By "We're choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America…We are not a collection of blue states and red states, we are the United States."
Dream on, Mr. President. This is Obama as he wants to be; the unifier, the healer, a latter day Washington, transcending partisanship, geography, race and class. But this Obama cannot and will never be - not while there exists in America a significant but powerful minority that is determined to utterly destroy his presidency, just because it exists.
This right-wing media monster haunts modern American politics. It's a monster with regard for neither right nor reason nor truth, a monster that makes serious political conversation impossible and that feeds on the fears of Americans who scream openly that they ‘want their America back’. It knows not what it believes in, but knows what it opposes, and that is all encapsulated in Obama.
The monster goes way beyond healthcare, quite beyond policy and philosophy and entirely beyond party. Many Americans, of course, quite legitimately oppose the President out of genuine political differences, but maintain their respect for him and the office he holds. The others simply hold him in contempt. They are afraid, afraid of precisely the thing that excites his own liberal base: that this president is the first truly liberal chief executive since FDR, and represents the biggest threat to the cosy conservative hegemony that has for so longed ruled the American roost.
The fact that he is black adds fuel to the fire, and provides an opening that the Fox news demagogues exploit mercilessly. They exploit the fear that the older, whiter, more right wing America has seen its day; that they know, as all must know, that they are behind the curve of history and Obama is the future. And they’re afraid.
Consequently, the right wing media and radio talk show hosts peddle the politics of that fear, playing on their audience’s most base instincts with a relentless, sustained campaign of lies and misinformation. They cannot accept that somehow the Democrats won so conclusively in November, that somehow, just somehow, they might not speak for the average Joe on Main St. anymore. Worse, the man who seems to do so is black. Worse still, he’s a black liberal (or maybe a socialist, or communist, or was that fascist?) and he’s taking your America from you. You, they say, must stop him, whatever the cost.
Working in a Congressional office, as I’ve been lucky enough to do over the last few months, has given me a ringside seat on the young Obama presidency, and his first meaningful stab at bringing about the ‘change’ on which he ran. Over that time, I’ve seen a rabid and feckless right wing media mutilate and distort a healthcare bill that has the potential to help tens of millions of Americans and I've learned that meaningful political discourse in America has become nigh-on impossible with a media machine virtually intent on destroying the Obama presidency.
A line constantly trotted out by Fox News is that the President and his allies are blinded by ideology. The irony of such a statement would be literally hilarious if it were not so utterly depressing. The likes of Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (Fox’s pin-up of the month, famous for gems like the one below) in fact possess an ideology that goes beyond conservatism: it's nothing more than a crass anti-Obamaism.
So blinded are they by the fear that this President poses to their agenda that they hold little to no regard for the truth, clearly believing that a little (or a lot of) mendacity is a price worth paying if it damages the President.
The truth becomes whatever most suits their message; that Obama wants to destroy your America. That he wants to take away your freedom, your money, even your Grandma.
This opposition to all Obama, great and small, is not discriminate and goes beyond anything any previous President has ever had to endure. It manifests itself in whatever the President does and every move he makes: healthcare, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, Justice Sotomayor, Afghanistan and heaven help Obama if he wants to try and talk to the kids. When Obama had the audacity to try and speak to America’s school children about getting decent grades, Fox News and top Republican law-makers urged families to take their kids out of school lest they be brainwashed by the President’s ‘socialism’. Of course, no-one uttered so much as a peep when George W.Bush addressed schoolchildren in 2001, but of course, he was a Republican. He couldn’t possibly have been trying to brainwash children.
And Bush never had to put up with ‘Birthers’, either. Anyone who denies that the criticism directed at Obama does not possess a racial element need only look at this absurd ‘birther movement’, an idea seriously reported on and even encouraged by various media outlets, including CNN.
So toxic have some attacks on Obama become that so-called ‘patriots’ refuse to even accept their President’s own legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief by questioning his very birthplace. Obama was, of course, born in Hawaii, but it’s interesting to consider whether any such movement would have existed if John McCain had been elected. McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama, but of course, had McCain won, no such issue would ever have come about; I mean, come on, just look at McCain, he’s white! Of course he’s an American, silly.
Worst of all; all of this isn’t even confined to the fringes or the worst elements of the media. Republican lawmakers constantly pander to this contemptuous drivel.
