Say what you will about Maureen Dowd, she hits the mark often enough to reamain interesting. Her column in today’s New York Times, “Boy, Oh, Boy,” about Joe “You Lie” Wilson and race, says what everyone else was afraid to.
The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
Joe Wilson’s outburst reminds me of a child screaming “You lie!” to his older brother who has just told him Santa doesn’t exist.
I really believe Wilson “knew” he was right about the immigration issue. And like an irrational, uninformed child he couldn’t contain his emotions.
Seems like the Republicans can’t say anything negative about Obama without being accused of racism.
How about attacking their actual ideas and statements, instead of creating racist straw men?
Umm, okay. He said “you lie” with respect to illegal immigrants not getting government health care.
Could you point to where it says that in the health care bill? No, because Wilson was just pulling shit out of his ass, as Republicans do.
I agree that accusations of racism are too frequent and sometimes inappropriate, but you can’t criticize Republican idiots for their ideas if they have none.
Death panelers, birthers, teabaggers. They’re all ignorant twats on par with the troofers.
And FWIW, not all Republicans are racist, but if you’re a racist it’s almost a sure thing that you’re a Republican–at least since LBJ.
This article is interesting and I think touches on your idea a bit.
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/11/kramers-conundrum/
There’s obviously more on these studies and results, but I like the analysis he offers. The point being in connection to your post would be that your statement: “if you’re a racist it’s almost a sure thing that you’re a Republican” is probably a bit shallow.
I agree that Wilson was rude. If you actually look at both sides of the issue, he honestly felt Obama was misrepresenting the issue.
The bill as written stated it would not provide health care for illegal immigrants, but provided no means to actually enforce that. Since Wilson’s outburst, they have added enforcement provisions to the bill.
The death panelers and birthers are ignorant. The tea party protesters are a diverse group, protesting a wide variety of issues. You can’t really lump them all together.
@Andrew…
Now you are misrepresenting. This was much more than a little misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
The proposed bill said that illegal immigrants would not get benefits. The President said the same thing. Joe Wilson said he was lying. Joe Wilson thought the proposed bill allowed illegal immigrants to get health care.
Joe Wilson was completely ignorant or intentionally misrepresenting the issue. Likely he “believed” the President was lying. Because he “believed” his and the GOPs own bullshit.
Wilson is an unhinged, irrational little child who thinks the President is a socialist. And that his way of life is being compromised, taken over by the new socialist government, which is being led by a bunch of “others.” You know… those who are not all white, not all male, not all middle aged, not all southerners.
The man you are trying desperately to defend is a worthless little turd.
This is funny from my perspective, living in a nation that have been governed by socialists most of the last century and most likely then the national health care program was instituted. [Sweden.]
Nevertheless illegal immigrants doesn’t benefit from these programs. (However immoral and damaging such exclusion can seem.) I’m not sure how other nations do, but I would be amazed if they have such inclusion – it’s a though sell.
Torbjorn…
Yes, I imagine it would be a tough sell. But, frankly, I couldn’t care less if illegal immigrants received health care. I think America can afford it. But the truth is, the bill doesn’t allow for it.
And it is funny how Wilson and most other Republicans think “socialist” is akin to evil. Sad people.
Hoo-boy – I’ve been getting this nonsense all week after a post I did about the lunatic reaction to Obama’s planned talk to school children.
Joe Wilson shouting “You lie!” in the middle of an address to Congress is not “the Republicans say[ing] anything negative about Obama.” It’s possible to “say anything negative about Obama” without shouting “You lie!” or freaking out about an address telling children to work hard in school.
In other words, saying an obviously off-the-charts loony or hostile reaction to Obama suggests something irrational, such as racism, is not the same thing as saying all critical reaction to Obama suggests that.
Surely it’s a simple enough point…
Seems like the Republicans can’t say anything negative about Obama without being accused of racism.
———–
The guy belongs to ‘sons of confederate war veterans,’ an organization that also has white supremacists in its membership. As in, KKK. He’s old school racist from the get-go. And nobody’s ever done this before in a joint session. It’s as racist as Archie Bunker. Only at least Archie had a heart under all that bigotry.
I caught Maureen’s Op-Ed this morning. On NPR I heard a commentator (don’t recall the name) saying the same thing, that this was about essentially about race, and respecting Obama as a black man as President.
