In an effort to smear President Barack Obama, one of the sleazier tactics used by some on the right is to paint him as being anti-American, "other", "different than us", etc. The latest right-winger to jump on the "Obama is anti-American" bandwagon is Fox contributor/author/possible GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He began his journey into the muck during a 3/1 appearance on Steve Malzberg's radio show. He then descended even further into it during subsequent appearances on Bryan Fischer's radio show and on "The O'Reilly Factor". Although I disagreed with his politics, I used to think Huckabee was decent guy who was above this type of stuff.
Why has Huckabee decided to pander to the fringe element of the GOP? Is he trying to boost sales of his new book, gearing up for a bid to run for POTUS, or both? Whatever Huckabee's reasoning is, I don't see it as a winning strategy.
In regards to the depths some conservatives/Republicans have sunken to over the last couple of years, I used to ask, "Have we reached the bottom?" I don't even bother asking anymore because sadly, I suspect there is no bottom. Credit to people like Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Cenk Uygur, and John King for calling out Huckabee on his nonsense.
57 comments:
Just when I thought DI was going to give me more racial topics to rant about instead of Republicans-are-evil posts...
lol
But seriously... be thankful it's only Huckabee and not someone with a shot at winning.
He seems to me to be a fairly open and warm and caring person. But his intelligence is on par with someone brought up on a backwoods compound. And I don't mean that to insult him; he just doesn't seem overly sharp.
I don't think he means to pander. He just puts shovel to groud mistakenly at times and presses on instead of backing out.
It could be he's switching up. But in 08 and before, he wasn't a very popular GOP candidate because he was one of the folks unwilling to go that extra mile.
But also be a little fair with it. He might not be sharp and he might say some questionable things, but anything said about Obama gets the ire up around these parts.
I'm assuming you're seeing "code" speak in suggesting Obama had a different upbringing than the average American?
Josh: When we were launching DI, one of the proposed names for this blog was "Republicans Are the Scum Sucking Spawn of the Devil and Must Be Stopped By Any Means Necessary". However, we all agreed that was over-the-top.
Seriously, you don't see how Huckabee's comments about President Obama's worldview and tying it to the Mau Mau revolution doesn't have racial overtones? What you term "unwilling to go the extra mile" is what I call pandering. That's one of the points I was trying to make. Huckabee and other seemingly rational Republicans are willing to boost their popularity by doing a 180 and playing to the fringe element of the GOP base.
In what way am I being unfair to Huckabee? You're giving him a pass by saying his lack of sharpness is an excuse for his recent comments. I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he said President Obama grew up in Kenya. I can excuse a simple slip of the tongue (for example, when Sarah Palin mixed up North and South Korea during a recent interview with Glenn Beck). However, if Huckabee intended to say "Indonesia" instead of "Kenya", why did he bring up the Mau Mau revolution? That happened in Kenya, not Indonesia! Also, did you notice how Steve Malzberg never corrected Huckabee on the fact that President Obama did not grow up in Kenya even though Huckabee made this “mistake“ more than once?
Yes, I do think Huckabee was speaking in code when talking about President Obama's upbringing being different from the average American. If that wasn't enough to convince even those who want to give Huckabee a pass, he said the following:
"Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas"
Come on man, Huckabee wasn't even trying to be subtle with that statement. Huckabee should be careful because if someone wanted to, they could turn around and play the same games about his background that he’s playing with President Obama’s. For example, someone could cite the fact that Huckabee grew up in the Deep South during the civil rights era and question his views on black people. Just to be clear, if someone did take that leap in an effort to paint Huckabee in a negative light, they’d be out of bounds.
Let me also set you straight on your comment about anything said about Obama getting the ire up over here. That's not even close to being true. Although I am an Obama supporter, I've expressed disappointment about some of the decisions he's made. The reason you don't hear much Obama criticism from me here is because my disagreements are politically-based and this is not a political blog.
Here's another question... has there been any criticism of President Obama that you feel has gone over the line?
Enjoyed your post, Malcolm. I've always found Huckabee to be a scary guy - likeable by most, appealing despite the extreme views he possesses, playing right into the fear he so freely propagates. Terrifying man.
Keep fighting the good fight, Malcolm. A great read, my friend.
Malcolm,
I'll have to come back for the first video since their was an issue with it loading.
What reasons or examples can you give that shows that Obama's Pro-American or pro-America?
Maybe you don't think that Obama has a skewed World view because you have a similar World view as Obama?
"Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas"
Do you know whether Obama attended Boy Scouts or joined the Rotary Club? On the other hand, I know that Obama has admitted to attending mandrassas. Are you saying that mandrassas are just as American as the Boy Scouts or the Rotary Club? I thought you were okay with people being different and having different experiences but when someone points out that Obama had different experiences as a kid, than a kid growing up in America would have had, you seem to get all defensive.
Momma Politico: Thanks for the kind words. Huckabee has the uncanny ability to exude folksy charm while also spouting some very extreme views.
Teresa: Welcome back... I've really missed you!
I hope you get around to watching the first clip I posted. I just tried it and it worked fine for me.
You asked, "What reasons or examples can you give that shows that Obama's Pro-American or pro-America?"
* His decision to step in and save GM
* Repealing DADT
* His recent SOTU address in which he discussed all the ideas he has for getting this country back on track.
Since the burden of proof is on the accuser, can you give reasons/examples that show President Obama is anti-American?
I don't know nor do I care whether or not President Obama was in the Boy Scouts or joined the Rotary Club. Is that the criteria you use to determine who is or isn't a real American? Even if President Obama was a Boy Scout and belonged to the Rotary Club, that wouldn't be enough for you.
As for Obama attending a Madrasah read this:
http://www.observer.com/node/33660
I am fine with the fact that President Obama had a different experience growing up than most Americans. I think this experience has been a great benefit to him and how he looks at things. However, when people like you try to use President Obama's background against him by questioning his love of America, I think it's rather disgusting.
You and others of your ilk really need to get off of this "skewed worldview" nonsense. As an FYI, I probably do share a similar worldview with Obama. Why is it that you deem Americans as being anti-American simply because they have a different viewpoint than yours? Is that what you call being open-minded?
