The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, you are talking about a disputed allegation, as opposed to a stated position. The allegation is that there is a moral or legal problem with the department of justice, and the other is a statement about what our policies should be.



If in fact the justice department were guilty of racial bias in its prosecutions, we would all have a huge problem with that. But you are changing the subject. This has nothing to do with the tea party; or does it? In fact, your post is suggestive of the position that Paul is okay because you think Holder is racist.

Is that what I said?

I thought I responded in agreement that Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

I then made the comment about Mr. Holder doing the same to make lite of the hypocrisy.

But now that you've brought up racism, there does seem to be a lot of discussion about potential racism in the Tea Party - so far those are also disputed allegations. I think a comparison is fitting and on-topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction. When people are comfortable in a crowd with a giant pic of our president as a bone-in-the-nose medicine man, it seems fairly obvious.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction. When people are comfortable in a crowd with a giant pic of our president as a bone-in-the-nose medicine man, it seems fairly obvious.

Ivan, I think he changed the subject?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ivan, I think he changed the subject?

Yes... yes I did.

 

[BobG]

How disjointed is the Republican Party, in general?

In the Colorado Gubernatorial election, they were handed a break when the incumbent Democratic governor chose not to run and had a popular 'establishment' candidate, Scott McInnis, set for what should have been a very hotly contested race with McInnis holding a slim, but consistent lead in early polling.

Instead, the Tea Party favorite, Dan Maes upset McInnis in the primary. His nomination would polarize the election, since Republicans are very conservative and Democrats are somewhat conservative for Democrats. It would come down to which party turned out more voters.

Then enters Tom Tancredo, a former Republican Congressman, that decided to mount a third party run, based solely on anti-illegal immigration (his platform encompasses conservative economic values, etc, but his campaign has been solely focused on stopping illegal immigration, an issue he was obsessed with even when he was a Congressman).

Now the Democratic nominee is a shoe-in to win, while Tancredo runs a distant second and Maes an even more distant third. Maes is being out-insurgented by the even wackier Tancredo.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is that what I said?

I said your comment is suggestive of that position.

I thought I responded in agreement that Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

Yet he chose not to? Doesn't that tell you something given the nature of his statements? IF this was a misunderstanding, then, by definition, any politician would be all over this to correct it.

I then made the comment about Mr. Holder doing the same to make lite of the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy here. As I said, were any of the allegations about the DOJ shown to be true, we would all have a huge problem with that. Just as you should have a huge problem with Paul's statements. In the former case it would be a violation of the law or the spirit of the law. In the latter case, it is a statement of what the law should be. I find the latter case far more dangerous than the former - by many orders of magnitude.

But now that you've brought up racism, there does seem to be a lot of discussion about potential racism in the Tea Party - so far those are also disputed allegations. I think a comparison is fitting and on-topic.

Okay, has Paul issued a retraction of his comments?

 

[Gokul43201]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

I think there are plenty of good arguments for such a stand, but uttering them directly would likely be political suicide.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies)

Do you have any numbers on that?

 

[Gokul43201]

Instead the movements forming the "Tea Party" are united around some simple principles and views:

1) That government is too large

2) That Washington is broken, filled with entitlement-minded elitists who have no connection to real America and no one there is listening to the American people

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

5) Obama is always wrong.

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

 

[nismaratwork]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

I think there are plenty of good arguments for such a stand, but uttering them directly would likely be political suicide.

It's true... and even though I disagree with his philosophy it's still disturbing to see him dance around the core issues he believes in because to do otherwise would render him politically inert. Frankly, I think this is why the right-wing (not Republican per se) movement has so much traction: it's a simple monolithic ideology. The conservatism of decades ago, like the liberal views that Democrats still can't organize are fundamentally more complex, AND filled with career killing concepts.

The American people are so willing to shoot the messenger, it's no wonder that so many live in a kind of fantasy created by those willing to pander to what the little dauphins wish to hear.

 

[Al68]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

Everyone's answer to that question is yes, in at least some cases.

As an example, movie producers discriminate based on race (and gender, etc.) when hiring an actor to play a specific role. Muhammad Ali, for example. Should they be forced to hire Stallone instead instead of Will Smith, because he's more qualified if we ignore race?

