Obama’s Approval Rating Drops to Record Low

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

You made the assertion that the tea party movement was racist.

I did, where?

I said "How could you miss the racism against Obama at tea party rallies?" That's really not the same thing.

There are racist elements in the tea party movement. That cannot be denied.

Your two points directly above are barely even related. The first says that the racism at tea parties was so blatant that you felt justified criticizing me for not seeing it. This is equivalent to saying that the tea party movement is racist. I was watching the news coverage and didn't see any of it.

The "racist elements" in your second point were diligently searched for and libs found how many? In how many rallies with how many thousands of people?

And the picture of "Obama the witch doctor as your new physician under Obamacare" was thrown in gratis. That was not a tea party poster.

This whole racism witch hunt is, as I said, no more significant than two guys in east LA wanting to lynch Geo Bush.

If the tea party movement were lobbying for the reinstatement of slavery, that would be significant. Are they, in fact, lobbying for something racist? What are their goals? Their goals are smaller, less intrusive government. How is that racist? This is a question that needs answering. How does wanting smaller government get transmogrified into racism by the liberal press?

[lazarus]

The first says that the racism at tea parties was so blatant that you felt justified criticizing me for not seeing it. This is equivalent to saying that the tea party movement is racist.

The problem here is that you arguing against something that I have not said.

I was saying that it was so blatant, really?

Did you know there were racist posters at tea-party events? I'm surprised that you did not know that? That's really not equivalent to saying the tea party is racist. Too much!

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: karl

The first says that the racism at tea parties was so blatant that you felt justified criticizing me for not seeing it. This is equivalent to saying that the tea party movement is racist.

The problem here is that you arguing against something that I have not said.

I was saying that it was so blatant, really?

Did you know there were racist posters at tea-party events? I'm surprised that you did not know that? That's really not equivalent to saying the tea party is racist. Too much!

The views of others as to what constitutes racism is interesting.

To me,Chris Matthews is the perfect portrait of a racist.

His statement concerning the speech Obama gave as in "I forgot he was black for a couple of hours" is insulting and demeaning.

I dislike everything concerning his political ideology,I have been accused of being racist,yet I would not even dream of saying something like that.

With the thrill of Obama running up his leg I am glad Chris Matthews was able to forget the color of Obama's skin. Who cares as to his skin color?

I was glad to hear Reid assured us he was clean and could speak correctly when the occasion called for it. I would not have considered that either but I am glad as president he can clean up when he needs to.

Why does a fawning follower of Obama like Matthews sound grateful he was able to forget he was black for a couple of hours?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

The first says that the racism at tea parties was so blatant that you felt justified criticizing me for not seeing it. This is equivalent to saying that the tea party movement is racist.

The problem here is that you arguing against something that I have not said.

I was saying that it was so blatant, really?

Did you know there were racist posters at tea-party events?

Is every lib as squishy as you are, Laz?

You wrote, "How could you miss the racism against Obama at tea party rallies?" Now you're saying it doesn't say what it says.

It says that the racism was impossible for an observant person to miss, and it implies this was the case at all tea party rallies (since you could not be sure which I might have seen.)

Own it or hush it.

[karl]

Is Frank Rich the Only Non-Racist Left in America?

Michael C. Moynihan | April 5, 2010

Last week, I attacked Frank Rich's nonsense article about race and the Tea Parties, in which he prosaically (and not-at-all-like those heavy-breathers on the right) compared recent health care protests to a famous Nazi pogrom that presaged the Holocaust. It's always helpful when demonizing your opponent to invoke Nazism—they are that bad—but Rich's real message was embedded in his headline: The rage is not about health care. And I suspect I won't spoil the ending if I reveal that health care protesters are collectively motivated by race hatred.