My opinion, though not discounting Maureen’s points altogether, leans more toward the overall mood in the country over the last few months on the issue of health care reform. What he did mirrors what activist have been doing for weeks at town hall meetings with their artificial turf movement. This attitude has been sparked and fostered on a daily bases with an incredibly heightened emotional presence.
I would go further however in my assessment. I do not hold this attitude and behavior trend is isolated to this incident or issue. Before proceeding I would note that I am fully aware of the battles, both political and personal over the centuries in this country that have been publicly displayed (even to the extreme of politicians dueling it out with live ammunition shooting to kill – assassination plots etc.).
However, I think what Wilson and others have been doing (both on the political left and right) is indicative of our culture at present. Emotionalism claimed to be passion based in truth, using and defending lack of restraint and respect. Labels pinned on others to counter their own arguments that are often heated, sometimes hateful and parades intolerance solidified as being in defense of truth while others represent weakness, detriment to right and a universally destructive force.
It was on Fresh Air. An interview with Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah.
As much as I wish Dowd were wrong, racism does seem to be the most parsimonious explanation for the violent and irrational opposition to anything Obama.
That seems to argue, correct me if I’m wrong, that the opposition to the health care reform forwarded by President Obama’s party, Democrats of course, is explained primarily through the prism of race?
If I am right and this is your interpretation of not only this incident and the overall oppositions behavior, then you may want to go back and read and watch the opposition to Clinton’s health care proposals (or would we say he was the “first black president” – sorry, couldn’t help it – go back further and see what was said about FDR).
I would add for clarity – that I am a democrat, more accurately a social democrat that does support in large measure what I have seen of the Democrats proposals for health care reform.
Further clarity – when I say “prism of race”, I am talking specifically about Obama’s “race”, or the President as a black man etc. Which Maureen is clearly arguing.
“[T]he opposition to the health care reform … is explained primarily through the prism of race?”
Absolutely. This is not about necessarily Obama’s race, but instead about whites’ anger about giving “free” health care to blacks and Latinos. Take the time to speak to a white person who opposes socialized medicine, and usually their argument reveals a resentment at the idea of paying for services for people whom they think are lazy and undeserving. Usually their racism is coded (they say “poor people,” even if they themselves are poor, or “welfare mothers,” or “inner city people”), but, if you persist, they might let the words “black” or “Mexican” slip.
Obama’s brown skin is just salt in the wound, because he demonstrates both that whites have nominally lost their monopoly on American politics, and he proves what racists fear most: that, given equal opportunity (health care is part of that opportunity package), blacks are completely capable of being successful. He proves that non-whites aren’t economically disadvantaged because of some genetic defect.
I certainly would find room to agree with you, Rebecca C. It is for this reason that I had posted a “further clarity” to make the point of Obama being black and the behavior of Wilson.
Why stop at “boy”? If she’d “heard” a worse “unspoken word” (e.g. “You lie, n******!”) then Joe Wilson could have been even more of a racist!
I am sure there are plenty of people who dislike Obama because of his race, but “identifying” them in this way is not something skeptics/freethinkers should be celebrating.
Wilson’s political history (see comment below) provides a clue to his motivations. Also note that his outburst followed a race-related claim by Obama. Where was the “You lie!” response when Obama shot down the death panel myth?
I find that most of us are willing to acknowledge that America has race relations problems, or even that individual racists exist out there somewhere. But as soon as you accuse an individual of actually being racist, people will rush to his defense and refuse to see the racists subtext of his actions.
See, I have no problem thinking what Wilson had done could have also easily been done if the President was Hillary Clinton (then we may be talking about gender instead), or John Kerry.
The argument Maureen is making is rather specific to Wilson and Obama being black-African-American. I base my argument on what has been happening for the past two months at town halls (as I mention above), but more importantly to an overall situation within our culture (also argued above).
This is not just limited to the health care reform issue. You can see it all over the place on many issues.
As far as Joe Wilson, this is on his web site:
Strom Thurmond was a racist, a segragationist and conducted the longest filibuster ever by a U.S. Senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Thurmond and Spense both switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party when the Democrats supported civil rights.
And we all know that Reagan was one bookend to “W” Bush’s other bookend that nearly ruined the US – the politics of ignorance and divisiveness; the special few over the rights of the many.
