Tuesday, October 06, 2009

The Olympic Teachable Moment

After writing two posts last week that probably raised everyone's blood pressure, I thought I would start this week with a more calming post. There is nothing that brings people together more than defending President Obama.


If you turned on the TV, read the paper, listened to the radio, or simply talked to someone else in the last few days, you know Brazil will host the 2016 Olympics. This comes despite a personal appearance by both President Obama and First Lady Michelle. A number of commentators have written why Chicago lost in the first round, but I think they have all missed the obvious reason. As such, I will borrow a phrase from the President and use this as a teachable moment.



George Will this morning wonders if the Obama's own egos did them in. He notes that in, "…the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns 'I' or 'me' 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences." Surely Mr. Will isn't surprised by this. The majority of President Obama's speeches, prime time news conferences, and 5-in-a-row Sunday appearances do the same thing. Why should the Olympic Committee not get the full monty?



Victor Davis Hanson purposes a more realistic reason. He points out that Chicago wasn't getting a lot of good PR in the last few weeks. Writing at Pajamas Media, he wonders if the "You Tube beatings, state and city corruption, Blagoism, Daley ward mobsterism, rumors of pre-Olympic wheeling and dealing on land angles, administration Chicago hard-ball Rahm Emanuel / David Axelrod politics, etc." have anything to do with it. Like Mr. Will's answer, these are also good reasons the Olympics may have chosen a southern country instead of Chicago. But, I think there is a larger issue missing from Victor's list.


There are other reasons to select a city that is not Chicago. Brazil will be the first South American nation to host the Olympics. I heard on one radio report that this is the first time the Olympics will appear in the Southern Hemisphere (with the exception of Australia). It could be that with the number of apology speeches the President has given, the I.O.C. simply thought the United States didn't deserve an Olympics. Maybe the Olympic committee thought President Obama was attacking them when he stated that, "…no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."



I think, truth be told, we all know in our heart of hearts why Chicago was not only rebuked, but kicked out in the first round of voting: racism. As the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist. Whether it's Marueen Dowd discussing Rep. Joe Wilson, Nancy Pelosi discussing tea party and town hall attendees, or anyone in the mainstream media discussing Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, there can't possibly be legitimate concerns about anything the President says. In this "post racial" Presidential administration, to disagree is to admit the guilt of racism. The I.O.C. is just the latest group to show their true colors.


41 comments:

Patrick said...

Just when I thought it was going to be serious post....... :)

pack04 said...

I like the sarcasm Andy.

At least I think it is sarcasm. Although many recent events and posts have gone to show that any type of questioning or dissent is solely the result of some sort of -ism. If you use the recent accusations of racism and sexual orientationism as a teachable moment then it is very easy to conclude that the IOC is indeed a racist organization.

Patrick said...

I will ask this question though. (Playing devil's advocate)

Do you think that there is at least one of our representatives that may secretly not enjoy having a Black President simply because he's Black? Just curious about everyone's responses.

Also, please keep your responses civil.

Andy D said...

Thanks Pack. I hope it illustrated a point.

Patrick, if by Representatives, you mean the people in congress,I would say maybe. There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Out of the 535, maybe. I wouldn't assume it was a Republican though.

However, this brings up another point from a far tangent. I argue there are far fewer people who are racists than the media would have us believe. There will always be people who hate those who are different. However, when we label any disagreement as "racist" we do two things: 1) We ignore what may be valid concerns, and 2) we destroy the actual meaning of the word. Just because someone disagrees with the President, they shouldn't be labeled a racist. And by using the word racist as a cheap tool for political attacks, the word itself no longer applies solely to the type of terrible behavior it use to.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy wrote: "the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist."

I challenge you to show us *one* quote of anyone saying this. It shouldn't be difficult since they've "boldly stated [it] time and time again."

Unless you're lying again.

...like you lied about statutory rape. When you lied about rape "time and time again."

And I'll quote the lies if you like.

Patrick said...

You're absolutely right Andy. When people cry wolf too much, they're building apathy. When a situation arises that needs to be labeled racist, no one will care.