Yesterday he revisited the issue, sharing an email from one of his chums (a "prominent liberal Obama supporter") who came to the shocking conclusion—one so appalling, yet so plausible, that it gobbled up two paragraphs of his column—that Rich and his correspondent are perhaps the last anti-racists in America. Indeed, even those leftists critical of Obama—think Glenn Greewald, Naomi Wolf, Jane Hamsher—could also be motivated by subterranean racial bias!

Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting a bit ridiculous? Instead of a post-racial America, are we now stuck with the racial politics of the university, where we presume that everyone is motivated by hate until they conclusively prove otherwise? The rest of Rich's column is, as usual, flimsy scaffolding holding together a few Coulteresque points. Take this not-so-subtle dig at our previous president, of whom there is much to say without going all reductio ad Hitlerum:

[Obama] is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)

Get it? If you are confused by that parenthetical, I think the "and his parents" refers to George H.W. and Barbara Bush, not the elder Schicklgrubers.

Last week, newspapers, blogs, and political talk shows were thick with stories about David Frum's dismissal from AEI. According to those sympathetic to Frum, he was relieved of his duties after attacking the Republican Party leadership on health care, bemoaning the coarsening of rhetoric on the right, and accusing the "movement" of shunting more moderate conservative intellectuals to the side. The nub of his criticism is this: in celebrating Beck and Limbaugh, conservatives are putting ratings, viewers, and readers first and ideas that could reinvigorate the party second. Regardless of his tactics and ignoring the plausibility of his prescriptions, there is much to be said for this argument. But while Obama's supporters have gleefully picked up on Frum's AEI firing, and divined quite a bit about the modern conservative mindset from it, who on their side will be the first to pull a Frum and denounce the over-the-top rhetoric of people like Rich, Paul Krugman, and Ed Schultz?

In other news, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) explains that 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."

[doug yowell]

Is Frank Rich the Only Non-Racist Left in America?

Michael C. Moynihan | April 5, 2010

Last week, I attacked Frank Rich's nonsense article about race and the Tea Parties, in which he prosaically (and not-at-all-like those heavy-breathers on the right) compared recent health care protests to a famous Nazi pogrom that presaged the Holocaust. It's always helpful when demonizing your opponent to invoke Nazism—they are that bad—but Rich's real message was embedded in his headline: The rage is not about health care. And I suspect I won't spoil the ending if I reveal that health care protesters are collectively motivated by race hatred.

Yesterday he revisited the issue, sharing an email from one of his chums (a "prominent liberal Obama supporter") who came to the shocking conclusion—one so appalling, yet so plausible, that it gobbled up two paragraphs of his column—that Rich and his correspondent are perhaps the last anti-racists in America. Indeed, even those leftists critical of Obama—think Glenn Greewald, Naomi Wolf, Jane Hamsher—could also be motivated by subterranean racial bias!

Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting a bit ridiculous? Instead of a post-racial America, are we now stuck with the racial politics of the university, where we presume that everyone is motivated by hate until they conclusively prove otherwise? The rest of Rich's column is, as usual, flimsy scaffolding holding together a few Coulteresque points. Take this not-so-subtle dig at our previous president, of whom there is much to say without going all reductio ad Hitlerum:

[Obama] is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.)

Get it? If you are confused by that parenthetical, I think the "and his parents" refers to George H.W. and Barbara Bush, not the elder Schicklgrubers.

Last week, newspapers, blogs, and political talk shows were thick with stories about David Frum's dismissal from AEI. According to those sympathetic to Frum, he was relieved of his duties after attacking the Republican Party leadership on health care, bemoaning the coarsening of rhetoric on the right, and accusing the "movement" of shunting more moderate conservative intellectuals to the side. The nub of his criticism is this: in celebrating Beck and Limbaugh, conservatives are putting ratings, viewers, and readers first and ideas that could reinvigorate the party second. Regardless of his tactics and ignoring the plausibility of his prescriptions, there is much to be said for this argument. But while Obama's supporters have gleefully picked up on Frum's AEI firing, and divined quite a bit about the modern conservative mindset from it, who on their side will be the first to pull a Frum and denounce the over-the-top rhetoric of people like Rich, Paul Krugman, and Ed Schultz?