Sarah Palin scared millions with her irresponsible talk of death panels, a Congressman advocated domestic terrorism and Rep. Joe Wilson thought nothing of shouting ‘You Lie’ at his Commander-in-Chief at a Joint-Session of Congress. Even Bush never had to endure anything like this.
‘Death panels’, Birthers, taking guns to presidential rallies, calling for the Confederate flag to be lifted on Southern federal buildings and a blind devotion to the Fox News agenda, these are the hallmarks of much of the Grand Old Party today. When traditional Republicans, like Senator Olympia Snowe, speak out against this agenda of destruction and try and work constructively with the president, she gets called out for being a DINO (Democrat In All But Name). Lincoln must be spinning in his grave.
To call these people ‘conservatives’ does a disservice to the American conservatives of old. These people are the radicals and they are the monster of modern American politics. President Carter was right when he spoke of a racial element to some of Obama’s opposition. It has been fused with a refusal by some on the American right to acknowledge any liberal’s right to be President.
Anyone who honestly spoke of a post-racial America was always living in cloud cuckoo land, but what could perhaps not have been anticipated is the extent to which some have so brazenly questioned the President’s legitimacy. No-one talked of ‘Taking Back America’ in Clinton’s time, nor in Carter’s. It is for this President, this liberal black President, that that particular honour is reserved. It is to those people that propagate all this garbage and despicable misinformation that John Dean (former Nixon White House staffer) referred when he spoke of ‘conservatives without conscience’, and it is for these people that all Americans should hold outright contempt.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
"No, I don’t. Find me a comparable example to the Hannity reference above and I’ll concede the point."
Fair enough, I imagine we can argue over this point until we are blue in the face. The example that jumps out was when Olbermann called Bush a fascist. He was also a dab hand at using Nazi analogies. Pretty nasty, but I accept both sides are hardly qualified to sit on their high horses.
"This president has bent over backwards to be bipartisan. Remind me how many Republicans there are in the Senate? 40. A rump. Yet, the president insisted that the Senate Finance Committee ‘gang of six’ working on the health care bill had 3 Dems, 3 Republicans. He has been in negotiation all summer with Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Mike Enzi et al and yet it was Grassley and Enzi who chose to stab the president in the back. The president and congressional Dems have accepted over 200 Republican amendments to the health care package, and for what? The Republicans, despite the Democrats accepting over 200 of said amendments have promised to vote against the bill anyway."
I guess it depends on the content of these 200 amendments. If you want a real bipartisan bill the Democrats would be open to radical tort reform. Sticking Republicans on the committee was a nice smokescreen, a savy political move. Obama knew that Republicans wouldn't agree with the Democratic proposals, therefore he thought that it would backfire when they rejected the most liberal proposals. It's not. When none of the Republicans even on the committee support these measures, how can it be bipartisan? If I am only willing to offer you option A when you want nothing but option C, can I accuse you of not being bipartisan? Also, how bipartisan was the stimulus? The budget? It was the very lack of bipartisanship that has turned the Republican Party into the 'No' Party, a factor Obama thought would help him. Unfortunately, it's backfired.
"Clearly you haven’t understood what I said; I said that race was a significant factor for some people. No doubt some people do hate him because of his race and some purely because of his philosophy but no-one can deny that there are many who hate him because he his both, which is what I said."
My point is that race is really not one the main motivators here. Sure, they don't like that there's a liberal President. That's enough of a rationale in itself. We don't have to bring race into the equation, although Democrats seem hell bent on doing so. If I was Obama I'd be pretty pissed off that my colleagues keep on raising my race, I'd want them to be fighting me for my ideas.
"What about the 5 people who die every hour who presently can’t afford any insurance at all? Don’t you see, that’s the beauty of the public option? It drives down costs for those can afford (and just barely afford) insurance whilst giving those who can’t health insurance for the first time."
People die on the NHS. That's a fact-and they're covered. We should put in more effort to ensure that the chronically uninsured receive care, not the wealthy majority who can afford insurance by choose not to purchase it. A public option will artificially drive down costs for people already receiving coverage and will hike up costs for the middle class. The main driver of costs is government programs as hospitals are only reimbursed for 95% of costs, whereas private plans reimburse 115%. The cost has to go somewhere.
"No, I’m referring to when W. addressed school children in 2001 about drugs. And did the Democrats ever claim that the president was brainwashing children either time? No, of course they didn’t."