This is what Joe Wilson is PROUD of – racism and xenophobia.
Absolutely agree. Hope it doesn’t make you too angry.
An accusation of racism is usually easily dismissed as too easy. In this case, though, it seems to explain the sputtering insanity of some of the opposition to programs that haven’t even been described yet.
This sputtering loon, for instance is clearly struggling not to say “N*****” before saying the other Republican curse word, “socialist.”
It’s really funny, BTW, that “socialism” has become such a meaningless curse word that George Will uses “state capitalism” to refer to the government’s controlling interest in GM and Chrysler. But wait, socialism is when the government controls the means of production and distribution, right?
Norman, correlate!
That would exclude social democrats, which combine a sufficiently (in practice very) large market with nationalized functions. Here in Sweden everything from the phone net to children’s day care centers were nationalized at its largest influence.
But today even social democrats care very little for this part of socialism. It costs too much and tend to give lower quality (as the early adoption much relied on a culture that wasn’t very individualistic).
[One glaring exception seems to be just nationalized basic health care, where control of demand and/or sufficient instead of maximum quality statistically AFAIU seems to result in _much_ lower cost.]
I call it “socialism”, because it’s what a social democrat party historically pushed. “State capitalism” is an oxymoron.
Oops. I should add that it’s the ideology that I call socialism. You can have (temporary) nationalization for other reasons, such as breaking up a monopoly or unlawful cooperative corruption.
Torbjorn (pardon lack of umlaut) it is my opinion that in America the word “socialism” and “socialist” has aquired such negative connotations because of Hitler and the Nazi Party, erroniously of course. Hitler only called himself a socialist; he was in fact a fascist. He lied. So when the right demonized the word ‘socialist’ they were in effect perpetuating Hitler’s lie in a way. True socialism, if it were ever acheived, would be a wonderful thing I think. Of course now I’ve opened myself up to charges of ‘socialist!’ from the usual crowd of brainless reactionaries, but what the heck…
BaldApe,
You wrote: “This sputtering loon, for instance is clearly struggling not to say “N*****” before saying the other Republican curse word, “socialist.”
Are you talking about that women who’s talking about keeping her children at home [at 47 sec. in]?
First off, the hesitation appears to be you seeing what you want to believe, which is her saying “nigger”. Second, it appears to me that what you are doing is a fairly shameful piece of bad propaganda. Third, you are correlating what you believe this women is saying to the story presented in this blog which is rather specific.
What interpretation would you give then to that awkward silence at such a straightforward question? I’ve come up with two possibilities. Possibly she seriously wasn’t expecting to be asked to offer a reason for not wanting Obama to address school children about the importance of eduction. Maybe because she believed an emotional response was sufficient. Or she had to think about how to phrase her objections in a way appropriate for TV. Either way, it didn’t look good.
I think she was most likely trying to think up the word “socialist” or “communistic”, something along those lines. Over the course of a few months many right winger talking heads have been very successful at getting that idea of “other” out there with terms like; “fascist”, “socialist” etc. Wanting and waiting for some to stick.
What is also easy to notice is that most of the people seen spouting what they are told to believe actually have no idea what they are labeling the President (I saw this play out many time with many members of my own political persuasion – liberals – with W. – I remember many signs with Bush’s face made to appear like Hitler).
I think that explains the hesitation better than thinking she was biting her tongue so as not to say “nigger”, which from the video wouldn’t have fit in a practical sense either to say. She was searching for the word like “socialist” and found it difficult because she has no idea why she is being so emotional, only that she is told to fear, fear for country and life with this President.
To clarify my last sentence.
She was searching for a word like “socialist” and found it difficult because she has no idea why she is being so emotional, and has little idea what it means and how it relates to the Presidents address to children (or the President in general). She is repeating what she thinks is right to believe and say that comes from people she trust. She recognizes the word holds power though, that was why she wanted it right.
After watching again, it is highly doubtful she was looking to not say or replace the word “nigger”.
So basically you agree with me? She probably only knows that Obama is somehow bad, that he’s an Other, without really knowing why. Now all she needs to do when asked for a reason, is to find a word that expresses that without sounding too unreasonable. Finally, she comes up with “socialist”.
