The AP, reporting on the deceptive video that cost a government employee her job and slandered her good name...
The two-minute, 38-second clip posted Monday by BigGovernment.com was presented as evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in its recent resolution condemning what it calls racist elements of the tea party movement. The website's owner, Andrew Breitbart, said the video shows the civil rights group condoning the same kind of racism it says it wants to erase. Biggovernment.com is the same outfit that gained fame last year after airing video of workers at the community group ACORN counseling actors posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend [which turned out ALSO to be a slander job -dt]...
Reacting to the video on Monday, the USDA asked Sherrod to resign and the NAACP sent out a statement disavowing her comments, which were made at a local NAACP event. Sherrod then took to the media airwaves Tuesday, saying she was unfairly attacked and that the entirety of her remarks, delivered in March in Georgia, were not about racism, but part of a larger story about racial reconciliation and learning from her mistakes.
People who knew Sherrod were quick to defend her, including the wife of the white farmer who she discussed in the speech.
"We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you."
Both the NAACP and the USDA pulled back on their criticism after learning details about her speech and viewing the full video, which the NAACP posted on its website Tuesday evening...
When will we stop listening to obviously edited fake "news" published by non-news groups who have an agenda? When will they be held accountable for their slanderous actions? When will decent conservatives start apologizing for the actions of their comrades and denounce such behavior as the garbage that it is?
This makes me sick.
68 comments:
Editing is a problem on both the right and the left. It's really sad what we do to each other.
And when will the left stop running like scared children any time one of these hacks puts something up on YouTube?
Because, Alan, they are totally spineless and clueless.
The story was supported to be the NAACP crowd cheering when the speaker admitted to discriminating against whites.
No one expected the white house to fly off the trigger and fire the woman.
Breitbart owes Sharrod an apology, and Sharrod should get her job back.
[which turned out ALSO to be a slander job -dt]...
How so?
When will we stop listening to obviously edited fake "news" published by non-news groups who have an agenda?
I stopped watching CNN and reading The New York Times a long time ago.
Oh, and I assume that you will soon apologize for slandering the Tea Party movement as racist. Right?
What Dan actually wrote (as opposed to what people who cannot see past their own ideological blinders think he wrote): "They quite specifically did not call the Tea Party racist, rather, they challenged them to repudiate racism along with them by taking this "radical" pledge..."
But let's not let real words get in the way of that chip on one's shoulder, eh? ;)
That one is entirely fair, Alan.
John, no one here has accused the TP of being racist, so no apology is needed for something that never happened.
Dan wrote:
John, no one here has accused the TP of being racist, so no apology is needed for something that never happened.
But he also wrote:
3. The TP slapped that hand, doing more to enforce that racism is not merely limited to the fringes of the TP.
Perhaps I was unclear. So to clarify, if a organization asks another organization to join with them in opposing racist actions in SOME of their members, a reasonable response would seem to be "Sure, no problem! We don't want to encourage racism in any way or let it stand unopposed!"
But in striking back defensively attacking the first organization, it makes it LOOK AS IF there MIGHT be something to the notion that racism is not confined to only the fringes.
I'm not saying that the TP is racist, as I think I've been clear in stating. However, in this one comment, I was suggesting that such behavior MIGHT be indicative of some racism.
There might be other reasons for that behavior, too. Partisanship, childishness, natural defensiveness that sometimes is felt when we "feel" attacked... for instance. I'm inclined to think that the TP reaction is more likely to be explained by one of these (or other) explanations, but racism might explain it, too.
I don't know the TP leadership well enough to make the call. I'm just pointing out the possibilities. SOME of the possibilities.
Perhaps I was unclear. So to clarify, if a organization asks another organization to join with them in opposing racist actions in SOME of their members, a reasonable response would seem to be "Sure, no problem! We don't want to encourage racism in any way or let it stand unopposed!"
But in striking back defensively attacking the first organization, it makes it LOOK AS IF there MIGHT be something to the notion that racism is not confined to only the fringes.
If this was a neutral organization, that would be reasonable. But it was not. The NAACP formally and falsely accused the Tea Party movement of racism, and then asked it to condemn racism within its ranks and racism in general.
The Tea Party movement, quite properly, did not need to do any action which suggested that it agreed with the outright lies of the NAACP.
Here's an analogy. Let's say I come out and say "I am sickened by the pedophilia in Dan Trabue. It is poisonous to him and our society. We call upon Dan Trabue to condemn the pedophilic elements of his nature and condemn pedophilia in general."
An appropriate response on your part would be to tell me to "f*ck off", because there's no reason to think that you are a pedophile, and by joining me in any such statement, you'd basically be admitting that the charge was true.