I really asked the question though, to get a feel if there was anyone out there who really thinks that racism doesn't exist anymore. I've come across some people in recent months that have vehemently challenged the fact that racism doesn't exist, and Obama is proof.

Andy D said...

Anon,

I don't know if anyone has said point blank if you disagree with the President you are a racist. However, almost any major challenge Republicans have put forth, any major question they have asked of President Obama's policies have been labeled racist. That would be easy to document and if you like I can provide you a number of quotes for that. As an aside, please pay a little more attention to your comments. You are treading a fine line between getting posted or not. If you think I'm lying, call me on it, but do it in a civil way.


Patrick,

I think as long as people survive there will be those who hate because of our differences. I don't think that will ever change. I do believe it is a much smaller portion of our society than ever before. I also believe today's world is nothing like the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

pack04 said...

JIMMY CARTER.

pack04 said...

MAUREEN DOWD.

pack04 said...

That took like 3 seconds to come up with those 2, and most of that time was spent typing and clicking submit.

I'll comment on the statutory rape comment on that post.

Andy D said...

I had forgotten about President Carter. From CNN:


"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News."

Maureen Dowd came close to the same type of lunacy when she accused Joe Wilson of racism based on something Mrs. Dowd heard in her own head. Personally, I think that says more about Maureen Dowd than it does Joe Wilson. I have a blog on her comments, with a link to her original piece here.

Patrick said...

Anonymous guy-

Why are you being so inflammatory? If you're trying to disprove somebody's comments, you should find a better way to convey your thoughts. I don't necessarily agree with Andy on all topics, but I find a better way to talk to people when I do disagree.

the anonymous guy said...

Nobody listed above said anything like what Andy wrote: "the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist."

As for civility on this site: funny how it's ok to falsely accuse people of rape and being party to rape.

But calling somebody out on a lie is "uncivil" and subject to being censored.

And still no apology yet on the rape accusation.

Seattle Dave said...

I gotta agree with Anon here. I haven't seen anyone come out and say "If you disagree with the President's politics, you are a racist," which is what you are implying, or what you ultimately believer in your own mind.

I've seen people claim racism, such as Jimmy Carter, when it comes to the way the president has been treated by the faithful opposition. However, that's not the same as you imply, Andy.

As far as thinking there are far fewer people in this country that racist than the media would have you believe, well, my personal opinion is that there are far more people than what the media would have you believe. I think it's naive to think that we are somehow way far ahead of where we were in the sixties. Racism doesn't just "go away," it's a generational issue that won't be stamped out completely for generations to come.

As far as blaming racism as the reason behind everyone who disagrees with the President of the United States, well, that's just ludicrous. It's just about as ludicrous as blaming the general media for all of Sarah Palin's "social mis-steps."

Again, ludicrous.

pack04 said...

Anon you make it very difficult to say nice things.

Seeing as the statement you have an issue with is not a direct quote, notice the lack of quotation marks, it will be very difficult to find anybody that said those exact words.

from dictionary.com animosity: Bitter hostility or open enmity; active hatred.

So lets rephrase what Mr. Carter said. I think lots of people who show active hatred towards the President do so because he is black. Not sure what your definition of racism is but mine would be hatred due to race.
I guess the difference is Andy said disagree and Mr. Carter said hate. Andy next time you should use stronger words.

Where did Andy accuse anybody of rape? He accused somebody of not reporting a rape. He used a primary source (ask any historian how important primary sources are for proof in arguments), Mr. Jennings written and spoken word, to show how Mr. Jennings did not report a rape. How can Andy apologize for Mr. Jennings not telling the whole truth?

I would really like an answer to that question. How do you apologize when somebody else own words turn out to be false?
"I am sorry for being lied to."? Is that really Andy's fault?