In other news, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) explains that 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."

Does that mean I can't wear my robe to church either?

[doug yowell]

]

Your two points directly above are barely even related. The first says that the racism at tea parties was so blatant that you felt justified criticizing me for not seeing it. This is equivalent to saying that the tea party movement is racist. I was watching the news coverage and didn't see any of it.

The "racist elements" in your second point were diligently searched for and libs found how many? In how many rallies with how many thousands of people?

And the picture of "Obama the witch doctor as your new physician under Obamacare" was thrown in gratis. That was not a tea party poster.

This whole racism witch hunt is, as I said, no more significant than two guys in east LA wanting to lynch Geo Bush.

If the tea party movement were lobbying for the reinstatement of slavery, that would be significant. Are they, in fact, lobbying for something racist? What are their goals? Their goals are smaller, less intrusive government. How is that racist? This is a question that needs answering. How does wanting smaller government get transmogrified into racism by the liberal press?

[doug yowell]

[lazarus]

Is every lib as squishy as you are, Laz?

You wrote, "How could you miss the racism against Obama at tea party rallies?" Now you're saying it doesn't say what it says.

It says that the racism was impossible for an observant person to miss, and it implies this was the case at all tea party rallies (since you could not be sure which I might have seen.)

Own it or hush it.

Cleary, you are being deliberately obtuse and desperate to not to concede racism within the tea party movement. Observing that there is some racism is not that same as saying that they are are all racist.

Let me frame it in a simpler way for you. Were you aware that there were displays of racism at tea part rallies? If you were not aware then I am surprised. Will you now admit that there is racism at tea party rallies. Yes or no is ok. You already know that I'm not saying all rallies/tea partiers are racist.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: karl

Is every lib as squishy as you are, Laz?

You wrote, "How could you miss the racism against Obama at tea party rallies?" Now you're saying it doesn't say what it says.

It says that the racism was impossible for an observant person to miss, and it implies this was the case at all tea party rallies (since you could not be sure which I might have seen.)

Own it or hush it.

Cleary, you are being deliberately obtuse and desperate to not to concede racism within the tea party movement. Observing that there is some racism is not that same as saying that they are are all racist.

Let me frame it in a simpler way for you. Were you aware that there were displays of racism at tea part rallies? If you were not aware then I am surprised. Will you now admit that there is racism at tea party rallies. Yes or no is ok. You already know that I'm not saying all rallies/tea partiers are racist.

Then what's your point? There's racism openly evident from the OP/ED pages of the NY Times. There's racism in all areas of the Democratic political machine. There's always going to be some racist somewhere at sometime so why mention it at the Tea Party if you're not suggesting that it's being moved by racism. It's not like Club Adventist that's been overrun by Jesuits!! And just because Angela McGrowan held up a sign with a racial slur on it doesn't proove that racism even exists in the Tea Party at all.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Let me frame it in a simpler way for you. Were you aware that there were displays of racism at tea part rallies? If you were not aware then I am surprised. Will you now admit that there is racism at tea party rallies. Yes or no is ok. You already know that I'm not saying all rallies/tea partiers are racist.

Then what's your point? There's racism openly evident from the OP/ED pages of the NY Times. There's racism in all areas of the Democratic political machine. There's always going to be some racist somewhere at sometime so why mention it at the Tea Party if you're not suggesting that it's being moved by racism. It's not like Club Adventist that's been overrun by Jesuits!! And just because Angela McGrowan held up a sign with a racial slur on it doesn't proove that racism even exists in the Tea Party at all.

You beat me to it, Doug.

Why did you bring it up, Laz? Since you admit this is not the thrust of the tea party movement, and since there are vestiges of racist expression even in your own lovely liberals (witness Harry Reid) what is your point?

