This was posted by Teresa on her blog on April 8, 2010:
After reading THIS and THIS, I pondered a bit. Here are my thoughts:
The liberals that are making false accusations about Tea Partiers must stop!! This is dirty, outrageous, and wrong!! The Democrats and liberals in the media have consistently entered into a smear campaign of tactics consisting of false accusations, hateful rhetoric, and incendiary comments. One particular brand of false accusations that comes to my mind is how the liberals recently have been making charges that Tea Partiers are racists without having one iota of proof to back up their claims. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Tea Partiers are not racists!! We have political disagreements but they are not based on racial differences. Liberals are the ones using blacks for their own benefit in advancing their agenda. The Democrats are the ones who claim to represent the black community while keeping many African Americans and others dependent on government programs. Why doesn’t the black community prioritize their outlook about themselves, refer to themselves as American citizens first and foremost, instead of focusing every little detail or policy on the fact that they are African Americans? Or a different ethnic group? The representatives of the black community are being racially divisive by putting so much focus on a person’s skin color. The Tea Party movement is primarily concerned with fiscal responsibility, rising debt in our country being caused by our government, and individual freedom and liberty for all Americans.
I believe that making false accusations of racism without any proof might make that person who made those false charges a bigot or even a racist if they purposefully make a false claim to score points with a particular community in our society. Why is it that democrats are so infatuated with race and race-based politics?
I would hope that there are some decent liberals out there that would denounce the derogatory language being spewed by liberals in Congress, our Left Stream Media, and by other liberals across America. Do liberals that call black conservatives such derogatory terms as “Oreo” or “Uncle Tom” and “Traitors” know that these are derogatory terms? These terms are extremely inflammatory, incendiary, and must be denounced. Maybe, its just that black liberals couldn’t care less? I don’t know. Have African-Americans and other liberals been misled or are they just ignorant to this fact? Or have they been desensitized by the black community’s acceptance of those terms even though these are in fact bigoted, incendiary, and hurtful rhetoric? Black conservatives are not sell outs to the black community. They care for all people and not just blacks. How do you know the Democrats really care about and speak for African Americans? Is it because they give government handouts? IMO, it is kind of arrogant of the democrats to think that they own a particular set of peoples’ in our society, or speak for them. I found it quite odd, interesting, and good to find out HERE, that there are no derogatory terms specifically targeting black liberals in our society. Is there a reason for this? Are liberals in general more hateful with their rhetoric than conservatives? It sure seems like it to me. But, part of the reason for this is that democrats or liberals play identity and group politics to try to pin certain groups against one another. Liberals like to play favorites towards one particular sect of society against others. Conservatives do not do this. Conservatives look at each individual as an American and we treat everyone the same instead of treating a certain group differently because of their skin color. We do not play economic warfare just because a person’s more successful than another person, and that person may happen to be of a particular ethnic group. Liberals play racial warfare and are causing a great divide in our country while conservatives want everyone to succeed, and don’t blame another ethnic or racial groups for their problems. Every individual in this country has the chance to succeed in life. I hope every person does their very best and succeeds in all their endeavors.
28 comments:
Teresa: Again, thanks for allowing me to use this as a guest post.
I do not believe that the Tea Party movement by nature is racist. However, I think there is a racist element to it. Whether that element is large or small, I wouldn't hazard a guess. When Tea Party members show up with signs like this:
http://blackchristiannews.com/news/images/teapartypic-ngr-sign.jpg
or this:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teapartysign1sm.jpg
it reflects badly on the movement. Reportedly, the gentlemen in the first was booted out of the event for the racist sign. Props to the organizers for doing so. As you said, painting the Tea Party movement with a broad brush has to stop. However, the Tea Party members/supporters etc. need to call out racism in the movement when they see/hear it.
I have no issues with black conservatives. A black can be a conservative without being a sellout. However, I do have a problem when black conservatives such as Jesse Lee Peterson use sweeping generalizations to deride other blacks or when they make excuses for the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
Several times in your post Teresa, you made statements which imply that conservative= good, liberal=evil. I couldn't disagree with you more. To me, a person's political viewpoint doesn't make them automatically good or bad. There is good and bad on each side of the fence. Now, you did ask one question which left it open:
Are liberals in general more hateful with their rhetoric than conservatives?
