Home > Uncategorized > Frank Rich weighs in

Frank Rich weighs in

We’ve been debating dissent on the blog and how far people should be allowed to go.

I want to take the conversation in a different direction and give you homework — read Frank Rich’s column from today’s New York Times.

Rich takes no prisoners. The debate has nothing to do with health care, he argues. This is about a political party dominated by white males, afraid to give up power to blacks, women, gays — in other words, the Republicans are trying to thwart the Democrats because the bottom line is all about race. And if you’re white, you’re increasingly in the minority.

So what do you think? Do we read anything into the fact that the Tea Party is composed mainly of whites? Interesting perspective. Worth discussing.

  1. March 29, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Dave, I read the article, it was well written, even if it had a particular slant to it, like the slant of stating a stark reality about the Republican Party! In the last thread, Chris from Paso and I had a few comments directed at each other, and I admitted that very few conservatives, Republicans, or Tea Party members are violent extremists; but it is just like the old adage about racists: "Not all Republicans are racists, but most racists identify themselves as Republicans"; I would say the same holds true for those who advocate some sort of violence for their political "enemies"; not all Republicans advocate violence (I would guess that the number as a percentage of all Republicans would be smaller that 1/10 of 1%, probably even much less), but a large majority of those who do advocate violence as a means of expression will self identify as conservative, usually voting Republican. Chris, Big Tent, Hoosier; can you find fault with the logic I used to arrive at my premise here? I do know that all of you will disagree with my conclusion, with Big Tent getting the most upset, but I am curious if you can simply analyze the logic I used and point out how you think I went wrong.The point that Frank Rich made that stuck with me the most though is the absolute vacuum of silence from Republican Party members about the abhorrence of the violence directed at Democratic lawmakers, and Mr. Rich's assertion that the Republicans are too cowed by the far right of their base to speak out against the unprecedented violence being directed at only one political parties' members. I recently heard a story of how President Nixon supposedly went to where an anti-war protest was being held (this apparently happened in the middle of the night, no press or media around) and simply talked to the protestors to find out what their problem was, why they were protesting. While I'm sure that he had Secret Service with him, I cannot imagine any recent or the current president doing the same thing. I could not find any documentation to back up the assertion of this story, but I did find a YouTube audio of President Nixon talking to John Dean, and Nixon is telling him to "leave the protestors alone" link here and even though this is a YouTube link, my only reason for embedding it here is to attempt to back up the story, just to show how far our society has changed. I mean, these were the students, they may have been taking drugs, they may have been engaging in all sorts of bad or weird stuff, but the President felt comfortable enough to simply walk up to them and talk to them? What would happen if President Obama tried that at a Tea Party rally? While I highly doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt some sort of violence at the President, I can sure imagine that he would be yelled at, and even maybe cursed at, by a very small number. And yes, I'm sure someone will bring it up, if President Bush had attempted to speak to a Code Pink group or at an anti-war rally, I think that he too would have been yelled at and probably cursed at, by some.

  2. March 29, 2010 at 10:46 am

    I said it during the campaign and I will say it here once more for those just joining us: any dissent from the policies of President Obama will be characterised by his supporters as racism. If it were only so that it is just a white male thing… but its not. Micheal Steele isn't white and he doesn't support Obama or ObamaCare. Oh that's right! He's just an "uncle Tom" race traitor, right? So is Ken Blackwell and Armstrong Williams or J.C. Watts. They're all sellouts, right?Michelle Malkin isn't white; she's asian and a woman. Sarah Palin isn't a man either, neither is Ann Coulter, or Laura Ingram, or Tammy Bruce, all who oppose ObamaCare. So there are blacks and women that oppose ObamaCare. The gay thing is just to get lispy Barney Frank in the equation. Since you can't 'see' gay, and since Barney Frank is only one of three members of Congress (none in the senate) that is gay, it can't be a "gay" thing, right?And this continued bashing of the Tea Party movement, I get it. After all, you need a cowed, cowaring public to willingly or blindly accept the european-style socialism that Obama and his ilk are forcing on America. All of those long far off distant shots don't allow you to see the minorities in the crowd. I get that, too; it reinforces the stereotype you are trying to build. Interviewing only white guys and gals at a Sarah Palin booksigning, I get that as well. Again, reinforcing the stereotype guys like Frank Rich are trying to build. So if there are black men opposed to ObamaCare, and there are women opposed to ObamaCare, and since "gay" is a bigger minority in Congress than any other minority, Frank Rich must be wrong in his analysis. Maybe it is something else that ties them all together other than gay, black, and women (what about asians and Hispanics, hmmm?).How about this: what drew out the anger from opponents of ObamaCare was that it was bloated, wasteful, excessively expensive, insurance company welfare program. (question: will the "pay czar" keep the insurance companies from giving their CEOs high salaries even though Obama is forcing 31 million [or so] into their waiting grasps?)You liberals are all alike: play indentity politics because you are either too lazy or too stupid to look deeper than a person's skin tone, genitalia or sexual orientation. Charges of racism have replaced rational argumentation for liberal policies. The party Jefferson started, the party of JFK, is truly dead.

  3. March 29, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    I remember when W. nominated Condeleeza Rice to be Secretary Of State after Colin Powell resigned. Sean Hannity railed against those who were opposed to her nomination daily on both his radio show and his TV show. Hannity called the people who opposed Rice "racists". Hannity said the opposition just were afraid of a "black-woman" holding a high office. Hannity ignored the fact that when Rice was head of the NSA, she ignored her own advisors that Al-Queda was planning an attack on our soil and she was partially to blame for allowing 9-11 to happen. The fact that Rice allowed the worst terrorist attack in our country's history to occur on her watch was irrelevent to Hannity and his fellow wing-nuts. To Hannity it didn't matter that Rice was possibly the worst head of the NSA in our history, to Hannity and his followers it was all about race and gender. So, I'm going to hold Hannity and his followers by their own standards. According to Hannity, racism was the only possible explanation to oppose Rice, then racism must be the only reason people oppose Obama. This is Hannity logic, if you agree with Hannity's dogma, then you must agree the only reason to oppose our President and his agenda, is because you are a racist. To say any different would be admitting that Hannity is a Hypocrite.

  4. March 29, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Yes there is racism. The black community will never embrace the Tea Party movement, due to racism.Black Americas due to their history will always side with Obama.In black America race always trumps all other issues. 95% of Blacks voted for the Obama not on the issues but on race.So does this mean that if I do not like the policys of this government I am a racist? Remember when you cannot win the argument on the facts go after the people involved.

  5. March 29, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Frank Rich is a representative sample of mainstream bourgeois intellectuals of the journalistic sort. He does not pretend to be a scholar. For all that, he has sensed the lethality of the Tea Party phenomenon; it matters not that he may be a Democratic Party apologist in this regard. Frank Rich has his uses as a barometer of society.At the heart of Rich's essay is the formal logical fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent." This type of false argument has the form:(1) If A then B(2) BTherefore:(3) AIn his essay, Rich basically implies that if you are racist, you are critical of Obama; many people are critical of Obama lately; therefore all who are critical of Obama are racists.When this type of argument is employed by a writer with education and intelligence, such as Frank Rich, it is intended only to manipulate and mislead.Mr. Rich consistently does an effective job in focusing only on the superficial and theatrical elements of American politics, which inevitably serves to exacerbate divisions among the least powerful members of our society.Another problem I have with this essay is the fact that the closer one gets to the center of Rich's analysis, the mushier the language becomes.According to Rich, the "real source" of the current wave of rage is "the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964."Okay, what exactly was the "national existential reordering" in the 1960s? True, there were a lot of social tensions during that period involving women's rights, military activities, civil rights, law and justice, recreational drug use, sexual freedom, men's roles, fashion, language, music, and overall culture, but what among these is Frank Rich referring to in his essay, and how well do current conditions match up to those very different times?It is my opinion that the current national psyche is substantially different from those times, and is impacted more by a growing awareness of how badly we have fared under the controlling corporate regime, and how fundamentally sick our corporate values have become.Frank Rich, on the other hand, avoids these distinctions. Instead, he makes a weak blanket comparison, and tries to get away with it by using abstract and ambiguous language.I believe the real issue underlying the rancorous protests over the health care issue is the overt effort of the oligarchy to inflame and use peoples' fears in order to prevent any real change from occurring that would threaten the corporate-centric status quo.Unfortunately, Frank Rich's literary sideshows consistently serve to distract us from the main event, helping to ensure that it continues its long run without any script changes at all.On the corporate level, it is all about money; on the astroturf-teabagger level, racism is a significant force informing that movement, and those manipulating these groups exploit this racist fear for their own purposes.

  6. March 30, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Here is something else. Why is Frank Rich, a White guy and Dave Congalton (white guy) and Bob (white guy) et al worried about supposed Tea party/Republican racism when you have plenty of black, female, gay, gay female, gay male, black, female, Gay black female, etc etc commentators that are relatively mum on this? Must not be such a problem from their vantage point. Or maybe there is no problem at all and it is just the race-baiting white guys in the liberal movement trying to silence the opposition of all by trying to paint all who disagree with a black man as racist. I like the latter.

  7. March 30, 2010 at 2:08 am

    I have to disagree with B.T.R. It sounds like you are implying that blacks voted for Obama JUST because he is half black. That is a real insult to black people and sounds pretty racist. Are you saying that blacks aren't smart enough to vote on the issues? I'm a woman and I didn't vote for Hillary. I would bet you that if the race had been between Michael Steele and Hillary ,Hillary would have won hands down. .Obama won because he was what the people wanted. Red states turned Blue ,Republicans crossed party lines. Obama campaigned on healthcare reform. He didn't just pull it out of his hat once he got into office. This is a democracy,that also has what you might call socialistic programs.Police Depts,Fire Dept,Postal Service ,Medicare for the over 65 set ,VA Dr's and hospitals for Vets. I could go on ..but my point is. The people have spoken with their votes. The disgruntled tea partiers etc. are vocal but few, when you remember that 6 million people voted .

  8. March 30, 2010 at 4:24 am

    The Frank Rich column was a prime example of using a few extremists as examples to smear millions, i.e. the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism, albeit with typical NYT pseudo-intellectual eloquence. This is becoming common place in the MSM, and frankly it’s as boring as it is shameful.Bob: Your argument about a majority of racists or advocates of violence being Republicans has a couple of weaknesses. In the first place, you should back up such an inflammatory statement with facts. However, I doubt that you will find any corresponding polling data. Secondly, as you acknowledge yourself, the percentage of Republicans who might be such idiots is miniscule.In a similar vein, it is likely that a majority of members of the Cripps or the Bloods voted for Obama, to the extent they voted. Or do you think that a large number of them voted Republican because they believe in free enterprise? Should we then slander the Obama and the Democrats with such a fact? Of course not!The simple error in your argument is that you try to draw a conclusion about a large group of people by reference to a few nut cases. The only certain generalizations you can make is that by far most people in the Republican and the Democratic parties are decent people who simply have different political philosophies and that there are a few extremely stupid people on both sides of the political spectrum. So, what else is new?That is exactly why political debate should concentrate on the issues and not on trying to demonize one side or the other. Of course, rational political debate can and should be pretty tough on difficult, major issues. But it should always focus on the substance of the issue at hand. The Germans use the word “sachlich”, but even the English word “objective” doesn’t quite convey the meaning. In any event, you and I have had some interesting exchanges here, and they are based on “sachliche” arguments and not on trying to cast the other guy as the personification of evil. I trust that this can continue, and perhaps some of the other participants here can emulate this.

  9. March 30, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Kathryn, when 95% of blacks vote for Obama and only 43% of whites voted for him. Are you saying that 95% of black americans are NOT racially motivated but 57% of whites ARE? Come on! You can't have it both ways. If it was jsut about "being smart enough to vote on the issues", then why didn't 95% of whites vote for Obama as well? Or women?Truth is that the white vote wins elections.And speaking of elections… when we voted in November 2008, we were NOT voting for a dictator. If that were the case, then I would agree that Republicans should shut up and take what's coming. We voted for (or voted against) a candidate based on the expoused issues, how we feel about the candidate personnally and how we think the candidate would do. Just because Obama talked about healhcare and won is not a blank check for his proposed solution. This is a Representative Republic, not a democracy and never has been one. We use some of the principles of democracy in how we do business, but we are certainly not a democracy as it is defined. Why do all you goofballs on the left always confuse Socialism with Social Programs? Socialism, as defined by Karl Marx, has ALWAYS been about the State determining what the winners should give to the losers in the world (From each according to their means; to each according to their needs). This is the social justice mentality that permiates the thinking of Obama and those in his White House. Obama even made Joe the Plummer famous with his "share the wealth" comment. Social programs are, and always have been, things that individuals cannot do for themselves, but require group efforts to achieve… locally. Fire departments are a social good because no one individual can afford to have the fire trucks and fire hoses or manpower to put their house out when it is on fire. The community comes together, pays a small portion of their earnings into a common kitty to pay for the infrastructure that we can't pay for separately. Same goes for police, sanitation, etc. VA benefits and Medicare are NOT social programs. They are most certainly welfare programs whereby the productivity of those who can is transfered, rightly or wrongly, to those who can't. That is the hallmark of Marxist Socialism. (Try reading the Communist Mannifesto and try to tell me that there are not similarities between what our government is doing and what Marx wanted. Try it)When you start equating cops and firefighters to nationalized, european-style healthcare that ObamaCare is, you create a fallacy that they are somehow equal. They are far from equivalent items. Furthermore, there is no constitutional mandate that the federal government has any responsibility to provide "free" or even subisdized healthcare. This is a kanard constructed by big government liberals to justify their programs and their rationalization for their destruction of individual rights and the destruction of Federalism. if the federal government is doing everything, why have states? Our country was founded with the concept of federalism and it is captured in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

  10. March 30, 2010 at 5:31 am

    One thing I know is that when someone goes maniacal, crazy, out-of-control angry and is visibly upset at another person, it's rarely for the reason the angry person states it is for. There is inevitably something else going on there, something that angry person may not even understand himself. There really were Hatfields an McCoys and they really did feud with each other, sometimes with fatal results. The later generations Hatfields could tell you they hated the McCoys, and with the McCoys it was vice-versa. But none of them could tell you exactly why they hated each other. Or if they did it was something superficial and never did answer the fundamental question. They had simply learned to hate somewhere along the line and they learned it well, picking up all kinds of slurs to invoke when the other clan was mentioned, and, once in a while, one of the clan would go extra crazy mad and kill one of the other clan. We are not that far removed from the Hatfields and the McCoys. In fact , things are actually worse in many ways. One thing is for sure: more people will be killed fro crazy reasons..