Is the attack on Mr. Jennings a small thing? Yes, but it is still an important thing. Additionally, a short while ago it was all the rage, patriotic duty and the reason for the press to exist to dig out all the dirt on Mr. Bush's people, now turned around it is a nothing and a nonsense story aimed at discrediting and distracting people from the real issues at hand. I hate to say it but payback is a bitch. Plus the liberals should be proud and flattered to see how well they taught the conservatives to dig up dirt. What we should be more concerned about is Mr. Jennings goals for life. Is not Mr. Jennings want of promoting homosexuality the same thing as someone teaching that it is wrong to be gay? I am all for teaching/promoting tolerance but teaching or promoting homo- or hetero- sexuality has no place in the public school system.

Andy D said...

Patrick, Pack, Anon, and Dave,

The first thing I want to say is, "Thank You." When I created this site, this is exactly what I hoped for: a discussion on issues of the day where there would be those who disagree with me, those who agree with me, and those who are somewhere in between. I think we have that going here, so thank you.


Next: I stated "...the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist". A few examples:

1) Marueen Dowd said Joe Wilson was being racists when he called the President a liar. At no time did race enter into the phrase ,"You Lie". Yet because Wilson said this, he was labeled a racist by a major columnist in a major paper.


2) President Carter said that the overwhelming portion of opposition to the President was racist.

3) President Clinton told ABC News,"I think some of the extreme right who oppose him on health care are also racially prejudiced," of the racial statements I have sited so far, this is the least offensive, but it is still offensive.

4) Janeane Garofalo said,"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House..." She is not alone in that belief.

These four comments are a sample of what I had in mind when I wrote the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist. Is my statement a fair characterization? I believe so. Here is a sampling of the President's defenders including a columnist, an activist, and two former Presidents. All of them accusing people who oppose the President of being racist. Let me know if you would like more examples, I think this is an interesting list so far.

I didn't accuse Kevin Jennings of rape. I accused him of not reporting a rape based on his statements. As Pack said, Mr. Jennings said in more than one place that a 15 year old told him he was having sex with an adult. That is legally considered statutory rape. New evidence suggests the kid may have been 16 at the time. I based my accusations on Kevin Jennings direct statements. He believed the kid was 15, therefore, he should have reported the incident.

Patrick said...

Andy-

I don't happen to think what Clinton said was really that off base. I believe that he was trying to be politically correct in saying "extreme right." I mean, there are some extremist, right wing organizations who don't like black people, you know? :)

the anonymous guy said...

So Andy found four people who said that a lot of peoples' opposition to the first African American president has to do with racism. We're supposed to be outraged by that? I can't imagine that there would be many respectable political observers or historians who would disagree with that conclusion.

What Andy claimed was utterly different though. Andy wrote: "the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist."

Seattle Dave said...

Something that I was thinking about yesterday.

Andy/Packe - You guys are pretty quick to villify any democrat who uses the words race, or racism, as a pseudo-reason as to why their has been a complete and total lack of respect for the President.

However, if we are going to talk about racism in regards to President Obama, don't we also need to address those who fired the first "salvos" IE the senator from the South (I forget his name and his state, but the "Barrack the Magic Negro" tapes that were being sent around to the GOP)and Glenn Beck who directly accused the President of being a racist, then backed off immediately while still calling him a racist?

I would think that if we are going to crucify democrats for what they have said, shouldn't we look at the total picture and identify, and possibly discuss, what led to them saying these things.

Surely no one can disagree that "Barrack the Magic Negro" has all kinds of racist undertones to it.

Just my 2 cents

Andy D said...

Anonymous, are you really going to tell me that Maureen Dowd, President Clinton, and President Carter are out of touch with the views of many Democrats and with Obama supporters? I think you have really gone out on a limb if you think that's true. However, if you do, let me know. I will find more quotes from Democrats accusing people voicing opposition to the President of racism.

Andy D said...

Dave,

I think it is fair to look at anyone claiming racism with a bit of a skeptical eye. The example you cite isn't a good one though. The "Barack the Magic Negro" tape didn't originate with a member of the Republican party, it started with Rush Limbaugh. However, don't say "Gotcha to quick". The song was not directed at criticism of then presidential candidate Obama, it was directed at a newspaper that called Obama the "Magic Negro". It was intended to be a criticism of that paper. If you would like a more detailed explanation, let me know and I will be happy to provide it.

pack04 said...