The answer will likely depend on who you ask and what their political viewpoint happens to be. I can't say either way. I do think that right now we are hearing more hateful rhetoric from conservatives. However, I believe that's partially because we have a Democrat President.
Towards the end of your post, you included a link to a Wikipedia page that lists ethnic slurs. You stated that there are no derogatory terms specifically targeting black liberals in our society. I reviewed the list several times and couldn't find one instance of a derogatory term that specifically targeted black conservatives. When you respond, can you include the examples that you saw?
Great post, Teresa, as usual. ;)
And Malcolm, I've long-known that you are a rational and balanced guy, and your response here backs that up. "The Tea Party" isn't a party, it's a movement, and it's filled with all sorts of people (increasingly "fakes" from the left intentionally shouting racial slurs and holding up disgusting, and misspelled signs, to discredit the movement), so it's not surprising that some would have views that are not generally held by all people who identify and / or associate with the Tea Party.
Just as there is no way you, personally, would ever hold up a sign such as the ones brandished by these moronic lefties: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621, there is no way that I, personally, would ever hold up or even dream of holding up a horrible sign about BO.
What your response brings out, and I think importantly so, is that the left AND the right are made up of individual people who cannot be painted with a broad brush, and who should not be slandered or bashed as some nameless, faceless "hate" group. I have trouble with this, too, so I do see how the left can get into the habit of bashing more than half the country as one thing, but at the end of the day, it's not useful, and it will end badly if we don't stop it. We being lefties like you and righties like me coming together as Americans.
Being a person myself, not ashamed in the least to admit I have my own biases and share of skeletons in the closet, I realize that you'll never be able to group together thousands of random people without having "bad" people among them.
It's an invitation for the crazies to come out. And they don't hide well!
During the Bush years, anti-war protests and other demonstrations had quite a few "Hitler" and "Kill Bush" signs.
During Obama's first term, there have been quite a few "Hitler" and other unsavory signs -- some even with a race angle.
The difference: The bad element here is emphasized in the mainstream, where it was smothered before.
(And let's not even get into the ZERO violence from tea party protests and the slew of assualts and damaged property from left-wing protests.)
That creates a lot of tension. Most Tea Party individuals hold a completely different ideology than most leftist demonstrators. And the mainstream holding them in a different light is frustrating when the vast majority of folks simply want to talk issues.
One of the biggest problems I see with Obama's presidency is that far too many elite types are being heard from and taken seriously, and common sense has taken a back seat.
Here's the first bit of common sense: Racism shows. It doesn't have to be invented. It doesn't have to be coaxed along. It doesn't have to be coded. Racism is hate. Intollerance. You can't hide it so well.
Second bit: Not all intollerance is racism, however, and thinking that a white person disagreeing with a black person is racism is simply projection and says infinitely more about the accuser than the accused.
(See Norah O'Donnell's 'all black people are good athletes' comments when painting Newt a racist to get a good look at the mind of a progressive liberal racism accuser.)
Folks on the left have a habit of pitting Obama vs. Tea Party, and they view all dissent as directly opposed to a president.
This isn't true, by and large, if one cares to look beyond their own biases. Government as a whole is being targeted, including PLENTY of white people.
And even if it were directly against Obama as a person, which I'm sure an element is, that still doesn't necessarily equal racism. Glance back to Bush for a scale to see the Hitler signs, the death threats, the 911 truthers, etc.
They were racist against white people? lol That's just a ridiculous claim.
It's easier to think people in opposition are racists. I understand that. Once you label it racism, you've thrown the white pointed hood on everyone and no longer need to take them seriously.
So it's easy enough to see that a lot of this "racism" crap is just to stifle debate. It's a tactic.
Another large chunk of it is the disconnected progressives projecting their own biases onto people.
A lot seem to have the Bill Maher mentality (he believes black people are duty-bound and should be calling Mitt Romney a racist just because they're black) and can't grasp the fact that black people aren't a tribe but individuals fully capable of making a judgment without the divine wisdom of a white savior.
In some ways, I'm enjoying the racist claims now.
