Outrageous

@Francis,

I'm sorry to have to admit that I'm "germanically impaired", Francis! Smile

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I don't think anyone was exactly endorsing absolute powers for your current (or any previous) president. I certainly wasn't.

It sure sounded that way. However I'm not sure what you might have meant by "let the man lead already". Our President is chief executive: he doesn't make law and policy alone. Vigorous public debate over national policy has long been part of our democratic culture. Obama is President, not King. No one is stopping him from attempting to exercise a little leadership mover his party. Unfortunately for us all he simply hasn't done so.

msolga wrote:

What's perplexed me is the constant questioning if his legitimacy to be in the position of leader at all. The nonsense of questioning his "real" citizenship, his upbringing & his "roots". The suggestion is that he is not a "proper" American. I can't recall any other president being treated with this sort of suspicion & disrespect before.

Think harder and read some history. In recent times LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were subject to much worse. Lincoln was reviled by most of the North East Coast press during his first term; Harding and others were as well. It is the rule, not the exception, in our history.

I haven't heard any serious commentator (or anyone I know) suggest he isn't a real American. There was some chatter among the lunatic fringe relating to his Kenyan father; the rather footloose character of his family and related matters, but that is both understandable and of little consequence.

Frankly I think it is the extreme sensitivity of you and many of his supporters that is the truly remarkable element in all this.

Though I notice that Francis is duly outraged as well.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Schwarz = black, negger = you see what..

1 Reply

George wrote:

Though I notice that Francis is duly outraged as well.

Though is the keyword, as I'm not extremely sensitive.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

"let the man lead already".

... was not originally my statement, georgeob 1. But I agreed with it. By which I meant allow him to act as president without some of the (quite dubious) lack of acceptance of him in that position.

I have absolutely no problem with "vigorous public debate". I regularly participate in it in my own home arena. I am quite an active participant, actually.

Quote:

Think harder and read some history. In recent times LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were subject to much worse. Lincoln was reviled by most of the North East Coast press during his first term; Harding and others were as well. It is the rule, not the exception, in our history.

How do you define "much worse"? Yes, I know many previous presidents were reviled. But generally for political reasons.
Was any of this criticism you cite based on questioning their legitimacy to hold the office of president?
I didn't dream up this issue, georgeob 1. It's received wide-spread coverage in the media, including in my own country. The birth certificate nonsense, apart from the rest.
And I don't think one needs to be "extremely sensitive" to find it offensive.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I'm weary of pointing out such things though, I'm glad you brought those examples up.

When I point out criticism that isn't crazy or racist and the goal posts just shift. I think the outrage is the point of the outrage, just like it is on the other side whose outrage is being pointed at to justify the outrage.

Politics can be so vapid. It's like a game of PR points instead of real issues.

If you are referring to your earlier post that I pointed out the arguments weren't reasonable, might I remind you, you said this...

Robert Gentel wrote:

The very fact that you guys can ask this, and aren't aware of the many perfectly reasonable reasons to disagree

I don't think it was me moving the goal posts Robert.

1 Reply

I'm sure O'George will just pee in his pants, and attempt to construct some kind of argument so save his contention, but i won't play.

Miss Olga deserves to know that this is an extraordinary situation. All new Presidents get what is usually referred to as a "honeymoon." Congress and the press have traditionally given the President some time to settle in, and a chance to sell his agenda before beginning to criticize the President's behavior or programs. This has been true of almost every President in our history. To use O'George's examples: Lyndon Johnson became president after the assassination of John Kennedy in November, 1963, and he definitely got a "honeymoon," and being a sharp politician, he improved upon the time to both pass much of Kennedy's agenda--the Social Security Act of 1965 (which introduced Medicare), the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were all part of Kennedy's agenda which Johnson expanded, and which he was able to pass as quickly as he did, despite increasing opposition, because he used the end of Kennedy's term when he first served as President to build the support and to twist arms. Nixon got a honeymoon, and didn't really face serious opposition from the press and Congress until it seemed that he was dragging his feet in the Paris peace talks, until his invasion of Cambodia, and of course, until the Watergate story broke. Carter got a honeymoon which he squandered. Reagan got a honeymoon which was greatly enhanced by the effectiveness of Paul Volker's program at the Fed--so much so that his aides panicked when Reagan wanted to replace him, and Volker, a Carter appointment, remained at the Fed until 1987. The younger Bush got quite a good honeymoon, and serious criticism of him did not start until well after the invasion of Iraq. In all of these cases, the only nastiness came from the lunatic fringe of the right or the left.