Seattle Dave I am guessing by your comment that you are very unhappy with the way that some of the public is treating the person who holds the office of the President of the United States America. My question is how unhappy were you a year ago when there was a huge lack of respect for the person who previously held that position? And that lack of respect was labeled "patriotism."

BTW if you are to lazy to type out the "04" of my handle then don't add an "e" to it. Thanks.

It is unbelievable to me that people use the race card and then when they get called on it try to explain it away. Man up and stand up for what you say and believe.

Do people hate Mr. Obama because he is black. Yes. To label the whole group of people who disagree with him as doing so because of his skin color is lazy and uneducated.

Andy has only pointed out 4 people who have labeled dissenters as being racially motivated so you are dismissing his claim. Funny I would be willing to bet if 4 people in this country hated Mr. Obama due to his race you would still say there was racism in the country and be outraged.

Anonymous guy your continued argument that Andy's paraphrasing is nothing like what Mr. Carter or Ms. Dowd said is about like arguing 2+2 does not equal 4 just because it would mean you would be wrong and might have to admit it and apologize yourself.

Seattle Dave said...

It is a good one, to be fair.

Regardles of the intent of the song itself, Rush still went on his show and used the word "negro" something like 30 times in an hour.

If we wanted to make a point, he should have mentioned the article, talked about it, then been done with it. None turned around, created a song using a racially insensitive word, then passed it out to all his GOP buddies.

And, you didn't saw anything about your guy Glenn Beck. What about him? He actually had the balls to claim the president was a racist, for crying out loud.

Republicans cast the first stone. And even though we all agree it's ludicrous, they opened the can of worms.

And don't tell me Beck is a Libertarian. He's a "whatever station has him on air" political guy. Fun fact: Did you know he once did an entire segment on CNBC ( i think, or msnbc, one of the two) about how bad our health care system is and how badly he was treated while in the hospital for a surgery. It was pretty funny to watch. Just goes to show you, all these guys on TV are nothing more than actors, paid to say whatever slant the station represents.

I've said this to my friends many times, the advent of 24 hour news channels (or, as i like to call them, 1 hour news channels with 23 hours of politically slant commentary) is going to be the downfall of free thinking and debate in this country.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy, you're attempting a logical sleight of hand here.

You note correctly that a number (let's say "many") Obama supporters have accused the most extreme Obama-detractors of racism. This is indeed true. I agree with you that this is the case (Dowd, Clinton, Carter, and many of us have made these claims.) You've quoted and cited a few examples here.

You then write that Obama supporters say that "you can't disagree with the President without being racist." This is totally false. And you can't quote *one* person who says this, even though you claim we've said this "time and time again." If you can't find anybody who has said that, then you need to retract the statement or else admit that you are lying .

Andy D said...

Dave,

I don't agree with your take on Rush. I know, we are probably both shocked by that. The song was a satire about a particular paper, and about how some in the Democratic Party thought of Barack as the "magic negro". To say that Rush is using racial remarks without saying the same about a paper he was critiquing doesn't sound fair to me.

The reason I didn't comment on the Glenn Beck stuff is because I'm not familiar with it. If it makes you feel better, there have been a number of times that I have questioned the President on some of his statements. At least twice as a candidate he made comments I thought were racially motivated. If Glenn Beck did the same, I'm not going to criticize him for that.

Anon,

First, if all you can say is that I am lying, please don't comment again. I try to keep this debate civil and you are really pushing that line. I am truly sorry if those in the DNC aren't toeing the line of open honest debate. You can do better.

You seem to be bothered by semantics here. Has anyone who supports the President said quote you can't disagree with the President and not be a racists? No, it would be political suicide. Have a number of them labeled almost all criticsm as racially motivated? Yes. That is why I cited examples from two previous Presidents, a columnist, and a Hollywood / activist. Again, I am more than happy to find other quotes if you like. This isn't me lieing. This is me pointing out the implications of the President's supporters words. You may not by happy with those implications, but don't blame me if you don't like them.