 

[CAC1001]

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

Agree partially. Remember, the Tea Party is only organized around a loosely-defined set of core beliefs ("common sense conservative principles" as you mentioned they often say). For core beliefs, I think such a view is fine. One can create specific policy plans based around such ideals. But that isn't the Tea Party's goal, as that would require centralization, which they do not want.

Now for specific politicians and pundits, such as Beck, Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, etc...then yes, going on just "common sense conservative principles" doesn't cut it.

5) Obama is always wrong.

Agree here (on them having that view).

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

 

[CAC1001]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction.

There are the occasional racist and birther here or there, but this type of movement would have arisen if it was Harry Reid, Biden, or Nancy Pelosi as President, if they were governing in the current manner the Democrats are.

I think Glenn Beck's huge D.C. rally was a prime example of how the movement is not racist, as the whole thing basically turned into a peaceful church picnic.

On the contrary in fact, I think one problem for the Tea Party movement is that too many on the political Left, and among the black population, cannot stand seeing criticism of a black President, and thus interpret any kind of protest as racism.

Remember, we just came through eight years of some of the most vile, hate-filled rhetoric said about George W. Bush, but during that time, the attitude was that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now if one dissents, it seems patriotism is the lowest form of racism.

It's true... and even though I disagree with his philosophy it's still disturbing to see him dance around the core issues he believes in because to do otherwise would render him politically inert. Frankly, I think this is why the right-wing (not Republican per se) movement has so much traction: it's a simple monolithic ideology. The conservatism of decades ago, like the liberal views that Democrats still can't organize are fundamentally more complex, AND filled with career killing concepts.

Both the right-wing and the left-wing are simple ideologies. People who really get into the complexities on policy are usually center-left or center-right, but rarely to the extreme of either.

 

[airborne18]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

 

[nismaratwork]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

 

[Al68]

Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

Yeah, there has never been any political opposition to white Presidents with similar agendas.

One might think on a science forum there would be more interest in honest debate instead of hate-mongering about the supposed motives of others.

 

[CAC1001]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

The economy may have something to do with it, but I do not see them as "inflamed."

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

From what I have seen, there hasn't been much hatred at the Tea Parties. I also do not get why you think people seem "unsettled" by a black man being President.

You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

The Tea Party is not made up of the "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama was not born in the USA!" crowd. Sure, some of those types inhabit it, but not the majority.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

Where did the Bush administration tell everyone to "be afraid" and engaged in fearmongering?

And yes, there are Birthers, and bigots, during the Bush years, we had a share of crazies too.

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

The thing is, the Tea Party is not grounded in fearmongering. These are not rallies of angry white yahoos being revved up by speakers who know how to work a crowd and get everyone paranoid.

It seems just that some people cannot understand why the people would calmly protest the current government. It isn't logical in their mind, so it must be something else, like fear, or racism, or anger, or something.

 

[airborne18]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

Do some searches on youtube. The tactic is the same all over, they go to the townhall events and shoutdown the congressperson with the birther nonesense.

Tea party events have almost no turnout, the 9/12 Patriot events with the wingnuts have a large turnout.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

Senator Scott Brown yesterday drew scorn from former admirers who had hailed the Massachusetts Republican as a new voice for the conservative cause but now say he has abandoned them by joining Democrats to advance President Obama’s plan to overhaul the financial system.

As quickly as they had latched onto his campaign four months ago, they repudiated him yesterday through a flurry of blog posts, editorials, and Facebook messages.

“His career as a senator of the people lasted slightly longer than the shelf life of milk,’’ said Shelby Blakely, executive director of New Patriot Journal, the media arm of the Tea Party Patriots, which includes various Tea Party groups around the country. “The general mood of the Tea Party is, ‘We put you in, and we’ll take you out in 2012.’ This is not something we will forget.’’

 

[CAC1001]

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

I don't know why the Tea Party people would feel that way; it was obvious from the start that Brown was not a strict conservative if I remember correctly; I believe he said he was okay with government healthcare, but just at the state level, not on the national level.

Also I think he is pro-choice?

