the greatest mass murderer of the 2oth century? At what point did they think it was legitimate to equate a man who spent the better part of a decade systematically devising ways to exterminate an entire culture (and, indeed, even more than that) with a man who has been in office less than 8 months and is trying to improve acces to and quality of healthcare? Whether you agree with that mission or its approach, as a sane person you must agree that these teabaggers do not advance the cause of democracy. Or of dialogue on a subject on which many have legitimate differences.

Anyone with a brain and a soul should be disowning these crude, evil, ignorant people.

Can you argue that using the vile and derogatory term "teabagger" fosters dialogue? Google "Bush Hilter" and see the signs that some on the left designed. "Crude, evil, ignorant people" can be found on all sides of the aisle as well as those with brains and souls. PP - I am not sure that your arguments really support the type of person that you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What also shuts down dialogue is the extremism of the protesters themselves, which is also the case when the far left does it. I was disgusted by Bush, but I was also disgusted when I saw people on the left reducing legitimate things to be disgusted about to grotesque images and soundbites. Even a cursory glance at this "teabagging" crowd shows that they have taken even this kind of caricature to new lows. Can you argue that doctoring a photo of Obama to look like Hitler fosters dialogue? Is someone who is willing to carry a sign like this someone really looking for solutions? Or are they just getting off on comparing a Democratic, duly-elected president to the greatest mass murderer of the 2oth century?

Actually the primary group responsible for this is Lyndon LaRouche's cult. Lyndon LaRouche (as we have noted in another discussion on DCUM) has had a wide variety of weird beliefs ranging from left to right over the years. (My favorite: The Queen of England is running an international drug cartel.) And he will do whatever it takes to get adherents and can be commonly found at left-wing anti-war rallies in addition to the right-wing teaparty protests. He's just a nutjob and what I can't decide is who he is damaging most -- Obama because he is equating him with Hitler and encouraging rightwingers to think this way? Or conservatives because it looks like they're the ones calling Obama Hitler? (And let's be honest, I haven't heard a single conservative condemn this yet so they don't seem to be against it!)

All I know is that I just heard that there are record numbers of death threats against Obama. While Obama is nowhere near left enough for me (the guy is a born and bred capitalist folks -- those paranoid socialist fantasies are waaaaay off), I don't want him to be assassinated and I'm growing increasingly concerned that people like LaRouche, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck are going to incite someone to assassinate Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about racism but I do know that some of the protesters at the Tea Party rally are nuts.

When you have a group of 10 people together, probably at least one of them is going to be "nuts". When you have tens or hundreds of thousands of people gathered together there will be many "nuts" in the crowd. I have seen some "nuts" with pretty vile posters about W at anti-Iraq war protests and "nuts" with rather offensive posters about McCain/Palin at Obama rallies. Let's talk about the "nuts" that destroy property at IMF protests or the PETA "nuts" who throw blood on people, or environmental "nuts"... By no means do the few "nuts" in a movement define the whole cause. "Nuts" come in all political stripes.

Of course, but I wasn't at a left-wing rally on Saturday and the issue was about the critics of health reform. And there were far more posters and t-shirts accusing Obama of socialism (which by any measure is not true) than there should have been for it to have been a minority of "nuts." If people are going to be active in the body politic, I would like for them to actually understand the difference between various political and economic systems. For example, one woman was quoted in the paper as saying that the US was going to become socialist like Russia. Earth to protester -- Russia's not socialist!!!! Time to pick up a book published in the 21st century!

[Anonymous]

From the Wiki:
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

Most of the tea party protests boil down to "don't pick my pocket (via income taxes and public debt) so you can give the money I earned through my own efforts to { the banks, the auto industry, to other's health care, to help someone else avoid forclosure on a mortgage they should never have gotten in the first place, to ACORN - pick your poison}" That's it, plain and simple. It is certainly easy to posit the argument that the government has reached into economic areas far afield from its stated purposes in the Constitution in the last few years. This is not anti-democrat - it is anti-government. I don't think you will find too many Bush friendlies in the crowd either.

They are not all wing nuts and they are certainly engaged.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:PP it would be silly to argue that none are racists - there are racists of all colors and ethnicities among us. To label the movement ( whether it be tea parties or simply opposition to health care reform as proposed) racist however IMHO goes too far over the line and simply shuts down dialogue.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on either point. It's just that nobody is arguing either point. Certainly, neither Dowd nor Lind were saying that all healthcare reform opponents are racist. This thread was started on the basis of a point that nobody is making.

[Anonymous]

I posted earlier this year about the chimp cartoon - I am usually a bit skeptical about claims that race influences EVERYTHING.

However, it did occur to me that Joe Wilson never would have shown such disrespect to a white President, R or D.

And then this today:http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/15/quijano.tea.party.racial.cnn

I think many white people are freaking out, frankly. They are completely losing their minds.

