I will defend Obama as gutless rather than reverse-racist in this story about his attitude to the Tea Party; the topic is race and the Presidency:
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.
I think (hope?!?) he was being polite to some fat-cat donors rather than describing his own convictions (and I am bitterly clinging to the notion that he has some convictions). Huckabee going on about Obama's Kenyan attitudes would be an example from the right of pandering to the nutters rather than challenging them.
Obviously, your mileage may vary.
THEN AGAIN: The First Panderer is also the First Condescender, so he might very well believe the worst of these lowly Tea Partiers...
I wish that I had been born with a built in crutch for every single problem or issue that will ever come up for me.
Posted by: Donald | March 03, 2011 at 07:37 AM
For somebody biracial, BOzo is very unidirectional. I've known a few biracial males in similar situations of being raised by a white mother with an AWOL father. It seems the ones that do best have the strongest mothers that set high standards for them. And don't abandon them.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 07:51 AM
And happy birthday Jane.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 07:53 AM
Yeah, the guy who sat in Wright's "church" for twenty years probably doesn't harbor any racial issues. That, too, was just humoring a friend -- you know, his spiritual mentor, given a role in his presidential campaign, source for the title of one of his books...
Huckabee is just a moron.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 03, 2011 at 07:58 AM
Yeah the only thing I need for Huckabee to do is STFU forever.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 08:00 AM
Gutless vs racist
Stupid Vs dishonest
Inept vs petty
Whether you pick from colum a or colum b we the people are still hosed
Posted by: Abadman | March 03, 2011 at 08:03 AM
The MFM is now praising Obama's "move to the center" in preparation for the 2012 elections.
But doesn't this expose the fact that the MFM has been lying to us since 2008?
They've constantly assured us that he was already a moderate and centrist.
Posted by: fdcol63 | March 03, 2011 at 08:11 AM
Happy birthday, Jane!
Posted by: Porchlight | March 03, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Whatever experiences Obama had in Kenya don't worry me.
What do bother me are Obama's experiences with his crazy mother, Frank Marshall Davis, living in Muslim Indonesia, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, Chicago, community organizing and ACORN, and Michelle Obama.
Posted by: fdcol63 | March 03, 2011 at 08:17 AM
Yeah, Happy Birthday, Jane!!!!
but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.
Nobody I met at the Tea Parties I have been to want "help" from the government. The want the government to stop interfering in their lives & decisions & to stop taking their money!
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 08:21 AM
..a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement
So the Nov. shellacking resulted from a generalized "throw the bums out" and not a specific "bring the fiscally sane in"?
Felicitations, Jane.
Posted by: DebinNC | March 03, 2011 at 08:22 AM
If you would like to experience your blood to boil, then see the wikipedia page on "far right."
The notion that "the right" is implicitly racist is a firmly entrenched one.
A "moderate" conservative might not be a racist, but an "extreme" conservative is. Leftists believe this with all their heart, despite the fact that racial superiority is no part of conservative philosophy and cannot be found in the writings of its great thinkers.
I am coming around to Philosoblog's point of view that the political "spectrum" is a mirage. The "extreme right" is a fantasy projected by leftists. It consists largely of the idea of "right-wing racism" coupled with a fear of the religious "right." Leftists presume, without a scintilla of evidence, that devout Christians would seek to impose their morality by use of state force.
There is no political "spectrum"-- just dog shit and not-dog-shit.
Posted by: qrstuv | March 03, 2011 at 08:29 AM
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea.
MSNBC and ever other liberal media outlet state that Obama prejudice as a fact every chance they get. I should have guessed where they got it.
He's one paranoid sucker.
Thanks Capn' Narciso and Elliot. I had to run away from that last, very depressing thread.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | March 03, 2011 at 08:32 AM
Good morning and Happy Birthday, Jane!
Posted by: centralcal | March 03, 2011 at 08:33 AM
HB Jane!!!
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 03, 2011 at 08:41 AM
Grrrrr.
The morning talk that I listen to has Tony Blankley hosting this morning and they had, I think, Lanny Davis on the phone. The caller got away claiming "Clinton produced a $ Trillion Surplus". And he was allowed to let that lie stand.