In time, hopefully more people will see that the real racial divide exists within the so-called protection circle of minorities and comes from the elite progressive culture thinking minorities simply aren't good enough to make it on their merits.
Great comment, Josh! I was reading along nodding and totally getting what you were saying, and when I got to the line about how you are almost enjoying the racist claims now, I not only nodded but noticed my blood run cold. THIS is the biggest problem with the false, hysterical, and knee jerk shouts of RAAAAACISM at every turn: racism is disgusting, and it's hateful, and it's just about the most unChristian thing you can do or be, but now, after only a year of false shrieking about racism every time someone opposes BO's crazy azz agenda, we're all immune to being called something that only a year or so ago would have made us cry or try to understand how someone could make such a heinous claim against us.
Honestly, I think this is dangerous--there are REAL racists out there who now have a sort of open ticket to jaunt around being racist and no one's going to raise an eyebrow about it unless they are actually violent. How sick is it that the little boy who called RAAAAACIST has created a climate that is perfect for all the real racists to come crawling out of hiding? It saddens me greatly, but what do you expect when you cry "wolf" fifty-eleven times? That next time, no one's going to care, much less come running.
Malcolm,
Thanks for offering and allowing me to post here.
I looked at both the links. While I don't condone the use of the word "niggar", I understand where the guys sign or he is coming from.
Would you say that slaves were pretty much told by the slave owners to shut up and listen, or that they were too stupid to know better? Or basically not listened to by their slave owners?
( BTW some of this is supposition on my part) He was calling Congress "slave owners" and because of the way he felt Congress was treating him and others, kind of like slaves or in his word "niggar" that is why he used that word. I don't think that his use of the word was appropriate at all. He could have used my word "slaves".
Do you think that the saying Monkey see Monkey do is racist?
I don't see the kid's sign as being racist. Just because a person references or uses the term "monkey" doesn't make them a racist.
He was using a play on words and a variation of this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_see,_monkey_do
I don't see most private citizens, like yourself, as being evil-just believing in a different philosophy than myself. I do think that there are some politicians and political commentators out there that could be evil. But, I do see some mimmiking by the younger generations-college age- of those commentators and their type of hateful expressions or speech.
I am still sick and will answer the rest of your questions later.
Josh and Fuzzy,
Great comments! I appreciate you stopping by Malcolm's blog to debate. I will comment further, later :)
Fuzzy Slippers,
Your right-increasingly fakes are infiltrating the Tea Party movement to make the real Tea Party members look bad.
I wouldn't hold up a sign against BO the person either. I would hold up a sign criticizing his policies. But, that's different.
Fuzzy: Thanks for joining in on the discussion. I was really disappointed when I read about Jason Levin/the Crash the Tea Party organization last week. For one thing, it's wrong. Also, it allows the Tea Party and their supporters to dismiss any racism/unacceptable behavior that might take place at the rallies as the work of an infiltrator.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m4d17-Video-Proud-racist-gets-kicked-out-of-Tea-Party-rally-in-St-Louis
Josh: Thank you for taking part as well. You made an interesting statement about Obama's presidency causing far too many elite types to be heard from and taken seriously. Obviously, I don't see Obama's presidency as a problem. However, his presidency has led to a troubling aspect: public figures on the right feeding on people's anger/frustration (and getting rich in the process) by spreading misinformation.
Teresa: Using a slavery analogy when it comes to taxes is an insult to the memory of those who endured slavery and their descendants.
No, I don't think the saying "Monkey see monkey do" is racist. However, when one considers that terms such as "monkey" and "porch monkey" have been used to refer to blacks in a derogatory manner, a sign which is critical of a black president and says "Monkey see monkey spend" will be called into question. Is the sign in the 2nd link racist? Not necessarily, but it does make many people wonder about the intention of the sign's creator.
You said you think there are politicians and political commentators out there that could be evil. Do you see it on the right and the left?
The terms you listed (Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, and Oreo) are not specifically used to describe black conservatives. For example, someone I know personally once referred to Jesse Jackson as an "Uncle Tom" and Jesse is hardly a black conservative. As I stated before, a black conservative isn't automatically a sellout. I was watching the MSNBC special today “Debating A Black Agenda” and one of the panelists was black Republican strategist Sophia Nelson. I’d never heard of her before, but nothing she said caused me to think she is either a sellout or an “Aunt Jemima”. If people on the right want to co-opt those terms in order to paint black conservatives as victims, I think it's a waste of time.