Was that a single school address or an address that was carried on C-SPAN with the hope of it being relayed to every school in the country?
"If you’re so convinced of that perhaps you should contact the Republican legislators who have peddled and actively supported the story. Clearly they’re not convinced it’s hurting them at all. Rather it reinforces racial suspicions about Obama, and everyone knows it."
Because they're a bunch of morons that think this story will play to their base in their districts. Yes, districts, not nationally. Why else would Jon Stewart get this crazy lady on?
"Obama was born on United States territory! In Hawaii! A state! The fact that you make such a statement after previously calling Birthers ‘absurd’ is puzzling. Moreover, I think we can safely speculate that had McCain become President, there would be no Democrat birther movement."
I don't believe I ever doubted the fact that Obama was born in the United States. My point was that there was no doubt that McCain was eligible to be President because "he was born" in a United States territory just like Barry Goldwater (Goldwater was born in a territory, not a state). I guess we can speculate that there would never have been a "birther" movement had McCain become President. But then again, as we have seen, people did heavily dispute whether he could be President.
"Did Bush ever have anyone call him a liar on the House floor, during one of his State of the Unions? No. Never. Despite the fact that he was actually lying. Wilson’s attack would be forgivable had he been in the right, but Wilson was actually denying a black and white fact as established in H.R. 3200 that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for the public insurance option. We should also bear in mind that this is a man who thinks the Confederate flag should be flown over South Carolina State Capitol Building."
That wasn't your point. You said "like this", so yes, he did. In fact, it was worse. He had a large number of Democrats heckle his at the state of the union, a little bit more ceremonial than a speech before a joint house of Congress. On the illegal immigrants issue - the CRS have stated:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option...H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens-whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently-participating in the Exchange."
On the Confederate flag. That's a South Carolina issue, not a Federal issue. Does it make him a bigot? No.
"You got me there, what can I say, it was a late night. And as you say, Goldwater would never have endorsed this lunacy and the indiscriminate insanity that is Fox. John Dean (similarly inspired by Goldwater) writes about this excellently in his book, Conservatives without Conscience. I agree with you that rhetoric from the Left can be destructive (for instance, liberals who called Bush a Fascist/Nazi cannot complain, but it doesn’t make Republican imitation satisfactory.)"
Nice that we agree on something then. Although I've never said that Republican "imitation" was satisfactory.
"Yes, well that’s what I said. And exactly what has the British situation got to do with anything at all? Does stating that make racist treatment of Obama okay, somehow?"
No, it doesn't. My point is that there will never be a post-racial America. That was pretty clear even after Obama was elected. However, my point is that in terms of having black representatives in an influential political position, America is much more advanced than the UK.
"Point taken, but can you honestly deny the possibility of there being a racial overtone to a bunch of old white people screaming ‘let’s take our country back’ against the first black president?"
Of course, there's a tiny racial element. But "taking our country back" is a common phrase in American politics so it doesn't always have to be tainted by racial connotations.
"Yes there was vitriolic anti-Bush rhetoric and some of it was uncalled for. But, would you not also accept that all of that came after 5, 6, 7 years in office? After two, hugely unpopular wars and two decisive presidential elections, to boot? Obama has been in office for nine months! Republicans have refused to work with him and won’t give him a chance at all. Also, calling the first black president a Nazi sits even more uncomfortably with me than calling Bush the same thing. Though I think we should all just agree that no-one is bad as Hitler and just get on with it, comparing a black man to the most famous white supremacist in history really is historical ignorance and its most offensive and mindnumbingly astounding."
Bush's inaugural was overshadowed by people heckling him when he took his oath. People threw eggs at his motorcade and he hadn't even started the job. The Republicans didn't refuse to work with him on the stimulus, they were just ignored - even McCain.
I agree, but calling Bush "a Nazi" when he had appointed more ethnic minorities to his cabinet than any of his predecessors was also pretty rich. It's worrying, on both sides. But I must say, was it the Republicans or the Democrats that made it acceptable to call your commander in chief a Nazi?
No, I don’t. Find me a comparable example to the Hannity reference above and I’ll concede the point.