Whether she had to hold back the n-word or not doesn’t even really matter. What matters is that she had clear trouble expressing her objections, showing that they are not reasonable, but irrational objections. Please don’t insult our intelligence by insisting that there isn’t any racism involved in this irrational fear.
Deen,
Sure, it appears we are on the same page on reasons she had hesitated, or at least the in the same book.
However, when you wrote:
“Whether she had to hold back the n-word or not doesn’t even really matter.”
I think you’re wrong. My comments were directed towards BaldApe’s comments. That you say now it doesn’t matter is supporting a very bad display of propaganda. Neither of us seem to think she was going the direction of saying “nigger”, but a poster put it up as fact to use in an argument. That you do not recognize this is troubling and speaks a great deal about what you may let slip by for a ideal.
You wrote: “Please don’t insult our intelligence by insisting that there isn’t any racism involved in this irrational fear.”
The first thing to come to mind is; who do you think you are to lecture me. Have I argued what you are claiming? I have stayed fairly close to a specific argument which deals with Obama being a black man and President. As I have said I think its also possible Wilson’s behavior could have happened if was Hillary making that speech (then we may be talking about how gender affects all the debates) or even John Kerry. To underestimate the idea the belief is based in government control. Maureen goes to the extent of government control by a black man – a double slam – which draws a fairly broad correlation – in fact she drew a couple correlations that are troubling, such as democrats not yelling “You, lie” to W. when he made his arguments for Iraq, she is ignoring that many were already on board and the mood was significantly different.
There certainly is racism in the debates and in peoples beliefs which they bring to the table. However, to simply make claims that the entire health care debate or general claims about racism affecting a broad range of issues is not only simplification of the issues, it is playing the race card to the extreme.
Zarcus, I’ve agreed with you that attributing the use of the n-word to this woman was probably over the top. In a broader sense, however, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to suspect that she paused for so long because she knew she couldn’t say “because he’s black” on TV. Sure, we can’t prove it, and we could give her the benefit of the doubt, but it fits the pattern, doesn’t it? The pattern should be clear enough by now.
“He’s a socialist” wasn’t that much of an improvement anyway. As you yourself have pointed out, she probably doesn’t even know what that means, except for “he’s not One of Us”. It’s still a form of bigotry, even if she were the exception where racism didn’t figure into the bigotry equation.
By the way, have you not noticed how much of the right-wing rhetoric is trying to establish that Obama’s not “One of Us”? He’s not born in the US, he’s not going to church enough, he’s secretly a Muslim, he’s a Socialist – the list is endless. Pretty much the only thing they don’t say out loud is that he’s black – because they don’t have to.
Except that nobody has argued this. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have genuine worries about the costs and benefits of his plan, and that’s fine.
However, a lot of discussion isn’t about these issues, it’s about Death Panels and other lies and distortions (including the lie that Obama plans to give healthcare to illegals). Clearly, one group of people is all too willing to spread the idea that Obama wants to kill your grandma or your baby, and another (overlapping) group is all too willing to believe that Obama is capable of this. Do you really think that these groups would be as big if Obama had looked more like, say, Bill Clinton?
This is not propaganda. I have nothing to gain or lose in this fight, I don’t even live in the US. But the pattern is there, and it’s visible even from overseas.
Deen,
You wrote: “Except that nobody has argued this.”
Example 1. “This is not just limited to the health care reform issue. You can see it all over the place on many issues.”
Example 2. [Someone who actually pieced together my own words] “[T]he opposition to the health care reform … is explained primarily through the prism of race?”
Absolutely. This is not about necessarily Obama’s race, but instead about whites’ anger about giving “free” health care to blacks and Latinos.”
Of course Maureen is using the “You, like” to make the argument, which is specifically concerning Obama being a black man (as well as a broader discussion).
I could offer more examples from this page, but why should I bother?
You wrote: “This is not propaganda. I have nothing to gain or lose in this fight, I don’t even live in the US.”
My comment on propaganda has to do with something specific that a commenter had posted. What you’re doing here, which includes areas I agree with, is to take my complaint out of context to the extreme of trying to use it to garner legitimacy to your argument (trying to both appear to rise above the argument and play victim).
Back to your first paragraph.
You wrote: “Sure, we can’t prove it, and we could give her the benefit of the doubt, but it fits the pattern, doesn’t it?”