Andy D said...

While we are talking about racial comments, do a google search for Joe Biden and clean, articulate, black man. You might be surprised at what you find.

Patrick said...

That's not playing fair Andy. You know as well I do that Joe Biden likes the taste of his shoe.

Pack -

I will say one thing. It's amazing to me how people are defending the disrepectful behavior towards the Presidential Office. So, do you think it's ok that since a Democrat is the President that retaliation is necessary for all the flack that Bush received? I hope not, b/c we're supposed to be adults here.

I mean, Bush left office with an approval rating in the 20% - 30% range, which tells me that not too many people (even on his side) cared for him. Barack is getting bashed, even with an approval rating in the 50% range. No matter who won the election, they would be having a hard time making choices right now. And I don't envy Barack's position right now.

And also, the dissenters weren't labeled as patriots. They were actually viewed as unpatriotic.

Actually, I think the term "race card" is used as a good defense mechanism for those who would actually want to use racial undertones in their delivery. The problem with a lot of racism today, is that it is implicit in the public view. There is no Jim Crow law today, or separate bathrooms, or a government to uphold those practices.

Of course, like I said before, people have "cried wolf" so many times, that society is becoming apathetic to the real issues.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy writes: "Has anyone who supports the President said quote you can't disagree with the President and not be a racist? No."

AND

Andy writes: "the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist."

Political debate is alive and well... among Andy's own claims!

Andy D said...

Would you have felt better if I used the word "implied"?

the anonymous guy said...

I'd "feel better" if I had a pint in my hand.

I'd agree with you if you admitted that no respectable person has ever "boldly stated" or "implied" that *all* disagreements with Obama stem from racism. Plenty of people, however, have accused some Obama critics of racism.

Some criticisms of Michael Steele doubtlessly stem from racism.

Some criticisms of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush stem from intellectual elitism and belief in proper syntax.

We've all got our hang-ups.

I don't see how any of this comes as a scandal or surprise.

pack04 said...

Patrick, some people called the attacks on Mr. Bush unpatriotic while some called them patriotic and applauded them. Now the rolls seem to have switched, the people who claimed patriotism before now are saying not patriotic and disrespectful to the office. Look at anonymous guy, he is still attacking the man that is not even there any more. If I called Mr. Obama stupid, or lying, I would be considered to be disrespecting the office and maybe in an extreme case racist. Look at the difference between, Mr. Wilson and his health care comments and comments towards Mr. Bush and Iraqi WMD's.

The sad thing is this whole line of things from Andy got started with a little sarcasm. Anonymous guy are you defending so hard because you realize it is true and it sort of embarrasses you? I mean I think Mr. Carter, Ms. Dowd etc comments on this subject were stupid just like I think some of Mr. Limbaugh's are stupid. Are their comments going to stop me from believing and speaking out on my disagreements with Mr. Obama and the rest of the federal government? Hell no.

Calm down. Defending to no end and demanding appologize all the time is annoying and like Patrick points out crying wolf one to many times. It would be nice if somebody said something and had the sac to stand by it when it pissed somebody off.

Anonymous guy, there are people out there who think that my disagreements are solely based on the color of his skin. Deal with it. Mr. Limbaugh said that the Mr. Obama is racist, that is his opinion, you have to deal with it.

And no Patrick I do not think it is correct to attack Mr. Obama solely because Mr. Bush was attacked. It is pretty ballsy to think that Mr. Obama has done everything perfect and correctly that the only reason for disagreement is payback.

Seattle Dave said...

@ pack04

I'm sorry for misreading your online blog "handle." If you want to be sarcastic about a simple mistake, take it somewhere else.

As far as your question to me about Bush V. Obama, and how they are being treated, well I'll explain. Forgive the wall of text to follow.