You were trying to smear the tea party movement with racism. Pure and simple. Typical liberal smear.

You ask, "Will you now admit that there is racism at tea party rallies?" The answer to your question is "No." I will admit that you showed some photos of placards which could be interpreted as racist, but I never saw any of those in the tea party footage I saw on TV, so I can't know for sure that they weren't taken at a skinhead or Nazi rally.

We know that the mainstream media routinely smears conservatives, so how are we going to know for sure that what you showed us represents actual racism at tea party rallies?

The offer has been made of many thousands of dollars for proof that racial slurs were hurled by tea partiers (see my earlier post on this thread.) Why don't you claim it, Laz? You could use the money.

[doug yowell]

While Angela McGlowen is a Tea Party leader, and an obvious racist, she is certainly not your typical Tea Partier.(Although she is quite attractive)

[lazarus]

There's racism openly evident from the OP/ED pages of the NY Times.

Really?

Quote:

There's racism in all areas of the Democratic political machine.

Really?

Dodging the question I see.

Do you believe there has been racism at tea part events? Again yes or no will suffice. It's OK to admit racism when you see it. Just breathe and spit it out!

[lazarus]

You ask, "Will you now admit that there is racism at tea party rallies?" The answer to your question is "No." I will admit that you showed some photos of placards which could be interpreted as racist, but I never saw any of those in the tea party footage I saw on TV, so I can't know for sure that they weren't taken at a skinhead or Nazi rally.

Could be interpreted? Are you kidding? So why might they be at a skinhead or Nazi rally? Hmmm.

LOL, thats so weird!!

You taking it to a new level. I'll agree with you. There were never any racist signs at tea party events. OK there done.

Well at least you didn't say they were photo-shopped like the Dale Robertson photo. Google his name and tea party and then look at images.

[karl]

Give it up, Laz. Nobody is buying your smear of the Tea Parties.

Let's smear Democrats, shall we? Here's a little-known (or at least conveniently forgotten) bit of history. This is genuine history - with votes. This is not photos of placards that could have been taken anywhere.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was substantial. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar votes occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. Democrat standard bearers took their normal racist stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten that it was Republicans, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower

[bonnie]

Wouldn't you think most intelligent people would figure out that with the thousands and thousands of those attending tea parties there might be a few that were nut jobs and playing on race. Didn't they even catch a few liberal nut jobs trying to pass as conservative tea party goers.

I think there are people that have to keep hammering on race,it is so important to them and they want it to be to the rest of us.

I still think Chris Matthews is the ultimate racist.It was so nice for him that Obama gave a speech that "allowed Matthews to forget he was black". Why would anyone not obsessed with race even think of a comment like that?

[lazarus]

Karl, you're simply avoiding the point.

You don't want to admit something that's obvious. I wonder why that is. Why does having to say their has been racism at tea parties cause you so much grief?

Ok, Let me see.

There has been no racism at tea party rallies.

Do you agree with the statement above? Yea or Nay?

[doug yowell]

Karl, you're simply avoiding the point.

You don't want to admit something that's obvious. I wonder why that is. Why does having to say their has been racism at tea parties cause you so much grief?

Ok, Let me see.

There has been no racism at tea party rallies.

Do you agree with the statement above? Yea or Nay?

Angela McGrowan!

[bonnie]

Quote:

Karl, you're simply avoiding the point.

You don't want to admit something that's obvious. I wonder why that is. Why does having to say their has been racism at tea parties cause you so much grief?

Ok, Let me see.

There has been no racism at tea party rallies.

Do you agree with the statement above? Yea or Nay?

Any racism shown at tea parties was not indicative of the vast majority of those present.Race was not the focus.It was not the reason for the tea party movement.It was not because Obama is black. It is because he leaves a lot to be desired in his "leadership".

[lazarus]

Any racism shown at tea parties was not indicative of the vast majority of those present.Race was not the focus.It was not the reason for the tea party movement.It was not because Obama is black. It is because he leaves a lot to be desired in his "leadership".