I'm not saying that the TP is racist, as I think I've been clear in stating. However, in this one comment, I was suggesting that such behavior MIGHT be indicative of some racism.
Thanks for clarifying that. Now what evidence do you have that Tea Party behavior is indicative of racism within the movement? In a way that makes it stand out beyond any other random collection of people?
There might be other reasons for that behavior, too. Partisanship, childishness, natural defensiveness that sometimes is felt when we "feel" attacked... for instance. I'm inclined to think that the TP reaction is more likely to be explained by one of these (or other) explanations, but racism might explain it, too.
It's also possible that Tea Party folk have simply political opinions different from yours.
I don't know the TP leadership well enough to make the call. I'm just pointing out the possibilities. SOME of the possibilities.
It's possible that you're a pedophile. But it'd would be grossly unfair of me to suggest that without clear evidence.
In the full video, Sherrod thanks the NAACP president for being there. How could the NAACP be blaming BigGovernment or Fox New for getting (in their own words) "snookered"? There was no need for "learning details".
I suppose it's an explanation, and I'm just pointing out a possibility, that the NAACP has quite a pull with the White House and tried to distance itself from embarrassment, without taking the time (about 16 hours time between the edited video airing and their reaction to it) to get the details right, from their own members and president. Please don't attempt to suggest that they were totally taken by surprise by this.
I condemn Breitbart's posting of that video without getting the context first. Saying that he personally didn't edit it is a whitewashing. If you're not seeing much of this sort of reaction from the Right, might I suggest you're not looking very hard?
" But it was not. The NAACP formally and falsely accused the Tea Party movement of racism..."
Actually the NAACP "unanimously passed resolution demanded that the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements and make it clear that there is no space in the organization for bigotry."
Anyone who has seen videos of the protests, including blatantly racist signs, cannot seriously and honestly deny that there are racist elements in the tea party movement.
Thanks Doug, for some reasonable positions from the Right.
John...
Here's an analogy. Let's say I come out and say "I am sickened by the pedophilia in Dan Trabue... We call upon Dan Trabue to condemn the pedophilic elements of his nature and condemn pedophilia in general."
That analogy might make some sense if there were NO REASON to suspect the Dan Trabue organization of in any way whatsoever supporting or condoning pedophilia. However, if, at a Daniel Trabue meeting, there were people holding signs in support of pedophilia, then you would be right in calling for Dan Trabue to denounce pedophilia within its ranks. Dan Trabue, in response, ought obviously to say, "Well, of COURSE we don't support pedophilia and we DEMAND that those amongst our supporters who hold such signs up go away. You're not welcome!"
Again, can any one seriously picture a liberal group holding a protest where racist signs were held up? No, of course not. It would not be stood for. Such persons would be asked to leave or at least remove their signs.
Protests/gatherings aren't (or shouldn't be) free-for-alls. Not if you want to actually advance your cause.
Sorry John, but your analogy is WAY off.
I'd say anyone who takes any of this all that seriously simply doesn't understand politics these days.
The right constantly finds egregious examples of X and tries to use those isolated examples to paint all liberals as supporters of X. The left does the same (as some have in this case, though I continue to believe from the words of the actual resolution from the NAACP that this is not what they were doing, nor do I believe that's what Dan has done here.)
Then both sides get to play gotcha politics and the hypocrisy game.
It's just a game folks. It is simply an attempt to push rhetoric over real substantive conversation on real issues. (See for example the kerfuffle over Sherrod in which a real conversation about race could have happened, but now won't.)
The only reason that the right is ticked off here is that the NAACP and the left have successfully been able to call out racist elements of the tea party movement and they've got the video to prove it. The right is just mad that they can't seriously defend against it.
The only way this will end is if people start having the guts to 1) acknowledge the egregious elements in their movement, 2) immediately and forcefully call out those elements as non-representative, and 3) stop trying to paint the other side. But that would require guts, intelligence, and some confidence in the voters. Unfortunately politicians generally have none of the above, and every time someone gets snookered into playing this game, as John is doing herein, the politicians are proven right.
There's a sucker born every minute, I guess.
Apparently.
Dan wrote:
Again, can any one seriously picture a liberal group holding a protest where racist signs were held up? No, of course not. It would not be stood for. Such persons would be asked to leave or at least remove their signs.
"Smash the Jewish State"
Protests/gatherings aren't (or shouldn't be) free-for-alls. Not if you want to actually advance your cause.
Agreed. So kindly provide evidence that Tea Party movement is marred by racism.
Alan wrote:
The only reason that the right is ticked off here is that the NAACP and the left have successfully been able to call out racist elements of the tea party movement and they've got the video to prove it.