  11. March 30, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Chris, you ask that we focus our discussion on "issues." However, you seem only to wish to discuss "Issues" that you, unilaterally agree are issues worth discussing. You seem to dismiss, or simply ignore, or in some cases completely cannot grasp the significance of issues having to do with God, spirituality, meta-physics, and elements that you are not able to quantify. I think you miss entire portions of the equation and don't have the inclination to appreciate that which you don't understand. There's a saying I'm sure you've heard: "When a person's only tool is a hammer, he tends to treat everything as if it were a nail."Chris, there are subtle, invisible but highly significant issues for which you never seem to have brought adequate tools to deal with properly. The solution to all these problems we deal with here on this forum is a spiritual one, not a political one. That is the primary "issue."..

  12. March 30, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Would one of you people who constantly uses the term "mainstream media" or "MSM" please explain what parameters you use to define what constitutes the "Mainstream Media"? Would not Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity be "mainstream"? To me there was always the "mainstream" and the "underground." I always lumped network stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh in with the "mainstream." He and Beck, Hannity, etc. are certainly NOT "underground." To me they represent the epitome of the "mainstream/lame dream", consumer society. But now we have this classic double-speak where mainstream people like Rush Limbaugh act (and I mean act) like they are something other than mainstream corporate shills. So how does one define "mainstream media" without including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in it? I have honestly never heard any sort of lucid explanation for this..

  13. March 30, 2010 at 7:02 am

    As for George W. Bush appointing Condoleeza Rice to a position she was totally unqualified and horribly inept at, I'd say he was simply gettin as close as hje dared living out his "Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings" slave-holder fantasy. Not everyone who opposes Obama is doing so for racist reasons. But it cannot be plausibly denied that racism fuels at least some of the opposition. Obama is said the receive four times as many death threats as did George W. Bush. I would wager that at least some of those death threats arrive with clear racial overtones. Does anyone here honestly doubt that?..The tea party movement is not all about race, but it is partly fueled by reaction to the political ascendency of non-whites. America has grown to be comfortable with blacks rising to prominence as entertainers. It is less comfortable when blacks ascend as national political leaders…

  14. NO
    March 30, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Kathryn said: "Obama campaigned on healthcare reform"Obama did NOT campaign on health care reform. Do not try to reinvent history.Healthcare was a "talking point"…down at #7 on his list of 10 things.See? This is what "we" are talking about.

  15. March 30, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Chris,Did you attend your party's Karl Rove event over the weekend? Because that person has made a fortune demonizing people through smear campaigns. So has your local fearless leader, Tom Bordo. As a member of the Republican central committee, have you spoken out against smear tactics and whisper campaigns and called for more civility from your party?Please tell us.

  16. March 30, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    Notice that the Insurance companies have stayed out of this discussion completely. After all, they are the real winners in this Health care bill.Tom

  17. March 30, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Wise Guy: God and spirituality are highly personal topics that our government has no business governing (according to the First Amendment). Since I invariably address political issues, it is only logical that I do not address those aspects. Furthermore, since this is a public forum and I do not hide my identity, I’ll be damned if I’ll discuss my personal views about God, spirituality, etc.The terms “main stream media” and “MSM” are used for the sake of brevity. For most people, these terms are well known. But for the sake of convenience: “Major television networks and newspapers. Most mainstream media outlets are biased right or left but pretend to be neutral. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mainstream%20media ). That would apply to NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYT, the LA Times, CNN, etc. It would not apply to Fox because Fox, especially in its political commentary, does not “pretend to be neutral”.Jim Targon: I missed the Rove event because I was travelling. As far as internal discussion as a member of the Republican Central Committee is concerned, that is not something I post on this site or elsewhere.

  18. March 30, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    "Most mainstream media outlets are biased right or left but pretend to be neutral. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mainstream%20media )." ChrisWith all due respect, MSM may pretend to be neutral but they are all corporate owned and exist to perpetuate corporate control of our lives.Giving us the crumbs of a Maddow or Olbermann does not come near to negating the influence of the corporate controlled MSM.Interestingly, the corporate controlled MSM uses propaganda to control us all while convincing those on the right of a "liberal bias." I'm in awe of how effective the propaganda has been.Convincing the majority of people that there is real choice in the duopoly of the one corporate party within our inverted totalitarian system is a masterful achievement.http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/198901–.htmhttp://democracyreform.blogspot.com/2007/08/democracy-and-media-bias-by-fjordman.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_modelhttp://dlpfc.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-conservative-media-bias/

  19. March 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    If you do a simple Google images search of "racist signs tea party," a whole load pile up. Signs saying everything from calling Obama a "lyin' African" to saying Obama's plan is "white slavery" to calling for impeachment of "the Muslim Marxist" to signs comparing Obama to a monkey to signs that just flat out say "niggar." While overt racists at Tea Party rallies may be a small minority, they are nevertheless present.If the Tea Party movement is so against racism and the racists are so on the fringe of the movement, why have we never heard a single story of these racists getting booted from the rallies? Why have we never heard a single story of tensions between racists and non-racist Tea Party supporters at rallies? In the pictures we can easily see on Google, why do these racists holding these racist signs always seem to be among a crowd of approving Tea Party goers?I after 9/11 and during the first few years of the two wars, I seem to remember calls for Muslims and Muslim leaders to speak out against violence perpetrated in the name of Allah. I think its time the non-racist Tea Party supporters actually grow some balls and show their disapproval of racism at the rallies. Otherwise, we can only assume they're approving of their company

  20. March 30, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Chris, when I spoke of spirituality, I was talking about personal beliefs that may influence a person, like you or me, on issues of morality and integrity. For instance, you have made statements supportive of torture on this forum. I consider your attitude there abhorrent and misguided. Although there are quantifiable facts that can be drawn on to support my viewpoint (ie, how many people have died, how many confessions have been offered, etc.), , my viewpoint comes from a more fundamental reason that has to do with my view of life, death and the meaning and purpose of life. Those are BIG issues.Yet, those BIG issues are the ones that you continually ignore or dismiss, as you have once again in your newest reply. Chris, I have a hard time respecting most of your opinions because they seem to come from a person who doesn't seem to see or acknowledge the bigger picture. You rarely realize how much of your life has been influenced by self-imposed blinders.Fundamentally, every issue that has EVER been discussed on this forum is, bottom line, a SPIRITUAL issue. . If you dismiss that, all your victories or advances will be short lasting or illusory..

  21. March 30, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Izzy Award Winner Jeremy Scahill: "We're At a Ground Zero Moment to Save Real Journalism"The winner of the second annual Izzy Award, named after muckraking journalist I.F. Stone, discusses independent media and this critical moment in journalism. March 25, 2010 | Photo Credit: Troy Page / t r u t h o u t LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?Join our mailing list:Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email. Advertisement On March 24, 2010, the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, in Ithaca, NY announced that award-winning independent journalist Jeremy Scahill would receive the second annual "Izzy Award." The Izzy, which is named after the legendary muckraker I.F. Stone, celebrates outstanding achievement in independent media. Last year's winners were Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.http://www.alternet.org/world/146162/izzy_award_winner_jeremy_scahill:_

  22. NO
    March 30, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    What ever happen to political dissent? Oh yea, it's only a smoke screen to try to change the news cycle away from the fact that a vast majority still things Obamascare is a nightmare and the poll number for Obama have never been lower…Pelosi and Reid barely make double digits. So post away while the rest of Americana now has many many more sources for the news.The Supreme Court will decide this one..PS" Ever wonder why they picked tanning salons to bear the burden of a new middle class tax? I did and I thought it through. Think now…who doesn't use tanning beds? hahaha Told ya! That's racism through and through and right out of the white house!

  23. March 31, 2010 at 1:15 am

    If anyone is a racist on this blog, its Wrong Guy. He has said that Hitler would get 50% in an election in America. What a horrible thing to say about Democrats!He now says that GWB was living out a "Jefferson/Sally Hemming" fantasy of the master/slave role. That is utter and complete RACISM. So, was Clinton living out a 'master/slave' relationship fantasy when he appointed Ron Brown to be Labor Secretary? Is Obama living out the "black man with white woman" fantasy with Hillary Clinton? How many more stereotypes does your sick, twisted, little brain contain Wrong Guy.My God what a racist hypocrite you are, Wrong Guy. You are just wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels it isn't funny; its sad and pathetic. And you call yourself "an intellectual"? Hardly.

  24. March 31, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Big Tent, I don't recall ever referring to myself as an "intellectual" on this forum. But even if I am, I still can't follow your "logic" as you stretch the limits of rationality to accuse me of being a "racist." There is no valid logic to be found in your explanation. It's all simply an emotional outburst on your part. So why don't you tell me YOUR explanation as to why in the world George Bush would appoint Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and keep her in that position, when she was so pathetically ill-suited for the job as proven, time and again, by her horrible performance? Face it, it's no secret that George W. Bush is racked by some serious, deep seated emotional problems (which, interestingly, may have helped him appeal to Republicans who could see themselves in him.) By the way, tanning salons are a health hazard and will lead to many medical problems that will stress the health care system. It seems logical that a tax would be levied until laws are established that limit the amount of health problems they cause.Finally, let me reiterate my opinion that it is among the type of people attracted to the Republican Party and the Tea Party where an Adolph Hitler type would find his most ardent supporters. Who could honestly doubt this?

  25. March 31, 2010 at 5:33 am

    bull-shit. nothing to do with obama's skin color. Only people I see mentioning his color are Chris Matthews who momentarily forgot he was black, and Mr. Rich. Get a life.

  26. March 31, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Tent, Chris: Perhaps you are both right and I and everyone else has it all wrong; there are no racists in the Republican Party, the Tea Party demonstrators are just exercising their Constitutional right to free speech, and the rest of us are simply being too intolerant; yeah, that must be it. Tent, I am never disappointed in your comments, you always manage to out screed your previous comments. Chris, I am very willing to go back and forth with you on policy differences, and I thank you for your civility; I just cannot understand how anyone can be so attached to a viewpoint so that they are blinded by the obvious that everyone else can plainly see; link here to an article from 2002, simply because it was the very top hit when I googled "history of republican racism"; deny the inherent racism all you want, I'm sure I would if I were a Republican, but it is still there. A current Republican leader could make huge inroads into tamping down the violence that has been occurring, they could really strike a blow to the blatant racism that is displayed at almost every conservative rally or gathering (that the media covers) by strongly denouncing racism and violence in plain words that all could understand, but would most likely be voted out of office in their next election, if not recalled before that time, sadly. Like Frank Rich mentions at the end of his column that Dave used to start this thread, the Republicans are afraid to speak out against the more extreme elements of their base for fear of being "unelected", or worse. What does that tell you?

  27. March 31, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Wrong Guy, Condaleeza Rice is qualified to be Secretary of State. (btw, Hillary Clinton is? What the hell were her qualifications besides being Bill Clinton's "ball and chain" at the White House?)From wikipedia…"In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in President George H.W. Bush's administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush's and Secretary of State James Baker's policies in favor of German reunification. She impressed Bush, who later introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the one who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."[30]In 1991, Rice returned to her teaching position at Stanford, although she continued to serve as a consultant on the former Soviet Bloc for numerous clients in both the public and private sectors. Late that year, California Governor Pete Wilson appointed her to a bipartisan committee that had been formed to draw new state legislative and congressional districts in the state.In 1997, she sat on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military."There is more foreign policy experience before she was the GW Bush National Security Advisor than Hillary Clinton had in 8 years with Bill. That much is certain. Mistakes and misjudgements are one thing, but to say that she was inadequate or whatever is just wrong, Wrong Guy.

  28. March 31, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Chris Arend, liking to lecture about civility but then doing then doing the BIG DODGE when asked about his own local activities as republican operative working with his party boss Bordo (known for high ethics and classy campaigns).Hypocrites must either cover their mirrors or dwell in total delusion.Chris Arend is just a local part of the cult known as the Republican party.

  29. March 31, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    I am so tired of the argument being diverted to racism instead of what is actually happening to our country. It's the old let's distract them so they won't see what we're doing behind their backs. You might want to see real video of Tea Parties instead of what the MSM wants to show you. You might want to really see who is yelling hateful words instead of what the MSM shows you. If you open your eyes and ears you might just see which side are the true racists.

  30. March 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Part 1:Bob: You are making a habit of misunderstanding clear language in what I write. I don’t recall every having said that there are “no racists” in the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement. So let’s try it again, this time by the numbers:1. There are certainly some idiot racists in the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement, just as there are always a few nuts in mass organizations. The Democratic Party and the progressive movement are also not immune.2. It is completely wrong to condemn an entire organization because of a few nuts. Journalists who resort to such tactics are disgracing their profession (the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism).This argument is certainly not so nuanced that you can't follow. But you keep wanting to see things in – dare I say it – "black and white".The few nut cases, such as the people with posters characterizing Obama as Adolph Hitler, have nothing to do with the organizers of the Tea Party demonstrations or the organized members of the Republican Party. In fact, many of the most outlandish signs, such as the infamous poster showing Obama characterized as Hitler, are apparently the work of Lyndon Larouche cultists who show up whenever they can find a camera.I can assure you that I have not witnessed any racism since becoming active in the Republican Party five years ago. I was raised to abhor all racism, especially because we have a family history of suffering under racism, and I would never have any involvement with a racist organization.When the recent accusations came out about disparaging comments shouted toward congressmen many of the accusations now seem to have little or no basis in fact , Republican party leadership was quick to condemn them. See, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/tea-party-leader-condemns-racial-slurs-hurled-black-lawmakers/ . Of course, the MSM was mostly too preoccupied with their disgraceful propaganda campaign to report on this.I checked out the link you provided. Not much in the way of specifics that would justify condemning the entire Republican Party, namely none. Of course, the article was a Time/CNN hit piece on the Republican Party, so why get distracted with specifics. Now if you would like an historic perspective on the history of the Republican Party and whether or not it is a racist organization, check out the site: http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2007_05_30_archive.html . We look pretty good compared to the history of the Democratic Party.

  31. March 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Part 2:The left wing of the Democratic Party and a large portion of the MSM continue to play the lame old, same old by trying to smear the conservative movement as a bunch of knuckle dragging racists. This is the standard propaganda technique of whipping up emotions in an attempt to distract attention from the real issues. It doesn't seem to be working. In fact, a hell-of-lot of people are sick and tired of being insulted, and they are showing this by turning away from the MSM (ouch, but those ratings must hurt, see, http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news or http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/03/31/cnn-ratings-plunge-network-clings-self-proclaimed-center-strategy ).This November voters will turn in droves away from the Democratic Party. You have doubts? Just look at the following rant from a childhood friend who has always been a died-in-the wool Democrat."Hooray for health care reform-if I can't afford the policy, I get fined by the IRS. If I can't afford the fine, I go to prison-where I get FREE health care (and room & board too)! Ho Hah & Hooray for the black Jesus! He has delivered us from thinking. Wow, I'm starting to sound like a conservative. OMG! You know, I'm actually watching more Fox & less CNN & no MSNBC. Just give me the damn news-I've already GOT the views. So, are you still on the dial? The radio dial, that is. If so, Email the coordinates, please, as my new Dell is good for that stuff and I'm one pissed off bastard these days. And this from a guy as liberal as you could get! I thought bipartisan meant both parties. If that's true, then the only bipartisan part of health care reform was the opposition to it. Down with Pelosi, Feinstein & Boxer (I'll add our girl, Woolsey too). 210 years of experience among them. Like they say at Goodyear, it's time to retire, babes."