If Obama wants to be a unifier, then why on earth is every single speech he makes so partisan? Can you really tell me that his address to the Joint Houses of Congress was bipartisan? His talk of bipartisanship was but campaign rhetoric. I'm open to being corrected, but do feel free to point out when this "bipartisan" Obama existed. Where's the record?
This president has bent over backwards to be bipartisan. Remind me how many Republicans there are in the Senate? 40. A rump. Yet, the president insisted that the Senate Finance Committee ‘gang of six’ working on the health care bill had 3 Dems, 3 Republicans. He has been in negotiation all summer with Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Mike Enzi et al and yet it was Grassley and Enzi who chose to stab the president in the back. The president and congressional Dems have accepted over 200 Republican amendments to the health care package, and for what? The Republicans, despite the Democrats accepting over 200 of said amendments have promised to vote against the bill anyway.
Again, I would never claim that race is not involved. But to claim that people oppose him solely for his race is, quite frankly, bonkers. As you state, he is a liberal President, which is quite enough. Saying that the opposition to Obama's agenda comes from race, is like saying opposition to Bush was down to his Christianity. Also, go look at the poll numbers. It seems that neither party is doing too well with the man on the street.
Clearly you haven’t understood what I said; I said that race was a significant factor for some people. No doubt some people do hate him because of his race and some purely because of his philosophy but no-one can deny that there are many who hate him because he his both, which is what I said.
What? The tens of millions of rich people who will be covered by the bill?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981
What about the 5 people who die every hour who presently can’t afford any insurance at all? Don’t you see, that’s the beauty of the public option? It drives down costs for those can afford (and just barely afford) insurance whilst giving those who can’t health insurance for the first time.
When did Bush address school children? 9/11? That was hardly an address now was it? Maybe you're referring to George HW Bush when he addressed kids? It's also worth noting that the Democrats opposed Poppy Bush addressing a school. Can you really say that the current opposition from the Republicans is not akin to that of the Democrats 2004-2006?
No, I’m referring to when W. addressed school children in 2001 about drugs. And did the Democrats ever claim that the president was brainwashing children either time? No, of course they didn’t.
The birthers are an absurd minority. But then again, who keeps giving them publicity? Please ask yourself why the birthers are getting so much publicity on MSNBC and ACORN get so much press on FOX? The Obama administration WANTS the media to report the birthers story because it will only hurt the Republicans. It figures doesn't it.
If you’re so convinced of that perhaps you should contact the Republican legislators who have peddled and actively supported the story. Clearly they’re not convinced it’s hurting them at all. Rather it reinforces racial suspicions about Obama, and everyone knows it.
Yes, but McCain was also born in a United States territory, just like Barry Goldwater. And just to let you know, there was a movement to question whether he could serve legitimately as President - remember?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/arizona-law-professor-mcc_n_112126.html
Obama was born on United States territory! In Hawaii! A state! The fact that you make such a statement after previously calling Birthers ‘absurd’ is puzzling. Moreover, I think we can safely speculate that had McCain become President, there would be no Democrat birther movement.
"Sarah Palin scared millions with her irresponsible talk of death panels, a Congressman advocated domestic terrorism and Rep. Joe Wilson thought nothing of shouting ‘You Lie’ at his Commander-in-Chief at a Joint-Session of Congress. Even Bush never had to endure anything like this."
Now come on, that's just complete BS. "Bush never had to endure anything like this." Are you deliberately being absent minded? Do you recall the 2005 State of the Union? No? If you watch it, Mr Wilson's "heckle" can be equated to a whisper.
Did Bush ever have anyone call him a liar on the House floor, during one of his State of the Unions? No. Never. Despite the fact that he was actually lying. Wilson’s attack would be forgivable had he been in the right, but Wilson was actually denying a black and white fact as established in H.R. 3200 that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for the public insurance option. We should also bear in mind that this is a man who thinks the Confederate flag should be flown over South Carolina State Capitol Building.
It's RINO - Republican In Name Only. And what's a "traditional Republican"? A Rockefeller Republican? So they have to either hog the center ground or represent a state in New England? Please. I'm a Goldwater guy, so I'm hardly a fan of the religious right. I do however acknowledge that their rhetoric can be both divisive and destructive, a lot like the Left.
You got me there, what can I say, it was a late night. And as you say, Goldwater would never have endorsed this lunacy and the indiscriminate insanity that is Fox. John Dean (similarly inspired by Goldwater) writes about this excellently in his book, Conservatives without Conscience. I agree with you that rhetoric from the Left can be destructive (for instance, liberals who called Bush a Fascist/Nazi cannot complain, but it doesn’t make Republican imitation satisfactory.)