Wow.
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 03, 2011 at 08:50 AM
I am coming around to Philosoblog's point of view that the political "spectrum" is a mirage. The "extreme right" is a fantasy projected by leftists.
Here is one of my favorite videos on the political spectrum. Why the American Republic is the Right Thing
The left is ALWAYS pushing for more government.
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 08:50 AM
Where on the spectrum of racist rhetoric is AG Holder's testimony at a congressional hearing that the Black Panther voter intimidation case "demeans his people". Can we get a comment from panderer in cheif ?
Posted by: BB Key | March 03, 2011 at 08:51 AM
Maybe Janet or Narciso was listening and can confirm whether that was Davis calling in or just somebody who sounded like him?
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 03, 2011 at 08:52 AM
If race isn't a factor in stirring up the Republican base, then why have Republican strategists frequently used the Southern Strategy over the past 40 years to stir up white resentment? See, e.g., the admissions by Lee Atwater, Ken Mehlman, and Michael Steele, three GOP chairman, on that issue.
And if the Tea Party is not affected by that dynamic, what is it about them that makes them immune to the racial animus that is targeted in other parts of the Republican base?
Posted by: Nick | March 03, 2011 at 08:54 AM
and Obama didn't dispute the idea.
Of course he didn't.
In what universe does something become fact if a political figure doesn't dispute it?
I hate these people.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 03, 2011 at 08:55 AM
One thing to consider is that Obama, in his head, conflates the birth certificate movement with the Tea Party movement. It's hard to know the context of Obama's statements from Tom's link.
Can Huckabee just go away?
Posted by: Appalled | March 03, 2011 at 08:55 AM
As if we ever doubted it, "post-racial" has an expiration date as well.
Posted by: Neo | March 03, 2011 at 08:56 AM
I wasn't listening to the radio OL.
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 08:58 AM
I am at the point where I don't much give a shit what Obama says or thinks.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 08:59 AM
I hate these people.
Come, come .. let's not go there.
Stick with ... strongly dislike their putrid fantasies.
"A mind is a terrible thing"
Posted by: Neo | March 03, 2011 at 09:00 AM
One thing to consider is that Obama, in his head, conflates the birth certificate movement with the Tea Party movement.
The "birth certificate movement" was started by the Hiliary-supporting-Democrats, so you're saying that there are racists in the Democratic Party ?
I already knew that, but I doubt most Democrats would admit to it.
Posted by: Neo | March 03, 2011 at 09:06 AM
... and exactly (as they asked H. Ross Perot), who are the "my people" that Eric Holder referred to before Congress the other day ?
Posted by: Neo | March 03, 2011 at 09:09 AM
Nick, the fact that the South is home to many racists does not say anything about political conservatism, which, I'll remind you, was formerly known as liberalism before that term was stolen by progressives.
The struggle overcivil rights in the 60s was largely a struggle between racists of the South and the rest of the country. Since the time of Lincoln, the South voted for Democrats. Lynch mobs hanged people who voted for Republicans.
Southern Democrats filibustered the Voting Rights Act.
Republicans broke that filibuster.
Posted by: qrstuv | March 03, 2011 at 09:11 AM
The morning talk that I listen to has Tony Blankley hosting this morning and they had, I think, Lanny Davis on the phone. The caller got away claiming "Clinton produced a $ Trillion Surplus". And he was allowed to let that lie stand.
Having a Slick buttplug like Lanny on is sure to produce some howlers. Clenis always admired JFK, ostensibly for how much ass he snagged, but now it seems that shills make as much shit up for him as Kennedy.
Btw, am I the only one who was outraged by the Indonesian POS referring to yesterday's murder of soldiers in Germany as a "tragedy"?
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 09:12 AM
As if we ever doubted it, "post-racial" has an expiration date as well.
Indeed. The concept of "America's first post-racial president" died on Jan 20, 2010.
Posted by: PD | March 03, 2011 at 09:13 AM
H.B., Jane!
Posted by: PD | March 03, 2011 at 09:13 AM
Jan 20, 2010
Sheesh. Make that 2009.