But Mr. Obama has been attacked by the right as a dangerous socialist since the day he was elected, before he ever entered into his office. That has also included elected members of the Republican Party in Congress, and not just the talk radio and television pundits and rabble-rousers. Mr. Lincoln did not get excoriated in the "radical" press in his day until it became clear that he was not going to immediately emancipate slaves in territory taken by Federal armies. Harding got an incredible free ride, lasting nearly his entire term. The Teapot Dome scandal was being investigated by the junior member of the Public Lands Committee, because La Follette believed that the responsible Federal official was innocent of the wrongdoing alleged by the Wall Street Journal. In fact, Harding had died in office before the scandal really broke.

You're just making things up, O'George. I don't think this is a big issue. The reactionary fringe of the right was getting hysterical before the election even took place. I think that most people have given Mr. Obama a chance, but it is just plain false to claim that over-the-top criticism and wild charges such as have been directed at Mr. Obama have been the norm in our history. I think most of it rolls off him like water off a duck's back. But that's no reason to attempt to whitewash the way conservatives have attacked him, including Republicans holding public office.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Was there ever any suggestion that Arnold Schwarzenegger might not be a suitable governor of California because of his Austrian heritage? So why did Obama receive such different treatment in the mainstream US media?

Oooh! Ooh! (hand raised, arm waving) I know!!! I know!!!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

OK, Both Msolga and Setanta think that the political right - both loonies and the establishment - have been mean to their darling Obama and have unfairly reviled and tormented him, questioning both his origins and noting dark suspicions of radicalism in his political views. On the other hand, I find this all more or less the standard stuff of politics, typical of what has occurred before (I should have added FDR to my list of examples). These are value judgements dependent on how one views the degree of nastiness; the extent of its source(s) ; and the degree to which the available facts might rationalize at least some of it.

There's not much point in trying to objectively analyze our differing opinions on these questions - we can agree to disagree. However I note the following;
==> Obama ran on a rather populist platform of CHANGE, and promised fairly sweeping changes to many issues affecting us all.
==> Just enough anecdotal information arose during and after the campaign about Obama's past associates (Wright, Ayres, Van Jones, et.al.) and about his emergence from the cesspool of Illinois Democrat politics to excite the concerns of even very reasonable people.
==> The health care issue is a particularly fractuous one that has previously generated deep seated and fairly widespread concern and opposition among the public and the body politic.
==> The current economic crisis as well as our difficult external issues (two wars, a fast changing world with no clear external enemy) - things that Obama didn't create, but must deal with - make this an inherently challenging time, and one not particularly propitious for his health care initiative.
==> President Obama has, apparently for tactical political considerations, deliberately avoided spelling out a desired health care program himself, and instead allowed a Democrat Congress dominated by extreme (for us) left wing leaders and committee chairmen to work out the details.
==> With typical Congressional ineptitude, they have produced variants that grossly violate the vague assurances Obama has offered and even their own assurances about cost and the degree to which their draft enactments will invade heretofore private economic and medical decisions. Worse, they have repeatedly threatened to misuse parliamentary procedure to overcome the checks on the majority in the Senatorial legislative process.

I could go on, but there seems little point to it. I believe though that there is enough here to significantly elevate the level of political excitement. To, in the face of all this, assert that what we are seeing is necessarily an irrational (possibly racist) attack on a sainted new ordained political leader (who was recently elected by a fairly wide margin) seems to me to be quite a stretch.

I didn't pee in my pants -- however I will gladly piss on Setanta's shoes if he gets close.
Cool

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

George,

The fact that you can make a logical argument for or against something, is not proof that said item is the truth. While you have posted many reasons that reasonable people could be wary of Obama's health care plans, these reasons are not what the majority of complaints and attacks against Obama and his plans have centered around. At all.

The complaints and attacks that have taken prominence are, in fact, far more irrational and tinged with racism, than what you posted. If your ideological brethren want to have their resistance to Obama's plans taken more seriously, you might want to tell them to forward better arguments, instead of ranting about 'death panels,' Obama's birth certificate, and other nonsense.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Was there ever any suggestion that Arnold Schwarzenegger might not be a suitable governor of California because of his Austrian heritage?