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, there has never been any political opposition to white Presidents with similar agendas.

One might think on a science forum there would be more interest in honest debate instead of hate-mongering about the supposed motives of others.

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic. The Birther movement alone is pretty damned unique...

 

[nismaratwork]

The economy may have something to do with it, but I do not see them as "inflamed."



From what I have seen, there hasn't been much hatred at the Tea Parties. I also do not get why you think people seem "unsettled" by a black man being President.



The Tea Party is not made up of the "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama was not born in the USA!" crowd. Sure, some of those types inhabit it, but not the majority.



Where did the Bush administration tell everyone to "be afraid" and engaged in fearmongering?

And yes, there are Birthers, and bigots, during the Bush years, we had a share of crazies too.



The thing is, the Tea Party is not grounded in fearmongering. These are not rallies of angry white yahoos being revved up by speakers who know how to work a crowd and get everyone paranoid.

It seems just that some people cannot understand why the people would calmly protest the current government. It isn't logical in their mind, so it must be something else, like fear, or racism, or anger, or something.

Re: bolded portion: Actually, that's a fairly accurate description of this, "The country is being being destroyed" and Glenn Beck's "turn back to god" crap. I understand calm protest, and even angry protest... your last statement is sophomoric.

 

[WhoWee]

As Obama's popularity declines - it must be the fault of right wingnuts - not that a lot of people that normally sit on the sidelines have now taken an interest in their Government? Is that the consensus here?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[nismaratwork]

As Obama's popularity declines - it must be the fault of right wingnuts - not that a lot of people that normally sit on the sidelines have now taken an interest in their Government? Is that the consensus here?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

True... Obama's actions happened in the wake of two disastrous wars and the worst economic situation since the great depression.

 

[WhoWee]

True... Obama's actions happened in the wake of two disastrous wars and the worst economic situation since the great depression.

...and his response was to push through the largest spending Bills in history - that nobody had time to read?

 

[Gokul43201]

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually you get a reaction even if there's no action. Many on the Left are disillusioned with Obama because he did not deliver enough change.

Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

 

[nismaratwork]

...and his response was to push through the largest spending Bills in history - that nobody had time to read?

You stated that Obama's actions didn't occur in a vacuum... I'm not justifying those actions, just providing some air for that vacuum. Oh, and the whole "didn't have time to read" is far too common to be used as anything but propaganda. If you disagree with the legislation, fine, but give the talking points a rest and focus on the substance.

Personally I think it's premature to dismiss the bills passed as failed or successes... as usual history needs time to asses. The fact remains that this disastrous situation wasn't caused by Obama, nor Bush Sr. or Clinton... 8 years of W.'s stewardship did this, and yet people are screaming at Obama as though upon his election the economy suddenly took a nosedive.

 

[CAC1001]

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic. The Birther movement alone is pretty damned unique...

During President Bush, we saw people call him a Nazi, there was the 9/11 "Truther" movement, there was even a fake documentary made about George W. Bush supposedly being assassinated, and a novel written about him being assassinated.

Re: bolded portion: Actually, that's a fairly accurate description of this, "The country is being being destroyed"

Haven't seen any Tea Parties with people acting as such. If there was any real such footage of this, the media would have had a field day with it. They had hoped to do this with Glenn Beck's big rally in D.C., but there wasn't much to cover.

and Glenn Beck's "turn back to god" crap. I understand calm protest, and even angry protest... your last statement is sophomoric.

My last statement is just how I see it. I really think a lot of people simply cannot stand seeing the President criticized. Or they just don't understand it. I think Harry Reid exeplified this when he said, "I don't know how any Hispanic person could ever vote Republican." In these people's minds, how on Earth could the people be against Barack Obama's policies to give everyone healthcare, education, fix the environment, etc...

Personally I think it's premature to dismiss the bills passed as failed or successes... as usual history needs time to asses. The fact remains that this disastrous situation wasn't caused by Obama, nor Bush Sr. or Clinton...8 years of W.'s stewardship did this, and yet people are screaming at Obama as though upon his election the economy suddenly took a nosedive.

Now that is a sophomoric statement. You need to do some research into the causes of the economic crisis. Remember, just as has been pointed out that all these people acting as if there are simple "common-sense" solutions to problems like the economy, which is a deeply complex issue as this type of crisis is unprecedented, well also the same goes regarding the causes of the crisis. One could fill a shelf with books on the crisis and still wouldn't know everything. The idea that "Bush did it" is way over-simplifying the whole issue.

BTW, after 2006, Bush kind of became a lame-duck with the Congress going Democrat.

 

[CAC1001]

Actually you get a reaction even if there's no action. Many on the Left are disillusioned with Obama because he did not deliver enough change.

Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

Here is an interesting article by John Cochrane on Krugman (his response to Krugman's criticism of him), along with some interesting tidbits on the subject of stimulus overall: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm

 

[nismaratwork]

During President Bush, we saw people call him a Nazi, there was the 9/11 "Truther" movement, there was even a fake documentary made about George W. Bush supposedly being assassinated, and a novel written about him being assassinated.

The 9-11 "truthers" aren't partisan... Birthers for the most part are right wing christians. The former is just the usual conspiracy nuts... you have sitting members of congress and other public officials who wanted to "just see [Obama's] birth certificate." If the same were done with the notion of a 9-11 conspiracy that person would be out of a job.

Haven't seen any Tea Parties with people acting as such. If there was any real such footage of this, the media would have had a field day with it. They had hoped to do this with Glenn Beck's big rally in D.C., but there wasn't much to cover.

Acting as such? We're talking about words, not actions, and while Beck's rally was simply an entreaty to "turn back to god" and satisfying his messianic complex, his radio and TV show (and following) are based around that central theme: the republic is dying.

My last statement is just how I see it. I really think a lot of people simply cannot stand seeing the President criticized. Or they just don't understand it. I think Harry Reid exeplified this when he said, "I don't know how any Hispanic person could ever vote Republican." In these people's minds, how on Earth could the people be against Barack Obama's policies to give everyone healthcare, education, fix the environment, etc...

Harry Reid is a twit, you're not getting an argument from me there, and the Democrat's capacity to take their base for granted and then lose is hardly debatable. You saying that people can't stand protest of the president is absurd, and nothing you've said above even begins to address that.

Now that is a sophomoric statement. You need to do some research into the causes of the economic crisis. Remember, just as has been pointed out that all these people acting as if there are simple "common-sense" solutions to problems like the economy, which is a deeply complex issue as this type of crisis is unprecedented, well also the same goes regarding the causes of the crisis. One could fill a shelf with books on the crisis and still wouldn't know everything. The idea that "Bush did it" is way over-simplifying the whole issue.

BTW, after 2006, Bush kind of became a lame-duck with the Congress going Democrat.

Bush becoming a lame duck was kind of meaningless since what he did was to get various balls (and wars) rolling. I love that the jury is still out on Bush's stewardship, but less than 2 years into Obama's presidency you're ready to flip the switch the on electric chair. The economy is complex, and certainly Bush didn't create the housing bubble, but he did his level best to deregulate what he could. The lack of effective regulation in law and practice can be held responsible for a number of economic issues, never mind the latest disaster with BP.

As bad as the economy would have been without W., the addition of wars, deregulation, and turning the country to social wedge issues instead of PROACTIVE legislation has made this far worse than it had to be. If you feel otherwise, well, I've seen what passes for your economic analysis elsewhere, and I'm not impressed in the least. Gokul has been filleting you and Al for days now.

 

[Al68]

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic.

Well, not nearly as psychotic as the opposition to rejecting Marxist ideology in favor of economic liberty shown by power hungry politicians and many in this forum. Of course my guess is that most are perfectly aware that they are forfeiting the legitimate debate by resorting to the logical fallacy of making claims about the motives of those they oppose, but do so anyway in the hopes of convincing people who don't know any better.

Crying "racism" is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, not nearly as psychotic as the opposition to rejecting Marxist ideology in favor of economic liberty shown by power hungry politicians and many in this forum. Of course my guess is that most are perfectly aware that they are forfeiting the legitimate debate by resorting to the logical fallacy of making claims about the motives of those they oppose, but do so anyway in the hopes of convincing people who don't know any better.