Posted by: PD | March 03, 2011 at 09:15 AM
Fuck off Nick; your historically challenged KOS talking points are as dumb as you are.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 09:15 AM
From the article:
We've arrived in the "post-racial" era, where race is nothing more than a political weapon, but one with a trigger lock. It can only be fired by progressives.
Jane, it's your birthday? Happy birthday!
Posted by: Tom Bowler | March 03, 2011 at 09:15 AM
The struggle over civil rights in the 60s was largely a struggle between racists of the South and the rest of the country.
Except when busing came to Boston
Posted by: Neo | March 03, 2011 at 09:16 AM
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president,
Why would "a guest" think that? Maybe because that is the meme put out by the libs. Their propaganda arm is in overdrive trying to equate the Tea Party with racism.
From the lie told about the March 20th Tea Party...to an episode of The Good Wife where a character named McVeigh is a member of the Tea Party.
"...citing McVeigh’s “membership in a racist organization,” namely the Tea Party."
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 09:17 AM
Oh, look. The "Southern Strategy" crap raises its head.
Republicans only started to gain in the South after Jim Crow was ended and racism began fading in the South. If you refuse to believe this, I give you noted WASPs Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Joseph Cao, Herman Cain, and Allen West.
The Democrats push the "Southern Strategy" lie to excuse/cover their own race-baiting, and as a distraction from what was THEIR "Southern Strategy" -- Jim Crow and the Klan.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 03, 2011 at 09:19 AM
Neo, so the only possible reason that bostonians would be angry about forced busing is racism?
Posted by: qrstuv | March 03, 2011 at 09:25 AM
Democrats are masters at projection. Whenever they ascribe dark motives to their adversaries, you can bet money that these are their own motives. Greed? Racism? Anti free-speech? Wishing to force their sexual mores on the unwilling? Check, check and check. Btw, it's more than obvious that Obama is a racist.
Happy Birthday, Jane!
Posted by: Extraneus | March 03, 2011 at 09:26 AM
Neo, so the only possible reason that bostonians would be angry about forced busing is racism?
No, but those many of those Good Democrats expressed their opposition in just those terms.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 03, 2011 at 09:28 AM
H.B., Jane.
Interesting the TM should pick this..Earlier this morning I decided race would be my theme on Sunday--and I was rifling thru Holder's remarks on y People and this tidbit, among others. How wonderful that I'll get to pick your brains again...Personally, my first reaction is that this is a sign of stress and an acknowledgement of failure.
Don't forget also that he's being banged up on his effete reaction to Libya where Farrakhan and Rev Wright are involved as pro Gaddafi and then there's Farrakhan's warning that the turmoil in Libya will be repeated here--something Rush says is a pointed warning to Jews whom Farrakhan blames for wanting to start a war with Libya.
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 09:29 AM
As it turns out, I live in Boston. Children do not go to neighborhood schools and grow up knowing the families around them. instead, they are bused all over the place, once their parents learn which schools they get assigned to in the harrowing lottery system. I cannot convey how much the parents hate this.
Posted by: qrstuv | March 03, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Why should we exspect anything different from a man who was moved to spiritual awakening by the words "white mens' greed runs a world in need."
Posted by: Ranger | March 03, 2011 at 09:33 AM
It cannot come as a surprise to any observer that Obama is a racist. Race and its utility are central to his ascent and to his studied historical image. He's not the first "Hawaiian" president, now is he? I recall how jarring it was to hear him call his grandmother "a typical white person." Say what, Cracker? Hia lovely wife, "Haunches," could find nothing good about America until her husband was nominated. Let us now pretend that was not about race. Holder is not about race.
I feel that race relations in the country are worse now that at any time since the 1970's. Obama drives the division. The next black president is a good 75 years away.
Posted by: MarkO | March 03, 2011 at 09:37 AM
Well said Extraneus @ 9:26! So true.
Here is an interesting bit - Libyan rebel begs for help from Bush
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Why sould we exsepct anything different from a man who broke off a relationship with a white woman because he feared if he stayed in the relationship he would "lose his blackness."