  32. March 31, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Downtown Bob is completely correct.I did not vote for John McCain, though I always have respected him. And my esteem for him rose doubly so in the "town hall" meeting during the campaign when the woman said, "I can't trust Obama. He's an Arab." Do you remember this? And McCain gently said words to this effect: "No, ma'am, he's not. He's not. He's a decent family man and a citizen with whom I disagree on fundamental issues." And, as you may recall, McCain was booed by his supporters at that point.Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and others have had every opportunity to denounce the hate talk and inflammatory language, but even when they do, it is a denunciation with asterisks, with "buts." "It is wrong to throw bricks, BUT I understand the anger that's out there." "It's wrong to fly an airplane into an IRS building, killing an employee, BUT there is a lot of anger toward our government." No, just stop at the "It's wrong."Henrik Ibsen, in "An Enemy of the People," spoke to this issue: It is easier to go along with the chanting masses than to take a stand in opposition. "…the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone," said Ibsen's main character. Remember when Michael Steele criticized Rush Limbaugh? Oops. He immediately back-tracked and apologized. And where are the decent Republicans, the guys like my father who would not have voted for Barack Obama but who would cringe at the likes of Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann or Glenn Beck or the rest of the marginally sane spokesmen of the GOP?Do they dare speak up? No, not if they do not want to go the way of Christine Todd Whitman, or Lincoln Chafee or the other decent folks who really did want it to be–may I say it?–a Big Tent party….When you give it over to the Tea Party crowd–and let's not pretend that many of their number would not be uncomfortable in white sheets and pointy hats–you give away the remaining great traditions of your grand old party.

  33. March 31, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    One good thing about President Obama: he was the icing on the icing on the cake as far as exposing once and for all that the Dims are absolutely no better than the Repugs on most every level. The escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a continuation of "Bush's bankster bailout", vocal support of nuclear power, off shore drilling, (as well as many other insidious policies) serve to remind that it's business as usual with profit for the power elite at the expense of everyone else the highest priority. Dims facilitate profit and death same as the Republicans (Vietnam, CIA, Iraq, military contracting, financial "industry", etc.). More will choose 3rd party candidates, including tea party types (given the sheer stupidity of useful idiots). People of conscience will migrate to the Green Party (Or other enlightened groups to come) while the Repugs will continue to follow their leaders in a race to the bottom, It's what they do.Obama is merely the latest face of the duopoly which is the corporate party. Dims are barely feigning to do that which they used to do covertly and which the Repugs have always done overtly. The results are the same. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, nary a gnats ass difference between them as far as results go.Still, the powers that be use the MSM to perpetuate the hate and fear between the two parties. Such distractions serve power well.

  34. March 31, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Regarding Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: Does ANYONE care to tell us what they think was her greatest accomplishment as Secretary of State? Am I correct to assume she did accomplish something relevant to her job description? Posting her resume, or linking to her school year book doesn't count. What do YOU think was Rice's GREATEST accomplishment?

  35. March 31, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Liam, you are so very right on. You got me to thinking of MY father, who went from Democrat to Republican to vote for Ronald Reagan. No way would he have voted for Obama, but if Obama had become President in his lifetime, he would have perhaps adjusted some of his investment strategies and moved on. But if he had lived long enough to witness all this sickening Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, Savage, Ann Coulter, Beck, Fox news stuff —not to mention the shipwreck scam that "Reaganomics" turned out to be because of the crooks that controlled Wall Street—he likely would have shed a tear for America and wondered what the hell had happened to the United States since the days he was an enlisted man in the Navy in WW II. If Obama had won, he might have bought some gold to protect himself from inflation. If McCain and Palin had won, to say the least, he would have been disheartened to see what fools "Republicans" could be and how the party was nothing short of a front for organized corporate crimes and atrocities and enriching the greediest, most Godless men and women in the world. He would have realized he had been a chump for voting for Ronald Reagan or showing respect to Richard Nixon. I am thankful he did not live long enough to experience the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party and the brainwashed masses who could not see through Rush Limbaugh. But I would have loved seeing him show his grudging respect for the remarkable courage, grace and leadership of Barack Obama. .And I would undoubtedly, perhaps gently, given him an "I told you so" regarding "Reaganomics"..

  36. March 31, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    "Women in general are treated far, far better in America than in almost every other place in the world."Wow, thanks for the laugh BTR. In general, women in America are treated as sex objects. Just watch one hour of primetime television for proof. Shows about rape and domestic abuse against women (with graphic depictions of both) are sandwiched in between commercials showing digitally enhanced female models which lead the young women of this country to chase an idea of beauty which is inherently false. And which inherently cause eating disorders, depression, anxiety and much worse among the women of America. Men, too, are taught that women on television and in magazines are the epitome of beauty, when in fact, the beauty is the result of photoshopping, hours of makeup and thousands of dollars worth of lighting. Men then unsuccessfully chase this false ideal of beauty, which also leads to a myriad of social problems for both men and women.If women in America are treated so well, why then do the top 10 most well-paid male CEOs make 2 to 3 times as much as the top 10 most well-paid female CEOs?If women in America are so equal to the men, why have we never elected a female president, when so many other countries around the world have done so?BTR, you've been duped. While it may appear on the surface that women in the USA are fairly equal to men, if you dig just a little deeper you'll find that's far from the truth. True, we don't abort female babies like China has done. And it's true that mercy killings don't exist here like they do in some sections of the Middle East. But that in no way means America is a haven for female equality.I could also provide a list of things that other countries do better than America. But you're so blinded to different points of view, it's not even worth my time to do so. (Months ago, I posted a long list of other countries whose health care systems are more efficient, and whose citizens are measurably more healthy, than America's. But you responded with some sort of rambling diatribe against socialism that I'm sure you'd just regurgitate again.)DO NOT misinterpret my words to mean that I don't love and appreciate this country to the fullest. I love this country and the ideals it was founded upon. But to think that we are "better" than all other countries is hubris on a grand scale. And if you've read "King Lear," you know the road that hubris leads to.PS. Here is a list of countries that extended the right to vote to women BEFORE the United States did so in 1920. United Kingdom, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Ireland, Iceland, Hungary, Germany, Georgia, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Belarus, Austria and Australia.

  37. NO
    March 31, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Condoleeza Rice's biggest accomplishment was when she changed her political affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1982 after growing averse to former President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy.She cites influence from her father, John Wesley, in this decision, who himself switched from Democrat to Republican after being denied voting registration by the Democratic registrar. In her words to the 2000 Republican National Convention, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did."Any other questions unwise guy? Man! Did you walk into that train…lol

  38. April 1, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Let's get this straight: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Fox news is every bit as much a part of the "mainstream media" (MSM) as is the New York Times, CBS or NBC.I haven't heard one single coherent definition of "mainstream media" from any "conservative" who posts here. Rush Limbaugh is a greedy, selfish, vicious multi-millionaire who lives off corporate tit and shills for the interests of big business and is employed by a major conservative corporation. Since when is this not "mainstream"? Or has mainstream America gotten so liberal or progessive that corporate whores are considered radical or socially unacceptable or fringe? I only wish!..

  39. April 1, 2010 at 5:24 am

    So women are not treated better here than other parts of the world NOW, because there were 22 countries that gave women the vote before we did in 1920.By the way, the countries of Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Estonia, and Georgia didn't exist as separate nations after 1921. So the women of those countries might have enjoyed sufferage before us, but after 1921, they were not free to choose their own candidates, vote for an opposition candidate or even choose not to vote for the Communist on the ballot. Hollow point if there ever was one. The pop culture of television and modeling are NOT a reflection of the attitudes of average men and women in America. Those people in those magazines or television shows are charactures of real people. In real life, women as thin as models are usually in treatment for some eating disorder. If you don't realize that photoshoping occurs then you are one gulible moron. You would probably think that the girl on the other end of that 1-900 number you're talking to is really hot, bothered and in love with you. They are not 'real' people in that it is an image not who or what they really are. This is all to say that treatment of women in America is still, despite your weak ass argument, far far better here than 90% of other places on earth. You acknowledge the lack of honor killings and the lower numbers of babies aborted because they are female with the same "yeah but" that your compatriots here deride the Tea Party and Republicans for the radicals in their midst.Dude, just man-up and admit it, America is a greater force for good in the world than any other nation.Just accept that fact and your life will be much easier without all the liberal guilt over being number 1 at something.

  40. April 1, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Chris: I did not "misunderstand" your previous comment, and I don't think that I inferred that all Republicans are racists. Nor do I believe that all Republican groups, or backers or individual politicians are racists; my assertion is that the bulk of the national Republican Party does use the "Southern Strategy", using a subliminal racism that utilizes certain "code" words or phrases to give a little wink and nod to those who do harbor either a little latent racism, as well as to those who are outright proud of their racism. I can believe that you have not witnessed any examples of blatant racism in your association with local Republican groups, but there could have been some very subtle signs that you may have not recognized, or very likely you are absolutely correct in what you have and/or haven't seen. I mean after all, we are in California, not Georgia or Kentucky or or or …As to your link about the racist history of the Democratic Party, pretty damn ugly stuff. I was born in 1953, my first vote for President was for George McGovern in 1972; I was not real involved in politics until 2002 or so, and I never really studied the history of either political party. I did know some of the story that was told in your link (which by the way, your link was partially broken; I got to the site, but not directly to the article), but I did not know all of what was reported, and I have no doubts that everything reported was factually correct. I did understand that the Democratic Party was really bad concerning racism, that there were many politicians that were blatant racists (George Wallace, who changed parties when being a Democrat didn't work for him, for example), but how is it possible that for all of the progressive ideals accomplished by earlier Republicans on the issue of race, your party has apparently flipped its position so completely? Yes, there is racism in our country, in all walks of life, in both political parties, but it is still the Republicans that have the attraction for those racists in our country who have not moved on and cling to the wrong headed notion that the White man is somehow "entitled" to something more, something better. Now, how am I wrong in making this assertion?

  41. NO
    April 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Black Tea Partier Author Kevin Jackson Refutes Racism Charges Jackson slams those that claim Tea Party is all-white movement, and has invited them to attend a Tea party Rally.(Aren't facts a bitch for you on the far left that prove America is NOT the way you need it to be so you can attack her?)Now I dare you…call this man an "Uncle Tom"…I dare you.

  42. April 1, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Bob: Sorry about the link. I still have to learn how to embed links properly. Hopefully the references below are complete.The problem with the position you have taken in this string, as well as in the position taken by many on the left who accuse the Republican Party of being racist, is that you violate two rules of logic.Firstly, you make two assertions of fact and then ask me at the end of your entry to tell you how you are wrong. That is asking me to prove a negative. You are using the so-called argumentum ad ingorantium (see, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html ).Secondly, the use of a few specific examples to prove a general proposition is not possible in formal logic. Such an approach is inductive reasoning (good brief description in "Wikipedia" under "Inductive Reasoning") and certainly has its use, especially in the scientific method. But the completely insignificant body of assertions used to support the disgraceful accusations made by Frank Rich and his ilk (a few, in the meantime very dubious, stories about supposedly shouted racial insults and one person spitting) hardly qualifies as an application of the scientific method.You accuse the Republican Party of "using a subliminal racism that utilizes certain "code" words or phrases to give a little wink and nod" in a "Southern Strategy". The technique must be subliminal, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What code words or phrases? What winks and nods? Have you seen any papers about a Republican "Southern Strategy" which is supposed to appeal to open or latent (closet?) racists? I sure haven't.At the end of your entry you write: "[I]it is still the Republicans that have the attraction for those racists in our country who have not moved on and cling to the wrong headed notion that the White man is somehow "entitled" to something more, something better." Again, what the hell are you talking about? Do you have polling numbers saying, for example, that 60% of racists prefer the Republicans compared to only 20% who favor the Democrats with the remaining 20% undecided? Perhaps some exit polls? (Just imagine: "Excuse me sir. I see you have just voted. Are you a racist? Who did you vote for?"). Just for fun, I googled "Who do racists vote for?" It seems that most of the recent discussion involved the Democratic 2008 primary and whether the Clinton campaign was playing the race card ( http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/318011 ).Bob: Where is the factual basis for either allegation? If you have none, then perhaps you should no longer be asking where you are wrong. I just explained it to you. Instead, you should ask why you have swallowed Frank Rich (or Joseph Goebbels!) style propaganda, which only plays on emotions and detracts from rational discourse, hook line and sinker.

  43. April 1, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    "Dude, just man-up and admit it, America is a greater force for good in the world than any other nation." BTRRight.1.2 million Iraqis have died so far in an illegal war and no tears were shed by America. 4-5 million Iraqis are now homeless refugees and have become part of the largest diaspora….ever, but nothing on MSM calls for empathy and sympathy for those poor souls.But then again, 4.5 million Vietnamese were slaughtered in America's quest for communist free South East Asia, and the only pity there went to the American soldiers who were trying to fit back in, if any. Even though John McCain knowingly led 23 A-4 Sky hawk squadron bombing missions over innocent civilian targets in that Vietnam War – thereby killing more innocent civilians than all Al Qaeda attacks put together – the neocons marched this nitwit up like a hero and America bought it and still does.After Sukarno was overthrown in 1967 with CIA tutoring, a million Indonesians(Muslims all of them) were slaughtered while the USA stood by.The 1955 overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran, the 1956 overthrow of Guzman in Guatemala, and the 1973 overthrow of Allende in Chile resulted in tens of thousands of 'leftist' innocent civilian lives lost, but who in American MSM ever even brought this to front page news? Ah heck, they were all commies anyway. Why pity them – they didn't have mothers did they?And don't get me started on Palestine and our latest pseudo shot across the bow of Israeli oppression.The innocent men, women, and CHILDREN killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan for increased corporate profit will haunt America for ever.Or the other 17 nations we subverted and either invaded directly or sponsored the overthrow of same. Or the SOA, where torture and overthrow 101 continues to be taught daily at the whims of empire and oligarchy.Or the crimes against our own citizenry which are becoming more brazen everyday…America, in its current state exists to enrich the few on the backs of the many, and fools like you continue to cheer for programs and issues which go against your own economic and social best interests. Incredible.