Why argue against something that has not been said by me? That's avoidance. Are you willing to agree or disagree with the statement Bonnie?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Any racism shown at tea parties was not indicative of the vast majority of those present.Race was not the focus.It was not the reason for the tea party movement.It was not because Obama is black. It is because he leaves a lot to be desired in his "leadership".

Why argue against something that has not been said by me? That's avoidance. Are you willing to agree or disagree with the statement Bonnie?

You seem pretty eager to hammer race issues to the tea parties.

Why??

As for racism at the tea parties I am quite sure there were those there that were racist just as I am sure there were men in those crowds that had beaten their wives.

Seems to me there was more the pic of Obama thru his nose than simply being racist,

Don't really care enough. There was bigotry and hatred from the other side as well. Black conservatives are being condemned and called names by black.

As to a specific act I remember the picture but don't remember the why or by who. Don't care.Race was not the focus of any tea party.

I do remember the left moaning about race again and again. Some was proven not to be true. What there was is not indicative of the tea party gatherings.

You seem to be determined to take actions of a few and use that to reflect "racism"

[karl]

Karl, you're simply avoiding the point.

You don't want to admit something that's obvious. I wonder why that is. Why does having to say their has been racism at tea parties cause you so much grief?

I told you that I can agree that photos have been published of placards, which they claimed were at tea party rallies, and which could be interpreted as racist. That's it. I do not believe that tea parties were, or have been, racist any more than I believe the democratic party is racist, even though 40% of them voted against the civil rights bill.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Karl, you're simply avoiding the point.

You don't want to admit something that's obvious. I wonder why that is. Why does having to say their has been racism at tea parties cause you so much grief?

I told you that I can agree that photos have been published of placards, which they claimed were at tea party rallies, and which could be interpreted as racist. That's it. I do not believe that tea parties were, or have been, racist any more than I believe the democratic party is racist, even though 40% of them voted against the civil rights bill.

Other racist Tea Partiers have been recently unmasked. Their names include Timothy F. Johnson,Clifton Bazar, Avid Webb, Stenny Lollar, and Alan Nunnelee.I can understand Laz's "disappointment" that these kind of people would associate with the Tea Party.

[lazarus]

I told you that I can agree that photos have been published of placards, which they claimed were at tea party rallies, and which could be interpreted as racist.

I'm glad you agree that photos have been published because if we couldn't agree on that photos have been published they we really would have a disagreement.

Again I'm glad we agree the photos were of placards because I would have to reconsider my definition of a placard.

I guess we can agree that the placards were at rallies. Which rallies? It was suggested that they may have been at a neo-nazi rally. You'd think that neo-nazi's would know how to make a placard that was clearly racist and not with the ambiguity you suggest. How about NAACP rally, Democratic rally, Green Party rally, Immigration reform rally, gay rights rally, rally for Israel, rally for the Palestinians, rally for Dafur, Anti-abortion rally perhaps. Man, there are so many choices. I wonder in what kind of rally these kinds of placards would really fit?

The fact that you say "could be interpreted as racist" gives me a hint as to why you are having difficulty being direct when you are usually quite direct.

So again........

There has been no racism at tea party rallies.

Do you agree with the statement above? Yea or Nay?

If you don't want to answer this time. It's cool. I'll leave it alone.

[karl]

Here are the pictures you posted.

Where does it say "tea party" on any of these - even the bottom one which is CLEARLY a concocted propaganda piece?

Now, let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that some of these signs were seen at a tea party rally. This still would not allow one to make the accusation which you made that tea parties are racist. If an individual makes a racist remark or carries a racist sign, that does not implicate others he associates with as racist. Furthermore, it does not necessarily make the person himself a racist. (Now I know you're jumping up and down.) Unless, of course, you're willing to stipulate that Harry Reid is a bona fide racist.