This is apologetics run amok. Sure, we “cant prove it”, but I think both of our arguments about what she was searching to say are likely and very reasonable, well beyond the idea she was stumbling not to say “nigger”. This point is important and again it is troubling how far you seem to want to go to let it slide. Think about it, the poster put it up as fact, accusatory and to bolster an argument – that’s nasty propaganda, how many times to we have to see crap like that happen from our own camp and others to finally call it what it is…
Your examples don’t show that people claim all opposition must be race-based. The first example points out that irrational opposition has not been limited to the health debate, which is true. Haven’t we been talking about the school speech? How much of that opposition was rational? The second example is very specifically about the people who believe the lie that Obama supposedly wants to give health insurance to illegals – and seem to think it would be an outrage if he did.
None of this says that all opposition is race-based.
Since we both seem to agree that this particular woman’s motivation was likely racist at its base, I’d say BaldApe is guilty of exaggeration and using loaded language, and I’ll happily call him out on it.
However, his more general conclusion of racism is not likely to be wrong, while you seemed to be arguing that it was at first. If that’s not what you were arguing, then maybe I just misunderstood your point, and we’d actually be in agreement on this issue.
I think I’ll leave it at that, before we take over the whole thread.
Deen,
I’ll leave it, but let me answer your question.
You wrote: “Haven’t we been talking about the school speech?”
No. What the women in the video was asked about was why she was keeping her child home because of the school speech. I in no way talking about that, which is glaringly obvious. I was talking about a specific claim made by someone who is either convinced or is trying to convince the reader that the women was stumbling not to say the word “nigger”. How loaded of an argument is that, especially when it appears highly unlikely to be the case (not only that but reasonably something else). I could run down the list on that from demonizing to disinformation etc., but was actually being kind to just say nasty propaganda.
Of course, I have no love lost for this women and the video actually illustrates the power that the suggestions placed in her head have had with regards to the speech. She was literally in tears, not really knowing why, only that it had something to do with fearing “indoctrination” and “socialism” (perhaps to her some racism, but even here I doubt that was the actual worry – the atmosphere created over this idea of “socialism” and “other” is certainly not isolated to the right in the country, however you can not easily underestimate the power this argument has over Conservatives, Republican and many Libertarians, or to put it so easily on race).
That has actually been part of my argument of why I think Maureen is a little off base (with regards to general claims, certain correlations – such as democrats not yelling “You, lie” at W. during his lying pitch for Iraq, since many Dems were on board, sold on the lies and the mood was significantly different). The emotionalism and round the clock false accusations with incredible levels of fear mongering has been on display with the health reform debate all over this country – south, north, east, west (even in my city in New York). The politicians like Wilson are not immune to this and have actually helped to foster an attitude of hostility and intolerance in open debate. There have been many cases of people shouting down law makers in their own home districts when addressing health care reform (including saying “liar”). I could go on, but hopefully the points made.
I just wanted to add to my last point that I did present a larger argument that what we are witnessing is actually indicative of the culture we find ourselves.
As I wrote.
Emotionalism claimed to be passion based in truth, using and defending lack of restraint and respect. Labels pinned on others to counter their own arguments that are often heated, sometimes hateful and parades intolerance solidified as being in defense of truth while others represent weakness, detriment to right and a universally destructive force.
Ha, obvious correct.
“however you can not easily underestimate..”
Meant, “overestimate”
I will accept that it is unprovable that the woman in the video was trying to avoid saying “the N word”, and that Wilson left off the unspoken “boy.” I suppose I was over the top to assert that it was so without any real evidence.
On the other hand, the underlying issue in the Wilson outburst and the woman’s emotion in the video are, I believe, the same.
Wilson was factually wrong as to whether persons unlawfully in the United States are to be covered by Federal money for health benefits. For a politician to actually say outright that another is lying is (regrettably, IMO) rare. If he was going to cross that line, one could hope that he would at least be correct.
The hysteria to keep children away from the horrible influence of a “Stay in school” message by the President of the United States is inexplicable from the point of view of any realistic harm that could be done.
What binds them together is the commonly stated “They’re not like us” message of Republican demagoguery. Economic studies repeatedly affirm that immigrant workers are, on the whole, good for the United States. President Obama won the election without any reasonable accusations of election irregularities, unlike his predecessor. But he’s “not like us.”