The only reason the left is playing the race card is because it knows that it's lost the policy debate. As Spencer Ackerman advised "call them racists" rather than engage in substantive debate.
The right is just mad that they can't seriously defend against it.
Evidence, please.
The only way this will end is if people start having the guts to 1) acknowledge the egregious elements in their movement, 2) immediately and forcefully call out those elements as non-representative, and 3) stop trying to paint the other side. But that would require guts, intelligence, and some confidence in the voters. Unfortunately politicians generally have none of the above, and every time someone gets snookered into playing this game, as John is doing herein, the politicians are proven right.
Then perhaps you would care to follow your own advice and denounce groups like the NAACP that have slandered their opponents as racist.
Dan wrote:
That analogy might make some sense if there were NO REASON to suspect the Dan Trabue organization of in any way whatsoever supporting or condoning pedophilia. However, if, at a Daniel Trabue meeting, there were people holding signs in support of pedophilia, then you would be right in calling for Dan Trabue to denounce pedophilia within its ranks. Dan Trabue, in response, ought obviously to say, "Well, of COURSE we don't support pedophilia and we DEMAND that those amongst our supporters who hold such signs up go away. You're not welcome!"
I have no evidence that Dan Trabue is a pedophile. Nonetheless, if I were to follow the example of the NAACP, I would insist that it is obviously true. If necessary, by fabricating it, as Think Progress recently did.
So I have an alternative proposal: let's not call each other racist or pedophile or any other baseless accusation that does nothing to foster meaningful debate.
To falsely accuse someone of racism is poisonous to civil society and demeans the effects of real and actual racism.
Let's cut it out.
Yes, let's NOT call each other racist when there's no reason for doing so. Fortunately, no one here on the Left has done so. We simply haven't. Nor has the NAACP.
As demonstrated by the facts of the situation.
Instead, what they DID was to call for the TP to denounce those who HAVE factually and observably been engaged in racist actions at their protests, those within the TP umbrella who use their events to espouse racist thoughts.
This much is fair and reasonable.
Again, you just WOULD NOT find this happening in a liberal crowd, generally speaking, disagreements about Israeli politics notwithstanding.
"Then perhaps you would care to follow your own advice and denounce groups like the NAACP that have slandered their opponents as racist."
They didn't. They called some elements of the tea party racist, based on the clear evidence from the signs we've all seen at these events.
Let's start with that simple sentence and you point out for me the part of it you don't get. If I can use smaller words, I'll try. Unfortunately my computer doesn't type in crayon.
"Agreed. So kindly provide evidence that Tea Party movement is marred by racism."
Ah, maybe you're not stupid, just uneducated. Do your own work. Do a google image search for "tea party racist sign". If that's too complicated, ask an adult for help.
"The only reason the left is playing the race card is because it knows that it's lost the policy debate."
ROFL. What policy debate? The right has no interest in debating policy. They'd rather scream about non-existent death panels, the end of civilization if gay marriage is legalized, and other nonsense. I see no evidence that you or anyone else on the right has any interest in debating policy.
BTW, John, your repeated whining about meaningful debate would be more believable if your contributions here were anything more than "I know you are but what am I?"
Proof of racist actions by some in the TP?
"Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government 'stop raising our taxes.' That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide-screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist!
The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong."
How 'bout that?
Or signs that say...
"Obamanomics: Monkey see, Monkey spend"
"Congress[?] = slaveowner taxpayer = Ni***r"
(not even sure what that one's supposed to mean, but it sure sounds racist? What NON-racist person would hold a sign with the "n" word on it)
"Cap congress and trade Obama back to Kenya"
"the long legged Mack Daddy"
Or how about David Duke (remember him?) who claims support from many TP folk?
Or how about the fact that Stormfront, a white racist organization, is actively supporting the TP?
For instance. Are you unfamiliar with the signs and actions or are you just suggesting that the signs, etc are not enough "proof" of racist behavior to be called out for it?
There have clearly been signs with racist overtones at some of the TP events. Calling upon the TP to oppose THAT action and any other racist overtones is NOT calling the TP racist. If Code Pink rallies regularly had signs with racist overtones, the NAACP would rightly call upon them to remove them and denounce racism.
I don't see at all what there is difficult to understand about this.
I get that you're saying that "a few" signs at "a few" rallies is not proof that the TP is racist. I agree. So, of course, I'm not saying that, nor is the NAACP.
Instead, the signs, the Duke and Stormfront types, are indication that there are racist overtones in some edges of the TP movement. THIS is what we think is reasonable for the TP to denounce.
Tell me, if you were running for office and the KKK offered to throw their support behind you, would you gladly accept it, or would you say No, thanks? We're saying it's reasonable to denounce such support and make sure that THIS racist fringe is not what you're standing for.