Posted by: Ranger | March 03, 2011 at 09:39 AM
Unlike Obama, my earliest memories are of life in segregated Orange Texas with all the separate but equal nonsense that came with it: separate drinking fountains, people forced to the back of the bus based on skin color, a fence down the middle of the drive in movie theatre etc. My most vivid memory is from my mom teaching swimming at the "colored" swimming pool -- a pool with broken glass in the locker rooms (I stepped on some) and no water in the swimming pool. The Orange / Beaumont area is solid Democrat to this day.
Posted by: Henry | March 03, 2011 at 09:41 AM
I feel that race relations in the country are worse now that at any time since the 1970's. Obama drives the division. The next black president is a good 75 years away.
This is way too pessimistic imo; and I was one of the people that suggested that B+ Hussein would negatively impact race relations. But I think people in general are much less fixated on race than idiots on the left are; see Alan West for example.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 09:46 AM
I cannot convey how much the parents hate this.
I remember it vividly from three years in Cambridge in the 70's. Families in Southie were outraged that the busing of their kids was ordered by Judge Garrity, who lived in one of the tonier suburbs and had no clue about how his ruling affected the little people. And Teddy Kennedy, a big supporter of busing, sent his kid to a private Episcopal school (St. Albans) in D.C.
And when we get angry, they can offer no explanation other than that we must be racist. Truly the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 09:48 AM
and as for Huckabee...Obama's life story is such a patchwork of make believe that it is hard to keep straight. The MFM had the ability to look into Obama's life story...but they didn't. Cashill's book points out examples of different dates & scenarios that Obama uses himself. Even HE doesn't know his own d#*n story.
Posted by: Janet | March 03, 2011 at 09:50 AM
Nick, this is a comprehensive answer to your question. Among the points raised are
-the flaws of the syllogism "the South is less racist than it was 60 years ago, more Southerners vote Republican than 60 years ago, therefore Republicans are racist"
-the fact that Republican gains in the South started at the relatively wealthier and homogeneous periphery where race was less of an issue (compared to places like Alabama and Mississippi, which stayed Democrat longer than Texas or Virginia)
-the elementary point that Republicans have never in the entire history of the party advocated facially discriminatory policies, much less segregation, and the party was founded specifically to oppose slavery, which was 100% Democrat
Posted by: bgates | March 03, 2011 at 09:51 AM
The next time TM wants to bore us all to death with something stupid from Krugman, we will have to remember this:
Iowahawk calls Krugman's column "a nugget of stupidity so egregious that no amount of mockery will suffice. Particularly when the issuer of said stupidity holds a Nobel Prize."
Krugman never seem to run out of those "nugget(s) of stupidity."
Posted by: centralcal | March 03, 2011 at 09:52 AM
Nice link, Janet, @ 9:38 AM. I note that though the speaker mentioned a no-fly zone, the meaning of 'Bring Bush' is ambiguous. I suspect he'd prefer the latter of the two.
===========
Posted by: "Bring Bush" Let's remember that one. | March 03, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Words I never thought I'd type: Frank Rich was pretty damn smart to leave the sinking ship ahead of dumb rats like Krugman, MoDo and Herbert.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Ranger, to be fair, that phrase may have been put into his mouth by the guy who wrote the book.
The next black president is a good 75 years away.
That's just nuts. Allen West could serve 5 terms in the House and still run before he turns 60.
Posted by: bgates | March 03, 2011 at 10:00 AM
There's a reason latinos, blacks, gays and Jews are extremely thinly represented in the Tea Party and it's the same reason those ethnic and religious minority groups have been among the most reliably, overwhelingly liberal voting blocs.
On issue after issue, Republicans, conservatives and their Tea Party exercise in post-Bush rebranding vote the same way: against minority interests.
On immigration, conservatives are vociferously opposed to the interests of latinos. Whether you are a legal immigrant or an undocumented worker, conservatives make it clear that they view you as a nuisance. Sure, if you are a long-established legal resident with a few generations in the U.S., you might find it easier to forget that conservatives resent being reminded they can't speak Spanish. But for most latinos -- and the majority who vote -- it's obvious conservatives have white identity issues mixed up in their politics.
An affirmative action, conservatives are diametrically opposed to the interest of Afro-Americans. Conservatives invariably frame the issue not as a threat to black advancement, but as an unfair brake on the advancement of white males.