  44. April 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    When 'We the People' Lost America by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyWe have forgotten what it was like in this country during the Reagan administration. A great reminder may be found in the words of E.L. Doctorow, writing in 1989, who summed up the legacy left to Bill Clinton by the conservative administrations of Ronald Reagan/Bush: "The philosophical conservative is someone willing to pay the price of other people's suffering for his principles. And so we now have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of our citizens lying around the streets of our cities, sleeping in doorways, begging with styrofoam cups. We didn't have a class of permanent beggars in this country, the United States of America, fifteen or twenty years ago. We didn't have kids selling crack in their grade schools, or businessmen magnifying their fortunes into mega-fortunes by stock manipulation and thievery. I don't remember such epidemics of major corporate fraud. A decade ago you did not have college students scrawling racial epithets or anti-semitic graffiti on the room doors of their fellow students…So something poisonous has been set loose in the last several years as we have enjoyed life under the power and principles of political conservatism. …part of this poisonous thing that I'm trying to describe is its characteristic way of dealing with criticism: it used to be enough brand a critic as a radical or a leftist to make people turn away. Now we need only to call him a liberal. Soon "moderate" will be the M word, "conservative" the C word, and only fascists will be in the mainstream. And that degradation of discourse, that, too, is part of this something that is really rotten in America right now." –E. L. DoctorowDoctorow continues to describe the change in America during the Reagan/Bush years: "…we have seen a national regression to the robber-baronial thinking of the nineteenth century. This amounts to nothing less than a deconstruction of America, the dismantling of enlightened social legislation that had begun to bring equity over half a century to the lives of working people, to rectify some of the terrible imbalance of racial injustice and give a fair shake to the outsiders, the underdogs, the newcomers. We have seen the ideals of environmental sanctity sacrificed to the demands of business thinking in which we have done only as much to protect our environment as industry has found convenient, as if only a few songbirds and some poor dumb animals were at stake, as if the bleeding hearts of woodsy environmentalists were the issue, and not our lungs and skins and genes, and the wholeness and health of our children and their children."The SCOTUS decision was and remains disingenuous, dishonest, blatantly contemptuous of the Constitution, disdainful of Democracy itself. I believe, therefore that the corporate special interest system is not merely unconstitutional on its face, it's affirmation by SCOTUS represents a coup d'etat which made official the fact that the U.S. is no longer a Democratic Republic but a fascist oligopoly whose raison d'etre is the waging of war. Worse –death and destruction are the only exports in which we lead the world.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-we-people-lost-america.html

  45. April 1, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Now I remember why I don't bother trying to debate BTR. Besides being totally classless ("abortion of a health care bill," "lispy Barney Frank," and "weak-ass argument" are but a fraction of the linguistic poetry he vomits onto this blog everyday), he can't form a cogent argument.For example, he says America is the best country on the planet, better than all the rest, saviors of the world. But then in his next breath, he says women in America are treated better than in 90% of other countries. So, which is it BTR? Are we #1? Or do 10% of the countries on earth have us beat when it comes to women's rights?I'm fully expecting a rage-filled response from BTR that ignores the cogent points of pay disparity and the fact that America has never elected a female president while other countries around the world have done so. And with that, I'll go back to being a lurker here because it's pointless trying to debate someone with no critical thinking skills.BTW, don't know what the hell you mean by "liberal guilt." I don't feel guilty, but I do feel a need to help out my fellow man and woman when they need help. I'm reminded of a quote from Anais Nin: "We see the world as we are, not as it is."So, what are you feeling guilty for, BTR?

  46. April 1, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Chris Arend said: "It is completely wrong to condemn an entire organization because of a few nuts."I agree that an entire organization should not be condemned because of the actions of just a few of its members. However, when overtly racist signs are allowed to be carried through the crowds at Tea Party rallies with no noticeable objection from their fellow Tea Baggers, what interpretation of the Tea Party's position on racism would be correct? Are we supposed to conclude that Tea Baggers are courageous enough to take on the Federal Government, but are too cowardly to get in the face of a single racist? Are we to think Tea Baggers are brave enough to tell the President to leave the White House, but too timid to tell a single person carrying a blatantly racist sign to leave the rally? Or, are we to conclude the Tea Party movement so morally bankrupt that it is willing to sink to any level to succeed, even if that means allowing its members to stoke the flames of racism? (And, the fact that, while on television interviews, Tea Party members and leaders voice disapproval racism means very little if, when actually confronted with racism, they do nothing.)The Tea Party has some legitimate, albeit misplaced, objections with respect to taxation and spending. However, it seems obvious to me that failing to reject these racists at their rallies only damages the integrity of their movement and pushes them further from their goal(s).

  47. April 2, 2010 at 12:45 am

    "Now I remember why I don't bother trying to debate BTR. Besides being totally classless ("abortion of a health care bill," "lispy Barney Frank," and "weak-ass argument" are but a fraction of the linguistic poetry he vomits onto this blog everyday), he can't form a cogent argument." LPISBingo. I've been saying much the same thing. It is simply not worth the effort to continually prove every one of his points as right wing fallacy.

  48. April 2, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    47% – 39% Republicans are favored in the generic congressional ballot by Independent voters…ouch!76.5% disapprove of congress…lowest rate so far.73% disapprove of Obama's health care power grab and redistribution of wealth bill.Obama spends 67% of his time out of the white house.John McCain is only up by 3% in the Arizona Senate race. He, like Harry Reid, are going to be thrown to the curb.A grassroots movement is underfoot to NOT donate to the RNC but rather donate directly to the candidates that support your positions and policies.We are taking back our country from Obamunnism and greedy, cocky power freaks in Congress.Not a good year to be a progressive.

  49. April 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    "Not a good year to be a progressive." NDLThe tripe and trope you wrote notwithstanding, nothing that you wrote has any connection with progressives, nothing.

  50. April 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    The connection, which you so perfectly stepped right in, is to get you deny that it has nothing to do with you and your fellow progressives…thank you for making my point.It's like asking a 5 year old "who broke thew window?"…his knee jerk reaction, like yours, is to say "Not me!"…well as you can see he is feeling guilty about something as he answered a question I didn't ask.It is very likely Conservatives will pick up 9 seats in the Senate and 45 seats in the house. We will then repeal ObamaScare and reel in his radical spending and put America back on track and Americans back to work. Those looking for a hand out better get ticket to Europe. If you are a tax supported employee you'd better activate your resume'. If you are an "EnviroStatist" you'd better get your Birkenstock and fill your Volvo. If you are a no-growther you'd better step aside or be rolled over by a Caterpillar D-9. If you work at GM…you will get what you deserve. If you belong to a Union I suggest you get humble. Your days of bankrupting companies is over. If you are a state employee you'd better plant a garden your pension will only be in history books."The times they are a changin…"BD

  51. April 2, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    NDL, more tripe and trope.Seriously, in all of SLO County (Or Arizona for that matter) there must be an intelligent conservative somewhere, somehow.The really funny part is that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and even I can see through the absurdity of these infantile comments. Republican politicians have admitted that this sham of a Republican health care bill can't and won't be repealed, no way, no how. What, didn't you receive the latest right wing TPM?It should be understood (By all with the ability to understand) that what the Democratic politicians have been engaging in has nothing to do with progressivism. (Which is, as horrid as it sounds,…to progress.)

  52. April 2, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Winston: Don't waste your breath, sir. No More Lies is No is Jerry from Arizona. We all know it.

  53. April 2, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Jerry quotes Bob Dylan!! How ironic is that? A paranoid neo-con quoting one of the most liberal, socialist and progressive songwriters in American history. Classic.

  54. April 2, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    For the record, I will once again point out that Jerry from AZ, in all his guises, has an impressive record for making totally inaccurate predictions, time and again. I simply have a hard time fathoming how someone can go on the record time and again, makeing bold predictions that NEVER pan out, and then continue to come here and act so arrogant, never admit a mistake, and continue to make more predictions, seemingly without shame. I would think that sooner or later t he guy would add up his score (zero) and re-evaluate his entire way of thinking. This was the guy who moved from California (perhaps run out of the state) bragging that the Arizona economy—and the housing market in particular there— was so far superior to California's.This was the guy that predicted that Barrack Obama had no chance against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, and then when he got skunked on that one, he boldly predicted that Obama would be decimated by the Republican candidate in November. And that's just the beginning of his long list of in-your-face conservative rah-rah predictions that could not have been more wrong. Can't this guy get some sort of a hint? Does he even have a clue of how he comes off here? Not even the "conservatives" here seem to have the stomach to try to defend him.If these conservative "missives" had been coming from anyone else, I would have figured they were some sort of a joke or prank. But Jerry, I know, is, as he would put it "serious as a heart attack" with this maniacal, seemingly insane obsession. Jerry, seriously, I don't hate you. Look in the mirror. Go read your old postings at a sober moment and for just a second consider if perhaps, just maybe, you've gone off the deep end to the point that it seems it will only get uglier and end very badly if something doesn't change. You are accomplishing NOTHING positive on this forum, especially when it comes to yourself. This is a very sad and pathetic and potentially dark and disturbing situation. If you have any friend ask them to read your posting over the past couple years and ask them for a 100% honest opinion about your mental health. And try to realize that people want to help you.

  55. April 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Thanks for the tip guys, I can be so naive. Sorry I took the bait.

  56. April 4, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Even by President Obama's loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package."We are over-taxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.Obama started out feisty. "Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, "F-Map"). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as "FICA").Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. "Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance," he said.A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. "Number two, you don't know who might end up being in that situation," he said, then carried on explaining further still."Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you've got health insurance you don't always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you're not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what's happening is, is you're going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you're covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it," Obama continued, winding on with the answer.Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.But Obama wasn't finished. He had a "final point," before starting again with another list — of three points."What we said is, number one, we'll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage," he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren't being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday's event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. "Boy, that was a long answer. I'm sorry," he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.But, he said: "I hope I answered your question."

  57. April 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Dear "Mr. 17 minutes", I can see a good reason for President Obama to spend a fair amount of time and effort to try to explain his policies and reasoning, but I can't see the purpose in all the time and effort you have taken to try to recap what he said. I don't get it.Is this another classic example of the "conservatives" trying desperately to make some sort of controversy where there is none? If the "conservatives" would put half as much time in trying to do something positive and productive with their words, our nation would be a whole lot better off. President Obama, although not nearly progressive enough for my taste, is doing fine and, although the competition has not been great, remains the greatest president of my lifetime. And he's just getting warmed up.

  58. April 5, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/jobs_chart_march_b9d2f_0.jpgThis sort of says it all. Comments from the Anti-Obama Throng are most welcome.

  59. April 6, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Wise Guy I love the cerebral slapping you give Fat Bastard on this link. You make a good point about everything he has been wrong about in the last few years. Please allow me to add just a few more things he has been wrong about in the recent past.1. Bush can cut taxes and balance the budget.2. Privatizing social security is a good idea.3. We don't torture prisioners4. Picking Sarah Palin to be his running mate is a brilliant political move by McCain.5. Fred Thompson/Rudy Giuliani/Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 20086. Clinton is making a big mistake involving our military in the Balkin conflict.7. Clinton should not have tried to kill Bin Laden because he was only trying to "wag the dog".(Fat Jerry joined Fat Limbaugh in gleefully cheering "no war for Monica" when they took the side of Al-Queda when a Democratic President tried to kill Bin Laden with cruise missles)8. Clinton Tax increases will cause a recession and doom our economy.9. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction10 We can continue to fight the war in Afganistan and search for Bin Laden and still invade Iraq11. The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators12. the war in Iraq will pay for itself with oil revenues13. The war in Iraq will weaken Iran14. Rumbsfeld is doing a great job in Iraq, we have to just "stay the course"15. quote circa 2006 just before mid-term elections where Republican candidates got their asses kicked- "we have the best economy in history"16. KVEC is going to fire Congalton "any day now". The Corpulant blow-hard now living in Arizona, stupidly pushed all these crazy ideas that history has proven to be wrong. I wonder if it is ignorance, shamelessness or stubborness that causes someone who has been so wrong for so long to still go on public forums and expose his stupidity with the world.

  60. April 6, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    "The Tea Partiers are marching "without robes and hoods," inspired by George Wallace, and that the health care protests on Capital Hill were—guess what?—on the "verge of Kristallnacht."

  61. April 7, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Sound Familiar you liberal racists?ALBANY, N.Y. AP – They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president."I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government."Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say."You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it.Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue.""It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election—and their distaste for his policies—with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

  62. April 7, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Thank you "Elvis or Al Gore"! Adding up Jerry's B.S. is like counting sand on a beach. But that's some good reading, and now I can skip reading New Tone's latest b.s. he's shoveling. "Elvis or Algore", I nominate you for blogger of the week crown on this entry alone.What do you have to say for yourself, Jerry! Honesty or spin or total b.s.? Man-up..

  63. April 8, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Chris: Sorry that it has taken me so long to reply to your last comment, but here goes, you stated: "You accuse the Republican Party of "using a subliminal racism that utilizes certain "code" words or phrases to give a little wink and nod" in a "Southern Strategy". The technique must be subliminal, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What code words or phrases? What winks and nods? Have you seen any papers about a Republican "Southern Strategy" which is supposed to appeal to open or latent (closet?) racists? I sure haven't." Okay, you want some information, The Southern Strategy defined via wikipedia, with attributes to the Nixon Administration. Link here to a report about the Republican Party head (at the time) admitting that using the "Southern Strategy" was wrong. You also stated: "At the end of your entry you write: "[I]it is still the Republicans that have the attraction for those racists in our country who have not moved on and cling to the wrong headed notion that the White man is somehow "entitled" to something more, something better." Again, what the hell are you talking about? Do you have polling numbers saying, for example, that 60% of racists prefer the Republicans compared to only 20% who favor the Democrats with the remaining 20% undecided? " Link here to, gasp!, a Gallup poll about race and the Republican Party.And then you ended your last comment with this little gem: " Just for fun, I googled "Who do racists vote for?" It seems that most of the recent discussion involved the Democratic 2008 primary and whether the Clinton campaign was playing the race card"; only problem? I followed your lead and "googled" who do racists vote for?- now, I can't say for sure that you got exactly the same results I got, but when I did it, the very first result that came up was (surprise!) "McCain has the racist vote?" by RealClearPolitics at Time Magazine, followed by "If racism is voting for someone because of skin color I think the answer is pretty obvious", this link going to Answers at Yahoo, and then the third hit is the one you linked to about the Hillary Clinton campaign. Link here to the hits I got. It seems to me that you where not being "completely honest" in how you answered your own question. Projection, maybe? Look, I don't doubt that you are a nice person, that you don't have racially motivated ideas or ideals, that you go out of your way to not allow any semblance of any racial intolerance to be expressed in your presence, but if you want to continue to believe that the Republican Party has not ever used racially motivated ideals as a means of garnering votes from white people, then you are guilty of "ostrich syndrome" yourself. Read the links I have provided and tell me with a straight face that somehow I have it all wrong. Your link about how bad the Democrats have been in the past was an eye opener for sure, but please stop living in denial about what is an apparent "truth" about the political party you belong to as well.

  64. April 10, 2010 at 2:51 am

    From the huffPo:The fact remains that there is a “Hillary hole,” with women wanting their turn, while people hunger for something radically different, which is currently being filled by the Tea Party, a star named Sarah and her fans. Not surprisingly, as poll after poll on her rolls out, the narrative on Sarah Palin continues to be filled out unfairly. I know, you’re shocked. But love her or hate her, whether she runs in 2012 or not, when you look at the left, the reality is there’s no anti-Palin progressive who matches what Palin’s got.Mrs. Palin’s politics aren’t for me, and though I pine to see hot headliners from the left, instead we get the likes of Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama blue dog duds, with no women of any wattage in sight.