For a little levity, check out:
https://twitter.com/search?q=ifandrewbreitbarteditedit
For Andrew Breitbart's take on classic literature and movies.
That first quote might be proof of racism if Mark Williams hadn't been ejected by mainstream Tea Party groups right after he wrote it. So Dan, using that as your lead example is extremely disingenuous. It's almost as if you've made up your mind about whether or not the TP is racist, and are strenuously avoiding information that might exonerate them.
If you expect the TP to disavow every nutty sign at a rally or every racist that *claims* TP support, then the Left has been severely delinquent in disavowing the communists at their rallies or those who support the destruction of Israel or those who equated Bush to Hitler. (Unless, of course, you support those sorts of things, which one might possibly assume if they were to hold your folks to their same standards your demanding from the Tea Party.) You did click on those links from John, right?
Not to mention that there is no single "Tea Party" organization; it's a grassroots as they come, and there is no one single person or committee speaking for it. So it's a little harder to attribute a single, specific statement to "The Tea Party".
Nonetheless, based on this, if the Tea Party indeed did a blanket denouncement of racism, I wonder if the Left will even notice.
"then the Left has been severely delinquent in disavowing the communists at their rallies or those who support the destruction of Israel or those who equated Bush to Hitler. "
Exactly as I predicted above. "The right constantly finds egregious examples of X and tries to use those isolated examples to paint all liberals as supporters of X"
See, Doug? You've got the rules to this little game down perfectly. Exactly as the politicians want you to play. Keep 'em distracted on minutia. Nicely played. ;)
It's almost as if you've made up your mind about whether or not the TP is racist
No, just going where the evidence takes me. WHICH IS NOT to the conclusion that the TP is racist, as a group, or that a majority of the TP folk are racist themselves or engage in racist commentary.
I don't know how much more clear I can be on this point. It seems to me that some want to see the NAACP and folk like me as seeing the TP as racist and no amount of evidence and direct quotes to the contrary can convince them otherwise.
No, the evidence is that there ARE some racist things said by and from some TP participants. The NAACP is just asking the TP to officially repudiate such behavior.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, I see no great benefit to repeating what has been made abundantly clear, thank you very much.
Doug...
then the Left has been severely delinquent in disavowing the communists at their rallies or those who support the destruction of Israel or those who equated Bush to Hitler.
You will note that I have not suggested that the TP ought to stop comparing Obama to Hitler. That is just stupid, like comparing Bush to Hitler. I don't care to see the TP denounce comparisons to Hitler (although I think all groups would be wise to not do such), I DO think it reasonable to ask them to denounce the racist fringes of their group.
Comparing communism (a belief in shared resources) to racism is a bad comparison. I don't think communism works at the state level, but many reasonable and good people disagree and would like to see more sharing and less greed. It would be a disservice to compare that sort of belief to racism.
Alan, thanks for the funny link. Here it is for those who don't want to copy and paste.
Alan:
Exactly as I predicted above. "The right constantly finds egregious examples of X and tries to use those isolated examples to paint all liberals as supporters of X"
You seem to be completely unaware of when Dan does this, but you pounce when I ask him to follow his own standards. Pathetic, and blindly partisan.
Dan wrote:
Yes, let's NOT call each other racist when there's no reason for doing so. Fortunately, no one here on the Left has done so. We simply haven't. Nor has the NAACP.
As demonstrated by the facts of the situation.
Here's an official statement from the NAACP:
The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vile, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the “n-word” in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation’s first openly gay member of Congress.
So the NAACP repeats an outright lie recorded on camera and suggests that racism is commonplace in the Tea Party movement.
Or you consider lying to be acceptable political tactic?
Instead, what they DID was to call for the TP to denounce those who HAVE factually and observably been engaged in racist actions at their protests, those within the TP umbrella who use their events to espouse racist thoughts.
This much is fair and reasonable.
Evidence, please.
Or signs that say...
"Obamanomics: Monkey see, Monkey spend"
"Congress[?] = slaveowner taxpayer = Ni***r"
(not even sure what that one's supposed to mean, but it sure sounds racist? What NON-racist person would hold a sign with the "n" word on it)
"Cap congress and trade Obama back to Kenya"
"the long legged Mack Daddy"
Where? Show the pictures, where they were taken, and when. Be specific. What's the provenance of these individual images? Given the history of fabricating signage and attributing it to the Tea Party, I'd like to know that it actually came from Tea Party folks, and not people interest in planting phony evidence.
I recently saw a punch of people carrying signs equating Obama to Hitler. But they were LaRouchies, not Tea Party. To attribute their actions to the Tea Party would be slander.
Or how about David Duke (remember him?) who claims support from many TP folk?