There will never be an entirely post-racial America. Then again there will never be a post-racial country anywhere. Remind me, how many black cabinet members in the House of Commons has there been?
Yes, well that’s what I said. And exactly what has the British situation got to do with anything at all? Does stating that make racist treatment of Obama okay, somehow?
One point, Barry Goldwater talked about "taking our country back" because he opposed Johnson's policies of big government and disdain for the constitution. Are you saying he too was a racist? The man who desegregated his stores and the Arizona national guard? Hillary Clinton also called on her supporters to "take the country back". Was she being anti-Bush? Anti-Obama?
Point taken, but can you honestly deny the possibility of there being a racial overtone to a bunch of old white people screaming ‘let’s take our country back’ against the first black president?
In all, you have an interesting piece of analysis here. However, it would have been a little more interesting to look at the vitriol being spewed from both sides. To say that Bush was never subjected to the same opprobrium as Obama is nonsense. The press on the left and right have very short memories. To hear Rachel Maddow gurn about people accusing Obama of being "a Hitler" is a little perplexing, given that there was a Hitler/Bush banner at every anti-Bush rally. Do we all have such short memories? Can you honestly say that Olberman didn't subject Bush to the very same diatribes?
Yes there was vitriolic anti-Bush rhetoric and some of it was uncalled for. But, would you not also accept that all of that came after 5, 6, 7 years in office? After two, hugely unpopular wars and two decisive presidential elections, to boot? Obama has been in office for nine months! Republicans have refused to work with him and won’t give him a chance at all. Also, calling the first black president a Nazi sits even more uncomfortably with me than calling Bush the same thing. Though I think we should all just agree that no-one is bad as Hitler and just get on with it, comparing a black man to the most famous white supremacist in history really is historical ignorance and its most offensive and mindnumbingly astounding.
Yes, there will always be people who despise Obama because of his race. No matter how much we wish this away, this will - regretfully - always be the case. However, this rant about the right-wing media is a little rich.
Am I a fan of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity? God no. I'm more of a Jason Lewis kinda' guy. However, the left also has demagogues of their own. Look at Maddow, Olberman... Can you really say they don't subject people to the same sort of scare tactics? Can you really say that they were never as vitriolic about Bush as Hannity et al are about Obama?
I too campaigned last year and was called a "Nazi", "baby killer", and a "racist" just because I was there with the Republicans. It's a real pitty that both sides have resorted to such nonsense.
Now, to fisk a few points...
"Dream on, Mr. President. This is Obama as he wants to be; the unifier, the healer, a latter day Washington, transcending partisanship, geography, race and class. But this Obama cannot and will never be - not while there exists in America a significant but powerful minority that is determined to utterly destroy his presidency, just because it exists."
If Obama wants to be a unifier, then why on earth is every single speech he makes so partisan? Can you really tell me that his address to the Joint Houses of Congress was bipartisan? His talk of bipartisanship was but campaign rhetoric. I'm open to being corrected, but do feel free to point out when this "bipartisan" Obama existed. Where's the record?
"The monster goes way beyond healthcare, quite beyond policy and philosophy and entirely beyond party. Many Americans, of course, quite legitimately oppose the President out of genuine political differences, but maintain their respect for him and the office he holds. The others simply hold him in contempt. They are afraid, afraid of precisely the thing that excites his own liberal base: that this president is the first truly liberal chief executive since FDR, and represents the biggest threat to the cosy conservative hegemony that has for so longed ruled the American roost."
That's worth saying. Yes, many Americans do oppose Obama without resorting to the sort of Beck-esque rants. But then again, you will have people from both sides who "hold him (the President) in contempt. What about Bush? I struggle to recall any members of MoveOn.org complaining about the disrespect shown towards Bush. A plague on both their houses I say. And the first "truly liberal President since FDR" - you sure about that? What about Truman, Johnson and Carter? How on earth can you omit Johnson, who was probably more liberal than FDR?