[Anonymous]

Just like people who protested President Bush were unfairly called "unpatriotic," people who protest President Obama are now unfairly being called "racist". Makes the same amount of sense to me. I am sure there are fringe unpatriotic and racist people on both sides. You can probably tell who they are by their unpatriotic and or racist words and actions. The vast majority are exercising their right to peaceful dissent. For that I would call them American heroes, since political participation is the goal--not apathy, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Just like people who protested President Bush were unfairly called "unpatriotic," people who protest President Obama are now unfairly being called "racist". Makes the same amount of sense to me. I am sure there are fringe unpatriotic and racist people on both sides. You can probably tell who they are by their unpatriotic and or racist words and actions. The vast majority are exercising their right to peaceful dissent. For that I would call them American heroes, since political participation is the goal--not apathy, right?

There is a big difference between a sign that says "No Blood for Oil" and one showing Obama dressed like a witch doctor. I don't agree that people holding signs showing Obama with a Hitler mustache are heroes, let alone American heroes.

Mark Williams, one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement has called Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug turned anointed." This is not the fringe, this is a leadership figure. I challenge you to find an unpatriotic statement by leader of the Bush opposition that even comes close. The difference between the anti-Obama crowd and those who were anti-Bush is that the anti-Bush people were embarrassed by those who went too far whereas the anti-Obama movement appoints the lunatics as leaders. When an individual entered a video comparing Bush to Hitler into a Move On contest, Move On was lambasted by a House resolution that was supported by all but 79 Democrats. Hillary Clinton, with a majority of Senate Dems, voted to condemn Move On in the Senate. Republicans, on the other hand, can't wait to cheer on those comparing Obama to Hitler. Have you heard one elected Republican condemn such comparisons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Wiki:
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

Most of the tea party protests boil down to "don't pick my pocket (via income taxes and public debt) so you can give the money I earned through my own efforts to { the banks, the auto industry, to other's health care, to help someone else avoid forclosure on a mortgage they should never have gotten in the first place, to ACORN - pick your poison}" That's it, plain and simple. It is certainly easy to posit the argument that the government has reached into economic areas far afield from its stated purposes in the Constitution in the last few years. This is not anti-democrat - it is anti-government. I don't think you will find too many Bush friendlies in the crowd either.

They are not all wing nuts and they are certainly engaged.

You have no idea what the means of production are, do you? Here it is:
Definition: in Marxism, the aggregate natural resources needed of a society or country for manufacturing; the productive capacity of these resources
Example: The means of production form the economic basis of a society.

Government regulation is not the same as government ownership of manufacturing. The government doesn't own the factories. It may own a piece of the auto companies but it doesn't want to. And it sure as hell doesn't own the banks or the financial sector. It doesn't own Nike or Exxon or All State for example. To call what we have now socialism is pure and simple intellectual laziness.

BTW, if you want to go back to the Constitution as it was written, well, there's a whole lot of modern life that isn't covered under it and certainly the founding fathers never intended that women, Indians, or blacks should ever vote.

[Anonymous]

I love the comment that Wilson would have never said "you lie" if the President was white. How do you know? What do you base this on? The reality is that Wilson was frustrated and spoke out and I believe he would have spoke out no matter what color the president was because he has never been accused of being a racist before and most likely was speaking out about the systematic dismantling of our country and it is beyond frustrating to see Obama get up and just lawyer his way through how he goes about "change." I am also concerned that we will have a racial backlash in this country because a lot of white people are getting sick of the fact that any time you speak out about something that bothers you regarding President Obama..you are labeled a racist or you may have racist thoughts. Oh god whatever--I for one am disgusted with his policies but I am also disgusted with Congress and seems like there are more white guys there so I don't know what you would call me then. But the more I think about it the true racist seems to be Obama because he just jumped the gun on that issue in Boston before he knew the facts and through the white policeman under the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the comment that Wilson would have never said "you lie" if the President was white. How do you know? What do you base this on? The reality is that Wilson was frustrated and spoke out and I believe he would have spoke out no matter what color the president was because he has never been accused of being a racist before and most likely was speaking out about the systematic dismantling of our country and it is beyond frustrating to see Obama get up and just lawyer his way through how he goes about "change." I am also concerned that we will have a racial backlash in this country because a lot of white people are getting sick of the fact that any time you speak out about something that bothers you regarding President Obama..you are labeled a racist or you may have racist thoughts. Oh god whatever--I for one am disgusted with his policies but I am also disgusted with Congress and seems like there are more white guys there so I don't know what you would call me then. But the more I think about it the true racist seems to be Obama because he just jumped the gun on that issue in Boston before he knew the facts and through the white policeman under the bus.

Obviously we will never know what Wilson would have done if the exact same circumstances were replicated except that the President was a white man.

I did some reading about the history of altercations on the floor of the Senate.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/09/68498986/1
http://www.slate.com/id/2227966/?from=rss

It seems to me an unprecedented breach of propriety. In our nation's history, we've had contentious debates and hot topics before. I am not able to find an incident where a member of Congress called the President a liar, out loud and publicly, to his face. Even Bill Clinton, a PROVEN liar, was never so disrespected.

I'm as white as they come. I have worked in positions of authority where people of color did not like my decisions and really angered me by chalking up my actions to race. I know what it feels like to be unfairly accused. But I'm sorry, I just cannot imagine a white President being treated that way. To me, it's racism, clear and simple.

Of course none of us can ever prove what was and is in the heart of Joe Wilson. That's true of every interaction between two people of whatever colors.