Or how about the fact that Stormfront, a white racist organization, is actively supporting the TP?
So what? The important question is, does the Tea Party support these people?
There have clearly been signs with racist overtones at some of the TP events. Calling upon the TP to oppose THAT action and any other racist overtones is NOT calling the TP racist. If Code Pink rallies regularly had signs with racist overtones, the NAACP would rightly call upon them to remove them and denounce racism.
What, like these folks?
I don't see at all what there is difficult to understand about this.
It's very simple Dan: people don't like to be falsely accused of racism. And you may now be backing down from that claim, but you came out swinging against the Tea Party movement not for its public policy positions, but with a heavy insinuation that it's basically a racist movement.
The rare, racist wackos that show up at Tea Party rallies are just that -- rare. They don't represent the movement, and you damn well know it. Ignore them and focus on the policy disagreements.
Really, Dan, what would you have lost if you had instead wrote "I disagree with the Tea Party movement's proposed financial and economic policies because...."? Wouldn't that be a better approach than unjustly tarring a movement as racist?
If your side -- or ours -- can't win by articulating persuasive public policies, you don't deserve to win.
Alan wrote:
Ah, maybe you're not stupid, just uneducated. Do your own work. Do a google image search for "tea party racist sign". If that's too complicated, ask an adult for help.
Wow. You consider a Google Image search to be quality research?
Who are you calling stupid?
The moon landing was faked. I've made up my mind. You can't convince me otherwise.
Wouldn't dream of trying, Bro. Dave.
John, I have seen a rally here in my own town. I've seen at least two or three signs at that rally that had racist-sounding messages (more, if you count the Confederate flags present). I don't recall what those were and so I had not mentioned it thus far, but I do recall seeing them with my own eyes.
I think one would be hard-pressed to say that there are not some of these signs at some of these meetings. The NAACP simply asked them to condemn such signs and any such language/actions. They have not - nor have I - called the TP racist.
We just haven't. Not in the real world.
"You seem to be completely unaware of when Dan does this, but you pounce when I ask him to follow his own standards. Pathetic, and blindly partisan."
Nope. Since he didn't suggest that the racists in the tea party movement are emblematic of the whole movement, he didn't do that.
Seriously, if you and John can't figure that out, I don't see the sense in continuing to repeat it for the 200th time.
It really ain't that complicated.
BTW, Doug, since you can read minds and believe that I'm blindly partisan, clearly you can tell me which party I vote for?
"Who are you calling stupid?"
No one. I am, in fact, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply either 1) unaware of the facts, or 2) "blindly partisan." ;)
Elvis is still alive. I have made up my mind. You can't convince me otherwise.
Just getting down to brass tacks. Dan asks:
No, the evidence is that there ARE some racist things said by and from some TP participants. The NAACP is just asking the TP to officially repudiate such behavior.
Fair enough. But I've already said that there are 2 problems with this:
1. There is no official, monolithic Tea Party organization, akin to the NAACP. There will not be any statements, of any sort, coming from "The" Tea Party, because there is no such organization as "The" Tea Party.
The NAACP knows this, and this is as much a PR move as anything. Since "The" Tea Party doesn't exist, the NAACP members can feel free to believe that this fictional organization is racist without the NAACP itself having to make the charge explicitly.
2. As in my previous example, egregious racist language used by prominent local members of local Tea Party organizations have, in fact, caused them to be removed at the local level. Yet this incident is still being used against the TP in general when it turned out precisely the way the Left would want it to. This is the blind partisanship of which I speak. Absolutely not giving credit to one side where credit is due.
Don't actions speak louder than words?
Here's an honest question for John and Doug, since they seem to be Tea Party apologists.
Where have they been for the last 8 years? That is, I'm just wondering why, after 8 years of GWB expanding the size of the federal gov't by close to a third, the teabaggers were silent. His tax cuts and the TARP program both increased the deficit, yet not one squeak from these folks who supposedly are interested in decreasing the reach of the federal gov't. (Not to mention the ballooning costs of Bush's wars, one of which was wholly unnecessary. Still, not a peep from the teabaggers.)
I have my own hypotheses, but I'd be interested to hear someone who seems to support these folks as to what their thoughts are, particularly in the light of comments made here about "blind partisanship."
Search my personal blog for the terms "Republican drunken sailor" and you'll find 3 examples of me using that specific description. There are other posts complaining about the same thing that say it differently.
Other conservatives did, indeed, use that same term during the Bush years, complaining that Republicans had lost their smaller government credibility.
Again, just as with repudiation of actual racism in the Tea Party, conservatives were repudiating spending back then and the liberals just didn't notice. If you get your news from the MSM, I understand why you may have missed that, but that just means you need to expand your news source horizons a bit.