Would you classify any of the criticism you've heard on the right (be it from everyday bloggers, politicians, or pundits) as hateful rhetoric? You said that you've heard a lot of hateful rhetoric coming from people like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. Can you provide me with examples?
To all: Ask yourselves this... if the Tea Party movement is all about fiscal responsibility, where was this movement when George W. Bush was spending recklessly? Would the Tea Party movement exist if John McCain was elected president? After all, he did support the 2008 bailout and the bailout is one of the reasons given for the rise of the Tea Party movement. In addition to a racist element, I think some of the protesting is based on the fact that President Obama isn't a Republican/conservative. The question is, if you are against something, shouldn't you be against it regardless of which political party is in power?
Can anyone defend the ignorance/hypocrisy by the Tea Party protesters spotlighted in this clip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrXJ5-EuoE&playnext_from=TL&videos=lWkHbJxySGk
Malcolm, at least you said the infiltration was "wrong" (before going on to say that the worst thing about it is that is allows dismissal of racist comments as infiltration!).
As to "defending" my lack of political involvement when Bush was president, I don't have to. I have blogged for years about Bush's massive spending, how much I disagreed with him (AND John McCain) over amnesty for illegals, and a host of other fiscal and social issues (I was not in favor of his ban on embryonic stem cell research). Like many in the Tea Party movement, I've always stayed pretty well informed, always researched candidates, and always voted (even in mid-terms, if not in local special elections as often as I should).
I didn't get involved in politics to the point of actually volunteering on a political campaign (Scott Brown's here in MA) until it became crystal clear where all the crazy spending, massive entitlement expansion (was NOT in favor of the prescription drug bill, mostly because it was UNFUNDED) was leading. When it became clear to me (it has been clear to my dad for decades, but he's smarter than I and has been paying more attention than I) that this administration was trying to nationalize healthcare, was tripling our deficit (yes, spending a rate that would make Bush blush!), making us less safe in terms of national security, and was ruining our relationship with our allies (as well as making us weak in the eyes of our enemies), I decided enough was enough. And YES, if McCain were doing these things, I'd be just as motivated as I am right now. That's fact.
The bottom line is that I, like many of my fellow patriots, was not paying close enough attention or connecting the dots. If we had been, I can assure you that there would be no need for the Tea Party now, either. Neither BO nor McCain (who is a RINO) would be president today. McCain would not have won the nomination for the very reason that he lost the election (he's too darn liberal and too progressive), and BO (if he'd won the nom, which is doubtful if we were all paying the kind of attention we are now)would have lost in a landslide to the conservative nominee (unless the dems put up a JFK type of liberal who would have straightened out the fiscal disaster the Bush was creating--*I* would vote for a true JFK dem, but they do not exist anymore . . . we've all become indies, republicans, or "just" conservatives!).
So yes, a country's apathy is partly to blame, MY apathy, but that's all over now; we're awake, we're paying attention, and we're not just "mad as hell," we are deeply concerned about our country and the future of our constitutional republic. And yeah, I'd be concerned if ANYONE from any party was doing the dance of disgust on our Constitution that BO seems to think appropriate for the greedy, bully of a nation that he clearly wants to "take down a peg or two." Can you imagine in your wildest dreams a real statesman and patriot like JFK EVER thinking along those lines, much less taking steps to ensure our fiscal and social collapse? Hmph!