A little, but there's no law preventing a him from being governor for being an immigrant. The suggestion that the constitution should be modified so that he could be president got more pushback.

Quote:

So why did Obama receive such different treatment in the mainstream US media?

I suspect the main reasons are that the argument simply doesn't legally deligitimitize him as governor but would do so to Obama as president and that the office of president is much bigger than governor (compare the media about Bush as governor to Bush as president). Whatever can be used to attack a politician's legitimacy is typically used. If the law prevented a foreign-born governor it would obviously have been a big issue.

For right or wrong, the law does forbid the foreign-born president. Bush's legitimacy as president was strongly questioned too and each president will have their legitimacy questioned by their political opponents. It's simply not because of the race card that some Obama supporters are playing (even though there are certainly some racists), it's because of partisanship. There is much more in way of anti-Democrat than anti-black and the folk who ascribe all the opposition to Obama as being racism do a favor to neither Democrats or blacks.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you are referring to your earlier post that I pointed out the arguments weren't reasonable, might I remind you, you said this...

I don't think you "pointed out that the arguments weren't reasonable". I think you pointed out that you don't consider them to be. I don't happen to agree with the arguments either, but that wasn't the point. The point is that they aren't crazy and racist. They are positions that reasonable people can disagree about.

Quote:

I don't think it was me moving the goal posts Robert.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that then.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Bush's legitimacy as president was strongly questioned too and each president will have their legitimacy questioned by their political opponents.

This is a silly argument for two reasons.

1) There was enough of a reason to question the Bush victory that it went to the Supreme court (where the Bush team won in a 5-4 decision (the narrowest possible outcome).

2) In spite of the fact there was a legitimate challenge to the Bush presidency, the press (including the liberal press) and the Democratic establishment who widely accepted (and even supported) the Bush presidency right up until the Iraq war. Other than minor complaints, the Democrats (including the vast majority of the rank and file) accepted that Bush was president right after the concession speech (following the supreme court decision).

This is a ridiculous comparison.

The Republicans are pushing an absurd claim, that has been disproven without question. Then they have used prominent conservative personalities broadcast on a major TV network and even joined by Republican elected officials. All this against a president who won a decisive victory-- indisputably winning the electoral (and popular) vote.

You are comparing this to minor grumbling over a hard-fought, extremely close, controversial election that was decided by a divided Supreme Court.

There is no comparison here.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

This is a ridiculous comparison.

They are very different cases, yes. But again, I'm not trying to assert perfect equivalency. If you look at the second election there was still very vocal opposition to him. Even though he won that election cleanly the very strong opposition to him (which I count myself a part of) didn't go away.

But you are right, it's a bad comparison because I'm speaking to the left, and there is a perfectly useful example of another recent president from the left: Clinton. They tried to impeach him over a very trivial issue.

Was it because of racism? No! It was because of partisanship. Playing the race card for every opposition to Obama is ridiculous and you won't see him do it. If only the ideologues who support him had the same common sense that he does.

These are symptoms of a polarized, partisan America much more than a racist America.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George,

The fact that you can make a logical argument for or against something, is not proof that said item is the truth. While you have posted many reasons that reasonable people could be wary of Obama's health care plans, these reasons are not what the majority of complaints and attacks against Obama and his plans have centered around. At all.

How the hell do you know that??? Can you read into the hearts and minds of others and somehow know their inner motives???? Perhaps you could provide us with a link to "proove" the truth of this remarkable proposition. Laughing

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The complaints and attacks that have taken prominence are, in fact, far more irrational and tinged with racism, than what you posted. If your ideological brethren want to have their resistance to Obama's plans taken more seriously, you might want to tell them to forward better arguments, instead of ranting about 'death panels,' Obama's birth certificate, and other nonsense.

Cycloptichorn

:

I'm not part of any idealogical brotherhood: I think for myself. While you may not take seriously the public resistance to some of the presidents plans, I suspect that he does, and wisely so.

The rants about "death panels" are not nonsense. The dirty little secret of the health care debate is that the Democrats are trying to (stealthily) back away from their own inflated rhetoric surrounding the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid.

The huge expansion of demand for life-extending services that attended the enactment of Medicare is one of the chief issues driving the growth of our national health care costs. In typical government fashion they enacted entitlements without any action to increase the supply of services and providers. Indeed in typical upside down government fashion they tried to limit cost by limiting the numbers of hospital beds, MRI mnachines, etc - knowing that in a regulated cost environment more providers means more people sending in bills and claims (in a real market more providers relative to demand would mean lower unit costs).