Then there's the close conservative alliance with evangelical Christianity and, via the abortion issue, right-wing Roman Catholicism. If you're a Jew, how can you be expected to vote for someone who goes around claiming the U.S. is a "Christian nation?"
Then there's the homophobia. Not all conservatives are homophobic, though what political manifestations of homophobia there are in America are directly, openly, clearly allied with the GOP, conservatives and the Tea Party.
Any one of these, taken on their own, could be explained as nuanced positions based on individual merits of the specific circumstances.
But why take each on their own? Why not view them as a set of views, given that they are widely shared across conservative politics and relatively unchanged through the years.
And when we consider these views together, combined as of-a-piece with the conservative worldview, we can only conclude that white power is indivisible from American conservatism. Which simply and directly explains why conservative parties attract so few ethnic and religious minorities.
Posted by: bunkerbuster | March 03, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Yes, he'll fill the vacuous hole that Michael Wolf left when he went to Vanity Fair and Newser, but that Mark Jacobsen has tried in vain to occupy.
Posted by: narciso | March 03, 2011 at 10:03 AM
--I will defend Obama as gutless rather than reverse-racist in this story about his attitude to the Tea Party; the topic is race and the Presidency:.....
I think (hope?!?) he was being polite to some fat-cat donors rather than describing his own convictions (and I am bitterly clinging to the notion that he has some convictions).--
I think (hope) TM is just being snarky again, as the time to give this demagogue one shred of the benefit of the doubt is long, long gone.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 03, 2011 at 10:04 AM
narc, nobody fills vacuous holes like Frankie.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 10:09 AM
The only reason that Obama was the first "black" president is because Colin Powell didn't run as a Republican in 1996 or 2000.
But to be honest, after his stint as SecState, I'm glad I never got to vote for him.
Posted by: fdcol63 | March 03, 2011 at 10:13 AM
3 March 2011
Baghdad
(first major sandstorm of the year)
When I think of what's in its head, I'd rather think of what should be on top of his head. I am disgusted by this America-hating marxist.
thanks, Caro ! for your superb effort.
Take good care,
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | March 03, 2011 at 10:16 AM
I feel that race relations in the country are worse now that at any time since the 1970's. Obama drives the division. The next black president is a good 75 years away.
I'm sorry, but that's just crazy, and its indicative of a problematic mindset -- that our government is the driver of society. We're not having busing riots -- we are not having the scary riots of a number of years ago that came in the wake of the Rodney King verdict -- and more black and white folk care what Janet Jackson thinks compared to what Jesse Jackson thinks.
Obama is not bad for racial relations. He's simply bad for Democrats.
Posted by: Appalled | March 03, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Minus 16 and 45 overall at Raz today. I no longer expect to see any significant movement from day to day or week to week; it seems he's been fairly close to this range for perhaps a year.
Evidence to me that the huge majority of Americans, including voters, only get focused at the time of major events or elections. I guess.
And happy birthday, dear indispensable Jane.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 10:18 AM
No. Obama is bad for America.
Posted by: fdcol63 | March 03, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Oops.
When I think of what's in its head, I'd rather think of what should be on top of his head. I am disgusted by this America-hating marxist.
should have been:
When I think of what's in its head, I'd rather think of what should be on top of its head. I am disgusted by this arrogant, hate-filled, racist, America-hating marxist.
FIFY.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | March 03, 2011 at 10:20 AM
AFP says its surveys indicate O is personally popular but his policies are not. Will the voters go American Idol in 2012 or will they use their brains?
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 10:20 AM
indispensable
Hmmmm, now what could he mean by that? I'm getting ready for the radio so running in fourteen directions - but thanks so much everyone. JOM is a great place to be on your birthday.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | March 03, 2011 at 10:23 AM
Btw, another piece of Journolist agitprop goes bye bye
Posted by: narciso | March 03, 2011 at 10:25 AM
The Iowahawk piece is a classic--Do not miss that he equates (correctly) SAT/ACT performance with the percentage of white kids in a school system nd re Krugman there's this beauty:
"Mr. Krugman (please note - I don't call anyone "Doctor" unless they can write me a prescription for drugs) doesn't mention where he gets his dropout statistic from. I suspect a database somewhere in his lower intestine"
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 10:27 AM
I am totally convinced that people say they like Obama personally because they're afraid they'll be called racist if they say they don't like him.