It's beyond ironic that people like you have the audacity to question the Americanism of President Obama. I remember you were one of the people cheering with glee when he failed in his bid to get the Summer Olympics in Chicago. Here's a scenario for you: Imagine that President Bush tried and failed to get the Summer Olympics for Houston. If I and other liberals had cheered over this failure, you and other conservatives would have called us unpatriotic and you know what, you would have been right. You can try to justify it all you want, but cheering the president's failed bid to get the Summer Olympics in Chicago was just plain wrong.
I don't know if you are a fan of "The Twilight Zone", but there is an episode you should definitely watch. It's called "Four O'Clock".
First, I would say that saying a particular policy being implemented is anti-American or counter to American values or America's Foundation is different than saying the person is anti-American. Could saying this implicate that or begin to give that overall impression? Maybe, depending on what other policies they have implemented.
"His decision to step in and save GM"
I don't consider bailing out any company to necessarily be pro-American or anti-American. But, I think the problem is rewarding a company for failure. There have been many companies/people who have failed, then regrouped, started over, and then were successful. I am not sure about this or not but didn't GM eventually file for bankruptcy anyways?
"Repealing DADT"
I don't agree with this but I don't see this as anti-American. Although, I don't see forcing others to give their approval for an act they believe to be a sin as pro-American either. I have no problem with homosexuals being in the military but the military forcing others like Chaplains etc. to give their approval for their behavior isn't right in my opinion. I think President Clinton had the right idea when he implemented DADT because then everybody could work side-by-side without knowing the others sexual orientation. I fear that the repeal of DADT could bring both persecution of those religious peoples who believe the homosexual act (not the person)is a sin and also bring a backlash against homosexuals serving in the military.
"His recent SOTU address in which he discussed all the ideas he has for getting this country back on track."
I thought his recent SOTU address was pretty lame, lacked real ideas, and was not inspirational.
I did like his address in Arizona.
To be continued.....
I don't know if it's "code" or not.
The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is not viewed as a man. He's viewed as a black man.
He's not viewed as the President of the United States of America. He's viewed as the black President.
The standards of judgment held for his presidency are a 180 from every other American president, and these standards are set by both proponents and opponents. You can guess which side sets the higher standard.
So it may be likely Huckabee was speaking in "code" about how a "black man" is different. I don't know. But it is just as likely that someone's simply seeing that where they want to see it.
How am I giving him a pass? I'm just not holding his feet to the fire and assuming he has a racial angle, because he said nothing that I find to be racial.
It's not racial to me simply because Obama's "black" and "Kenya" was mentioned.
Ignorant? That's another story. But they're not one in the same; they're not mutually exclusive, either, but not the same.
I don't think you're being unfair to Huckabee in particular. I'm speaking more of the fact that it's something said about Obama and not that it was said by Huckabee.
He's just the most recent Republican ranter to dare speak the hallowed name.
I also never said that this didn't go over a line. I think presidential criticisms have been going over the line since I was a kid and listened to what people said about RR.
The difference being, of course, today's criticisms are searched through to find racism. Without the elephant in the room, criticisms about previous presidents could be hashed out as fact-driven debates and things like "code speak" didn't enter the equation.
If this were Wesley Clark or John Kerry, for example, with the same exact upbringing and same mistakes made, we'd just be saying how ignorant he sounds.
Now we can't judge by what people say. We must look at what they really "meant" by the comments.
The right-wing and its need for all things Americana is nothing new. They're about America and not about any outside influence making its way here. Does communism ring a bell?
I find the comments to be ignorant. I was just wondering how you tied them in to race is all.
But, again, I don't give him a pass. As I stated: it could be that he's switching up. But it also could be that some can't wait to play Name that Racist.
I feel that's always worthy of debate, as it's painfully obvious America's far from the "post-racial" Promised Land.
You know what, you all have a President with the middle name Hussein! Now deal with it!
Teresa: Before stepping in to bail out GM, President Obama suggested that filing for bankruptcy was the best way for GM to reduce its debts. So it's not like the govt. bailed GM out and they had to file for bankruptcy anyway. Also, considering how important the auto industry has been to this country, I still see the rescue of GM as a pro-American act.
In regards to DADT, I think it's inherently wrong to ask someone to serve and at the same time lie about who they are. Allowing members of the LGBT community to openly serve is part of what this country is all about.
As for the speech President Obama made in AZ in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings, do you think a man who didn't have America's best interests at heart could make such a speech?
I look forward to hearing what else you have to say on this topic.
Josh: As to which side of the political spectrum sets a higher standard for President Obama, that's a matter of opinion.
I feel you are giving Huckabee a pass because you cited his lack of sharpness as the reason he made those comments about President Obama. Sorry, but I'm not letting him off that easy.
As for why I feel Huckabee's comments have a racial angle, his fact-free claim that Obama's Kenyan upbringing influenced how he feels about the Mau Mau Uprising (which in simplistic terms can be viewed as blacks rebelling against whites). I think this plays into the whole "Obama hates white people" rhetoric. Sadly, there are people in this country who swallow that sort of nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD3p_g2jXh8
Again, I don't make it a point to call out all criticism directed at President Obama. As with any president, there are things that one can criticize him about that's legit. However, I am going to say something when I think the criticism is out of bounds. When it comes to this type of criticism, if President Obama doesn't lead all POTUS in this category, I'd love to know who does. No other president has had his birthplace, religion, or loyalty to his country questioned like Obama has.
Let me also add that I don't see race in all the unfair criticism directed at President Obama. Something else I want to make clear is that I don't believe Huckabee is a racist. I think he was just pandering to the host and his audience. If Huckabee wasn't pandering, he would have called out the radio host for saying (without presenting any facts) that Obama despises the West, the British, and Israel.
Pjazzy: I thought you'd get a laugh out of the "proposed" name for DI.
Oh yeah, a lot of the anti-Obama crowd have a big problem with his middle name. I've noticed how some of them use his full name when they refer to him. I think they do it to keep the "he isn't one of us" talk going. However, whenever they get called on it, they rightly say it’s his name. It would be interesting to see if these same people would use his full name if his middle name was "Jefferson".
Malcolm,
"It would be interesting to see if these same people would use his full name if his middle name was "Jefferson"." LOL!
Actually didn't the conservative media use President Clinton's full name during his presidency, maybe specifically during his impeachment hearings? I'm not sure about this due to my not being involved in politics at that time. I have a feeling the conservative media might use his whole name regardless of what it was.
I thought it was the union workers that weren't willing to go along with GM filing for bankruptcy? I remember the Obama admin not being able to broker a deal between GM and the union members but I don't remember Obama necessarily being for bankruptcy at the time. In fact I thought he backed the union members.