Instead of admitting they were wrong and overtly limiting or redefining Medicare, the administration has proposed to quietly end it and replace it with something worse, but applicable to all (and thereby garnering public support). Old people are old, but not necessarily stupid.

Moreover, thinking folks ask themselves if the gang that created the problem is likely to fix it by an increased dose of the same poison.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

...The rants about "death panels" are not nonsense. The dirty little secret of the health care debate is that the Democrats are trying to (stealthily) back away from their own inflated rhetoric surrounding the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid.... In typical government fashion they enacted entitlements without any action to increase the supply of services and providers. ....Instead of admitting they were wrong and overtly limiting or redefining Medicare, the administration has proposed to quietly end it and replace it with something worse...Moreover, thinking folks ask themselves if the gang that created the problem is likely to fix it by an increased dose of the same poison.

George - I marvel at your patience in arguing with zealots. Personally I would take an indirect tack and actually encourage them to take the delusional view that anyone who brings up concepts of looming national bankruptcy and hyperinflation is actually using code words for racially derogatory remarks - it's sure to mobilize the electorate in advance of the November mid-terms. Btw, did you notice Reid postponed any votes on this Health Care Plan until December?! Back to the topic, of course you're right - and anyone with even basic economics agrees with you:

http://media.economist.com/images/20090905/D3609US0.jpg

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14363134

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

msolga wrote:

Was there ever any suggestion that Arnold Schwarzenegger might not be a suitable governor of California because of his Austrian heritage? So why did Obama receive such different treatment in the mainstream US media?

Oooh! Ooh! (hand raised, arm waving) I know!!! I know!!!

Pray tell.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

How the hell do you know that??? Can you read into the hearts and minds of others and somehow know their inner motives?

Of course, as we cannot know one's inner heart or mind, all we have to go off of is their words; and their words do not reflect the arguments you are making, that is clearly obvious.

Quote:

I'm not part of any idealogical brotherhood: I think for myself.

Bullshit

. Enough said on that one. You are part of the Team of Mavericks like the rest of the Republicans.

Quote:

The rants about "death panels" are not nonsense.

They are nonsense, and the rest of your argument supporting them is off-topic. The Republican firebrands that make up your leadership specifically are alleging that panels will decide who lives and who dies; that is a complete lie and not supported anywhere in the bill. Once again, what you have written simply doesn't match the rhetoric your own party puts forth.

You write,

Quote:

The huge expansion of demand for life-extending services that attended the enactment of Medicare is one of the chief issues driving the growth of our national health care costs.

There is no evidence that this is true; it is an assertion by you, but not one for which you can provide proof. Or can you?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

OK, Both Msolga and Setanta think that the political right - both loonies and the establishment - have been mean to their darling Obama and have unfairly reviled and tormented him, questioning both his origins and noting dark suspicions of radicalism in his political views.

That's snotty, puerile bullshit, O'George. If you want to play a game of snotty sarcasm, i'll be happy to indulge you, and i suspect i can keep pace with you at that. As far as i'm concerned, Mr. Obama is no darling. If i had had my choice, i'd have preferred to see John Edwards in the office. However, he really didn't have a chance, and i knew it and accepted it philosophically and pragmatically.

Basically, the press have given Mr. Obama the traditional "honeymoon" period. Loonies on right or left are going to fulminate against the winner when they feel like losers themselves. The difference here is that hysterical charges began coming from Republicans in office, even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated. Since then, Republicans in office have been levying the wildest charges against him, and this began before the health care issue came up. The former Vice President, Dick "Really, i was the President" Cheney has publicly come out to criticize Mr. Obama, and to suggest that he endangers the very nation. That sort of crap is without precedent. You can whine all you want, but you won't ever change the facts--facts which not only do you wish to ignore, but which you wish to believe you can obliterate by shouting loudly enough. You are only little less hysterical than the hate mongers on talk radio.

You try pissing on my shoes, fat boy, and see what happens.

1 Reply

By the way, for the record, in case it is not already clear, those of whom i complain, Republicans in office behaving in a shameful manner, i do not charge with racism. I dissociate myself with the verging on the hysterical tendency of many on the left to cry racism so easily.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know