  65. April 10, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Michelle Obama for President, 2016! (It's obvious she could kick Palin's butt, physically, intellectually and morally, with one hand, literally or physically, tied behind her back. Palin is just another typical, modern day Republican puppet put forth to do the bidding for the interests of people who she doesn't even know and who count her as another fool tool to help pull the wool over the eyes of people. First it was Ronald Reagan, then George Bush, now Palin. The quality continues to diminish..Sarah Palin is a joke, but some people just don't get it, just the way some people think Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were assets to our nation, when in reality they set the U.S. on a course for disaster and contributed mightily to death and suffering here and abroad..

  66. April 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Part 1:Bob: Again, you seem to intentionally misunderstand me when you suggest that I have an “ostrich syndrome”. I am not so foolish as to believe that there have never been racists in the Republican Party or that race has never played a role in political strategy, be it with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. But just as I do not condemn modern Germany and its citizens for the rabid racism that existed here under the Nazis and can still be occasionally found here, especially in the territory of former East Germany (I am currently visiting in Germany), I do not condemn the current American political parties for past transgressions.You mention the “Southern Strategy” of the Republican Party that played a role especially in the 1960sand 1970’s, which was an attempt to take advantage of the cultural upheaval in the South to break the solid Democratic hold on that part of the country. The strategy was by no means just a simple play for racist sympathies, as is clear from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you linked to:“In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition among the once segregationist South to the cultural upheaval of New Left, Vietnam protests, the hippie culture, gun control, abortion and to desegregation and the Civil Rights and Women's movements.”The “Southern Strategy” is now history. Furthermore, it pales in comparison to the racist history of the Democratic Party, as you have seen from the link I provided.The Gallup poll you referred to was completely off point. It says absolutely nothing about racism; rather it only deals with racial demographics and the fact that conservative voters are more likely to be whites than black or Hispanic. Just as it would be stupid to argue that liberal voters tend to be black racists or Hispanic racists because blacks and Hispanics predominantly voted Democratic in the last election, it is stupid to argue that conservative voters tend to be white racists. The reasons for the different ethnic make-up between Democratic and Republican voters are much more complex than that.

  67. April 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Part 2:The link to the article in RealPolitics was a real gem. In the first place, the title was a question and not an assertion. Secondly, the article was a brief interview with Obama’s campaign manager in the primaries. When asked whether race would be a concern in the general election, David Plouffe responded: “We really don't think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.” This was during the primary season, and the context was whether such voters might, however, vote for Hillary. Mr. Pouffe’s statement was also just a quick response without any underlying demographic data about how racists vote. By-the-way, just look what happens when you move the word “not” to another location in the sentence: “We really don't think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly not in John McCain's camp already.” Get it? The obvious fact is that a white racist would probably vote for McCain, while a black racist would probably vote for Obama. I believe the slang expression about this self evident statement is “Well, Duh!!”Bob, after checking your links, you still have no empirical basis for your allegations (see, my previous entry). Without such a foundation, any attempt to cast the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement as racist organizations is just cheap propaganda.The starting point in this string was the Frank Rich article which tried to smear all Republicans and especially the Tea Party with the alleged acts of a few idiots. Again, that is the same tactic the Nazi propagandists under Joseph Goebbels used to trigger the Reichskristallnacht in 1938. The technique is despicable. Mr. Rich and the editorial board of the New York Times should know better than to publish such crap!

  68. April 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Any way you slice it, Chris, the Republican Party is a mess, corrupted beyond all repair. Not all members are crooks. Many are well-meaning. But the Republican Party was co-opted long ago and serves the interests of the biggest, most morally bankrupt crooks and scoundrels the world has ever known. It is the party of death and suffering, which it spreads like a virus. Your average well-meaning Republican is nothing more than a brain-washed pawn to be manipulated to feed the rich at the expense of the average man and woman. If you want trace the virus, you need to start studying the life and career of Allen Dulles and you will start to uncover clues. But first, Chris, you need to take your blinders off, have some courage, and let go of your ego that you've invested so heavily in the lie that is at the heart and soul of the contemporary Republican Party. The virus that allowed Richard Nixon to become president has not died off. Talk to Karl Rove, one of Nixon's henchmen, to get another clue..All your over-dramatic indignation doesn't change anything..

  69. April 11, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Chris: "There are none so blind as those who will not see" You opened my eyes as to the true history of racism in the Democratic Party with one simple link, which I accepted at face value. I have attempted to introduce to you some evidence that the Republican Party has used racism as a means of garnering votes from white people who feel they are being persecuted for being white. The political structure being what it is today, both political parties use the media to their advantage when they can, and both attempt to have the media paint the the opposition in a bad light if they can. I understand that you will defend the Republican Party with all of your might, but to simply dismiss all evidence to the contrary that the Republican Party has used, and continues to use racism as a means of appealing to white voters is delusional. To recap, I accept that you will deny that the Republican Party uses racism, I understand that unless you had presented to you, concrete proof, like a hand written note in the hand of Richard Nixon, or a verbal admittance from George H.W. Bush, or someone very high up in the operation of the Republican Party, like Karl Rove or Grover Norquist admitting that racism is a tool that is used over and over again, with the intent of preying upon the fear of the unknown or the fear of "something different" for people who feel that "government is out of control", that there is "too much taxation", all of which is used as a means of misdirecting the reality of what is actually happening. The Republican Party, as a national entity, has one reason for existing, to regain control of the federal government. The reason for that goal is to continue on what was happening for the eight years of the Bush Administration, to funnel as much of the income from the lower and middle classes and "redistribute" it upwards, in the form of more tax cuts for the wealthy, more croneyism with no-bid contracts, more stripping away of regulations that are supposed to protect consumers but cost the companies and corporations that have to spend more to insure that their workers are safe, that the environment is protected and our national resources are not depleted at pennies on the dollar. Chris, you asked me how it is that the Republican Party speaks in "code"; link here to an article written about Black History and how "change" is actually accomplished. The writer gives examples of racism from the political right (note the embedded links in his piece) in reaction to the election of Barack Obama as our President, as well as suggesting that racism is not going to go away very simply or easy. Once again, I am under no delusions that I am going to convince you Chris that racism is used as a tool by Republicans, I just felt the need to furnish another example (admittedly antidotal), but please consider that you may have not been "seeing" all there is to see in how the Republican Party operates.

  70. April 11, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Haven't seen anyone mention an early promoter of the "new" GOP strategy.Lee Atwater. There is a PBS documentary that would be great viewing for a better understanding of who wrote the "GOP Playbook" and how it's being used today.Before Rove. Before W. There was Atwater.

  71. April 11, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    It has been said but it bears repeating:"Any criticism of Barrack Hussein Obama will be characterized as racism"It was said a year and a half ago and it is made true every time Wrong Guy, Bob and Winston post.

  72. April 12, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Not true Big Tent REPUBLICAN. Not true at all. And of course you know that. Of course some of the anti-Obama obsession is not all about racism. The fact that I say that here, publicly proves your statement absolutely wrong. I think you've run out of ideas. Calling me names doesn't change the truth and only seems to demonstrate how desperate you are. If you can't see that, how can anyone respect your judgment on less obvious things? Can't you see you are descending to the "Jerry in AZ" depths, as you continue to state things that are so obviously untrue and tainted with a meanness and emotionalism? I can only figure that, among other things, charges of "racism" hit some sort of emotional nerve for you (and some others here) to deny it so emphatically, when, it is so obvious—by number and tone of death threats President Obama receives, racially based insults at conservative rallies, comments on White Supremacist websites, etc. —that racism, without a doubt, fuels some of the crassest criticism of our president..

  73. April 12, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Tent posted: "It has been said but it bears repeating:" THAT in a nutshell, is the Republican response to any and all issues; don't worry about accuracy, don't worry about facts, just keep repeating the message, over and over with the belief that repetition results in the acceptance of whatever is being spewed. Republicans: If you want to criticize President Obama without being labeled racist, try doing so without witch-doctor photoshopped images, without Hitler's mustache added to President Obama's picture, without shouting "Socialist Fascist Maoist Statist Stalinist Communist whatever whatever"; I know it can be difficult, but bring some facts to back up your assertions, turn down your volume and respond with some respect for at least the office of the President of the United States of America.

  74. April 12, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Boo hoo, Wrong guy gets his feeling hurt when I call him Wrong Guy. Bob, where was your scorn for those that took Bush pictures and photoshopped hitler mustaches on them.You liberals are and will always be the biggest hypocrites. Just like Christy Mathews and his quivering lip over the use of the term "Obama regime" when he used the exact same term to refer to the Bush Administration. Either you guys can't handle the same medicine you dish out or you guys are just dolts that can't remember the same stuff your guys say. Either way you guys are so full of it it isn't even funny.Still, Republicans get called racist for exactly the same comments that Democrats get passes for.THAT is a fact you libs continue to ignore.

  75. April 12, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Bob: The link you provided to an article by Bill Fletcher of the Intenational Labor Rights Forum, who talks about the inherent racism in American capitalism, together with your characterization of the goals of the Republican Party, supposedly class warfare from on high and the rape and pillage of the environment and all things decent, are indeed revealing. Neither evidence nor logic support your preconceived notions about the Republican Party and conservative in general as being something akin to the dark side of the force in Star Wars. So you and others resort to the tried and true tactic of picking up bits and pieces of anecdotal evidence (i.e. some clown with a bad taste poster, or how about perhaps some disturbed person threatening Pelosi) to smear millions upon millions of your fellow Americans because it fits into your socialist ideology.Wise Guy: You don't even make an attempt at rational discourse; rather, you prefer insulting your opponents' intelligence. "Your average well-meaning Republican is nothing more than a brain-washed pawn to be manipulated to feed the rich at the expense of the average man and woman."In keeping with the tradition of the radical left, you both apply the law school maxim: "When the law is not on your side,pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the law. And when both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and scream for justice." As we have repeatedly seen in various strings, your knowledge of economics and the law and your ability to research and rationally analyze sets of facts are not all that well developed. As I learned back in 1974 as an undergraduate in political science at UC Berkeley in a course on methodology, this is a common weakness when ideology takes the place of critical, independent thought.

  76. April 12, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    The Republican Party of the last century thought they could win back the White House in the 1960's with a new strategy.A "Southern Strategy," targeted voters in southern states, white voters. How did they do this?Ask Lee Atwater.

  77. April 12, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    Interesting to read the back and forth between Chris from Paso/GOP and Wise Guy. They keep it civil and yet, "a frank exchange of views" is happening.Here's brand-new study of what we do know about the attitudes of "Tea Party people" and those who choose not to affiliate with them.

  78. April 13, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Tea Baggers not racist? Get a load of this:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/carl-paladinos-emails-tea_n_534691.htmlHow are you going to spin THIS one., Big Tent?..

  79. April 13, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Chris: I am registered as a Democrat, true. I vote mostly for Democratic politicians, true. I feel that most Democratic politicians are not liberal or progressive enough, true. I would like to see a more equal playing field, both in politics and in the real world, true. You want to call me a Socialist, but as an American, as someone who usually votes Democratic, I will not abandon the Democratic Party, but will vote and argue to shift it further to the left; I consider myself a "social Democrat". I know that you "get" the distinction between a social Democrat and a true Socialist, however, not all conservatives are quite as enlightened as you appear to be, so people like Big Tent, Jerry in AZ and Hoosier will simply call me a Socialist, so be it. In my "perfect world" (and I don't mean "perfect" in a Utopian sense) there would be public financing of all public offices; there would be no such thing as a lobbying organization, nor would lobbying be legal; Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would be the rule in every voting district in the country (along with a standardized ballot), and only two political parties would be a distant, bad memory; anyone who wanted to serve the greater good by running for public office would be able to do so and without having the bulky political machinery clogging up the process, the individuals running for office would be able to explain their stand on the issues, focus on what they would do if elected, and the people would get a real "choice" in how the business of government is actually run. Chris, I hope that you stay involved in the Republican Party, I hope that you help focus your party on the issues so policy ideas can be developed, and that you are successful in moving your party away from perceived negative campaigning, latent and/or even overt perceived racism, and that you help keep the Republican Party informed with factual information. I am sincere in this, I want people like you to help transform the Republican Party into an entity that truly cares for the people instead of "business as usual" and mainly looking out for the well to do, the politically connected, and those would crave power for powers sake. Good luck.

  80. April 13, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    To Chris in Paso, I respond, "You left off one of the your law school "maxims": "When you're completely at a loss, act superior and remind everyone again that you went to law school, and be sure to drop the name of a well-known, prestigious University." Fact is Chris, you have presented nothing here that suggests you have any more worthwhile knowledge of the law or economics than I do. Besides, what does any of THAT have to do with evaluating the racist activities of Republicans? It seems you must be employing another of your law school "maxims", one that suggests you bring up irrelevant issues when your challenger uses independent thinking to make critical comments that undercut your arguments..In this case Chris, have argued that the Republican Party is a mess and is corrupt, and that the same fundamental moral bankruptcy that allowed the Republicans to support Richard Nixon is still with us today. To that charge, you are interestingly silent. Need I remind you that Richard Nixon was also a law school graduate?..

  81. April 14, 2010 at 12:48 am

    So all politicians that are lawyers are corrupt?Is that your point, Wrong Guy?Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are all lawyers. Therefore, they are corrupt as Richard Nixon, who, as you stated was corrupt with a law degree (need I remind you).Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were NOT lawyers.So, therefore, by your analysis, they are NOT corrupt since they were not lawyers. But that runs counter to everything you have ever said about those men. So, either you don't read your own posts, don't have a clue what you are talking about, or just so utterly completely anti-Republican that you will say anything so long as it is a smear on Republicans. Actually, I vote D: All of the above.

  82. April 14, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    You missed my point, Big Tent REPUBLICAN:I have no particular problem with lawyers. But Chris in Paso continually waves his own law degree around as if that is some assurance that his views on politics will automatically be superior to those of non-lawyers.Furthermore, contrary to your accusation, I will NOT say ANYTHING "so long as it smears Republicans." I stick to the TRUTH and that is all that is required to show the problems that infect the Republican party..How about you get some FACTS on your side, Big Tent, then you won't have to resort to your childish, bullying name-calling?..