As far as DADT goes maybe if the military wasn't forcing those in the military to undergo "behavior modification" training (a.k.a. indoctrination)with regards to LGBT's serving in the military, even if it countered one's religious belief system I might agree with the overturning of the ban on gays openly serving in the military.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't respect gays who are serving and not discriminate against them, what I am objecting to is the military forcing others to change their religious belief system. It is possible to respect the person but disapprove of an act - kind of loving the alcoholic but hating the disease, I believe you can respect a homosexual but disagree with their lifestyle and even believe that the homosexual act is a sin - believing the act is wrong but loving/respecting the person.
If the military was a requirement like high school I might agree with you on DADT but it is the homosexual's choice and everyone's choice to join the military.
Teresa: I don't recall the conservative media using Bill Clinton's full name on a consistent basis (even during the impeachment hearings). Also, I wasn't referring specifically to the conservative media. I was also including some in the conservative blogosphere. We'll have to see how some in the conservative media/blogosphere address the next Democratic POTUS. At any rate, I'm glad to see my "Jefferson" comment made you "LOL".
We are getting bogged down in the examples of how I feel President Obama is pro-American and that isn't the point.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say in regards to the rest of the comments I originally made to you.
One can argue back and forth about his background being American or not and get nowhere; because it really does not matter. My question is; are his policies pro or anti American? I have to say, like most American presidents of the past 100 years his policies have been Anti American.
The truth is, the same banks and international corporations special interests that own Bush, also own him.
Trestin: If it's true that most U.S. presidents of the past 100 years have had anti-American policies, why is it that (to the best of my knowledge) President Obama is the first to have his love of country questioned?
Malcolm,
I was going to respond, then I saw Trestin's comment, and needed to ponder on that for awhile.
I still don't know whether I agree with his statement or not. I would agree that Presidents have enacted policies that I would classify as Anti-American but not as Anti-American Presidents.
Has any other President or administration in the last 100 years ever sued a State?
Has any other President sided with another country over the United States?
There might be cases of this but I have to look into this further.
This isn't necessarily Anti-American but more in the realm of rude, maybe out of character for a president?, but has another president ever dissed another president so blatantly as he dissed one of our allies?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece
I hardly ever hear President Obama talking on American exceptionalism, in the context of America being different than the rest of the world. He thinks that every country has their own brand of exceptionalism, on the same level as the United States.
What Obama believes to be America's best interests may not actually be America's best interests. I am sure he cares about the country, but he also wants to transform America, which means to change America, certain aspects of America that have defined America as "America" to be like other countries. Many of his policies that he's instituted have been tried in the past in other countries, and have been proven to fail. He may have repackaged or renamed his programs but they still have the same old success rate: 0. Big government stifles freedom and stifles the American Dream, and the capacity to be able to achieve success. Big Government policies punish the successful, while keeping the working man down at the same time.
Hmm... Let's see if I can catch up here. This thread has been busy. :P
Huckabee might be switching up. He just doesn't have the history of doing so like so many other politicians.
Getting something wrong and insisting it's actually right to me is a trait of someone not overly sharp. It's like the Waterboy - mama said crocodiles are ornery 'cause they got all them teeth.
But to a general point about where this conversation is going:
Liberals/progressives/modern social democrats are always accused of being unamerican with their policies.
And in many ways, no matter how it is argued, anything in the realm of social justice is the antithesis of the hard-work-to-achieve American principle so many believe in.
We've never had a president, at least that I recall, wearing so many different faces in the public.
It very well could be that Obama's naysayers are wrong about him. But for all anyone knows, his supporters could be completely wrong. Who is he? Someone answer, please.
It is a shame that Obama's race has to be dragged into critcisms so frequently. It is a shame Obama's actual name, while used pridefully by supporters, turns to anti-whatever if used in any light not glowing.
It's a shame because we have an opportunity as Americans to have a national dialogue on issues that outweigh race and gender and the private-public beef.
We have a chance to speak, more to Teresa's point, about how effective supposedly learned, wordly, all-caring intellectuals are at carrying through with policy, having only studied the works of theorists and individuals whose efforts to remold the wheel have all caused the car to become stuck.
People with vision were always a gift to the world. That's why we have the luxuries we have now. But vision on the scale of what's best for me and you always leads to calamity.
The ins and outs are the ins and outs. But what it boils down to is a dream of America by a visionary versus practical application by someone--anyone!--with experience at effecting tangible change.
More money for money entitlements and making failing test scores good enough to become a police officer and allowing farmers to go without water to save a minnow and pushing automobile standards on people with ugly, inefficient and expensive cars, and on and on and on - it all seems so nice and so progressive and so much like a heart-warming picture of America, making sure everyone can get a job, even if they're terrible at it, and saving creatures and redistributing wealth.
But what's practical about any of it?
Charles Krauthammer said something to the effect of, "Conservatives think liberals are naive and liberals think conservatives are evil."
In my opinion, that type of polarization is what's keeping racial tensions alive, along with many other tensions. If we could get through thinking someone's either stupid or sinister, a lot could change.
The problem is the Left's and the Right's values are so different from another. And, even if we can agree on a particular problem both sides believe in different solutions in order to fix the problem.
Would you say that prior to the 1960's the nation wasn't as polarized?
Do you think the sexual revolution has caused or brought about much division in our country?
"Conservatives think liberals are naive and liberals think conservatives are evil."
The problem is that a decent amount of liberals believe this way. And, many conservatives believe that liberals are naive.
"It is a shame that Obama's race has to be dragged into critcisms so frequently. It is a shame Obama's actual name, while used pridefully by supporters, turns to anti-whatever if used in any light not glowing."
For the most par, conservative blogs don't focus on Obama's race. The times that they do is when the Tea Party or a figure is accused of racism for criticizing his policies. If there is an accusation of racism conservative blogs feel the need to refute those false claims.
"It's a shame because we have an opportunity as Americans to have a national dialogue on issues that outweigh race and gender and the private-public beef."
I would love this, too.
Malcolm: Since the inception of the Federal Reserve we have only has a few presidents that were not puppets of the bankers. Only one President had the guts to try and stand against them. And yes I think that selling the interests of the people and the nation to your corporate masters makes you Unamerican.
As to why Obama is tagged, I think it is a combination of factors.