Crying "racism" is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.

No Al... saying that racism is the cause of Obama's lack of popularity is a logical fallacy, but that isn't what I SAID. I'm talking about social reaction to his presidency, not his policies. I don't believe that opposition to healthcare or bailouts had anything to do with race for instance... you've either misunderstood my point or are being intentionally obtuse.

Now, your claim of "Marxist ideology" IS the type of logical fallacy that you're referring to, in what is a damned amusing bit of irony.

 

[CAC1001]

Bush becoming a lame duck was kind of meaningless since what he did was to get various balls (and wars) rolling. I love that the jury is still out on Bush's stewardship, but less than 2 years into Obama's presidency you're ready to flip the switch the on electric chair.

Not me.

The economy is complex, and certainly Bush didn't create the housing bubble, but he did his level best to deregulate what he could. The lack of effective regulation in law and practice can be held responsible for a number of economic issues, never mind the latest disaster with BP.

This is incorrect. President Bush did not seek to deregulate, he increased regulation. He signed Sarbannes-Oxley, which has turned out to be overly-burdensome for many public companies. He also sought to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As for BP, I don't understand that situation much, but from what I've heard, it was not due to a lack of regulation. Big Oil is extremely regulated. What it was was corruption. BP was bribing the Minerals Management Service and they were looking the other way while BP skirted regulations.

What that would tell us is that it wasn't a problem of lack of regulation so much as just ignoring regulations and the overseers not doing their job.

As bad as the economy would have been without W., the addition of wars, deregulation, and turning the country to social wedge issues instead of PROACTIVE legislation has made this far worse than it had to be.

Wars didn't do it, and deregulation where it did occur actually might have helped save the economy when the crisis occurred (for example, removing the barrier between investment banks and commercial banks allowed Bank of America to be able to purchase Merrill-Lynch when the crisis occurred). Others claim the removal of this barrier contributed to the cause of the crisis (opponents will point out Europe never had such a barrier).

Still others say it was bad monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Others say it was Fannie and Freddie.

As for proactive legislation, I think Bush did plenty of it: He expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, he signed increased regulation on the financial system due to the scandals resulting from the Dot Com bubble, he tried to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he created No Child Left Behind (because of the belief that the education system needs more federal control), he tried to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he engaged in a whole suite of anti-terror policies that changed how the nation handles terrorism from being a law enforcement issue to a national security/military issue (many which Obama has continued), etc...in many ways, agree or disagree with his policies, I think he was very proactive.

 

[Al68]

No Al... saying that racism is the cause of Obama's lack of popularity is a logical fallacy, but that isn't what I SAID. I'm talking about social reaction to his presidency, not his policies. I don't believe that opposition to healthcare or bailouts had anything to do with race for instance... you've either misunderstood my point or are being intentionally obtuse.

Now, your claim of "Marxist ideology" IS the type of logical fallacy that you're referring to, in what is a damned amusing bit of irony.

Not quite, actually just the opposite. I used the term "Marxist ideology" to make it clear that it's the ideology of my opponents instead of their motives that I'm arguing against. It really amounts to an implicit assumption of good motives.

Now you might call it hyperbole, but that's a different kind of logical fallacy, one that we all commit, and one that I admit to. Using the word "psychotic" is obviously more of a hyperbole than "Marxist ideology" to describe someone with the same basic underlying ideology as Marx, even if their political agenda is less extreme.

 

[turbo]

Not quite, actually just the opposite. I used the term "Marxist ideology" to make it clear that it's the ideology of my opponents instead of their motives that I'm arguing against. It really amounts to an implicit assumption of good motives.

Now you might call it hyperbole, but that's a different kind of logical fallacy, one that we all commit, and one that I admit to. Using the word "psychotic" is obviously more of a hyperbole than "Marxist ideology" to describe someone with the same basic underlying ideology as Marx, even if their political agenda is less extreme.

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view. Gingrich is not unintelligent, and his words are carefully calibrated. Key leaders in the GOP are playing a dangerous game, and it may well come back to haunt them when voters are reminded of the smears and lies ahead of the general election.