I don’t know if major Republican players in America today are really racist in their own hearts, but they certainly do play the race card. It is a tool in their arsenal and the codewords are there to see. Wilson’s record is clear on this matter.
Most of the country may be past race as an issue, though I suspect that may not yet be completely true. But the wingnut base of the Republican party, especially since the “Southern strategy“, is very easily swayed by racist nonsense.
I don’t see it as being about race as much as it is about a power play, particularly calling him a socialist. Most of these people wouldn’t know socialism if it took over their duma.
After losing the election, the right wing fell quiet for a few months, but now they’re back at their bullying, just like they did during the buildup to war and the 2004 election. It is absolutely time for the spineless Democrats to stop being polite to these right wing jerk-offs. Do NOT “forgive” Joe Wilson or even “accept” any apology. Bury him.
The Democrats appeared to have maneuvered themselves into a no-win situation. If they appease, they are spineless and weak, and the right-wing noise-machine will find that their strategy works. If they play it hard, however, the right-wing will yell that they are being persecuted, and get the loons even more worked up. How did the Democrats let this situation get this far?
Every once in a while I can’t help but worry where this is going to end.
The Dems are in a no-win situation as you point out, yes. But they didn’t “let” this happen. The Republican party was subsumed by the extreme Right.
There is no “winning” anymore. For that reason they should just do the full on health care reform complete with public option and fuck the Right-wingnuts!
But I agree, and also worry where this is going to lead.
@mk: yes, obviously the extreme right wing is ultimately responsible. But that doesn’t mean that the Democrats didn’t contribute by trying to ignore the problem and hope it would go away. Instead they could have been confronting it head-on from the beginning, before the right wing propaganda got traction with a large part (or at least a loud part) of the population.
I also agree that the Democrats should stop trying to win over the Republicans, or even the centrists. They should start worrying about losing the progressives instead.
Another worry is that the extreme right is also busy painting itself into a corner. The more hyperbole they use to tell people how dangerous Obama is, the more they claim how evil and insidious his plans are, the more impossible they are going to make it to back away from their position. They can’t very well say “Guess he’s a pretty reasonable guy after all” any more.
I think this was also one of the main goals of Obama’s healthcare speech: to throw the Republicans a life line, and give them an explanation they could sell to their voters for why they’d want to come back on board. I think that was the reason for his praise for the great Republican idea of medical liability law reform. Him mentioning John McCain twice as an example of a Republican who has always been active in health care issues wasn’t a coincidence either.
Unfortunately, the media doesn’t seem to be talking about this, because they are too busy talking about Joe Wilson. I’m glad McCain didn’t get elected, but I’d much rather see the Republican party gather around McCain than around Wilson.
No, I think the Dems did “let” it happen to some extent. They used the “take-the-moral-high-ground” approach, which is sensible, but doesn’t work with the grade-school bullying that the wingnuts have used as their only weapon since the Clinton impeachment. I learned in 5th grade that trying the moral high ground with people who have no sense of “moral” will just get your ass kicked.
I’m not saying they should scream back, but I think they chould just as agressively nail Joe Wilson to the wall while they keep talking about the real issues. They should have learned this in 2004 after the “Swift Boat” nonsense. If they continue to roll over at the first hint of wingnut bullying, then all I can do is shake my head and resume voting for Nader…
Furthermore, someone pointed out to me that Obama was being the bigger man by not taking the bait. Agreed, but where’s the Karl Rove equivalent out there being the bulldog, aggressively defending the administration, and slamming Joe Wilson on every news channel and talk show he can get on?
It’s the hypocrisy of the Republican Party that has me outraged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDKbCwiaVY
You defend the indefensible, Andrew. And you are the liar who came here supposedly claiming that you were “dying to be convinced that macroevolution is true”. I have not doubts that you are as hypocritical, dishonest, and racist as Joe Wilson.
You have no evidence or arguments to support your opinions or beliefs, so you are stuck denigrating those who point out the weakness and wrongness of your heroes.
I think its interesting how on a recent post it was mentioned that ‘flame wars’ could ensue, and then this post is practically designed to generate flame wars. Hmmmm.
As to Joe Wilson, he is a hypochrist, pure and simple.
I was probably out of line… I was thinking Andrew C. was the young earth creationist “Andrew “that came here a while back. “Andrew” insults Jerry and everyone else whom he might learn from in lieu of providing an argument in support of his claims. He’s a the standard arrogant creotard who imagines himself humble and erudite.