However, the Obama administration's spending proposals (see here and here), dwarfing anything that preceded it (even GWB), are what really sprung the Tea Party to life.
Your answer just raises more questions than it answers, I'm afraid.
So why'd they elect GWB a second time?
And why'd they nominate McCain who certainly had a hand in all that spending? Where were the teaparties during the campaign? Heck, for that matter where were the teaperties during Clinton? You see why some might think it strange that now and only now they've suddenly decided it's a bad idea to spend money?
Yes, I have heard some a very few Republicans occasionally opine that Republican spending has been out of control (since, dare I say, Reagan? Eep! My apologies for daring to criticize the Messiah.) Yet, apparently Republicans keep nominating and electing these folks anyway. Just another inconsistency that I've never understood.
But then, when people at teaparty rallies hold up signs saying "Keep government out of my medicare", I probably shouldn't expect too much in the way of consistency from them, eh? :)
Too bad, because contrary to what you clearly think about my blind partisanship and daily MSM drip, I usually vote for real conservatives in the all-to-rare cases when one runs for something, usually for local or state stuff because no one like that could get elected nationally.
The problem is finding a real conservative. You'd think these tea party folks would find one who wasn't simultaneously a small-gov't fiscal conservative and bat-sh*t crazy (Yeah, I'm looking at you Palin.) But even when they get one elected, (Scott Brown) he turns out to be not exactly what they expected. Meh.
So why'd they elect GWB a second time? And why'd they nominate McCain who certainly had a hand in all that spending? Where were the teaparties during the campaign? Heck, for that matter where were the teaperties during Clinton? You see why some might think it strange that now and only now they've suddenly decided it's a bad idea to spend money?
Because the conventional wisdom was that the Republican, whoever it was, would be comparatively better in that department. Barack Obama has most certainly proved that true. You did look at the video and graphs at the links? It's the unprecedented spending now that woke so many people up to this. It's really that simple.
Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone; the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy. I have made up my mind. You can't convince me otherwise.
What? They're just now waking up?
Pfft. Obviously, they've been buried in partisan politics with their heads stuck deep down in the sand.
Those of us whose eyes have been wide open and above ground can't possibly take them seriously. They've got too much sand left on their faces to be believable.
Well, I looked at the graph. It's pretty. Doesn't actually mean anything because it doesn't actually give any details about the assumptions built in. But it's pretty and if I liked pretty graphs, I'd certainly like that one. (I've seen other pretty graphs that give other numbers and are pretty damning regarding the Bush tax cuts. They're pretty too.)
"We're going to cut taxes!" "We're going to cut spending!" Republicans have been saying that since Lincoln and don't have any better record than the Democrats. So why would anyone believe them now?
I guess I'm not naive enough to believe that the folks the teapartiers are supporting are any different than any other politician. Nor do I see much evidence, unfortunately, that any of them are real conservatives.
Oddly enough, here's another pretty graph also supposedly from the CBO that gives very different numbers from the one you linked to, Doug.
http://perotcharts.com/2009/02/projected-budget-deficit-congressional-budget-office-baseline-plus-stimulus-bill/
It seems to show that, once TARP and ARRA, etc., are over in a year, that the deficit won't look much different under Obama than Bush, or Bush or Reagan.
Given that the only president in recent history to have a budget surplus was Clinton, a democrat, can you explain why teapartiers are so right wing? If we go by the evidence, democrats seem more fiscally responsible than Republicans. ;)
It seems to show that, once TARP and ARRA, etc., are over in a year, that the deficit won't look much different under Obama than Bush, or Bush or Reagan.
Indeed. but the debt passed on from this President will have to be paid by someone. Continuing the same sorts of deficits after this would mean huge, huge tax increases.
Given that the only president in recent history to have a budget surplus was Clinton, a democrat, can you explain why teapartiers are so right wing?
Congress passes budgets, Presidents just propose them. Clinton did a great thing proposing a budget with a surplus, but he'd had advance notice that the Republicans in Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, were all for keeping spending down. When Obama's budgets hit the Democratic Congress, that is just never gonna' happen.
Marty:
Those of us whose eyes have been wide open and above ground can't possibly take them seriously.
Fair enough. But I'll accept folks who are very late to the game, who had no interest in politics before, but have received a huge jolt to wake them up, rather than dismiss them and risk pushing them back into their complacency. If we do that, then their previous thoughts about the futility of getting involved at all in politics will simply be reinforced. They're awake, and they finally realize what's going on. I'm not inclined to put them back to sleep.
I see. So Clinton's budget surplus was because of the Republicans, and Obama's deficit is because of the Democrats.
Heh. Nice tidy box you got there. LOL
I see. So Clinton's budget surplus was because of the Republicans, and Obama's deficit is because of the Democrats.
Hey, the law's the law; Presidents don't pass budgets. Budgets are what they are because of Congress.
By the way, just saw where the CBO is also concerned about the debt.
Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP) almost certainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push federal spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, well above the levels experienced in recent decades. Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.
The deficit is one thing. The debt is something else entirely and needs to really be considered when viewing future deficits.
"Presidents don't pass budgets. Budgets are what they are because of Congress."
"However, the Obama administration's spending proposals ... are what really sprung the Tea Party to life."
So the teapartiers don't understand the basics of how budgets work. Unfortunate, but not surprising.
"Presidents don't pass budgets. Budgets are what they are because of Congress."
"However, the Obama administration's spending proposals ... are what really sprung the Tea Party to life."
So the teapartiers don't understand the basics of how budgets work. Unfortunate, but not surprising.
The President proposes, but Congress can do what it wants. What's your problem with those two statements? Sure the President signs it, but for budgets that's almost a formality.
The 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration. I've made up my mind. You can't convince me otherwise.
Brother Dave, I appreciate the joke, but that's enough, okay?
Dan: "Brother Dave, I appreciate the joke, but that's enough, okay?"
Dave: You got the joke, but did you get the point? In each scenario I posted (none of which I truly believe, BTW), I know some very intelligent people on both sides of the issue, each with their own set of "facts" and "evidence". And each side has a counter-argument to every challenge. Minds are rarely changed.
With the internet becoming so pervasive in American culture, and with the technical capability to alter photographs and edit videos, the "truth" will remain elusive, as each side now has, in addition to our own well-rehearsed ideological beliefs and "talking points", a set of graphics (real or edited) to support our position.
Sadly, when our arguments fail, we turn to name-calling.
And America continues down the path of extreme polarization along the road to destruction.
Dan, John, Alan, et al, is there any common ground in this debate? Is there anything that can unite us?
I would think we could unite on rejecting overt racist messages.
I would think we could unite on rejecting questionable "news" from dubious "sources."
I would think we could unite on withholding judgment until all the facts are in.
Which would be the point of this post.
Do you think so, too?
"The President proposes, but Congress can do what it wants. What's your problem with those two statements? Sure the President signs it, but for budgets that's almost a formality."
I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is folks like yourself saying such reasonable things, then blaming the president when it is politically convenient to do so, and hailing the president when he happens to be a member of your party.
Either the president is responsible for deficits, in which case the Democrats have a better track record (ie. Clinton) in recent history than Republicans and the teaparty hitching it's star to Republican candidates is therefore silly, OR presidents aren't responsible for deficits, in which case the anti-Obama sentiment of the teapartiers (which is what you say is the very reason for their existence) is, at best, uninformed.
Or you can try to have it both ways, as you seem to be doing, but there's no reason for anyone to conclude that it's anything but political games.
"I know some very intelligent people on both sides of the issue, each with their own set of "facts" and "evidence". And each side has a counter-argument to every challenge. Minds are rarely changed."
The problem is that there is not an equivalence between the facts on one side and the other. Nor is there an equivalence of the arguments. I suggest reading an interesting book called "Why people believe weird things" that is all about why people get sucked into stupid thinking like 9/11 truthers, the Obama birthers, and other people who refuse to see reality.
Indeed, minds are rarely changed, which is why I never bother to try to do so.
Common ground? Probably not. At least I don't see any evidence to conclude that it's possible in this context from this exchange. We can't even agree on that the plain meaning of "the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements" is not the same as calling the entire tea party movement racist. Not because the words don't clearly and obviously mean what they say, but because some people have a vested interest in intentionally misinterpreting the statement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Either the president is responsible for deficits, in which case the Democrats have a better track record (ie. Clinton) in recent history than Republicans and the teaparty hitching it's star to Republican candidates is therefore silly, OR presidents aren't responsible for deficits, in which case the anti-Obama sentiment of the teapartiers (which is what you say is the very reason for their existence) is, at best, uninformed.
Or you can try to have it both ways, as you seem to be doing, but there's no reason for anyone to conclude that it's anything but political games.
Not trying to have it both ways. You just heard me say how I credited Clinton with proposing a surplus budget. I also credited the Republican Congress for passing it. I then fault a Democratic President for proposing massive, unsustainable spending, and similarly fault the Democratic Congress for passing it.
Completely consistent. But apparently you've made up your mind already about what I think, since you're making claims about what I think that are in contrast to what I'm saying in this very thread. I suspect you've already made up your mind about the Tea Party as well. Fair enough.
Dan: "I would think we could unite on rejecting overt racist messages."
Dave: Agreed. The problem is, "racist" is such a loaded and inflamatory term (at least here in Memphis) that people immediately go on the defensive; thus, rational dialogue fails.
Dan: I would think we could unite on rejecting questionable "news" from dubious "sources."
Dave: I wish we could, but we can't seem to agree on which sources are credible and which are dubious. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and most seem to have no problem "spinning the truth" to make it fit their agenda.
Dan: I would think we could unite on withholding judgment until all the facts are in.
Dave: Again, I wish this was true, but without credible sources of information, we don't have access to credible "facts". Walter Cronkite is dead. So who can we believe now -- Fox News? CNN? NYTimes? Newsweek? Wikipedia? Jon Stewart? Any of the bajillion sites on the interweb claiming expertise?
Dan: Which would be the point of this post.
Dave: Agreed. I recognized that as the point of your post. And I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opening yourself to the dialogue. Again, I hope in the midst of the dialogue, we can stop the accusations and name-calling and look for common ground...
...which would be the point of my posts here.
"But apparently you've made up your mind already about what I think, since you're making claims about what I think that are in contrast to what I'm saying in this very thread."
Heh. Nice try, but FAIL, as the kids say. I'm not the one who can't understand a basic sentence like, "unanimously passed resolution demanded that the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements" Pot, meet kettle.
No, instead I simply pointed out that your reason -- the reason you yourself gave for the TeaParty coming out now instead of sometime in the past -- was because of Obama. Then I pointed out that you -- yes you yourself -- made the accurate statement that the president is not responsible for passing the budget.
Its a fairly simple point that doesn't have anything to do with your silly suggestion that I'm stating anything about what you think that you haven't clearly stated.
So my question remains unanswered. My question was, why now? Why not during Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Your answer is because of Obama. But democrats have a better record than Republicans. So your answer is nonsense.
Or perhaps it is because of Obama, but not because of deficits.
You're cherry-picking individual words from my answers. I'll leave it to other readers to determine who's being silly.
Alan: The problem is that there is not an equivalence between the facts on one side and the other. Nor is there an equivalence of the arguments.
Dave: Maybe, maybe not. But I have found that people on "the other side" are often as deeply entrenched in what they believe as I am in what I believe. And they have their "facts" to support their position.
One example: One of the leaders of the 9-11 Truthers was my faculty advisor in seminary - a very respected prof with a PhD in philosophical religion. He has written four books tying 9-11 to the Bush administration. He got into the 9-11 conspiracy stuff after reading reports on the internet that he considered credible.
I don't believe he is politically motivated. And I would not call him "ignorant". By most counts he is esteemed as being very intelligent. But on this subject he is informed by sources I don't find credible.
So again, where can we find common ground when we disagree?
And if there is no common ground, can we simply agree to disagree and still live together in peace?
"But I have found that people on "the other side" are often as deeply entrenched in what they believe as I am in what I believe. And they have their "facts" to support their position."
Indeed, and the fact that you write "facts" in quotes tells me that you too know that there are things that are true and things that people wish were true, and that those things are not always (rarely?) the same.
There is, out there in the world, quite a lot of gray. But, in fact, most people in most disciplines have worked out pretty well-designed and rigorous and robust mechanisms for deciding what constitutes evidence and what constitutes a logical argument. In almost every case in which someone believes something stupid (ie. 9/11 truthers, moon landing fakes, etc.) they simply violate what constitutes good evidence and good reasoning/logical arguments. So no, I will not grant that they have their "facts." They don't, no matter how much their post hoc reasoning (of the type we've seen in this conversation) convinces them.
"And if there is no common ground, can we simply agree to disagree and still live together in peace?"
I'm all for and all about mutual forbearance. I honestly couldn't care less what people think about X, as long as they do me the favor of minding their own business. I feel that the Oprah-ization of our culture has turned most people into busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds whose deepest need and desire is to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and what to believe. Frankly these Gladys Kravitz's can bite me, and I'm not interested in playing nice with them just for "peace." But if they want to mind their own business and stop butting into other people's lives with their unwanted meddling, then great!
Unfortunately, though I'm happy to practice live-and-let-live, I have found that far, far too few others are willing to grant me the same respect.
See what happens when I'm away?!?
This whole thing was sad. Breitbart won't eat crow, sadly. Ms. Sharrod won't take an offered new position at the Dept. of Agriculture, and frankly, I don't blame her. Who wants to work for such a feckless coward as Tom Vilsack anyway?
And why is it that the Obama Administration is so ready to buy crap on a right-wing site but refuses to listen to the left-wing of the party that less frequently tries to doctor the news, presents fables as facts, and believes that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together? I mean, come on, people, grow a spine!
That is all until somehow someway my DSL line gets activated . . . .
Post a Comment