I grew up in a household where my grandfather and my father fought in wars for this country. I grew up in a household where respect was a key word i learned from a young age on. I grew up with a father who, despite his political preference or his personal beliefs felt, and still feels, that the President of the United States of America, the commander and chief of the US military forces, is someone to be respected and revered. It's the highest office in the land and the leader of the free world.

I grew up with a father who believes that any person who lives in this country should respect the fact that 51% or more of his/her fellow countrymen voted said person into office.

He also believes, as do I, that if you don't speak up and/or don't have an opinion, then that is the true definition of "un-patriotic."

And finally, him and I both believe that it is the mandate of congressional leaders, despite political differences, to work together to make our country stronger, both WITHIN (IE social issues) and on the outside (IE Foreign policy).

I voted for GW in his first term, because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. I did not vote for him in his second term.

Now, maybe that doesn't allow for anyone to put me into a political party (frankly, socially i'm liberal, financially i'm a bit conservative) but it does make me one thing: A reasonable person.

Since the day Pres. Obama won the Deomcratic nomination, I have seen nothing but angry, tired rhetoric from the republican party in a time where we need some form of unity at the top to help get us out of this mess. A reasonable person cannot disagree that both parties can bring good, solid ideas to the table, work through the differences and create plans that transcend either republican or democratic ideals. However, since day 1, the republican party seemingly decided that they are going to have absolutely no part in the process, save to provide roadblocks at every turn for anything to get done. That, my friends, is a sad statement to make. And that is also why this "recession" we are in will not be fixed easily, or within any real solid timeframe.

Rush Limbaugh said he roots against the president and hopes that he fails because, as a republican, that's his job. I say Rush is full of s**t and that to root against ANY president, republican or democrat, is to root for the US to fail, and hence, unpatriotic in it's own right.

We can all make fun of how they talk, things they say, things they do (IE GW). We can debate their policies, discuss their ideals and banter about how they conduct business (Obama). However, at the end of the day, we CANNOT root for them to fail, and try and actively be involved in making that happen. In doing so, we're really just rooting for ourselves to fail. And that, my friend, is unacceptable if you are truly American.

Seattle Dave said...

Oh, and Andy, Glenn didn't make any comments that were racially motivated. He actually said "I think Obama is a racist, and that he hates white people..." when on that Fox morning show (forget the name).

I'm sure it's all over youtube. You can find it if you like.

Andy D said...

Dave,

I will look for the comment later. I have made a similar charge on this site, so I am not that shocked by it.

I think your "wall of text" is very interesting, but I have a few responses. The office of the President should be respected regardless of who is in there. That doesn't mean that we should work with whatever agenda the President sets simply because he is President. If we are to work with him because he received 51% of the vote and our fellow countrymen wanted him in office, what to we do when his policies fall below that 51% mark. Should we stop working with him?

The Republicans can not stop any legislation the Democrats want to push through whether it be health care reform or a new stimulus bill. They just don't have enough votes. Any lack of progress in Congress must be blamed on Democrats. That isn't politics talking, that's simple math. If you don't like where the economy is right now, you can blame the previous stimulus bill, you can blame no one, or you can blame Democrats. Republicans don't have the votes to do anything about it.

I agree with Rush. He specifically said that he hopes the President fails because he believes the President's policies will destroy this country. I agree with that. Rush doesn't disagree with President Obama because Rush is a Republican, but because Rush is a Conservative. There is a difference. We Conservatives believe that if President Obama gets everything he wants done, the country won't be in a good place for our children. That's whey we work against him.

Seattle Dave said...

Before I head out the door to the office, let me say this..

Andy - I didn't say you have to just lay down and agree with everything the president says, or does, simply because the majority of Americans voted him into office.

Please don't read into my words more than what they are.

What i said was that surely the 2 parties can bring their best ideas, thoughts, whatever, to the table and work through the issues of the day, coming to some type of consensus as to what policies should/could be in place. However, the republicans, since day 1, made it clear that they weren't even willing to do that.

The funny part about that is that President Obama is hardly a far left liberal. And considering he made it clear initially that he was pushing for a bi-partisan approach, i find it interesting that still the republicans refuse to engage. Olympia Snowe is the only one who has stuck through it all.