Andrew C. accused Jerry et. al. of making a racist straw man. But Joe Wilson IS a racist, so Jerry’s argument is not a straw man– but Andrew C’s IS. That’s hypocritical. That’s why I confused Andrew C. with “Andrew” the lying racist creotard. Moreover, Joe Wilson et. al. are hypocrites to think that it’s fine to call Obama a liar when they were outraged and accused others of being “unpatriotic” when they pointed out actual lies– harmful lies– by Bush!
Joe Wilson didn’t have an “issue” to discuss. He made a straw man attack at the President in order to spread fear mongering– and then he made a phony apology to hide the hypocrisy and racism of his statement. Andrew C. finds flaws in Jerry’s argument regarding Joe Wilson while ignoring the much bigger flaws in Joe Wilson and his own hypocritical defense of the guy.
Neither Jerry nor Obama are the liars and hypocrites in this discussion. Nor is Maureen Dowd. I think that role goes to Joe Wilson and those who imagine straw men to avoid seeing the shaky ground their own opinions stand on.
I enjoyed seeing Keith Olbermann highlight the hypocrisy and idiocy. I admire those who stick up for the truth. I am repulsed by those who denigrate truth tellers to cover for liars and hypocrites. In my opinion Andrew C did that on this thread and Joe Wilson did that to Obama.
The only way losers and liars can build themselves up is to put down those who tell the truth. What else can they do when the facts are not on their side.
It is the Republicans who have lied again and again about what health care reform is and what this president said. It is the Republicans who covered for the liar that exacerbated this fiscal mess the US is in with their support of a liar who started an immoral, deficit producing war. It is people like the clueless Andrew C. who buy into the propaganda and exacerbate the divisiveness.
I’m tired of my tax dollars going to support liars and war profiteering rather than basic human care for all. I’m ashamed that my country contains too many people like Joe Wilson and Andrew C. But at least they provide fodder for satire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4
I also get peeved by people who imagine they know what a “straw man” argument is when they clearly don’t. The woos are very big at using words to pretend they understand science or logical fallacies, but they clearly don’t. And they can’t fix this problem because they imagine they know more than those who’d clue them in. (The Dunning-Kruger effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y )
The religious man has no trouble believing the ridiculous and only wonders why he’s so much better at it than everybody else is. This he takes as a sign from God.
He rode a blazing saddle, he wore a shining star …
Sorry, I just watched that movie on my computer. 35 years on and little has changed; some people are just outraged that the new sheriff isn’t white. Playing Mark Twain’s stereotype hick, I’d say: “’twas mighty white of the President not to get all uppity and hit Joe on the back o’ the head with a shovel.”
Mad Scientist, so true. Excellent reference. “Blazing Saddles” seems almost a nostradamic prophecy predicting accurately what is happening here and now.
I have to say, it’s really shameful. I thought we were way beyond this. Obama getting elected has flushed out the very worst part of our population, into the open where they can embarass us all, and quite possibly hurt someone, hopefully not Obama.
I said to my wife yesterday, “You know, it’s sobering that I’d venture to guess that there are over a million people in the US that would gladly kill our president if the chance presented itself…”
At first I was being hyperbolic but on further reflection I realized that I probably wasn’t very far off. Might even be more. The hatred is flowing like adrenaline through our collective system. Plus it’s linked with religion. (shudder)
Keith Olbermann destroys “Wrong Way” Joe Wilson in this excellent editorial:
Great. Well done Keith.
I watch him every night.
I’m not sure what I think of Keith Olbermann, but that was right on.
If black men were not so shiny and smooth and whispering of sexual promises, certain white men may not feel so threatened. As a women, I’m happy the way it is… if only for daydreams…
Er, um… Black women aren’t too bad either. If only for memories… lol.
(former manwhore)
My take on the last three decades of US politics, including recent developments:
“…and that Government of the People, by the People, for the People, Shall not Perish from the Earth.”
An excerpt:
In short, a nation that once was at least trying to be progressive devolved into a horde of atomized, disenfranchised people who behave like spoiled children and allow their financial and political institutions to treat them like serfs – except that, individually and collectively, this country has an excess of “lawyers, guns and money”.