  83. April 14, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    I didn't get to listen to all of Dave's show on Monday. What I did hear was Jack Hardy telling some lies about President Obama. One of the ridiculous lies he told was the long ago dis-proven lie that the President canceled our national day of prayer and now we observe a National Islamic day of prayer in September. This is a flat out lie and if Jack Hardy had spent about 2 minutes on research he would have know it was a lie before he went on the radio and embarrassed himself. Jack Hardy is typical of the Dumb-ass conservatives who pass around bullshit emails filled with lies about Democratic American leaders. Don't tell me assholes like him are not doing our country harm when they willfully go out and lie and slander legally elected officials. When Bush was President the Wing-nuts went nuts because some country singers said during a concert they were embarrassed Bush was from Texas. Now those same hypocrites cheer half-term ex-Governor Sarah Palin as she gets paid to go to public events and on Fake News and screech opposition to President Obama's "Socialist Agenda". Now the same people who used to say it was "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" to criticize Bush during "war-time", have no problem willfully spreading lies on the Internet and radio about this President. At least when liberals were criticizing Bush about torturing prisoners, outing CIA agents, illegal spying on Americans, record deficit spending, ignoring warnings about the 9/11 attack and lying about why we invaded Iraq…..at least when we criticized Bush…we didn't have to make up lies.

  84. April 14, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    What gets me here is that a) you claim I have no facts when any blind man can see that YOU have no facts. In fact, your claim that Hitler would poll at 49% in 2009 America is so wrong that it earned you the title of Wrong Guy… and b)all you have done is smear the Republican party with your "facts" every chance you get. You see, you myopia is preventing you from seeing that the Democrat Party is just as corrupt, even more so, than the Republican party. Finally, if I could hand you a tissue through the computer screen, I would. It sounds like my truthful identification of you as Wrong Guy has hurt your feelings and you need a tissue to wipe away your tears.

  85. April 15, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Jack Hardy is a travesty every time he guest hosts Dave's show. Somebody should debate that guy even steven and show the listeners exactly what he is and why his stance on virtually every political issue is asinine and destructive to the best interests of the United States.What Jack Hardy has said about our president would surely of been considered treasonous under less tolerant regimes. It's people like him, along with Rush LImbaugh and his ilk, who are dividing this country to a point closer to civil war than at any time since the days of Abraham Lincoln. I consider Mr. Hardy to be unappreciative of all the blessings this nation under God has afforded him. If he had more faith in the God he professes to believe in, he would more clearly see the error of his ways..

  86. April 15, 2010 at 4:48 am

    OK, I must give credit where credit is due. Jack Hardy guest hosting Dave's show was good with the microphone and good at getting the phone's ringing at the station (the number one thing that soothes the nerves of insecure radio hosts). More than that, Mr. Hardy was near expert at being able to say "We need to move on" and take a new caller every time a caller seriously challenged him and he was left embarrassingly naked with no decent defense. Michelle D. would decimate him if Mr. Hardy has the courage to debate her. I'd pay to hear that. And Michelle would be laughing all the way. Like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem for you Dave, is that after Mr. Hardy is embarrassed so badly and publicly by Michelle, you might lose him as a guest host, him never wanting to make a fool of himself again on the air.. If Mr. Hardy has the courage to debate ME, right here, on just about anything, I would savor the opportunity..

  87. April 15, 2010 at 5:07 am

    To Big Tent REPUBLICAN: I know you enjoy baiting me in order that I shower you with attention, and on that you have been successful. But I'm not sure how much longer I can find myself motivated when so much of what you write is either convoluted or so illogical as to be absurd to argue against. For instance, I've got a question about your "zinger" statement that was meant to knock me "Wrong Guy" back on my heels. But I'm left scratching my head and wanting you to explain exactly how "any blind man can SEE" anything?As I've suggested in a previous posting you appear to be seriously "analogy challenged". But keep trying and maybe I'll find your next attempt humorous enough to shower you with more of my "Wise Guy/Wrong Guy" attention. I hear that its one of the most popular features of this forum. People seem to love to want to watch a right wing, bullying "conservative" get his butt kicked so delightfully, day after day. In truth, Big Tent, I guess to some extent I owe some of my fame to you. But it's getting old at this point and I will have to move on one of these days. Sorry. .

  88. April 15, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Bob: You are quite correct in not giving up on the Democratic Party, and I can understand why you prefer the Democractic Party as the best means for promoting the policies you support. There is indeed a fundamental ideological difference between the two parties, even if they often agree on solutions to preactical problems. This ideological controversy can be reduced to individualism versus collectivism (this is, of course, very simplified and completely ignores the various shades of gray).Just a couple of comments on your proposals for changing the political process. Getting rid of lobbying is a popular position, but it normally results from a lack of knowledge about what lobbying really is (no, it does not mean bribing officials). Lobbying has a foundation in constitutional law in the right to petition, so that eliminating lobbying would require a constituional amendment. But would we really want to eliminate the right to petition?Public funding of elections is also a popular proposal. Aside from the constitutional concerns involving the First Amendment, 100% financing would mean that some governmental authority would have to decide about who gets financing and who doesn't; after all, resources are limited. The risks involved in this are obvious.Wiseuy: As is typical for someone who has nothing of substance to say in support of his position, you resort to personal attacks. This time the attack is particularly silly, because you apparently find it especially objectionable that a conservative actually has a good education. Of course, you have often used the fact that Obama went to good schools as proof of his supposed brilliance and intellectual superiority.

  89. April 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Chris: Lobbying, as how I would want to have it outlawed, has very little relationship to having your political concerns addressed to your Congressional Representatives; the concern has always been about the money in politics. Talking to your Congressperson or Senator should not require that you donate to their reelection committee or PAC or to their favorite charity, that is what has ruined politics as we know it at this time. Having publicly financed campaigns and having no monies allowed to be "donated" by lobbyists would remove the financial incentives for lawmakers to "curry favor" to those who have tons of money to spread around to buy influence. If lobbying is outlawed, you then eliminate lawmakers and their aids from going from the public sector to the private sector and the current "revolving door" that is Washington DC. Yes, outlawing lobbying would require a Constitutional amendment, and most likely it would be required to have one to shift to publicly financing of politically campaigns (along with requiring media to furnish equal time for all candidates), as well as another amendment to require that all municipalities have a standardized ballot and voting requirements. I never suggested that it would be easy; it would be a revolutionary reset in how politics is played in the U.S., period. But if you have a better suggestion as to how we could make our politicians more responsive to the voters and not the wealthy in our country, I'd sure like to hear it or read it.

  90. April 15, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Chris in Paso wrote:"…you apparently find it especially objectionable that a conservative actually has a good education. Of course, you have often used the fact that Obama went to good schools as proof of his supposed brilliance and intellectual superiority."On the contrary Chris, I wish more conservatives had good educations. But I also find that people confuse having a good education with having wisdom. The two don't necessarily go together. A lot of good education is wasted on foolish people. It is especially troubling when those foolish people believe that a degree confers wisdom.I don't object that Chris in Paso had the opportunity to get a good education. I simply wish he would put it to more productive, more positive use.Secondly, I don't recall stating that President Obama's education is any sort of proof that he is "brilliant" or intellectually "superior." "Superior" to whom? I do believe President Obama IS intellectually superior to many people, but that is not based on his college degrees. I base that on his public statements and his political accomplishments. I don't have a way of proving that President Obama is more brilliant or the intellectual superior of Chris in Paso. But I can say for sure that if I had to choose between Chris and Obama to represent me or provide advice in any legal or political matter (or any matter whatsoever), I would choose Obama. Part of that reason includes my feeling that President Obama, regardless of education, is morally superior to Chris in Paso.. The fact is that Chris in Paso, despite his exposure to a good education and any degrees he has, has never impressed me either in his written statements here or as a guest on Dave's show. In fact, I find most of his statements, stances and attitudes simultaneously foolish and reprehensible. I think he is a classic example of someone who has smarts, but has been tripped up by a spiritual and emotional deficit that has been trumped by an over-active ego. Chris's promotion of the use of torture is one example among many, of why I consider him so particularly, and arrogantly, unwise. He let's his emotions and fears guide too much of his decision making and world view.I do not wish to hurt Chris and I'm sorry if these observations come across as "personal attacks", but I think discussing Chris is a way of discussing fundamental flaws that infect so much of the "conservative" movement. Chris is simply one good, local example from which others might learn. And for that, Chris, I thank you.. (And I would have LOVED to go up against you in a court of law!)..

  91. April 15, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    In response to Chris and Bob's discussion:Chris stated, "does not mean bribing officials." I disagree. Whether with money or votes, lobbyists are really only able to persuade officials by either promising votes or campaign contributions. "Bribing" may not be the only word to use to describe this method of persuasion, but I think it's adequate.Is lobbying inherently bad? No. It is based on the very strength of a democracy. It is based on conditioned support for an official.And, Bob, for every lobbyist lobbying for a position you oppose, there is another lobbyist lobbying for the position you support, I guarantee.The problem in lobbying arises when the leverage of a lobbyist is not based on how many people for whom the lobbyist speaks, but how much money the lobbyist dangles before the official. The result can be that the needs of a few wealthy are served while the needs of many not-so wealthy are not. This is not democratic.The only rational solution to this problem seems be placing limits on contributions.As far as publicly funded elections are concerned, I agree with Chris that deciding who shall receive the funding creates the same problem as we currently have. Do we require a certain level of support to receive public funding? Well, doesn't that just get us right back into the problem of campaigning for support and the money that is required to do so? This leads me to the conclusion that our government is just too big now (and I don't mean that we have too many social programs). I mean that it is so expensive to get into office that there is no possibility that anyone could win a state or federal election and without owing some big favors. Our country is like a band that was great when it was on that little independent label, playing small clubs and theaters. But, when it signed to WarnerBros Records and started playing stadiums, the music got stale and commercial, the members' recreational drug use developed into addictions, and they started to fight. It may be time to break up this band. Let the "red" states secede, as they wish. I think the rest of us would be better off.

  92. April 16, 2010 at 3:43 am

    While I don't comment here much anymore, I got to say that I agree with Bob. I have posted in the past that federally funded elections and ban all private money from campaign coffers would make the lawmakers beholden to only one group: the US taxpayer. I think that the argument on private money as a matter of "speech" would be no more germane to the SCOTUS than it was during the McCain-Feingold case where the court upheld the constitutionality of specifically limiting the speech of activists 30 days before elections. Besides, just because "private" money couldn't be donated directly to the candidate wouldn't hinder free speech in the least. George Soros spends his billions on elections for candidates every election cycle. His Moveon.org is effective in manipulating public opinion without turning those dollars over to some candidates campaign warchest. So I rate the "free speech" argument as specious. I have also written that we need term limits (12 years in the house and 12 years in the Senate) to churn up the names of those that "represent" us. Ted Kennedy was the senator from Mass. for well over 40 years. You can't tell me that there is no one else in Mass qualified to represent that state nor can you convince me that there are no other Democratic candidates that would have done as well or better than Teddy. Same goes for Strom Thurman in SC or Robert Byrd in WV. I love the idea put forth by the GOP to ban all earmarks. Why are there earmarks in the first place? This is just another form of institutionalized bribery, just as "campaign contributions" are. The bottom line is that neither party does or will do what is right because it is the right thing to do. They "curry favor", they "negotiate" and they "horse trade" which are just metaphors for bribing each other for votes and money. Pork is also a bribe to their constituents. The Congressman or Senator send federal money to their states as a means of "currying favor" with their district or state as another means of buying votes. Why is there language written into the economic stimulus bill for Iowa pig farmers to get money to curb pig stink? It was put there by Tom Harkin to get his vote. The entire domestic side of the budget is essentially nothing more than pork for their districts. Look at who sits on which committee and which states have the best Defense contracts, Ag contracts, etc. It is just part of the game. This game has been rigged for far too long and it needs to change for our nation's sake.

  93. April 16, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    OK, let's get back on topic: Racism. How many Democrats or Obama supporters do you think are helping plan the White Supremacist rally set for L.A. on Sunday?http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/white-supremacist-rally-at-la-city-hall-prompts-large-lapd-response.htmlWould you expect more Republicans or more Democrats to be part of this White Supremacist organization? Let's be honest here, please. And if any "conservatives", Republicans or tea-baggers respond, please spare us the worn-out, irrelevant history lesson reminding us that years ago southern Democrats were known to be racist and that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. This is the 21st Century, and we're talking about the reality of racism in the "conservative" and Republican and tea bagger ranks TODAY, thank you very much..

  94. April 16, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Chris or President Obama. I'll take Chris. President Obama is a known liar. Could not write his own book (had to have Ayers write it), refuses to release any grades, past teachers state he was average, can not talk off the teleprompter with out saying "I" or "ah, ah, ah" a hundred times, yet is considered brilliant by our Mr Wise Guy.Was passing a Health Care Bill that doesn't reduce premiums, but will increase premiums and hurt the economy part of this brilliance?Is the Cap and Trade Bill that will hurt the economy part of this brilliance?Was the stimulus bill for shovel ready jobs part of this brilliance?Was snubbing Israel part of this brilliance?Was insulting Gordon Brown of England part of this brilliance?Is appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad part of this brilliance?Is appeasing Hezbollah part of this brilliance?Was snubbing Sarkozy and Merkel part of this brilliance?The reality may be that Obama is mostly a creation of the liberal media. Indeed, the more we dig into his past, the more we find very little substance and discover how a network of liberal professors, law firms, and others, gave him a pass on performance while he pursued his political agenda.We know very little about Obama’s academic performance. He attended an elite K-12 school in Hawaii called Punahou School, but the school claims that his records are missing. Obama attended the prestigious Occidental College in California. This is puzzling, however, because he has admitted in his book and elsewhere that he was engaged in heavy drug use while in high school. This seems to show that his studies were the last thing on his mind. How he got in remains a mystery and Obama’s attorneys have blocked access to those records.Obama finished up his undergraduate years at Columbia College, but, again, Obama won’t release those records either. We have no information to suggest he was a good student. We do know, however, that he did not graduate with honors from ColumbiaObama has also refused to release his Columbia thesis, which was about nuclear disarmament of the West. Perhaps Obama is fearful that his thesis, which likely advocates the disarming of the West at the peak of the Cold War, would be seen as incredibly stupid – which it would be.The only article anyone can find written by Obama during his undergraduate years is one published by the Sundial, a campus newspaper. Titled Breaking the War Mentality, it’s an idiotic piece that reads like something out of the mind of