Look at the arrogant little twirp. What's to like?
Posted by: MaryD | March 03, 2011 at 10:28 AM
oops.
When I said:
what I actually meant to write was:
When I think of what's in its head, I'd rather think of what should be on top of its head. I am disgusted by this arrogant, pandering, biracial, lying, racist, dishonest, mf-ing, "light-skinned" narcissistic, America-hating marxist.
FIFY.
Take good care,
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | March 03, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Btw, if you thought they had any shame, in the LUN, dissabuse yourself,
Posted by: narciso | March 03, 2011 at 10:36 AM
By God I hope this bill gets some attention:
Few things infuriate me more than this kind of shower-adjusting bullshit from the nanny state. I'd love to see repeal of this bill become part of the 2012 GOP platform.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Why shouldn't it pass? It's a silly law which will create more enviro havoc because of the mercury, and no one likes it .Of course, all domestic production of the old bulbs has already ceased .
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 10:42 AM
It's a strong bet that I won't follow all of the Fed's safety and disposal procedures if I happen to break a CFL.
Posted by: fdcol63 | March 03, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Off to work, but MaryD I agree wholeheartedly with you.
And, DoT, thanks for that info - God Bless Bachmann!
Posted by: centralcal | March 03, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Oh cmon narc, those computer problems happen all the time where data just disappears for a period of time which exceeds some people's attention span. They probably use Typepad.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 03, 2011 at 10:45 AM
I know, Clarice, and the law took effect in CA on January 1 of this year. I started hoarding a bit but was not able to amass much of a stockpile before everyone else started doing the same thing. The reason it won't pass is that the majority in congress, and the president, are hard-core shower-adjusters.
I would also like to see on the platform a repeal of all laws and regulations concerning the volume of water that a toilet can use for a single flush. (Delighted to see what has lately been visited on the people of San Francisco.)
For some discouraging polling, go here. Not really surprising, but few people actually want to see anything cut.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 10:47 AM
--Obama is not bad for racial relations. He's simply bad for Democrats.--
I think it was a little hyperbolic to say race relations are worse than any time since the 70's, but it is just as hyperbolic to say Barry isn't bad for race relations.
Despite his post racial rhetoric he in fact,as TM's post proves, frequently uses the race issue divisively and falsely.
The entire "the right is racist" fairy-tale has been severely ratcheted up in the last couple of years, not only by the left in general but also by Obama himself and his sometimes subtle, often not so subtle, attribution of racism to his "enemies".
Maybe on a personal level race relations aren't getting worse, or maybe not yet, but it's increasing use politically is likely to change that.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 03, 2011 at 10:50 AM
last nite on Greta Michelle Bachmann said they found $200 billion of appropriations (money already spent with no discretion) that they didn't know about in Obamacare. part of that was Sebielus own slushfund in the $15b range that she can spend on anything she wants.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | March 03, 2011 at 10:51 AM
part of that was Sebielus own slushfund in the $15b range that she can spend on anything she wants.
And we're the greedy ones.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 03, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Perhaps I should just go back to bed:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Maybe, DoT, but often it's the little every day things like bulbs that get peoples' attention and rankle the most. I think this one has a chance.
Like the right as racist, the enviros as good guys is a meme well past its due date.
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 10:58 AM
I don't know how narciso is but I appreciate him throwing me a link. If you are at all interested in the story regarding those Wisconsin doctors behaving badly I have a lot. Luckily, others are catching on and on internecine battle seems to be shaping up with the American College of Physicians fighting for the good guys!
http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/03/internists-remind-physicians-about.html
Posted by: Unlikely Hospitalist | March 03, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Not really surprising, but few people actually want to see anything cut.
As always, these poll questions are vaguely and poorly phrased. What does "significantly cut the funding for" Social Security mean? Just a cut with nothing to replace it? No corresponding cut in income or payroll taxes?