"Consequently, the right wing media and radio talk show hosts peddle the politics of that fear, playing on their audience’s most base instincts with a relentless, sustained campaign of lies and misinformation. They cannot accept that somehow the Democrats won so conclusively in November, that somehow, just somehow, they might not speak for the average Joe on Main St. anymore. Worse, the man who seems to do so is black. Worse still, he’s a black liberal (or maybe a socialist, or communist, or was that fascist?) and he’s taking your America from you. You, they say, must stop him, whatever the cost."
Again, I would never claim that race is not involved. But to claim that people oppose him solely for his race is, quite frankly, bonkers. As you state, he is a liberal President, which is quite enough. Saying that the opposition to Obama's agenda comes from race, is like saying opposition to Bush was down to his Christianity. Also, go look at the poll numbers. It seems that neither party is doing too well with the man on the street.
"Working in a Congressional office, as I’ve been lucky enough to do over the last few months, has given me a ringside seat on the young Obama presidency, and his first meaningful stab at bringing about the ‘change’ on which he ran. Over that time, I’ve seen a rabid and feckless right wing media mutilate and distort a healthcare bill that has the potential to help tens of millions of Americans and I've learned that meaningful political discourse in America has become nigh-on impossible with a media machine virtually intent on destroying the Obama presidency."
What? The tens of millions of rich people who will be covered by the bill?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981
Bush got things past, despite a hostile media. Obama simply, despite having a super majority, doesn't have the votes. Simple as. That's not the fault of the media, but his gross miscalculation that he could rule by decree.
"A line constantly trotted out by Fox News is that the President and his allies are blinded by ideology. The irony of such a statement would be literally hilarious if it were not so utterly depressing. The likes of Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (Fox’s pin-up of the month, famous for gems like the one below) in fact possess an ideology that goes beyond conservatism: it's nothing more than a crass anti-Obamaism."
As I've already stated, I'm hardly a fan. And given Bush's very own support of big government, I find their sudden epiphany a little late. Having worked for the Republicans in 2005 I can testify that the vitriol thrown at Bush during the Roberts and Alito hearings as well as his calls to reform social security was just as bad.
"This opposition to all Obama, great and small, is not discriminate and goes beyond anything any previous President has ever had to endure. It manifests itself in whatever the President does and every move he makes: healthcare, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, Justice Sotomayor, Afghanistan and heaven help Obama if he wants to try and talk to the kids. When Obama had the audacity to try and speak to America’s school children about getting decent grades, Fox News and top Republican law-makers urged families to take their kids out of school lest they be brainwashed by the President’s ‘socialism’. Of course, no-one uttered so much as a peep when George W.Bush addressed schoolchildren in 2001, but of course, he was a Republican. He couldn’t possibly have been trying to brainwash children."
When did Bush address school children? 9/11? That was hardly an address now was it? Maybe you're referring to George HW Bush when he addressed kids? It's also worth noting that the Democrats opposed Poppy Bush addressing a school. Can you really say that the current opposition from the Republicans is not akin to that of the Democrats 2004-2006?
"And Bush never had to put up with ‘Birthers’, either. Anyone who denies that the criticism directed at Obama does not possess a racial element need only look at this absurd ‘birther movement’, an idea seriously reported on and even encouraged by various media outlets, including CNN."
The birthers are an absurd minority. But then again, who keeps giving them publicity? Please ask yourself why the birthers are getting so much publicity on MSNBC and ACORN get so much press on FOX? The Obama administration WANTS the media to report the birthers story because it will only hurt the Republicans. It figures doesn't it.
So toxic have some attacks on Obama become that so-called ‘patriots’ refuse to even accept their President’s own legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief by questioning his very birthplace. Obama was, of course, born in Hawaii, but it’s interesting to consider whether any such movement would have existed if John McCain had been elected. McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama, but of course, had McCain won, no such issue would ever have come about; I mean, come on, just look at McCain, he’s white! Of course he’s an American, silly.
Yes, but McCain was also born in a United States territory, just like Barry Goldwater. And just to let you know, there was a movement to question whether he could serve legitimately as President - remember?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/arizona-law-professor-mcc_n_112126.html
"Sarah Palin scared millions with her irresponsible talk of death panels, a Congressman advocated domestic terrorism and Rep. Joe Wilson thought nothing of shouting ‘You Lie’ at his Commander-in-Chief at a Joint-Session of Congress. Even Bush never had to endure anything like this."