  95. April 16, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    a 14 year old. Moreover, it simply repeats the propaganda lines of various campus anti-war groups. He writes favorably of nuclear freeze groups.Following Columbia, he claims he worked as a research assistant for a high powered consulting firm. This was a joke. He actually worked for a small company that published a business forecasting newsletter and did no legal work for them. After Harvard, he was hired by a Chicago law firm. He wrote no briefs and had zero billing hours. Seems he was "parked" there until his political career took off.. It was teaching law at the University of Chicago Law School where his incompetence was exposed. Examples of his tests are on the internet and are just awful. (paragraphs don't make sense, grammatical errors, and obsessed with bogus legal theories).We do know that his community organizing work was generally considered incompetent. When he was hired by the Annenberg Foundation to carry out reforms focused on a few dozen public Chicago schools, he was a complete failure. He and his best fiend, terrorist Bill Ayers, were given a $150 million grant to improve the performance of a few dozen schools, but internal Annenberg audits reveal there was zero improvement. In fact, in some areas, the school’s performance declined.Illinois Senate. His nickname there was Bill Jacker. He was handed 26 bills and took credit for being the author, even the ethics one he mentioned on the campaign trail. Yes, the sign of a true genius.US Senate, again, no legislation. So, let's hear it for Jon Favreau, the man who writes President Obama's speeches, which he can read very well and make him seem smart..His repeated bows to foreign leaders, which suggests he doesn’t understand basic protocol. His efforts to try terrorists in civilian court reveal a severe misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution. His idea that massive government spending will generate private sector jobs is a bizarre view not held by any credible free market economist and has no historical precedent. His belief that additional burdens placed upon the private sector will not have any impact on job creation defies all logic. His belief that government must take over all health care in order to make it more efficient completely ignores the history of socialized medicine all over the world. He appears to have no basic understanding of free-market economics. His view that apologizing to America’s enemies will ean us goowill is naive and stupid. This is not a brilliant man. Just a man with an agenda.And they said Sarah Palin was inexperienced

  96. April 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Hoosiers last post is the perfect example of my point about Jack Hardy earlier on this thread. Wing-nuts can't fight our President on facts and reality, so they have to fabricate lies and throw as much mud at him as they possibly can. Like I said before, George Bush's political critics didn't have to make-up lies about his fiscally irresponsible budgets, torture policy, Iraq mistakes or 9/11 security failure. But here's Hoosier parrotting the fallacy that our President can't speak without the help of a teleprompter. I guess Hoosier has never seen the President answer questions at press conferences or how he destroyed McCain in their debates without the help of a teleprompter. Or more graphically how our President went to the Republican congressional retreat and went into that hostile room without notes, and intellectually ripped apart a roomfull of Republicans so badly that Fox News cut the feed and quit broadcasting the blood bath. That day President Obama changed the direction of Healthcare reform. When Obama went into that room most experts said reform was dead in the water and Republicans were so confident they were the ones who invited the TV cameras. Instead Obama, without notes and a teleprompter, took their questions and challenged their lies and slapped them down intellectually. As far as some of the other B.S. you spew Hoosier, what proof do you have William Ayers was the true author of Obama's books? The only proof I know of is William Ayers' sarcastic "confession" when he was questioned by a wing-nut at an airport. But Hoosier repeats this lie here on this forum, so share with us your proof Hoosier. Also hsare with us your proof that William Ayers and Barack Obama were "best friends". Where's your proof? I contend you are a liar Hoosier and you are no better than that Idiot Jack Hardy, when he went on the radio the other day and embarrassed himself with his un-informed views. If you want to educate yourself Hoosier go to this link and see a small sample of other lies told about or President. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/clueless-columbo/

  97. April 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Barrack Obama, a black man in his 40s, from a broken, not-wealthy family, had a dream, worked hard to achieve it (yes, and like most Democrats dabbled in recreational drug use along the way), and transformed himself into President of the United States against the wishes (and lies) of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and nearly every member of the Republican Party. He basically kicked their vicious political butts without breaking a sweat. And which idiots who post here think that Barrack Obama doesn't have more on the ball than every "conservative" who has ever posted on this forum? The type of disrespect for the abilities and achievements of President Obama that some express on this forum is either insanity or treason, or both. Osama Bin Ladin will be forever grateful for their assistance..

  98. April 17, 2010 at 12:50 am

    You want to talk about racism today? How about all of the race baiting that Bill Clinton did during the campaign? How about Joe "the VeePee" Biden saying that his boss is "clean and articulate", which is clearly racist in nature? Has he ever said that about a white guy? Nope.But if you really want to talk about racism, lets talk about the dependancy on welfare that liberals peddle like drugs to blacks and hispanics across America. Sure there are more whites on welfare. So what? There are more whites IN America so it only follows. However, welfare in the white community hasn't resulted in the destruction of the two-parent family like it has in the black community. Welfare in the white community hasn't resulted in nearly 50% out of wedlock births like what happens every day in American and specifically in California. Welfare in the white community hasn't resulted in nearly half of all pregnancies to be aborted, like what happens in the black community. These things are a reality that the dependancy-peddlers don't want to talk about. Those that peddle dependancy, like Wrong Guy and Bob and other bleeding hearts, want to talk in terms of "entitlement" and "doing what's right" and "fairness". They trot out some strawman, some boggy-man to blame for the problem THEY CREATED, and it is "big something or other", Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil, whatever. This is the tactic that the dependancy peddlers use: prop up a phony bad guy, knock him down, sell more dependancy.Look at the whole healthcare takeover, another case of liberals peddling dependancy. First they prop up the phony bad guy, Big Insurance, and claim that the they are screwing America with increasing premiums. But the liberals don't get into why, because the people they are peddling their dependancy to "don't understand the issues" (look back at the debate on this and you can see numerous times where liberals said exactly this). What the dependancy peddlers don't tell America is that it was previous instances of dependancy peddling that created the situation the liberals are talking about. Then the peddlers put forth their answer to the problem they created in the form of more dependancy. Its exactly like heroin addicts getting hooked on methadone; replacing one addiction with another. Fact is that America's addiction to welfare and the dependancy mindset is destroying Ameirca. The ball got rolling with FDR and the New Deal, picked up a lot of steam with the Great Society and is now breaking speed limits with ObamaCare. All the while, America is $12 trillion in debt, has $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, and "entitlement spending" (i.e. welfare) that takes up 50% of the budget. I throw TARP in there as welfare spending because that is just more welfare for badly run corporations. Liberals want to extend jobless benefits, again. As noble and kindhearted as that sounds, the reality is that Obama's policies are destroying opportunities for these people to get jobs in the first place. Peddling more dependancy; dependancy on the federal government for money. When will this addiction either halt or destroy America? Its coming soon, probably during Obama's presidency. China is refusing to buy any more of Ameirca's debt and they have, albeit slowly, began selling off their holdings of American debt. All of our European benefactors like Britain, are swamped with their own problems over there like Greece's default potential, to fund any more of America's debt. Things are coming to a head more quickly than the dependancy peddlers will admit.

  99. April 17, 2010 at 12:51 am

    part 2What to do about this? First, don't raise the debt ceiling. It isn't a ceiling if you can move it. Congress needs restraints on spending for both Republicans as well as the Democrats. Second, freezing spending on THE ENTIRE BUDGET, not just the 12% of discretionary spending, to 2008 levels. Yes, this will mean rolling back ObamaCare, cutting defense programs and other pet projects of our so-called "leaders". Speaking of pet projects… third, ban all "earmarks" until the debt paid off. When you are a family of four, living on a fixed income from unemployment insurance and you are worried about keeping the house, you don't go get your nails done, go to the bar every night or blow $90 at the movies because you have to see "Avatar" in 3D. What you do is live within your means and so should the federal government. Fourth, stop creating policies that destroy jobs. Cap-n-trade, ObamaCare, the Prescription Drug benefit, and all of these other job killers need to stop. Furthermore, we need to cut corporate taxes to lure businesses to relocate TO America instead of leaving our shores.Fifth, states, counties, and cities need to engage the unions to renegotiate contracts. Why should the 25% of Americans that are in unions be immune from the pain and suffering of the other 75% that are not in unions? How is it fair that union contracts can bankrupt entire cities, like what happened right here in Vallejo, California? Because of union intransgency, the State of California has been forced to give one day of unpaid time off to prison guards and other state workers. That's the reality that unions have created.Finally, we need to create non-governmental solutions to these non-governmental problems. Dependany on the federal government is not working to solve our unemployment or poverty problems; it does exacerbate them. Since the Great Society, poverty rates have remained UNCHANGED and we are now faced with a PERMANENT unemployment rate of 10% FOREVER (which is what permanent means, liberals). Government is most often the cause not the solution to these problems.So if you want to combat racism, stop the race-baiting, stop peddling dependancy that has destroyed and continues to destroy minority families and EMPOWER the INDIVIDUAL for a change. National collectivism fails every time it has been tried and leaves more damage in its wake than before, look at Russia. Nasty words or mean and offensive signs are pennies on the dollar worth of racism compared to the destruction that dependancy on the federal government has caused. If you liberals, like Frank Rich, were more worried about what our government is DOING instead of what a few crackpots or liberal tea party plants were saying, there actually might be some "change we can believe in" going on. Instead, we get to read Wrong Guy and Bob lecture those of us who ARE NOT racists about how racist we are because of those crackpots and plants. Come on, people! Dependancy on another 2 or 3 TRILLION worth of our grandchildren's future earnings is not going to solve the problems of racism or any other problem. Empowering the individual, justly and equitibly, will.

  100. April 17, 2010 at 1:28 am

    "The Times poll was enlightening: Yes, they're white, older, male and Republican; 56 percent make over $50,000 a year and 12 percent make over $250,000. They're more likely to rely on Social Security and Medicare than the average voter — and, no surprise, they tend to approve of those two programs. The Times goes on:More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people. They are "way more likely: 52% of them think that as compared to only 28% of the general public." But Jarman also digs into a University of Washington poll released last week that looked at the views of Tea Party supporters in seven battleground states. Not only do they think too much is made of the problems facing black people, they have bigoted views about black people generally. Jarman explains: People who think that "the U.S. government has done too much to support blacks" were 36 percent more likely to support the Tea Party than those who didn't think so. Among whites who approve of the Tea Party, only 35 percent said they believe blacks are hard-working, only 45 percent believe blacks are intelligent, and just 41 percent believe that they're trustworthy."And Tea Party supporters don't like it when anyone notices the racists in their midst? One sad thing about it all is that Obama's really doing little for anyone, blacks, yellows, whites, browns, and reds included, well, unless you are part of the economic elite. They're confused, desperate, and scared. Any American has a good reason to be all of those things, but the Teabaggers are scared of the wrong things for the wrong reasons. The amusing thing is that they are criticizing Pres. Obama for acting like a conservative. I believe they should be monitored, but to tell the truth I'm not that worried about them. If anything, they'll split the right-wing vote. I think the Republican Party and all their offshoots are dying. Once they're gone we'll only have the neo-liberal Democratic types to worry about. I fear the Tea Party will continue to ramp up the hateful, absurd rhetoric, even though it just makes them look bad. The more they do it, the harder it is for them to excuse it. It will just alienate them from the American majority all the more.

  101. April 17, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Dave, I think we would love to start a debate over the most recent SEC filing against Goldman Sachs for their role in the subprime mortgage disaster that sumarined our entire economy.I know I would.I am half way through Micheal Lewis' "The Big Short" which details in excruciating detail eactly how the subprime mortgage disaster accured from the standpoint of those that made money off the disaster, The Big Short. These short-sellers made money off but this doesn't make them the bad guys. Not at all.The fact that they saw the collapse coming and made bets against the market should have been seen as a warning to Wall Street. Instead, bond traders like Goldman Sachs, Deutchebank, Credit Suisse, and AIG tried to make profits against the shorters.If our politicians would only read things like this book, they might be able to enact genuine reforms to prevent such things from happening again. Knowing their track record, I seriously doubt it.

  102. April 17, 2010 at 3:05 am

    One more thing before I sign off for the day…I came across this on Al Gore's "Current".Read this linkDid any of you liberals know that you were signing millions of poor Americans to be tracked like a dog? Were you aware that all of our personal data will be implanted under our skin, which will make it easier for our identities to be stolen, our life histories to be made public?I didn't sign up for that nor will I subject myself or my family from having our data placed on chips under our skin. What do you say, liberals, to Obama and your liberal cohorts passing a law that will most certainly bring Big Brother to life in America?

  103. April 17, 2010 at 6:09 am

    It's hard to take anyone serious who praises George Bush or Ronald Reagan, but who claims Barrack Obama is not smart enough to be president. As conservative leaning as Obama is, he seems downright liberal compared to Bush and Reagan. And when we think of the regime of Bush and Cheney, we can console ourselves that at least we no longer have a couple of murderous, sadistic sociopaths in the White House. Certainly anyone who prevented McCain or Palin from taking over the White House at this time should be considered a patriot and a hero for the honest people of the United States. .It is only for fear of creating widespread panic throughout our nation, that it hasn't been made more clear to the average American how badly Republican policies and attitudes, as promoted by Reagan and the Bushes, have damaged our nation. Electing Obama staved off imminent financial collapse and/or massive warfare throughout the world, but only time will tell if the nation will ever truly recover. Electing Obama was the best hope we've had and it certainly appears he has done more good than harm on nearly every measure. For those who like analogies, let me put it this way: When Obama took over the White House, it was on fire. Obama, to his credit, has been running ragged putting out those fires (and that takes money) and has still managed to get more long-range initiatives begun.

  104. April 18, 2010 at 3:14 am

    I think some people are listening to too much Alex Jones and the conspiracy crowd. This is from snopes about the supposed chip as it pertains to the health care bill supported by Obama. You gotta love the political schizophrenia we are seeing. You have a Nazi, racist, "socialist" party protesting the government and illegal (colored) immigration (I thought the socialists liked government and the poor). You have Tea Partiers, who are also racist, but they are right wingers who hate the president and socialists.Then you have the "progressive" and fabulous counter protesters in LA who are for "justice" and who supposedly support rights of all people but who almost beat a Nazi to death because they did not like the violent rhetoric of the Nazis. Apparently the First Amendment rights do not apply to these socialist Nazis.All of us still have a long way to go to learn what it is to be human and that there is more that brings us together than sets us apart, including the ugliness we exhibit in the name of "peace" and "patriotism."

  105. April 18, 2010 at 5:20 am

    All this may be true, but ask yourself this question: Why did a microchip implantation language of any kind find itself into any bill (this case HR3200 as Snopes says) if there is not any intent to implant chips at some point? It doesn't fly that just because it didn't make it into the final bill it won't make its way into another bill. Which leads me to my next point: why does the healthcare, or any bill for that matter, need to be hundreds of pages long? I am beginning to believe that much of the bill is just fluff and filler language with no real impact. Like a hot dog, there are fillers in them to give the hotdog substance without putting any real meat in it. The real meat are the things the writers of the bill honestly want, which is why the talking points are all the same and they don't feel the need to actually read the bill. What they really want is in the bill and that's all that matters. The fact that X number of millions go this way or that is just irrelavant details. So the microchip may have not survived this round, but that doesn't mean that some liberal (no "Gods and Guns" GOPer would be for something seen as the 'mark of the beast') won't put that in later. The very existence of the chip language, even in the defunct House bill, should give everyone pause… unless you really are for implanting chips in everyone like you would do your pet dog.