What about a question like: "Would you prefer (a) cuts in future SS benefits for people currently under the age of 50 in exchange for lower payroll taxes and the ability to invest in higher-earning safe private annuities; versus (b) maintaining the status quo and seeing the system go bankrupt in 20 years, so that benefits will have to be cut at that point anyway?"
Or something like that. People are always ready to support free lunches if they're put in those terms.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 03, 2011 at 10:59 AM
As always, these poll questions are vaguely and poorly phrased.
I think that is what is going on with just about everything, including the collective bargaining questions. I'm not worried.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | March 03, 2011 at 11:05 AM
Points well taken about the wording of the questions. But Raz's are pretty straightforward, it seems.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 03, 2011 at 11:09 AM
I found your link, off this Protein Wisdom thread,http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=25218, UH,
Posted by: narciso | March 03, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Happy Birthday, Jane!
Churchill once provided the definition of a diplomat as someone who never asks a lady her age but always remembers her birthday.
To help me understand what is going on in Wisconsin, our POTUS' mind, Libya and working for Sheilia Jackson Lee, I have been reading my collection of Gary Larson cartoons. How I miss that guy and his way of taking simple acts of life and portraying them in a surreally abstract but humourous way. I recommend it to anyone who wants to make sense out of all of this going on today.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 03, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Neo, DoT, etc. - Common Ground by J. Anthony Lukas is about busing/school integration in Boston in the 70's and is one of the best books I've ever read.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 03, 2011 at 11:12 AM
DoT, I think even Raz is using the term "collective barganing rights" in their questions. Anytime people hear the word "rights" they are going to be opposed to taking it away.
Posted by: Ranger | March 03, 2011 at 11:12 AM
bunkerbuster,
Do you think a law that puts jobs out of reach of poorly educated young men is a good thing or a bad thing for minorities?
Do you think that a law that, statistically speaking, takes money away from black men and gives it to others for their retirements is a good thing or a bad thing for minorities?
Do you think that standards that are set lower for minorities are a good thing or a bad thing for minorities?
Here's the thing you haven't figured out: It is one thing to say that you are "empowering" someone. It is quite another thing to actually do so.
Posted by: qrstuv | March 03, 2011 at 11:14 AM
--A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed.--
Somewhere around 12% of the labor force, which means about 4% of the entire population, are union workers.
Of the 96% of the people who aren't unionized how many even know what "collective bargaining" means or consists of?
Furthermore if the word "right" was used it further skews the result.
To determine how many people think public employees should be paid less by asking whether collective bargaining rights should be curtailed is like asking how many people are anti abortion by asking how many think privacy rights should be curtailed.
Phrase it like the following and see what the result is;
"How many government gold bricks should you have to support before feeding your own family?"
Posted by: Ignatz | March 03, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Should refresh before posting.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 03, 2011 at 11:18 AM
How did Qunnipiac, get such a different result,http://www.quinnipiac.ed/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1562, from both Rasmussen
and the outliers like CBS and NBC
Posted by: narciso | March 03, 2011 at 11:20 AM
"I'm not worried."
Me neither, Jane. Happy Birthday!
Phrase the question as: "Do you favor raising state taxes by 7% in order to fund maintenance and expansion of public workers' benefits?" and look at the response.
The original Gallup poll of adults exposed the incoherence of the general population. I'm rather curious as to why Republicans aren't framing the issue as a choice between raising taxes 100% or making cuts. I know that SS taxes will have to be raised (along with the retirement age) but I don't see why they shouldn't suggest lowering the income threshold for paying income taxes in order to provide "free" stuff as an alternative.
It would change the conversation rather quickly.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 03, 2011 at 11:24 AM
narciso, your link doesn't work.
Posted by: clarice | March 03, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Happy birthday darling Jane!
MSNBC and ever other liberal media outlet state that Obama prejudice as a fact every chance they get. I should have guessed where they got it.
Oh they did! They ran with that.
I swear I also heard John King on CNN say Obama thinks the talk about him not believing in American Exceptionalism is based on racism. Forget that it's pretty standard leftist fare.
Posted by: MayBee | March 03, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Yet another example of the left trying to restrict speech they disagree with. LUN.
Wis. Protester my ass.
Posted by: harrjf | March 03, 2011 at 11:32 AM