And no, the democrats cannot just vote something into law based on numbers alone. The republicans have spread every piece of mis-information they can find about health care in order to slow/stop that process. Without some type of public support, nothing will get passed. And we all know how easy it is to manipulate data in order to scare the general public at large. Death panels? come on, really? The recent price-waterhouse report about premium increases? Later to be backtracked on? Really? Our country is less safe because we stopped torturing people? Seriously?

Obama's a Nazi, Obama's a socialist, Obama's a communist, Obama's not an Amercian Citizen, Obama's a terrorist, Obama's a secret Muslim spy hell bent on creating a Muslim state out of America. Charges levied at him all within his first 3 months in office. How amazingly ridiculous is it all? Do political parties, in this case the republicans, really have to pander to the lowest common denominator in this country?

Since we were kids, every president, according to the opposite party, was and/or is, going to destroy this country with their policies.

Yet, the funny thing is, we're still here.

That's a lame excuse, at best.

BTW, we've gone way off topic here. Perhaps you should add a "general thread" or something. Just an idea.

Patrick said...

Pack-

No, I don't think that Obama's perfect. But, I sure don't remember GW being attacked from week one into his Presidency.

Andy-

I have to disagree with believing that all of the President's policies will destroy this country. I think it's a defeatist way to view our country. Americans have much more resolve than that.

I think Republicans and Conservatives alike are shifting blame anytime the state of our country hints their way. All I hear from friends and colleagues that are either Conserv. or Repub. is that it's Clinton's fault for the crisis, and Obama is not fixing it. There was a large span between the two where the country was being run by somebody else. That somebody started a war, expanded the war, and didn't "fix" those problems that Clinton supposedly started.

Now with that said, even Conservatives didn't agree with Bush near the end of his Presidency. But let's be honest, they weren't trying to rally the troops in the media to bad mouth him. (At least until election time.)

I believed that expanding the war would strain our military, decrease our standing in the world, and be a repeat of Vietnam. Not so far from the truth, but I didn't want us to fail when GW made his decision. If so, I'd be slapping every troop in the face. I respect them way too much to do that.


The difference is that, I'd rather work with the rest of country to get things done. What happens when two forces act equally and opposite? They cancel each other out. America would be much better off if those with opposing ideas would realize that neither side has all of the answers. Conservative ideologies don't hold all the fundamental necessities to have a perfect country and neither do Liberals. The sooner you realize that, the better we'll all be.

pack04 said...

Seattle Dave I am going to assume you apology was sarcastic due to your following sentence. I am not taking my comments somewhere else because they were not sarcastic. The only thing I did wrong was assume that your take on my name was condescending rather than what you call a "simple mistake." If it truly was a simple mistake I am sorry for calling you lazy. If it happened for any other reason then I am not at all sorry for anything I said along those lines. Oh and by the way, great example of how to get people who think differently to work together, "take it somewhere else."

pack04 said...

Seattle Dave,
I like your wall of words for the most part. That is a very similar sentiment that I have. I respect the office of the President and I will continue to voice my opinions of the actions of the person who holds that office.
I will also agree that the republican party needs some leadership to help make this country the best it can be. However, people will have to understand that saying "no that will not work" is a viable leadership tactic. Working together does not always mean accepting the other person idea and tweaking it.
You stated that the "republican party seemingly decided that they are going to have absolutely no part in the process." I can see how that happens but there is another side to look at it. Perhaps the democrats have not allowed the republican party to have a part in the process. I am think it is a mix of the two or something along the lines of "you are not going to help us"..."well that is fine because I don't want to help."

The finger pointing is annoying and dumb. Both sides have failed to act and blame the other side for things. Yes the republicans are visably bitching now, but did the democrats not do that from 2001 to 2007? How much did the democrats work with Mr. Bush or republicans from 2007 to 2009? Am I saying it is correct for the republicans to act this way now? No, but I am just pointing out it is not a new or unheard of way of acting. The sad thing is that most people are feed up with the way congress does things but for the most part continues to reelect the same people. So the problem is the people. The federal government is not responsible for the federal government the people should be.