1. His policies like expanding the wars and bailing out the banks are against the will of a clear majority of the American people.
2. He apologizes too much. Yes, America has done many wrongs, but compared to other nations (especially major powers) we are the light on a hill. He does not seem to grasp the fact that we are special, we really are. I've lived in other countries including now. America, really is special. For a man that supposed to be a great communicator he has done a poor job of showing his understanding of America's divine mission.
3. I'll give you that his background is a problem for many people. I could care less about that, but it does bother some people.
Teresa: You asked:
Has any other President or administration in the last 100 years ever sued a State?
Has any other President sided with another country over the United States?
Has another president ever dissed another president so blatantly as he dissed one of our allies?
Just as it appears you don't have answers to these questions, the same goes for me.
I do know that a president who has been practically anointed a saint by the GOP signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. If President Obama signed such a bill (which granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants), you guys would be all over him.
Bush may have thought all of his policies were in America's best interests. However, how many people with a straight face will argue that lying us into a war (which was costly in terms of both lives and dollars) was good for America?
It's funny how some of you are so scared of the term "transforming America". Where you see it as a negative, many see it as a positive (i.e. making this country better for all of us).
I'll let your comments about big govt. slide because that's a whole other discussion. I would like to know if you have a response to my comments about you and others on the right cheering President Obama's failed bid to get the Olympics for Chicago.
In regards to Obama/American exceptionalism, stay tuned. I'll include a link in my reply to Trestin that pertains to that fallacy.
Josh:
"We've never had a president, at least that I recall, wearing so many different faces in the public."
If it's true, it could be because of who President Obama is... the first black POTUS. As crazy as it sounds, there are people who blame him for racial divisiveness in this country. I can't think of another president who's been accused of not doing too much/not doing enough for a particular group. If we ever have a president who is either female, Hispanic, gay, etc., they will probably be faced with the same unrealistic expectations/accusations when it comes to their policies.
Another factor is that President Obama is the first president to have his entire time in office occur during the era of You Tube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Take President Nixon for example. Because he was president during a time before the aforementioned tech launchings, who can say he was not a man of many different public faces?
I agree with you in regards to polarization. For many, it's good business to keep political/social factions separate and bickering. However, the sooner we stop focusing on our differences and demonizing the other side just because they hold a different viewpoint, the better off we will be.
Trestin: In regards to why Obama gets tagged as unAmerican you said...
1. "His policies like expanding the wars and bailing out the banks are against the will of a clear majority of the American people."
I'm not buying that for two reasons. During the latter part of Bush's presidency, the wars were unpopular with a majority of the country. Also, it was Bush who signed the TARP Act into law. Therefore, based on your theory, shouldn't Bush have been branded unAmerican?
2. "He apologizes too much. Yes, America has done many wrongs, but compared to other nations (especially major powers) we are the light on a hill. He does not seem to grasp the fact that we are special, we really are. I've lived in other countries including now. America, really is special. For a man that supposed to be a great communicator he has done a poor job of showing his understanding of America's divine mission."
I really have to hand it to the right-wing propaganda machine because they are good at what they do. When I first heard the "Obama apologizes too much" meme back in 2009, I looked into it and saw it for the BS that it is.
Here is the link to an article written last month that tears the "Obama apologizes too much/doesn't recognize American exceptionalism" nonsense to shreds.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html
What we are left with is reason #3 for why you feel President Obama is accused of being unAmerican. I think you guys are reaching in your efforts to brand President Obama as unAmerican. It would be interesting to review all the speeches Bush made during his presidency using the "American exceptionalism" meter you guys employ and see how they would measure up.
Malcolm,
As to my questions, I know that in the past 30 or so years there hasn't been a past president who has done what the Obama admin and/or Obama did.
How did Bush lie about the war in Iraq?
Prior to entering Iraq, there were a number of countries around the world who had come to a consensus that Saddamm did in fact have WMD's because that is how Saddamm represented himself and Iraq. The CIA may or may not have gotten it wrong. Saddamm had enough of a heads up to remove the WMD's and send them across his border to one of his allies. Plus, there were trace amounts of biological and/or chemical weapons found at more than one site so that gives some credible evidence to the fact that Saddamm did have these weapons at one time. In fact the CIA and Bush were lied to about the nature of the threat- http://www.verumserum.com/?p=21567
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/375182/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
But, WMD's wasn't the only reason we entered into Iraq.
The only item in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 I don't agree with is this:
granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The first three items I agree with.
You see "transformation" as a positive. That's because you believe in Big Government and that Big Government knows better than the individual. Whether you are for the freedom of the individual or not there is no question that when Big Government policies are instituted it stifles success and freedoms of individuals.
Teresa: You said... "I know that in the past 30 or so years there hasn't been a past president who has done what the Obama admin and/or Obama did."
If one wanted to, they could go back to other presidents of the past 30 years, pick apart their policies, and twist it into something sordid in an effort to paint a president the despise in an unfavorable manner.
As for how Bush lied about the Iraqi War, here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm
However, I have no interest in going back & forth about Bush and the war in Iraq. The only reason I brought up the war was demonstrate that what's good for America is open for interpretation.
You say I believe in Big Government and that Big Government knows better than the individual. Without going into details, I'll just say you don't know what you're talking about.
Malcolm,
"You say I believe in Big Government and that Big Government knows better than the individual. Without going into details, I'll just say you don't know what you're talking about."
The policies which you advocate and support are Big Government policies.
Okay, so you don't support the Health care law?
Have you not supported the expansion of government that Obama has instituted?
Do you not support the regulations he has enacted?
Now, the onus lies with you to prove that you don't believe in Big Government or Big Government policies.
Teresa: Nice try, but I'm not going to let you switch this to a debate about big vs. small government and what my beliefs are. As I said, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to my thoughts on big government... let's just leave it at that and stick to the topic at hand. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to avoid my comments about your reaction to Obama's failure to get Chicago to host the Summer Olympics. Also, if you haven't already, check out that link I included in my response to Trestin because it pertains to you as well.
I do consider Bush anti American. Don't you?
Trestin,
I agree that one of Bush's policies was anti-American but not the whole of his policies or his presidency as a whole. The fact that Bush refused to close the borders I consider to be anti-American.
Malcolm,
I read the article and a majority of the claims are just liberal talking points and false accusations. There are only a couple items which are true but the rest is just unproven leftist propaganda.