  106. geo
    April 19, 2010 at 12:19 am

    Big Tent, listen to the words of Dick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAk-7F1EVU

  107. April 19, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Warning: Another REPUBLICAN going off the deep end!First off, microchip technology is not inherently evil. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for someone wanting to have a chip (smaller than a grain of rice) implanted in their bodies. A person with Alzheimer's disease, for instance, may want to make their identification or medical records available through such a chip should they become lost and not know who they are. The military is interested in them for a number of reasons, including as a way of identifying bodies. Magnetic strips in credit cards were controversial at one time also.As far as I know there is nothing in the healthcare bill that would force me to have a microchip implanted. In fact, I guarantee there isn't and there wont' be. Will I have the option of having a microchip implantation if I choose it? Perhaps. What I find most absurd and "off the deep-end" about Big Tent REPUBLICAN's statement is his howler claiming that no Republican would ever be in favor of allowing microchip implants for healthcare purposes. Once again, we are seeing the revival of the Joe McCarthy "everything is a Communist plot" script being used to demonize good people. I GUARANTEE that within the next decade there will be many Americans who voluntarily have microchips implanted in themselves through private companies who they will PAY for doing it. And this will include Republicans. This is not a Communist plot. It is called the advance of technology. And yes, it often does suck, but we usually want it anyway. In an age of such widespread and dangerous duplicity, privacy will be compromised for the sake of the truth. That is why so many REPUBLICANs have supported laws that require taking DNA samples from convicts. Is this a "Communist plot" also?..

  108. April 19, 2010 at 5:54 am

    What utter and complete hypocracy!George Bush is supposedly a man that "trampled the civil rights of all Americans" with the PATRIOT ACT and that makes him evil in the minds (however small) of liberals.However, implanting a microchip that would have all of our medical and personal data on it is not inherently evil and somehow necessary. This in spite of the fact that with these chips comes the inherent risk of our personal data being stolen off our person with the same technology that our doctor would use to read it. Just as some people's cell phones are cloned just because they are close to someone with a cloner, so too someone could see all of your medical records because that person walked passed a bad guy with a chip reader. The only thing consistent with Wrong Guy is that he is inconsistent. Another case where he thinks all conservative ideas are bad and the same idea, floated by a liberal is not only good but necessary. I also love how Wrong Guy also can see the future because he knows that microchips will never be used. But he also provides his GUARANTEE (his use of caps) that it will never be in any health bill and he GURANTEES that people of all walks will be getting them. Wow! Didn't know that Wrong Guy saw the future. Why then didn't he provide his GURANTEE to California homeowners to get out of the stock market before the collapse? The answer is because he doesn't know a G-damn thing, period.BTW, there were communists in the federal government exactly as Joe said there were. That is an irrefutable fact. Wrong again, Wrong Guy.

  109. April 19, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Hahahahaha! Dave the douche bag won't let US post you-tube videos but when one of the men he sucks up to from CalCoastGosspic posts you-tube he gets on without a glitch…Congalton, like Obama, has very little time left and few if any fans. The station is now paying people to listen to save advertisers. Maybe it's time for another broadcast email to KVEC staff and advertisers… yep! I'm sure of it.

  110. April 19, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Another Monday morning. And another anonymous post from Jerry in Arizona. Ho-Hum.

  111. April 19, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Big Tent REPUBLICAN, in case you or others did not know, it is NOT illegal to be Communist AND be a citizen and resident of the U.S.One of the great things about the United States is that laws allow citizens to have any of a variety of political affiliations. There's this thing in the U.S. Constitution know as FREEDOM of SPEECH, something Senator Joe McCarthy didn't appreciate. It was no secret there were some people associated with Communism that worked in the U.S. government. But what McCarthy did was to persecute those people and persecute people who he claimed, often without adequate evidence, were communists. Joe McCarthy is rightly demonized today because he unfairly persecuted innocent people, Communists and non-Communists, in order to further his own selfish interests. Should we be surprised that some "conservatives" posting on this forum admire Joe McCarthy? ..

  112. April 20, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not harmless Americans exercising their freedom of speech as Americans. They were traitors and deserved the death they got.The Venona project that Daniel Patrick Moynihan led a commission on established without a shadow of a doubt that communists within the US government were conducting espionage for the Soviet Union, and are therefore traitors. Alger Hiss (who worked for the State Dept), Henry Dexter White (who worked for Treasury), Harry Hopkins (who was one of FDR's closest advisors and a new Deal architect) have all been exposed as the tratorous scumbag Soviet spies they were.Joe McCarthy was not at all wrong in his so-called "witchhunt" for traitors in the federal government. They were there and had been there since WWII. For anyone to claim that communists who spy for Russsia are just Americans exercising "freedom of speech" are okay and Joe McCarthy was wrong for wanting them exposed and tried for their crimes has to be an anti-american themselves.Or just Wrong Guy.

  113. April 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Big Tent: Joe McCarthy was NOT involved in the prosecution of the Rosenberges or Alger Hiss, or Harry Hopkins, or Dexter White.The fact that Big Tent REPUBLICAN considers Joe McCarthy an honorable and just man tells us a lot.In America, we are supposed to prosecute people for committing crimes, not for political affiliations. Capitalists commit crimes in America, and so have Communists. Joe McCarthy, an alcoholic, went over the line, persecuting people, not for any crimes they committed or intended to commit, but simply for having a political viewpoint that he didn't agree with. And in some cases, the people whose lives he ruined were not Communists at all. Also, being a Communist does not automatically mean someone is "anti-American" anymore than being a Republican means being "anti-American."Here's a little history, from Wikipedia, of McCarthy's egregious actions that harmed America.:"McCarthy rose suddenly to national fame in February 1950 when he asserted in a speech that he had a list of "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" who were employed in the State Department.[4] McCarthy was never able to prove his sensational charge……He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. "Even former Reagan Administration Secretary of Education and arch "conservative" writer William Bennet is critical of McCarthy, claiming McCarthy ASSISTED communism in the U.S., as can be seen in this quote from Bennett:"The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy … McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love … Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions."So, we do see an awful lot of similarities between Big Tent REPUBLICAN and Joe McCarthy..

  114. April 22, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Okay, Wrong Guy has spoken and is completely wrong again.I never said that McCarthy prosecuted the Rosenbergs or anyone else for that matter.I did say that there were proven communist elements working in America for the Soviet Union and those actions were traitorous.I never said that Joe McCarthy was honorable. I just said that he was correct to assert that those Communists were working in the State Department, which Daniel Patrick Moynihan's commission PROVED EXISTED.I guess you don't actually read what you cut and paste. Bennett didn't say that McCarthy was wrong for going after communists in government. He did say, "McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love … Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institution." So Bennett is NOT saying McCarthy was wrong for going after the communists in government. Far from it, Bennett says that McCarthy was going after a "real problem". What Bennett laments is that McCarthy's method was bad. Because McCarthy's approach was bad and let to him being censured (due to not having access to the Moynihan data), McCarthy's censure discredited anyone trying to feret out communists in our government. That, and only that, was the way McCarthy assisted communists. Its called "reading for comprehension", Wrong Guy and it is still a problem you are wrestling with.

  115. April 22, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Joe McCarthy did considerably more harm than good, ramping up fear in America and persecuting the innocent with false accusations that harmed the lives of good citizens and their families, and, according to staunch conservative Republicans like William Bennett, harmed the security interests of the United States. I don't think it is a mere coincidence that McCarthy was a Republican and that to this day Republicans and assorted other "conservatives" use the same tactics that Joe McCarthy used so maniacally, immorally and dangerously, harming the interests of the American people and staining the reputation of our government. Contemporary Republicans, morally bankrupt and without honorable or effective leaders and devoid of productive and positive ideas, continue to fall back to dangerous, nation-dividing, hate-promoting, scape-goating, and dishonest tactics straight from the Joe McCarthy playbook. And just like Joe McCarthy, these modern-day "conservatives" are actually aiding and abetting the very causes they claim to oppose. The ramping up of hate and irrational anti-government sentiment by "conservatives" emboldens white supremacist groups and assorted mentally unstable citizens who are inspired to become domestic terrorists, attacking their fellow American citizens. And thus we shouldn't be all that surprised to find "conservatives" invoking the name and deeds of Joe McCarthy in a positive light as a way of trying to justify this new era of "conservative" led travesties and persecution that harm the innocent and weakens our nation and inspires racially based attacks, other forms of domestic terrorism and secessionist attitudes..

  116. April 24, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Again, Wrong Guy is, well, wrong. He continues to misinterpret Bennett's words. Bennett meant that McCarthy's tactics were wrong, got discredited, and therefore hurt the right effort to eliminate the anti-american elements in the government. Wrong Guy purposefully continues to misquote and misrepresent the words of Bill Bennett.

  117. April 24, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    My Bennett quotes ARE accurate.Being a "Communist" does not equate with being "anti-American". Nor does being a "capitalist" equate with being "pro-American."Being a "communist" is NOT illegal in the United States nor is it treasonous or traitorous. It does not equate with being a criminal or a traitor. Nor is it illegal to associate with "communists."A communist can love the United States as much as any capitalist. The United States is a nation where both can live and prosper with the same freedoms granted to both. According the U.S. Constitution they are both to be treated equally under the law. Some "conservatives" who post here don't seem to understand this fundamental concept U.S. citizenship and law and continually try to pervert it, as did Joe McCarthy.However, it is true that SOME communists and SOME capitalists are anti-American, and some of them do break U.S. laws. It is these latter who should be prosecuted. The others are simply Americans who have the right to their individual political beliefs.Neither Communism nor Capitalism is a crime. Neither is "socialism". Each of these political ideologies enjoy equal protection under U.S. law.The evil, unjust persecution that Joe McCarthy promoted and what many "conservatives" who persecute the innocent do is or should be criminal. They are true "anti-American" factors..

  118. April 26, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Oh, sure, Wrong Guy, your quote is accurate but you are taking Bennett's words completely out of context. Which is why you are still wrong, guy.Sure there are thousands of communists that are loyal to America, but that's NOT what we are talking about right now. Joe McCarthy knew there were TRAITORS that happened to be communists (just as Malik Hasan is a traitor that happens to be Muslim). These communist traitors were giving US state secrets to the Soviet Union no differently than the Walker family did in the '70's. McCarthy's tactics were ill-advised and eventually proved to be his undoing, but that in no way gives a blanket pass to all of those communist traitors he was seeking to expose. Alger Hiss was a communist spy and therefore a traitor. The Verona program proved this. Why you consistantly keep asserting that it is okay to be a communist in America while excusing those that have proven themselves to have been communist traitors in these by-gone eras continues to amaze me. Why are you so sympathetic to people that betrayed every American citizen to people that sought our demise? Do you thing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were falsely accused of giving the hydrogen bomb to the Soviets? Do you think that giving state secrets to foreign governments is protected by the 1st Amendment? Where do you really stand on this issue, Wrong Guy. You problably think that Malik Hasan should be freed because he was just exercising his 1st Amendment free speech rights when he killed 13 of his fellow citizens. Your defense of those that seek to overthrow the government of the United States, as the Communist Party of America does is indefensable. Wrong as always, Wrong guy.

  119. April 26, 2010 at 6:33 am

    You are making stuff up again, Rich. Your accusations don't hold up to scrutiny, as ususal. Who's giving a "pass" to traitors? Not me. Not by a long shot. Nor have I "excused" anyone for their crimes against America.I think it is YOU and "Big Tent" who are giving passes to and excusing the reprehensible anti-American actions of Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was a traitor to truth, just like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, "Rich In Paso" and "Big Tent REPUBLICAN." ..

  120. April 27, 2010 at 3:06 am

    No, wrong again Wrong Guy. I gave you specific instances of traitors who were giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America through their espionage. You said that Joe McCarthy was WRONG to go after them, thus defending these traitors on the basis they were exercising their "First Amendment rights" to be traitorous communists in America.Now you have slandered people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sewan Hannity because they don't subscribe to your insane and distorted worldview. You slander Reagan and Nixon (to diametrically opposed people if there was two in Republican politics) who have been dead for a number of years. Finally, you slander people like Rich in Paso (an Iraq War vet) and myself. Look, pal, I don't know you don't, care to know you, but if I did I'm sure I would find you the same obnoxious, pugnatious, pompous ass that I find you here. Your constant use of Hitler in your posts is no different than redneck racists using "nigger" to talk about black people. Your are the political "racist" with your empty-headed broad brush painting of anyone that doesn't love Big Brother and take part in the "2 minutes of Hate" for George W. Bush. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, Wrong Guy… morally, ethically and intellectually.

  121. April 27, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Big Tent Republican, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Don't take it personally. But overall, although it may not be my place to say it, I find my comments much more persuasive, rational, logical, balanced, compassionate, in accord with the facts, more original, more stylishly composed, and just plain more wise than what you generally offer up. I also find a more refined and elevated sense of humor in my postings compared with your ham-fisted attempts. I think you understand what I'm talking about. Although there is a tone of arrogance to be found in both our postings, mine appear to be composed in a more breezy, effortless manner, yet with a steadiness of intent and effectiveness that remains superior to the tones of desperation and exasperation we get from you. I expect that even if you agree with me privately, you will wish to put a fair amount of effort into publicly challenging these observations in your typical manner. I wouldn't expect anything less. P.S. What makes you so sure you don't know me or that I don't know you? Whether or not I have met the man behind "Big Tent Republican", my comments are never directed at him personally, but only to the maniacal and comical "Big Tent Republican" persona..

  122. April 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Elvis, the proof is in the writing style. Forensic linguists have studied both writing styles Ayers and Obama. They are substantially different. Compare average sentence length, number of sentences per paragraph and you get an idea of style. It is quite oblivious In the book that I referenced, the writing style is of Ayers, not Obama. In addition, several phrases and key words are eirily similar. Just read Dreams and then read Ayers Fugitive. Five different sets of researchers have taken the challenge to test the hypothesis that Ayers was heavily involved in the writing of "Dreams." And although there are admitted limits to this emerging science, the consensus among these researchers is noteworthy.I am aware of a fifth stylometric analysis, soon to be released, this one from a British scholar of international repute, but here are some quick summaries from the first four. The authors' contact information could be made available on deep background for serious news sources."Using the chi-square statistic," observes one professor, "Obama's and Ayers' books were indistinguishable, while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors."Writes another analyst, using his own proprietary software, "There is a strong likelihood that the author of "Fugitive Days" ghost-wrote "Dreams From My Father" using recordings of dialog (either tape recorded or notes). Alternatively, another scenario could be possible: Ayers might have served as a 'book doctor.'"One systems engineer writes, "The statistical style analysis performed by our research team suggests that the writing style of 'Dreams From My Father' is significantly more similar to the style observed in 'Fugitive Days' than to the style found in other works by Barack Obama such as 'Audacity of Hope.'Percent certainty 90% Ayers authored it. Not my opinion, but the opinion of experts.

  123. May 1, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    If William Ayers helped Barrack Obama edit one of his books, I have no problem with that. I don't know if it is true, but if it is, so what? Books are most often some form of collaboration among author, editors and publishers. The "conservatives" seem hell bent in trying to generate controversy and spread animosity and anti-government sentiment based on the most trivial and inconsequential matters. They are desperate and destructive as they spread poison through the veins of our nation.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: