Perspective
Sunday’s Washington Post had yet another article about the nasty, in-your-face state of political discourse in the US.
It has been nearly a year since Barack Obama, running as a uniter and not a divider, was elected president by the largest margin in 20 years. The loop on cable news of thousands of beaming faces in Chicago’s Grant Park has given way to a summer and fall of thousands of other faces contorting in defiance and fear. A congressman yelled “You lie!” at the president on national TV. A liberal bit off the finger of a conservative during a confrontation over public health insurance.
On Friday, just hours after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Republicans and Democrats were at their battle stations again.
The nation’s political discourse seems sour, angry, even dangerous; “uglier than it’s ever been” is a phrase often volunteered — as if President George W. Bush had never been depicted as Hitler, declared a dunce and heckled by Code Pink during his second inaugural address.
A video of school children in New Jersey singing a song praising Obama is some of the latest fuel for rightwing rage against the President (who, of course, had no more to do with it than he did with his selection for the Nobel Peace Prize).
Critics are using the YouTube video of the children’s song to argue that Obama is becoming a brainwashing dictator. To raise money for the Republican National Committee, Chairman Michael S. Steele has compared the song to “the type of propaganda you see in Stalin’s Russia.”
Charisse Carney-Nunes, a children’s author who was doing a reading at the New Jersey school that day and who had nothing to do with the song, became the object of rage and threats.
“I was fearful,” she said. “I was looking over my shoulder.” The disrespect for the office of the presidency disturbed her. “I won a contest in college and President Reagan gave me an award, and that signed letter is still hanging in its frame in the foyer of my mother’s home. We are very proud of that letter, even though my mother didn’t vote for him.”
Still, it helps to put these explosions of political anger into some historical perspective.
The Post article recalls the radio priest Father Charles Coughlin, a one-time supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who turned viciously against him after a couple of years into his presidency.
The great betrayer and liar, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who promised to drive the money changers from the temple, had succeeded [only] in driving the farmers from their homesteads and the citizens from their homes in the cities. . . I ask you to purge the man who claims to be a Democrat, from the Democratic Party, and I mean Franklin Double-Crossing Roosevelt.
Much like Glenn Beck today, Coughlin raged against sinister and powerful forces supposedly controlling the lives of ordinary Americans. However, distinctly unlike Beck, he aimed his wrath mostly at wealthy capitalists and “Jewish international bankers” while praising the actions of Hitler and Mussolini.
Also unlike Beck, who gets about 3 million viewers for his nightly Fox News show, Coughlin drew enormous audiences. At his height, his weekly radio show was reported to attract an audience of between 30 and 40 million– this when the US population was less than half of what it is today. By that standard, Coughlin was vastly more popular than Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage and Hannity combined.
And yet– despite Coughlin’s efforts to defeat Roosevelt in 1936, including support for a third-party candidate– FDR won a huge reelection victory, carrying every state except Maine and Vermont.
Comments
| 12 October 2009, 6:39 pm |
Oh, and gene, I know you never heard Coughlin’s broadcast. Have you ever watched a Beck episode to see why he draws about 5 times as many viewers as his competition?
| 12 October 2009, 6:49 pm |
I have to say I would find it disturbing to see children singing odes to Blair, Brown, Cameron, or Clegg.
Well, have a gander:
| 12 October 2009, 6:49 pm |
Joshua Goldberg argues that Coughlin attacked FDR from the left, rather than the right, but then he would.
I have to say I would find it disturbing to see children singing odes to Blair, Brown, Cameron, or Clegg.
| 12 October 2009, 6:51 pm |
Why no link to the creeepy video of the New Jersey schoolchildren?
I did it for you, mesquito.
In terms of creepiness, I’d says it’s a close call between Beck and the song, with the edge to Beck.
And he was wrong about Charisse Carney-Nunes leading the singing. I don’t know if he’s acknowledged that or not.
| 12 October 2009, 6:53 pm |
And he was wrong about Charisse Carney-Nunes leading the singing. I don’t know if he’s acknowledged that or not.
I’m sure you wore out your google trying to find out.
| 12 October 2009, 6:55 pm |
On Friday, just hours after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Republicans and Democrats were at their battle stations again.
Chortle.
“I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce.” – Peter Beinart
“This is ridiculous — embarrassing, even.” – Ruth Marcus
“Nonetheless, the president seemed humbled by the news and the Norwegian committee packed for its trip to the United States, where it will appear on Dancing with the Stars.” – Richard Cohen
“It is undeserved. It is a bit ridiculous.” – Ezra Klein
“When I saw this morning’s top New York Times headline — “Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize” — I had the same immediate reaction which I’m certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing.” – Glen Greenwald
| 12 October 2009, 6:56 pm |
Did Glenn Beck foul himself when Jesus Camp made little kids offer blessings and thanks to a card board cut out of George Bush?
| 12 October 2009, 7:00 pm |
Surely, Andrew Murphy, you can appreciate the difference between a Christian summer camp a public school?
| 12 October 2009, 7:06 pm |
Surely, Andrew Murphy, you can appreciate the difference between a Christian summer camp a public school?
What’s the difference when impressionable kids are involved? OK, you can say that the parents of the kids at the camp approved of that stuff, but how do you know?
| 12 October 2009, 7:12 pm |
Uh, Gene, one is summer camp of a bizarre Pentocostal sect, the other is a public school. The parents who send their kids to the former presumably understand that OTT religious rituals may be involved. I’ll hazzard a guess this was not the case in the latter instance.
| 12 October 2009, 7:16 pm |
The religious overtones of the song surely cross over the boundaries concerning church and state. The line in the song “We are equal in his sight” does sound like someone REALLY thinks Obama is some kind of second coming…
| 12 October 2009, 7:21 pm |
Clearly the new Obamaton marching orders are to marginalize the “opposition” at all costs – thus must Gene contribute his two cents.
Next new marginalization theme: gay rights supporters ~= leftist internet nuts. I suspect the Rev. Wright would approve.
| 12 October 2009, 7:30 pm |
I guess Beck is getting too close to the unraveling of Obama. He MUST be pilloried. Beck is out in the lead with Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz, Savage, Levin, Dick Morris, Rove etc trailing. Beck plays the eccentric centre forward while the midfield is doing all the work.
Obama never wanted to be The Messiah. Its just a co-incidence that his campaign and stage management looked like it. Its not fair because this criticism simply masks the greatness that is “Obama”. One simply has to list his achievements since office:-
1) Choose dog for the kids.
2) ……….
| 12 October 2009, 7:33 pm |
I’d have to say that video looked much more like something from Chauchescu’s Romania than Stalin’s Russia to me… I guess Steele didn’t want to confuse the fox viewers though.
| 12 October 2009, 7:35 pm |
mesquito,
My understanding is that the Obama song deal was pre-planned for Black History Month, the parents were notified in advance they were going to do this and there has not been any reports of parents raising hell prior to this silly song fest.
How about teenagers on the White House lawn, in 1972 singing “we love you” to Richard Nixon?
| 12 October 2009, 7:43 pm |
Leave aside how “Black History Month” was transformed into an excuse to deify Our President, I’m supposing the teens in 1972 singing to Nixon were not there as part of a compulsory public school event. But I must say I like the new test: teacher-led sectarian prayer in public schools is to be permitted when the parents of 51% of the students approve.
| 12 October 2009, 7:47 pm |
Gene, Beck may theatrical but he raises some very good points, van Jones the communist for instance, acorn for instance, all the other far left lunatics that Barak Obama associates with, for instance.
I must also add, for the American Left to start shouting foul with regards to Beck after the mountain of vitriolic bile spewed out by said American Left re Bush and Co, frankly makes you, the American Left look like a gang of spoilt petulant children or to use an even more descriptive american colloquialism, ‘assholes’.
How can you, The American left stand there and criticize Fox and it’s presenters for exercising their right to engage in free speech, for informing the people of what and who Barak Obama associates with and even more worrying brings into his administration, you have almost all the mainstream media treating Barak Obama as if were the reincarnation of Jesus and yet you still whine like children when someone points out his questionable associations.
Pathetic.
Why don’t you tell us Gene, why Beck is wrong, because I for one am 1000,000000% certain that if any video of American school children, singing the praises of Bush had surfaced a couple of years ago then, you the American Left, would have been calling for a Hanging.
And please, Gene, your attempt to imply Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage and Hannity are neo-coughlin’s by the transparent tactic of putting them all in a ratings contest, in the same sentence, in a subliminal attempt to create a “connection” is a bit of an own goal, isn’t it.
Isn’t that exactly what you and your ilk accuse those on the Right of doing?
“President Obama and his associates, the anti-semitic Rev Wright, the convicted terrorist Bill Ayres and the communist Van Jones all agree, to a varying extent, in a certain political ideology”
All they could see and hear was theirs, but still they wanted the Fox hunted, they don’t like it when the Fox comes near the Henhouse, it make all the chickens squawk and keeps the farmer awake all night.
And anyway if Fox talks such “nonsense” how come it is so popular, are you, the American Left saying that anyone who disagrees with the “nobel prize” winner Barak Obama is stupid or something? Are you saying that Half the American public are stupid because they agree with republican ideology.
Pathetic, no it’s worse than that, it’s crass left wing childishness, the sort of thing the left always do in the face of criticism, shout “it’s not fair, it’s fascism, it’s racist, it’s just not fair, I want my mummy”
I used to think the European left held the lead in the childish ‘crying foul at anyone who disagrees with them stakes’ but the yanks are certainly making the running now.
Pathetic.
| 12 October 2009, 7:52 pm |
Father Coughlin is always invoked as a bogeyman by the Left when discussing political discourse — and somehow they always forget to mention he was a socialist attacking Roosevelt from the left. The Post does at least mention that Coughlin was a one-time Roosevelt supporter, but neglects to mention what Coughlin’s vitriolic rants were really about. With the way the story is written, it’s hard to tell whether the Post is directly suggesting or sloppily eliding that Coughlin’s rhetoric is similar to today’s Tea Party sentiment. The Post notes that the New Deal was “perceived as invasive federal power” because Roosevelt had “closed the banks in an effort to pry the country out of the Depression and established the sweeping safety net of the New Deal,” and then lumps Coughlin in with that particular brand of anti-FDR sentiment. The reality is that Coughlin began opposing Roosvelt because he thought he was being pupeteered by capitalistic Jewish bankers. And I seriously doubt that a guy who said “We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry,” had a problem with federal intervention. But you know this already because you’ve read Liberal Fascism, right?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDIwMjZhYjg1ZjE3ZGM4MTBjZmU5M2E5YWYzYmYwZGU=
| 12 October 2009, 7:57 pm |
AoS, if you don’t mind my saying so, you come across as precisely the sort of person who would admire Glenn Beck.
Anyway, I’ve had some nice things to say about Fox News. Hell, I wish Obama would make the case for the health care public option as passionately as Shepard Smith does.
| 12 October 2009, 8:00 pm |
Gene’s fallback position: FOX is a tool of the GOP, except when it isn’t.
| 12 October 2009, 8:05 pm |
Of course the main difference between FDR and Obama, other than that FDR didn’t cause the race card to be played whenever he was criticised, is that FDR did what he said he would and was elected on a clear and specific programme. Obama has left a lot of Americans feeling as if they were deceived into voting for him.
It wouldn’t surprise me very much either if the other difference turns out to be that FDR got re-elected and Obama won’t.
| 12 October 2009, 8:09 pm |
It wouldn’t surprise me very much either if the other difference turns out to be that FDR got re-elected and Obama won’t.
Racist!
| 12 October 2009, 8:19 pm |
“AoS, if you don’t mind my saying so, you come across as precisely the sort of person who would admire Glenn Beck.”
I don’t “admire” many on planet earth at present, there are a few but Glenn Beck is not one I could say I “admire”, I do however listen to what all sides say and make my own judgement as to what is bullshit and what bears some semblance to the truth, very difficult in politics, take the Reverend Wright issue for instance, I for one don’t believe that Barak Obama sat in that church for 20 years and he didn’t know that Revered Wright was expressing American Hating and anti-semitic diatribes.
You can believe he didn’t know and I can believe he did know, that’s called judgement, it is not called ‘admiration’ for the accusers or ‘admiration’ for the defenders, it is called who “I” think is talking bullshit and who “I” think is talking sense.
Admiration for Glenn Beck, you say that as if what a dirty thing, are you suggesting that admiration for Glenn Beck equates to admiration for Rev Wright, for instance?
| 12 October 2009, 8:19 pm |
mesquito,
Actually I am not defending it, I thought the Obama think was silly and said so. My point bringing up Nixon song and the Jesus Camnp worship of GWB is that this happens on the Right as well.
We could always mention the children’s show(Big Brother Bob Emery’s Small Fry Club) on TV in the 1950s that used to ask the children viewers to raise their milk in salute to Presidnet Eisehnhower.
| 12 October 2009, 8:20 pm |
You are right, Murphy. The teevee milk salutes to Ike were a total outrage.
| 12 October 2009, 8:21 pm |
Even the MSM is having a go at the One now. Those who voted for him should reflect on the folly of loading all their hopes onto someone whose rhetoric presses all their buttons.
| 12 October 2009, 8:22 pm |
AoS. Obama made nice to the Jews. Went to AIPAC and spoke about an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now the indications are that he’s throwing Israel under the bus. Jews are turning against Obama (except the Jews who are only mildly or anti- Zionist, as evidenced here).
I sincerely hope that if Obama doesn’t play ball then Mossad go all out to fuck him! If Obama can fake sincerity and an affinity to Israel while secretly harbouring a different agenda then I think he deserves to get what might be in the closet.
The Republican/Conservative media tallk show hosts have a good platfrom from which to launch.
| 12 October 2009, 8:25 pm |
Anaximanders other sandal,
Even Bill O’Reilly said Beck was “insane”.
http://gawker.com/5378821/bill-oreilly-calls-glenn-beck-insane-glenn-beck-calls-his-viewers-zombies
Read of Beck’s ideological mentor, Cleo Skousen and you can see why people showed be concerned about Beck.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/index.html
| 12 October 2009, 8:27 pm |
I note that the schoolkids sang “Barack Hussein Obama” – and yet if Republicans/Conservatives use his middle name the Left go ape-shit!
Its a wonder the schoolkids aren’t up on a racist rap!
2) Held a small drinks party on the White House lawn for a Black professor and White policeman (Thinks “I deserver the Nobel Peace Prize for this!”) He! He!
| 12 October 2009, 8:28 pm |
Gene it seems odd that you would like some things about Fox given that (according to the NYT):
“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
That sounded to me like the sort of thing you would hear in Chavez’s Venezuela rather than in the USA.
| 12 October 2009, 8:35 pm |
“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave
She’s right!!!
Legitimate news media feel a tremble in their legs at the thought of Obama as President. They greet Obama at the studio door with maidens throwing flowers to freshen his path as garlands are laid on his neck. Flunkies lower their gaze as He passes. Should Obama need a toliet then its a special one worth thousands of dollars hermetically sealed afterwards and incinerated lest his Godly excretions be seen by mortals. His interview chair must be higher than anyone else. The questions must be submitted two weeks in advance so he has prepared answers and NO ad-libbing or jokes.
THAT is how a professional and neutral media and news channel should behave.
| 12 October 2009, 9:09 pm |
I’m wondering how many of our commenters who are convinced (or at least pretty sure) that Obama won’t be reelected were also convinced at some point before the 2008 election that he wouldn’t be elected in the first place.
I ask only because comments dismissing the possibility of him winning the Democratic nomination, let alone winning the election, were quite numerous here.
| 12 October 2009, 9:16 pm |
I’m wondering how many of our commenters who are convinced (or at least pretty sure) that Obama won’t be reelected were also convinced at some point before the 2008 election that he wouldn’t be elected in the first place.
I was pretty certain in the spring of ‘08 that whoever got the Dem nomination would become President.
| 12 October 2009, 9:20 pm |
That’s a bizarre comment, Gene, by the way. Obama was a leading candidate in the second half of 2007, and became the front-runner after the Iowa caucus. Are you starting to sweat ‘10 and ‘12 a little teensy bit?
| 12 October 2009, 9:21 pm |
Not me, Gene.
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
| 12 October 2009, 9:23 pm |
I don’t think people thought that Obama wouldn’t be elected. They rather hoped he wouldn’t be. Republicans collapsed like the Conservatives. Obama WAS Change but now Biden’s words are coming home “The Presidency isn’t a place for on-the-job training”.
I honestly and truly said “The people have spoken – give Obama a chance”. I think most Republican commentators also took the opinion “We are Americans and must rally around our President”. But frankly, Obama hasn’t brought change for the good. You must agree that he has done 180 degrees on Israel and dumped the potential revolution of Iranian students. He seems to run away from being tough. He needs to be loved and yet being POTUS is to make the unpopular decisions.
He’s constantly in campaign mod3e because I don’t think he knows any different. He has to feed off the positive vibe of friendly audiences.
He won’t go on Fox? Why?
| 12 October 2009, 9:23 pm |
The polls had him behind up until Lehman’s collapse in September 2008 so I don’t quite understand your question.
| 12 October 2009, 9:26 pm |
“Even Bill O’Reilly said Beck was “insane”.”
Your point being what?
I am saying that Glenn Beck raises some interesting issues, Acorn for Instance, Van Jones for instance, the communications tzar who said he admires Chavez’s repression of freedom of speech, for instance.
I don’t want him to marry my daughter, I am saying he is asking questions, theatrically asking questions certainly, but at least he is asking.
Don’t you think Democrats should be asked questions? Do you think the Democrats are always correct by default of ideology? Do you think that Valerie Jarrett didn’t know that Van Jones for instance, was a rabid communist racist?
Because Valerie Jarrett is on tape saying she had been watching Van Jones for a very long time, that would be the same Valerie Jarrett who is President Obama’s closest adviser, who was watching a rabid communist racist and was instrumental in his appointment to a position in President Obama’s administration, or is that a right wing lie?
I would like to know if that is a right wing smear, I would like to know if the video of Valerie Jarrett endorsing Van Jones the communist was “doctored” by right wing zealots, I would like to know and I am not even American.
| 12 October 2009, 9:26 pm |
Mesquito, people react against the singing because this goes strongly against American values…
Which is the same reason the government could not possibly have anything to do with it.
Since the government has nothing to do with it, it’s entirely dishonest to get people up in arms over it, the real story being “some idiot at a badly run school did something stupid”
Well think about this, was that school well run when Bush was president, did it suddenly change when Obama was elected?
Was that idiot working at the school a year ago?
Well? How does this have the slightest to do with the administration?
| 12 October 2009, 9:29 pm |
Listening to Hannity at the moment addressing Obama avoiding Fox. The White House says that going on Fox is like debating with the Republican party.
But Hannity make a very cogent point. The stories about Rev Wright, Father Pfleger, Weather Underground, Rezko and the current debate about Leftist Czars are ONLYand WERE only being covered by Fox. What happened to the ObamaMedia? Why did they avoid these stories? Why didn’t THEY present a “Fair and Balanced” view of Obama and his history/beliefs?
If there were no Fox then how would we have known about these aspects of Obama’s relationships?
| 12 October 2009, 9:30 pm |
For you Brits, a very rare Rush Limbaugh interview:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/guy-on-radio-having-fun-rush-limbaugh.html
| 12 October 2009, 9:42 pm |
mesquito, I have not interest in reading about the asshole.
I stopped listening to Limbaugh (in a check-out-the-enemy sorta way) when I heard him oppose all environmentalism because “God wouldn’t make a world that we can hurt” (ah his religion is God-never-requires-us-to-act-responsibly!).
Then he said he was against health insurance because “there just aren’t that many sick people”
He sold tapes on his program claiming to prove the Bill Clinton was a mass murdering drug lord before becoming president.
His method was, only let stupid liberals on the air so he never has to debate an intelligent person.
Enjoy your drug addicted liar, I don’t want to read any more words by that piece of shit!
| 12 October 2009, 9:45 pm |
You don’t have to read anything, Mr. Scholar. It’s video.
| 12 October 2009, 9:48 pm |
“Enjoy your drug addicted liar, I don’t want to read any more words by that piece of shit!”
That would be a mistake, one should always listen to what ones enemy says, to not do so gives said enemy a clear run “keep your friends close but keep your enemies even closer” that’s how the saying goes doesn’t it.
| 12 October 2009, 9:50 pm |
Let us remind ourselves of more “interesting” issues raised by Beck. Put on your tin-foil hat and get watching:
| 12 October 2009, 9:58 pm |
Now, friends, let’s all intone together:
Only edge of insanity extremists (or actually over the edge plain old raving lunatics) oppose Obama, and they use wildly exaggerated arguments about Obama being a brainwashing dictator to argue their case
They are conspiracy theorist loons who spread absurd alarmist tales about the end of the universe as we know it and are closet and not so closet anti-semites into the bargain.
They go round terrorising little black schoolkids and mum-loving children’s authors with their rage and threats
They are conspiracy theorists who are out to prove that Obama and his allies are out to enslave the US population.
No-one else, and especially no-one objective is critical of Obama. The award to him of the Nobel Peace Prize proves this. He never asked to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Why, he was probably totally unaware that he was being nominated two weeks before he actually took office. And he had no alternative but to accept the award once it was made, so he can’t be blamed for that.
Thank heavens we have Gene to help us build our awareness of these simple facts.
| 12 October 2009, 10:00 pm |
Glenn Beck: “The White House is more worried about it’s war on FOX than it’s actual war in Afghanistan.”
| 12 October 2009, 10:01 pm |
The polls had him behind up until Lehman’s collapse in September 2008 so I don’t quite understand your question.
The point is that the suggestion we frequently get here– that Obama’s presidency has gone into some sort of fatal decline– is as uninformed as the frequent suggestions during the campaign that his candidacy was doomed by this or that event.
And I wonder if Glenn Beck will ever call Shepard Smith a Marxist or a socialist.
And I don’t think I’ve ever made a blanket denunciation of Fox News, as opposed to specific presenters and their remarks. (If I have, I apologize.)
And I think Obama should go on Fox News, just as he did during the campaign.
| 12 October 2009, 10:03 pm |
How funny, Beck has just started, I think I will watch it, it is about Anita Dunn? Whoever she is, Whitehouse cry baby by the sound of it, Fox is the enemy by all accounts, boy are the American Left starting to panic.
| 12 October 2009, 10:12 pm |
Now Beck is playing an old tape tape of Obama saying that the “tragedy” of the civil rights movement is that it failed to bring about “redistributive change.”
The thing about Obama — something I twigged to in about 5 minuttes — is that he is a garden-variety Leftist. I’m still waiting for evidence that he is espececially inteliigent or wise. Any demonstration of outside-the-box thinking, of some sort of surprising intellectual synthesis would do. But alas, he is what he is. That is, depressingly insular and ideologically predictable.
| 12 October 2009, 10:21 pm |
Aside from the bloggers themselves (David T, Gene et al) are they any posters on HP comment threads who aren’t right-wing sensationalists?
| 12 October 2009, 10:21 pm |
Anaximanders other sandal,
Most people had never even heared of Van Jones including Beck before the right wing bloggers went hunting for commies under Obama’s bed.
Were you as concerned back int he early 1980s when Ronald Reagan wanted to appoint to head of the National Endowement for Hummnites, Mel Bradford? A former George Wallace supporter in 1972?
Reagan ended up appointing Bill Bennett because of the backlash.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/09/obituaries/melvin-bradford-58-conservative-theorist.html
| 12 October 2009, 10:24 pm |
OK Gene, Beck has just said that 45% of US Doctors would quit if the Health Care Plan is passed, that sounds a bit over the top to me, indeed that could be reasonably described as a “scare” tactic.
Now, could you point me in the direction of the true, unbiased poll that refutes this 45% claim. Thanks.
| 12 October 2009, 10:31 pm |
mesquito,
I am waiting for any evidence that Obama is not a 3rd term GWB.
The bank bailout- was started by Bush and Paulson
The auto bailout- There is no way the GOP would have allowed the auto industry to go into the tank if McCain had won, epesically when they effect battleground states like Ohio and Michigan
Heath care- Obama has given up on the “public option” and even at its worse, what Obama was proposing was hardly health care socialism like the Britsh National Health Service(NHS)
Banks again- he has don nothing to ring in the major banks which basically used their TARP money to buy up little banks they have been wanting to buy, nor has he really gone after the Wall Street on this like one would expect a “socialist” to do.
I don’t agree with John Pilger on much of anything, but I do think he knows if somebody is a Marxist or not, watch this video and see if Pilger thinks Obama is kindered spirit.
| 12 October 2009, 10:34 pm |
Aside from the bloggers themselves (David T, Gene et al) are they any posters on HP comment threads who aren’t right-wing sensationalists?
Well, I can’t speak for these other loons of course, but Gene serves up such delicious material.
| 12 October 2009, 10:37 pm |
OK Gene, Beck has just said that 45% of US Doctors would quit if the Health Care Plan is passed, that sounds a bit over the top to me, indeed that could be reasonably described as a “scare” tactic.
Now, could you point me in the direction of the true, unbiased poll that refutes this 45% claim. Thanks.
Beck was no doubt referring to this:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
The poll claims 45% of the doctors surveyed would “consider” quitting.
| 12 October 2009, 10:38 pm |
“Aside from the bloggers themselves (David T, Gene et al) are they any posters on HP comment threads who aren’t right-wing sensationalists?”
Ah yes default insult, everyone is a right wing loon who dares to question the Left, how predictable.
“Most people had never even heared of Van Jones including Beck before the right wing bloggers went hunting for commies under Obama’s bed.”
Ah yes an insinuation that is hoped will deflect attention from the fact that Van Jones is a communist, what about Rev Wright, Bill Ayres and all the rest, because right wing bloggers uncovered them, does that make them what, victims?
Another thing, are you saying that being ‘right wing’ is akin to being evil?
Are you saying that “right wing bloggers” have no right to look into the ideology and principles of people whom President Obama chooses to associate with?
Do you think, Andrew Murphy, that people who are “right wing” are by default Nazi’s?
| 12 October 2009, 10:45 pm |
You mean the same Bill Ayers that worked Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was founded and founded by Walter Annenberg, the former Nixon Ambassador to the UK and HUGE GOP donor?
The same foundation that had members like Ray Romero, the President of Ameritech; Stanley Ikenberry, the former President of the University of Illinois; and Republican Arnold Weber, who had served in the Nixon White House.
The same foundation that GOP’ers gave money to including,
•George W. Bush $4000
•Mitt Romney $5000
•Strom Thurmond $1000
•Fred Thompson $500
•Rick Santorum $3000
| 12 October 2009, 10:49 pm |
I am waiting for any evidence that Obama is not a 3rd term GWB.
Well, shit, Murphy. Why are you sitting around waiting for something you didn’t ask for? (If this is something you asked way upthread, I apologize, but I don’t think you did.)
The bank bailout- was started by Bush and Paulson
An ugly bidness. perhaps there was no other way. I’ve never criticized Obama for the bank bailout, because although it irks me I don’t see any other solution. besides, it might end up working.
The auto bailout- There is no way the GOP would have allowed the auto industry to go into the tank if McCain had won, epesically when they effect battleground states like Ohio and Michigan
I’m not so sure. Chapter Eleven reorganization is probably just what what GM and Chrysler needed. I think McCain, not beholden to unions, would have allowed it to go forward. Do you really think he would have nationalized GM and then fired the CEO?
Heath care- Obama has given up on the “public option” and even at its worse, what Obama was proposing was hardly health care socialism like the Britsh National Health Service(NHS)
I’m not at all sure how this makes him Bush III.
I’ll pass on the Pilger bit. I’ll except it as a given that Obama is not a Leninist revolutionary and that Pilger is sore at him for that.
| 12 October 2009, 10:52 pm |
It’s always quite funny when commenters get so worked up about a post that they end up proving it correct.
| 12 October 2009, 10:58 pm |
“You mean the same Bill Ayers”
No I mean the Bill Ayres the Far Left convicted Terrorist.
It is possible, I suppose that he has grown up a bit and ditched his ridiculous “commie” ideology, you obviously think he has.
Do you mean the new Left wing Prof Bill Ayres, or the new Reverend Wright or the even newer Van Jones the non-communist, do you think that their public persona grants them a pass from public scrutiny?
Should anyone on the Left have their past looked into or should we all just take at face value their protestations of innocence, tell me something, are you so forgiving when the shoe is on the right foot instead of the left.
I don’t recall the moral indignation when Bush et al had their past delved into by the “left wing bloggers” or am I taking it out of “context”?
| 12 October 2009, 11:05 pm |
“It’s always quite funny when commenters get so worked up about a post that they end up proving it correct.”
I take it from that comment Short order cook that you think I am a Far Right Lunatic, because the theme of the post is the insinuation that Glenn Beck is a Far Right Lunatic.
Would that be a fair evaluation of you comment at 10:52?
| 12 October 2009, 11:27 pm |
No, the theme of the post is that many of Obama’s detractors are creepy obsessives with a lack of perspective. I don’t particularly think you’re anything but you do seem to be slightly self-obsessed.
| 12 October 2009, 11:59 pm |
“I don’t particularly think you’re anything but you do seem to be slightly self-obsessed.”
“self-obsessed.”
Aren’t we all, that is the thing that we all share isn’t it, we all look in the mirror don’t we, we all think we know what the “score is” don’t we.
I am self obsessed in the context of I am concerned for my own well being, I am family obsessed in the context of I am concerned for my families well being, I am ideologically obsessed? Maybe, it is certainly a possibility, but then aren’t we all, here, in this place, that’s why we come here isn’t it, we are all into politics and current events and we all have are heartfelt beliefs that we wish to express to those who are willing to read them.
Self obsessed? OK, that is a fair evaluation, however I have and continue to do, my share of selfless acts, I am not without compassion for my fellow Humans or indeed fellow creatures regardless of species.
You will have to take my word for that as I do not intend to provide a list.
I come here, as I suspect you do, because HP means what it says in it’s banner, I am without doubt guilty of mindless and quite frankly insulting comments on occasions, some of which I regret having made on occasions, but the thing is HP allows me to say these things, it allows me to unload my ideological frustration and for that I am grateful, I could quite easily frequent right wing blogs but I feel I have more to learn from this place, its posters and its commentators.
I am sure yourself and many others would agree that frequenting sites were everyone says the same thing is about as useful as going to a piss up in a brewery organized by Osama Bin Laden .
| 13 October 2009, 12:30 am |
RE: Have you ever watched a Beck episode to see why he draws about 5 times as many viewers as his competition?
Having watched Beck when he was on CNN, I think it has something to do with the thickness of the audience.
| 13 October 2009, 12:38 am |
You Americans are weird. I’m really trying to sympathize here but it’s just so weird. You handle your politics by believing that “luminous forces are upon you” or something. Of course we Israelis handle politics a bit the same I guess….we also claim that “luminous forces are upon us”, but ours is a much more simpler conspiracy: someone simply bribed the guy, or he appointed people because of close ties. Most of the time it turns out true, which is probably another thing that is different from you.
| 13 October 2009, 1:00 am |
RE: Are you saying that Half the American public are stupid because they agree with republican ideology.
A bit simplistic, but yes.
| 13 October 2009, 1:02 am |
Anaximanders other sandal,
No I agree that Ayers is still an unrepentent revolutionary and has said so, my point was the issue was a non-starter for the GOP because Ayers had been finanical backed by leading Republicans for years. In fact, as Sarah “people who bomb abortion clinics are not terrorists” Palin went around bringing up the Ayers issue at every stop, one of the top McCain backers ,Arnold Weber sat on the board with Ayers at the Annenberg Challenge.
Which is why only Sean Hannity and Sarah Plain got their rocks off on this Ayers deal, the GOP was already up to their neck with Ayers.
| 13 October 2009, 1:04 am |
RE: The poll claims 45% of the doctors surveyed would “consider” quitting.
I wonder how many of those already are “considering” quitting. Though I’m not a doctor, I “consider” it daily.
| 13 October 2009, 1:11 am |
RE: Those who voted for him should reflect on the folly of loading all their hopes onto someone whose rhetoric presses all their buttons.
How stupid is this remark? How about the millions who voted for him not because they were “loading their hopes etc. etc. blah blah ” but because they a) wanted a change; b) always vote democrat c) thought McCain-Palin were scary.
The notion that Obama voters simply swooned and voted is ridiculous. Hillary might have won even more votes. What would you say then. Oh yeah, variations on the same thing, because most of this is just a political smear, esp. when you consider where it comes from: beck, hannity, limbaugh, savage and the rest of the media neanderthals.
| 13 October 2009, 1:24 am |
vildechaye,
Exit polls on the day of the election showed beyond doubt that Palin hurt McCain. I know several Republicans that had NEVER voted Democrat in their lives at least on a presidential level, who voted for Obama simply because they did not wanted Palin a heart beat away from the White House, especially a man(McCain) who has a history of medical probelms.
| 13 October 2009, 5:52 am |
Actually vildechaye, Hillary won the primaries, however Michigan and Florida Democrat primary voters were conveniently left out, and the Democrat elite annointed The One.
| 13 October 2009, 6:10 am |
Andrew: That was exactly my point; well, 1/3 of my point. People who voted Obama may also simply have wanted a change, or just always vote democrat. I doubt more than 10% of those who voted for him did it because they saw him as the fulfillment of all their hopes. Just more typical bullshit from the dim right-wing, as always, as expected.
| 13 October 2009, 4:59 pm |
Escape Velocity: It seems you’re so intellectually challenged you think you’ve managed to put in another dig at Liberals/Democrats, when in fact you’ve actually supported my point, though obviously you’re too dim to notice. A common trait among dittoheads, I’ve found.
| 13 October 2009, 6:24 pm |
I love you too, villdechaye. Hugs and kisses all around.
| 14 October 2009, 3:32 am |
I am shattered that all my points have been so convincingly refuted.
Why no link to the creeepy video of the New Jersey schoolchildren?