"As for the speech President Obama made in AZ in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings, do you think a man who didn't have America's best interests at heart could make such a speech?"
First, the speech was good because he showed compassion for Rep. Giffords, the rest of the shooting victims, and he honored heroes. His words were appropriate and inspirational but his actions don't match his words. Plus, one speech doesn't mean that he necessarily has the country's best interest at heart. Caring about the victims of the tragedy doesn't necessarily equate to having the country's best interest at heart.
It is beneath the President of the United States to go to another country just to win a bid for the Olympics. If Obama hadn't continued with his speech marathon and flown overseas to Copenhagen to try and convince the board to vote for Chicago but instead sent someone else I wouldn't have even cared. If Bush had wasted fuel going over to a foreign country to make a speech to get the Olympic bid for Houston I would have thought it was beneath him also. I wouldn't have cared whether you were critical or cheered if Bush didn't get the Olympic bid. Is getting the Olympic bid the job of the President?
Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama is anti-American. Any suggestion is utterly baseless and counterproductive.
Trestin: Although I think Bush was the worst president during my lifetime, I do not consider him anti-American. I think you guys are chasing your proverbial tails with these anti-American accusations.
Teresa: Riddle me this Batgirl... which parts of the article do you consider to be liberal talking points, false accusations, and unproven leftist propaganda?
The POTUS wears many hats. I have no problem with a president putting in a bid to get the Olympics for our country. Because you Obama haters will criticize him no matter what, some of you would have been on him if he didn't go to Copenhagen (how dare he not speak up for America?!)
When Chicago didn't get chosen to host the Olympics, I was like, "Oh well". However, you and others took your "Obama Derangement Syndrome" to an insanely new level by expressing glee over the failed bid. It showed me that you people want to see Obama fail no matter what he does. This wasn't failure over some policy like health care. A lot of you probably don't even watch the Olympics so it boggles the mind as to why you'd even care. You can try to justify/rationalize your cheering all you want, but you guys really need to step back and take a hard look at yourselves.
Sandy: Thank you for weighing in with your sound reasoning. These people are veering into Michele Bachmann territory with these claims of anti-Americanism directed at Bush, Obama, etc. It's a complete waste of time.
I'm not pursuing an agenda or anything like that. I think any leader that puts the interests of private banks and international corporations above the American people, is Unamerican. I could care less is has has an R or a D next to his name.
I think some aspects of the this conversation are indicative of where this country is headed. Policy disagreement somehow shifts into questioning the patriotism of the POTUS. All of this "anti-American" stuff has spiraled out of control. It's a frightening road we're headed down these days in our discourse when disagreements about policy turn into patriotism assassination.
I just can't help but wonder how many Americans who opposed George Bush's policies accused him of being "anti-American?" and said utterly outrageous and vile things about him, like Code Pink rallies wishing him dead? If anyone had a blog back then, did anyone speak up against these accusations and vile things that were said? Even if you didn't have a blog did you say to the person stop! This isn't right to speak of the President in this manner? We can disagree without wishing harm to or saying vile comments about the president.
Malcolm,
Were you talking about this article http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html or the article on the Iraq War?
My previous comments on Leftists talking points were referring to the Iraq War article.
"We can disagree without wishing harm to or saying vile comments about the president."
This should say:
Correction: We can disagree without wishing harm upon the president or saying vile comments about the president.
Of course violence is not the answer. But questioning loyalties? I think we need more of it. If you think your elected officials work for you, you have been duped. There are a handful of good ones, but most are puppets. Real Americans don't bow down to corporate masters.
Sandy: Agreed. I don't know exactly who started the trend of questioning someone's patriotism simply because they shared different political views, but I do know it's gotten out of hand. I'm not saying she started this trend, but Sarah Palin is the first person I heard use this tactic. On at least one occasion while making a speech, she has said to the audience that President Obama doesn't see America the way they (her and her audience) do. It was a cheap, underhanded way of questioning Obama's patriotism.
Trestin: Just so I'm clear, I don't think you are being partisan. I do agree that we should question our leaders. However, I disagree with your criteria for anti-Americanism.
Teresa: I was referring to the article that debunks President Obama's so-called "Apology Tour".
I have a feeling that if people were calling Bush anti-American during his presidency, we would have known about it. There were political blogs back then. However, I didn't read them because I didn't follow politics as closely as I do now. I stuck to non-political blogs back then. Although politics (including our dislike of Bush) was discussed among my friends and family, the language never got vile.
Just recently at a town hall meeting, a man asked Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), "Who is going to shoot Obama?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110225/cm_theweek/212579
Funny, but I didn't see the conservative bloggers I read speak out against this man's comments and Broun's failure to condemn what the man said. I guess your definition of "vile" is different from mine. I say this because you and many of your blog buddies have used vile language when referring to President Obama. Your comments about not using vile comments would hold some merit if you practiced what you preached.
@Malcolm,
Sure about that? From what I heard in my area, on the net, and on TV during the Bush presidency I heard more vile things said about Bush and to a worse degree and more often then about Obama. One person in my neighborhood (who I don't even associate with anymore) would on occasion make statements to the effect that he would be happy if Bush was dead. Yes, I would call him out on that.
What did I say that was vile? BO? That's a little funny teasing of President since I am not a fan of Obama. Or was it simply pointing out the truth? and that is offensive to you? I have seen you say vile things about conservatives so stop playing like your the good one in this argument, when your not. Oh and Gee.... I was so obsessed (sarcasm) with Obama losing the bid for the Olympics that I didn't even do a post on it and I stated maybe like two comments in support of another blogger on a different blog than my own. That's a little stalker-like and obsessive to complain about my comments in another blog.
Teresa: Yes, I am sure. I said I didn't hear the level of vileness directed at Bush as I do against Obama. However, that's not to say there weren't vile comments directed at Bush. Getting into a debate over "Who got the worst treatment: Bush or Obama" is pointless because for the most part where one stands is based on party lines. I will say you seem to give a lot of leeway when it comes to the vileness directed at President Obama.
You have a tendency to build "straw man" arguments. As an FYI, I'm not talking about you referring to President Obama as "BO". Although I consider that rather childish, I wouldn't put it in the vile category. However, to call President Obama a "POS" and "scumbag" is vile in my book.
Also, I never said you were obsessed with President Obama's failed bid to get the Olympics in Chicago (yet another straw man argument on your part). What I did say is that it was disgusting of you and others to cheer over the failed bid.