Now come on, that's just complete BS. "Bush never had to endure anything like this." Are you deliberately being absent minded? Do you recall the 2005 State of the Union? No? If you watch it, Mr Wilson's "heckle" can be equated to a whisper.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html
"‘Death panels’, Birthers, taking guns to presidential rallies, calling for the Confederate flag to be lifted on Southern federal buildings and a blind devotion to the Fox News agenda, these are the hallmarks of much of the Grand Old Party today. When traditional Republicans, like Senator Olympia Snowe, speak out against this agenda of destruction and try and work constructively with the president, she gets called out for being a DINO (Democrat In All But Name). Lincoln must be spinning in his grave."
It's RINO - Republican In Name Only. And what's a "traditional Republican"? A Rockefeller Republican? So they have to either hog the center ground or represent a state in New England? Please. I'm a Goldwater guy, so I'm hardly a fan of the religious right. I do however acknowledge that their rhetoric can be both divisive and destructive, a lot like the Left.
"To call these people ‘conservatives’ does a disservice to the American conservatives of old. These people are the radicals and they are the monster of modern American politics. President Carter was right when he spoke of a racial element to some of Obama’s opposition. It has been fused with a refusal by some on the American right to acknowledge any liberal’s right to be President."
Who are these American conservatives of old? I'm interested because I agree. But, again, would you not also say that the very same movement exists on the left, whereby people refuse to acknowledge a Christian conservative as President?
"Anyone who honestly spoke of a post-racial America was always living in cloud cuckoo land, but what could perhaps not have been anticipated is the extent to which some have so brazenly questioned the President’s legitimacy. No-one talked of ‘Taking Back America’ in Clinton’s time, nor in Carter’s. It is for this President, this liberal black President, that that particular honour is reserved. It is to those people that propagate all this garbage and despicable misinformation that John Dean (former Nixon White House staffer) referred when he spoke of ‘conservatives without conscience’, and it is for these people that all Americans should hold outright contempt."
There will never be an entirely post-racial America. Then again there will never be a post-racial country anywhere. Remind me, how many black cabinet members in the House of Commons has there been?
One point, Barry Goldwater talked about "taking our country back" because he opposed Johnson's policies of big government and disdain for the constitution. Are you saying he too was a racist? The man who desegregated his stores and the Arizona national guard? Hillary Clinton also called on her supporters to "take the country back". Was she being anti-Bush? Anti-Obama?
In all, you have an interesting piece of analysis here. However, it would have been a little more interesting to look at the vitriol being spewed from both sides. To say that Bush was never subjected to the same opprobrium as Obama is nonsense. The press on the left and right have very short memories. To hear Rachel Maddow gurn about people accusing Obama of being "a Hitler" is a little perplexing, given that there was a Hitler/Bush banner at every anti-Bush rally. Do we all have such short memories? Can you honestly say that Olberman didn't subject Bush to the very same diatribes?
The only way we can resolve this is if people from both parties and movements speak out, rather than accusing Fox or MSNBC of "being meaner".
Thankfully we in the UK seem to have so far (mostly) avoided the degree of bitterness and nastiness that we sometimes see in the States.
It does exist to a lesser degree, albeit the other way around (ie we have a section of the left wing press who consider Thatcher to have been so evil that people still literally talk about popping the champagne corks when she dies; and we have so-called mainstream news organs who consider any scepticism over Europe to make the speaker some sort of swivel-eyed monster).
I do find it interesting that Labour List are hosting this article (which I must stress I am not dissing - there is much truth in it), when it was here on Labour List that we saw similar attacks on Dan Hannan for (ironically) his own views on healthcare.
There were comments on these very pages, in which he was called 'scum - lower than vermin', 'traitor', and there were suggestions he be strung up from a lamp post at Heathrow. For what? For expressing views on healthcare that the commentators disagreed with.
Interesting similarity...
I have seen some of the media in the usa , the hate and spite at Press obama is disgusting , agure with debate not mud-slinging .
Alex i dont think its racism , i think it because its such step forward ( healthcare) its a shock , the americans are going from looking after thelmselves to looking after eachother .
ricki
This is one of the most frightening, personal and detailed accounts of the sort of hate I saw time and again in parts of America while I was cavnassing there last year. Sometimes it was political, sometimes it was indiscrimate anti-Democrat, sometimes it was pure racism.
Thank you for this account. It's one of my favourites ever published on LL.