Andy D said...

Pack and Dave...play nice.

Dave,

A couple of points: President Obama is a master at saying one thing and doing another. He says he wants bipartisan support, but won't listen to Republican ideas. The Republicans have offered up alternatives to the Democrat's health care reform proposals. The President hasn't wanted any of them. The Republicans have offered amendments to the health care bills, those have been rejected as well.


You said the Democrats can't pass health care reform with the Republicans. This is inaccurate. They can legally do it without a single Republican vote, and they plan on doing it without the Republicans and without some of the moderate Democrats. More on that in my next post.


Patrick,

I don't blame Clinton for our current problems. I also don't believe the solutions offered in Congress will solve our problems. This administration said we had to pass a stimulus plan or unemployment would hit 8.8%. Now it's at 9.8 % and there is talk of Stimulus Plan II. All we are doing is spending and borrowing money without fixing it.

To be clear (borrowing from the President), I do not blame any one administration for our problems. Clinton, Bush, and Obama helped us get here. I do blame the current Congress for a lack of any real solutions.

pack04 said...

Patrick,
2001 was a long time ago but I seem to remember a chant of "selected not elected" from late 2000 early 2001. That is sort of attacking.

Seattle Dave I will agree and disagree with the democrats can't vote something into law on numbers alone. Or at least I need more clarification on that statement. For democrats to VOTE something into law no they can't on numbers alone because they do not have the two thirds majority needed to over come a presidential veto.
However democrats do have enough numbers (greater than 50% + 1 majority) in each house to pass legislation without a republican vote. Seeing as the president, who is needed to approve any bill, is currently a democrat and can be assumed to approve, i.e. vote, along with the democrats in congress. Then yes the democrats can indeed VOTE in laws on votes alone. This is of course I completely misunderstood my civics class in high school and was wrongly informed by this website. Which of these methods were you meaning with your statement? Or is there a different process for voting in laws in this country I was unaware of?

Seattle Dave said...

Pack04 -

Cool cool, I read your first words as sarcastic because of the laziness part. Mine was sarcastic back.

No harm, no foul. Not trying to pick fights with anyone.


I understand the numbers guys, but there is also the public factor that you have to take into account when passing legislation. That has to be considered. Likewise, doesn't it say something about the President when he could, for all intensive purposes, mandate the demo's push their original legislation through the house and senate, but hasn't? I mean, that should say something about him, right? Isn't that kind of making my point for me?

Also, just to be fair:

I'm 100% against some of the legislation that I am seeing being proposed, with regards to the mortgage industry and how Big Bad Barney Frank is approaching it. To be totally frank, and completely fair and honest, I think he might be one of the bigger idiots I have ever seen in a political position, for either side. I can't stand the guy nor his demonizing of certain parts of the mortgage industry. It just wreaks of big bank lobbyists being involved.

Andy, I don't think reforming health care is a precursor to the destruction of our country, no matter how it's sliced and diced. I get it, repubs don't like the idea of a one-pay system since they believe it'll decrease competition. It's valid to an extent. However, the misinformation campaigns, particularly with older folks, is quite disheartening, and frankly a bit sick (no pun intended).

The funny part is, we currently have a one payer system. Except that one payer is a middle man who does nothing more than shuffle paperwork. I always found the argument that "you really want a WA politician making choices on your health care" funny since we basically have a "for profit claims person, with god knows what background and skills, making those decisions with a profit motive guiding them." I think I'd take the non-profit politician over the for-profit claims person any day of the week.

I digress.

We've gotten to the point where anyone can take any piece of information and interpret it any way they feel like in order to disseminate it out to others who will read and formulate an opinion based on that. Is it just me, or isn't there something wrong with that? (and Yes, i know, you can put that argument on the demos as well).

It disturbs me that I have to go to politico.com every few days to view their truth meter to find out who is lying and who is not, and what the actual facts are if the former.