What vile things have you heard me say against conservatives? Do you consider what I said vile because of the language or is it vile simply because it's directed at a conservative? I'll admit that I am not perfect. However, I try to stay away from the name calling. Off the top of my head, the worst thing I can think of that I said is when I called Rush Limbaugh "a race-baiting, sexist scumbag" in a post I wrote in 2009. My only regret is referring to him as a scumbag. Outside of what I just admitted to, give me some examples of when I've said vile things towards conservatives.
"Stalker-like and obsessive"? Don’t flatter yourself kid. Trust me Teresa, I'm not following you around the blogosphere. You just happen to comment on many of the conservative blogs I read and I have an uncanny memory for certain things.
Malcolm,
"I will say you seem to give a lot of leeway when it comes to the vileness directed at President Obama."
Example? I will admit that sometimes I let people rag on Obama but not sure what you are referring to about vile statements.
"POS" and "scumbag" - You seem to have found and focus on the rare occasions when I may have used these terms. But, that is extremely rare. I may have stated this in one my earlier posts when I first started blogging but even then that is much rarer than the occasions that I may have commented saying scumbag or the likes. Sometimes I get carried away, make mistakes and never claimed I was perfect, just pointing out that calling Obama a POS is very rare for me, scumbag maybe less rare but I think some of the things he's done are scummy. Would you prefer scummy or unamerican?
I'll be looking through your blog but I do remember some vile language nonetheless. Or maybe it was you giving leeway when it comes to vileness directed to conservatives to one or more your fellow liberal bloggers?
Teresa: The blogger who goes by the name "Amusing Bunni" is a prime example of someone suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. If you wanna defend some of the nasty stuff she's hurled at President Obama, have at it. As for what you call President Obama (scummy or unamerican), do whatever it feels gets you through the night.
Is it possible to apologize without using the words I'm sorry or I apologize? Or is it the case that Obama didn't speak of America as being great or of America's greatness which may be seen as an apology?
Obama's equivolency campaign in the way he compares America with the other countries implies that he doesn't see America as different or exceptional. Some of the usage of words when he has visited other countries may not imply that he is apologizing for America but they also don't signify that he thinks America is exceptional either.
One example is when Obama stated: 'At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France, in 2009 President Obama said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."'
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/31/barack-obama-exceptionalism-america-opinions-columnists-mallory-factor.html
A President who does not believe in American exceptionalism - that America is different from Europe etc. - like other presidents have combined with his other badly stated words could be perceived to be as apologizing for America.
Teresa: Yes, it is possible to apologize without using the words "I'm sorry or "I apologize". However, you guys are really reaching. I noticed you didn't discuss the examples the article laid out in regards to comments made by President Bush. Read what Bush said about slavery and the Constitution. Although I don't consider what Bush said an apology, I don't see how anyone with any objectivity can view Obama's comments as an apology and not Bush's.
To say President Obama didn't speak of America as being great or of America's greatness is a lie.
Here is a clip in which you see the Fox News Channel's version of President Obama's speech in France and the reality of what he actually said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsqX6PmlYAw
Teresa, do you want to defend Fox News' deceptive editing to smear President Obama?
As for the "President Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism" meme, that's nonsense too. What you included was just a portion of what President Obama said. Here is the complete quote:
"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."
If you got more Teresa, bring it on because I don't mind busting you up.
I don't know if Teresa has more, but I know I do. I have a soy dog, but now a very small part of one. I used to have a soy dog, a few minutes ago.
John: lol
Malcolm,
Hannity should have shown the entire clip. In saying that every news channel cuts clips so it favors their position. I heard the entire speech during one of the day programs on Fox, though.
Whenever President Obama speaks of America as great or that he believes in American exceptionalism, which isn't that often, he usually slides in words afterward using a qualifier to make the U.S. equal to that of Europe or other countries, like American exceptionalism and it's principles are equal to that of Europe or other countries. There is evidence of this in the first sentence you quoted. You can be proud, say it is exceptional just like other countries think their exceptional but that doesn't mean that Obama thinks America is great and that American excceptionalism is different or better than that of other countries who think that their exceptional (or believe in their country's exceptionalism) also. Plus, his speech using derisive and divisive were on foreign soil and that has far reaching implications compared to if he had criticized the U.S. on U.S. soil.
Teresa: “…every news channel cuts clips so it favors their position.” There is no way you can back up such a claim. It sounds as if you are trying to give Hannity a pass for his underhanded tactics.
Why is it so important to you and others on the right that a president speaks often of American exceptionalism/the greatness of America? It’s like you require constant assurance that we’re #1 and better than everyone else. It would be interesting to go back and look at the speeches of previous presidents and see whether or not they’d measure up to the standard you hold for President Obama. As for “whose brand of exceptionalism is better?” try and put yourself in the shoes of someone who lives in another country. Who are we to say to them that American exceptionalism is better than their brand of exceptionalism? It seems that the right-wing meme “Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism” is just a backhanded way of saying he isn’t one of us.
Also, what is it with you guys and the “foreign soil” qualifier?! I couldn’t care less whether or not an American is in the U.S. or not when they make critical comments about the U.S. or its policies. Predictably, conservatives are selective when they go after people who criticize the U.S. while in another country:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/08/17/huckabee
Where were you and the rest of the right when Huckabee and Cantor criticized the U.S./President Obama while on foreign soil?
By the way, I am still interested in hearing what you have to say about the comments Bush made about the Constitution and slavery.
Malcolm,
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
This article was on the Bush administration's interrogation policies which I consider justified and okay to use in extreme circumstances.
"Where were you and the rest of the right when Huckabee and Cantor criticized the U.S./President Obama while on foreign soil?"
Were their speeches which criticized Obama given to a particular group like the Heritage Foundation in Great Britain or a more general crowd and televised for the world to see? If it was the latter then both Huckabee and Cantor shouldn't have publicly criticized the President on foreign soil.
Can you prove that MSNBC and all the other liberal networks don't cut clips to favor Democrats and Obama while not showing the whole context of a speech or the entire clip?
I don't see there being a comparison between Bush's speech and Obama's speech. Bush quoted from one U.S. president, referred to the good deeds of good Americans, and explained about how Africans or slavery awakened the conscience of America. Bush was explaining history or historical fact and not so much expressing dismay or opinion about policies or being critical of America like President Obama did in his speech.
Teresa: You said: "Were their speeches which criticized Obama given to a particular group like the Heritage Foundation in Great Britain or a more general crowd and televised for the world to see? If it was the latter then both Huckabee and Cantor shouldn't have publicly criticized the President on foreign soil."
Teresa, what the hell difference does it make whether or not the comments by Huckbee and Cantor were given to a particular group or a televised general crowd?! Some of you conservatives love to set up these unwritten rules such as the "no criticism of the U.S. on foreign soil" rule and then change the criteria to avoid criticizing one of your own. Recently while in India, Sarah Palin criticized President Obama's handling of the situation in Libya. This was televised for all the world to see. Are you going to come up with a special qualifier to let Palin off the hook or are you going to criticize her for what she said about President Obama while she was on foreign soil?
Teresa said: "Can you prove that MSNBC and all the other liberal networks don't cut clips to favor Democrats and Obama while not showing the whole context of a speech or the entire clip?"
You're not getting away with that over here. You made a wild accusation about the tactics of news networks without providing any evidence. When I ask you to back up your claim, you try to put the burden of proof on me?! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Whenever I make specific criticisms of Fox "News" and other conservative media outlets, I'm prepared to back up my statements. I expect the same of you. If you can't back it up, you come off as somebody who's talking out of the side of their neck.
By the way, who are all the other so-called liberal networks in your opinion?
Sorry, Malcolm, I guess I gave you too much credit ...
"By the way, who are all the other so-called liberal networks in your opinion?"
CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and NBC. They either distort the news, simply ignore important news stories, show partial video clips, or have tingles running up my leg syndrome finding any excuse to either praise Obama or they make excuses for Obama's mistakes.
Here is one example of a distortion by the Left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW5HlupqKdQ
One more example is how the liberal media presented the shouting at Congressmen/women at town hall events during the health care debate as being widespread when it wasn't or even outlandish that a person would get angered at a representative for messing with their health care. This occurred because prior to the event the Democrat politician had refused to answer questions or meet with the people they were supposed to be representing. But, if that same type of rhetoric was directed at Bush or any Republican then the liberal media would have been cheering on.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6599915.html
So, you don't think there is a difference if the person is speaking to a liberal crowd or a conservative crowd as opposed to talking to the whole world?
Teresa: By the way, I forgot to address the comments you made about then President Bush's speech in which he mentioned slavery and the Constitution. The pass you gave him is to be expected. Like I said, I don't view what he said as being an apology. However, if President Obama had said the same thing, I have a feeling the right-wing media and conservative bloggers such as yourself would have been all over him.
I’m not going to get too deep into the “liberal media” comments you made because we’ll only wind up veering further off topic. However, I will in one of the guest posts I plan on writing for your blog later this year. I only asked what you considered liberal media because I didn’t want to assume. The answer you gave is pretty much what I expected you to say. As you can probably guess, the so-called liberal media is a myth in my opinion. Before I forget, I interpreted the article you linked to about the health care reform town hall meetings totally different than you. I don’t know if you noticed, but the writer of the article is E.J. Dionne who according to Bill O’Reilly is a “far-left bomb thrower”. The way I read it, E.J. was saying:
* The reason the outbursts at the town halls got more press coverage is because they make better stories. As he stated, a similar thing happened with the anti-war protests during the Vietnam War era.
* By giving more coverage to the outbursts, it inadvertently made it look as if an overwhelming majority of Americans were against health care.
The fact that E.J. put quotation marks around the word “liberal” in regards to the media in both the title of the article and his closing sentence indicates to me that he’s being ironic. Read the article again and see if you come to the same conclusion as me.
“So, you don't think there is a difference if the person is speaking to a liberal crowd or a conservative crowd as opposed to talking to the whole world?”
If you are referring to that “foreign soil” qualifier some of you right-wingers use in regards to criticizing the POTUS or the U.S. itself, I couldn’t care less about the make-up of the crowd. I’m not going to raise a fuss over criticism of President Obama simply because the comments were made outside the U.S. However, if you guys want to get hung up on the “foreign soil” stuff, all I ask for is some consistency and not for you to make up special criteria to avoid calling out someone who shares your political viewpoint. Speaking of which, are you giving Sarah Palin a pass for what she said about President Obama while in India?
"Sorry, Malcolm, I guess I gave you too much credit ..."
Teresa, you don't ever have to worry about me doing that to you.
Teresa: One other thing. What Drew Griffin of CNN did in that clip you linked to is indefensible. If he/CNN didn't apologize for misleading its viewers, they should have.
Malcolm, thank you for the gracious invitation to continue our discussion from another portal.
To answer you specifically, I say:
- Good point on Obama's cabinet makeup. I'll say this was one of the reasons why I thought such a conversation on the subject could get extremely long. It's hard to toss out a few examples and be able to properly express the meanings and contexts.
My appraisal of Obama being anti-American is based primarily 1.) on his apology tour. Specifically in the Middle East. While pointing out that America is arrogant at times, and the rest of what he said, not a single word in regard to how Americans have died protecting other Muslims in the Middle East. Kuwait. Iraq, Afghanistan. American military vaccinating entire villages against diseases that ran rampant there. From 2003 - 2008 or so, I read at least 20 stories a day on defendamerica.mil under a now missing section called Iraq Reconstruction. Major stories about infrastructure building, rebuilding, drilling wells, providing medical care - quite a long list. The disaster relief we provide them. Decades of support. We built the oil infrastructure that provide the bulk of their income... Not a word of any of this. That's not right and it is unhelpful going forward.
2.) He is a socialist. You can't be a socialist and understand why America has had the longest running successful economic and societal system in the history of man.
3.) His constant disregard for the constitution, which extends the above point.
Racism: His many comments about the typical whitey's. His comments about how the people of Pennsylvania cling to their guns and bibles. He wasn't talking about black people.
I also take his 20 year relationship with Rev "g-damn America" Wright very seriously.
As I read your (this) post, you correctly point out all the baiting going on in politics and the media. 1.) I hate it, 2.) I don't think it represents how most American's feel. 3.) Everyone I talk to views this as an example of how Juvenile the visible parts of our country have gotten. Trump. It's like WWE goes to Washington. It's disgusting.
I think a clearer version of the GOP is the 1.5 to 2.5 Million people who marched on Washington DC recently, didn't make any trouble, didn't make any noise, didn't leave any trash behind. And those were the people that apparently could get away from work to do it. If we all could have I think you'd have had 50 million well behaved people there.
You allude to what is going on. Huckabee, Romney, Hannity, Rush, etc. They're all selling something. Usually a book.
Well, I'll bookmark you and keep the other info.
In full disclosure, I'm not on a mission to expose obama, hurt obama, etc. I don't even like to think about politics much. I'm on a mission to try to get America to turn the ship back around to capitalism because that is what will make us [all] healthy again. I think it's too late though.
Kid: In regards to my invite for you to continue our discussion here, you're welcome.
The "Obama apology tour" meme is something that just doesn't hold up when you look at the complete picture with an objective eye. Here is the link to an article written earlier this year that tears the "Obama apologizes too much/doesn't recognize American exceptionalism" nonsense to shreds.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html
President Obama is not a socialist. Even the Fox News exec who started the "Obama is a socialist" smear has admitted it was a lie:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-news-executive-admits-his-attempt-link-o
You mentioned that President Obama has shown a constant disregard for the Constitution, yet you provided no examples. One thing that has disappointed me is President Obama's continuation of something started under George W. Bush: The Patriot Act (esp. the National Security Letter portion). Do you feel President Bush was ignoring the Constitution when he enacted the Patriot Act?
As for President Obama's many comments about "typical whiteys", can you provide evidence of this? The only instance I know is when he made the "typical white person" remark to describe his maternal grandmother. Although I think it was a poor choice of words, the topic of culture/stereotypes and how people react to it can be hazy.
I think you are needlessly bringing race into the comments President Obama made about people of Pennsylvania clinging to their guns and bibles. He was talking about a segment of white people, but not white people in general. For example, if you made a negative comment about gangsta rappers, it wouldn't be fair to accuse you of racism against blacks.
Obama's association with Rev. Wright was complex to say the least. However, I think the then Sen. Obama did an excellent job of addressing Rev. Wright and race in general in his "A More Perfect Union" speech back in 2008. Predictably, how people feel about the speech is often based on one's political viewpoint.
The times we live in (a 24 hour news cycle, the Internet, etc.) have helped to contribute to the WWE atmosphere you mentioned. Although it's great for ratings, book sales, etc., it's bad for political discourse.
Because I often defend Obama on various political blogs, I am mistakenly viewed by conservatives as being an Obama apologist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although I am a supporter, I do criticize him when I feel it's warranted. However, if I think he or any other political/social figure is being unjustly criticized, I'm going to say something.
Thanks for stopping by. I look forward to seeing you here again in the future.
Malcolm,
The short story is you have good defensible points but my opinion hasn't changed.
Good luck to us both.
Above was me btw..
I obviously wasn't there but during the whole Vietnam war protests and the reporting on it from what I have heard/researched the media merely reported the news back then and am pretty sure they did that with that story. Some news views may have even been somewhat sympathetic to the Vietnam War protests, but not sure on that. But, the liberal news media today did not simply report on the Townhall outbursts but they reported on them in a negative manner. Or, I didn't see the news stations presenting both sides of the coin with regards to the townhall meetings and/or outbursts.
"Speaking of which, are you giving Sarah Palin a pass for what she said about President Obama while in India?"
What did she say?
"One thing that has disappointed me is President Obama's continuation of something started under George W. Bush: The Patriot Act (esp. the National Security Letter portion). Do you feel President Bush was ignoring the Constitution when he enacted the Patriot Act?"
Even though this question was directed at Kid I'm going to give you my input on this.
While I held pretty much the same views as today I wasn't politically minded back then. I didn't follow the news or if I did it I did very little. I didn't get into the issues all that much.
After debating with @Liberty and researching the Patriot Act, looking over the Act myself, about 6 months to 1 year ago I came to the conclusion that the Patriot Act is in fact in part not in accordance with the Constitution or that Bush was to some extent ignoring the Constitution and that it gives too much authority to the President and others - National Security team et al. - The Patriot Act needs to be radically changed, needs to be more specific or needs to be repealed and replaced with something that is in compliance with the Constitution.
Kid: It seems as if you are unwilling to cut President Obama any slack. Hopefully, that isn't the case. At any rate, I hope you return to join in on the discussions at Diversity Ink.
Teresa: In regards to the news media, you have to remember we didn't have the number of political opinion shows back in the Vietnam War era as we
do now. For the most part, the straight news programs of today are just reporting the stories without editorializing. The way I see it, because Fox "News" is so far to the right, any news outlets that don't push the same agenda are liberal in the eyes of conservatives. It's not that simple. If and when time permits, I'll go into more detail in the guest post we talked about.
Here is what Palin said:
“The U.S. has a tradition of course of Americans as we travel to foreign soil we don’t criticize our President’s foreign policy — even as friendly soil as India is — I won’t criticize what his foreign policy has been. But, to answer your question, certainly there would have been more decisiveness, there would have been more commitment to making sure that those who are freedom fighters, who truly desire democracy and free and fair elections and respect for human rights and women’s rights, that they know that America is on their side. And we have a rich tradition, a history in America of being on the side of those who would seek democracy, who would seek freedom, and free markets. So, yes, there would have been more decisiveness and less, though the word has been beaten to death, the word ‘dithering’? I, heaven forbid you hear that again in national news over in the U.S. because it’s used all the time. But less dithering, more decisiveness.”
Although I'm not offended by Palin's comments, it is hypocritical for her to say what she did and for any conservative/Republican to give her a pass.
Malcolm, I felt if we were to continue the debate point by point, it was looking like it would be a case of dueling websites. Meaning either of us can find just about any supporting position on the web that we want.
If I am right about Obama, I sure don't expect to find definitive proof on the net.
So, I go with my life experience.
-Where there is smoke there is fire.
-Risking conceit, I Am an excellent judge of people. I've been watching Barak for 3.5 years now.
I'm not buying it.
He has no leadership experience, no managerial experience and those are very important points. You don't acquire those skills just because you're voted into the White House.
I felt, if I continued the point by point, I'd just be beating up on you and him. While I'm sure you can take the strain :) - what's the point? In the end, I really don't care if you or anyone else think Barak is fantastic.
Well, I have you bookmarked. If I see a post where I think I can add some positive value, I'll try to do so. Negative energy is wasted energy.
Kid: Although it was abundantly clear already how you feel about President Obama, thanks for driving the point home.
Post a Comment