Oh, and about that line that I was responding to ("if you are against something, shouldn't you be against it regardless of which political party is in power?")--goes both ways, and while I've shown that I was against the same things under Bush that I am under BO, what about the left? They're happy to use the nuclear option, but wailed when reps did; they're happy to hold up Supreme Court nominees, filibuster, and use "congressional tricks" to hold up Bush's agenda, but are whining like little babies when reps do it, shouting how "unfair" and "obstructionist" the exact same tactics they used now are; they are happy to call for President Bush's assassination, arrest, beheading, trial, hanging, waterboarding, and to call him a fascist, Hitler, and a criminal, but when someone so much as says that they are against BO's healthcare, they shriek about how evil and hate-mongering we are!; they marched in the streets against illegal wiretapping, Gitmo holding people without trial or charges, about almost every aspect of the Patriot Act . . . and when BO happily continued all of these policies, sent MORE troops to war, killed MORE terrorists with drones, and was president when tens of civilians were killed in the "surge" . . . not a peep about his being a war criminal, nor days of coverage of the horrors of war and daily counts of the dead. Gee, where's all that? Somehow the left thinks he's not at war? That he's not continuing Bush's policies that were once an infringement of their civil rights and leading straight to a fascist regime? Come on, you can't be trying to imply that it's only that right that "makes excuses" for or otherwise is less riled by crap policies of their own people. BOTH sides do that (even as individuals, like myself WERE upset with Bush about many of the same things that BO is doing. However, I was not upset about the Patriot Act until it was in BO's hands. Given that BO thinks I'm more dangerous and more of a national security threat as a conservative than he thinks radical Muslim extremists are, I think that it's fair for me to be worried about it. He's harder on his own people, those who dissent, than he is on any mass murdering tyrant around the world or against murderous terrorists--as long as they shriek "Allah Akbar" before killing a bunch of people. That seems to be the get out of Gitmo free card. Grrr. Off track, sorry, but your question is insane. The left is blaming, to this day, Bush for everything that BO does that they disapprove of--newsflash, Bush isn't, alas, president. Would that he were, whatever his faults, he understood America and worked day and night to keep us safe . . . without insulting us, mocking us, and trying to paint us as racist freaks who are a danger to society. Those were the days.
Fuzzy: Thank you for responding. However, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I didn't say nor did I imply that the worst thing about the Crash the Tea Party organization is that it allows Tea Party protesters to dismiss racist comments as infiltration.
I am glad to hear you say that you were critical of Bush's policies when you disagreed with him. If you still have some of those blog posts around, I'd love to read them.
I don't see how my question (If you are against something, shouldn't you be against it regardless of which political party is in power?) is insane. Since this post is about the Tea Party movement, I feel it's valid to ask why the movement didn't rise during the Bush administration and whether or not it would exist if McCain was elected. I didn't imply nor do I believe that it's only the right who make excuses for their own. Anyone who believes that it's only one side who's guilty of wrongdoing is so biased there is little hope for them.
Earlier today, I was wondering why we aren't seeing the anti-war movement protest Obama. Maybe their reason would be because he didn't get us into war and they agree with his strategy for getting us out. However, if we are still at war the next time a Republican takes office and members of the left escalate the anti-war protests, I'm calling BS on it.
I do have another question for you. With your occasional habit of typing in all caps, are you by chance related to Kanye West? :-)
LOL, no, but I wish I were. Despite his bizarre rantings about race, he's wicked talented (and not a little good looking, too). Maybe if we were related I could get him to see the light and come over to the "right" side. ;)
To the anti-war crowd's credit, they're still out there opposing war even with Obama calling the shots now.
When Bush was president, it was publicized a lot more, and the everday liberal was falling in line with the cause - much like some on the right are doing now.
But people who were truly against America at war and not just against Bush are still against war and they're still out there spreading their message.
Of course, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, the New York Times, etc, won't report on it now.
It's no secret to anyone on this blog that the abovementioned sources promote a one-sided agenda.
They might win some points with people for showing programming they want to see. But when it comes to news, they push to effect change instead of informing.
...
About the "where were you when..." line some folks like dropping:
With the various websites and blogs and protests, it's easy to see that millions are with the Tea Party, even if only in spirit.
And a lot of these Tea Party folks actually WERE the anti-Bush folks - Democrats, liberals and independents who took to the streets and blogs over Bush's many failures as POTUS.
But like the anti-war crowd today, this part of the Tea Party isn't made legitimate by most media.
There's a simple two-step way of handling the TP in the media: marginalize, villify. It's Alinsky, and every progressive worth his or her salt follows the method verbatim.
There's no separation. The various polling conducted shows clearly that a large portion of members are independents and Democrats. They were the same folks making up Bush's 60+% disapproval numbers in his latter years.
Media have attempted to make a complicated ground battle simple, when it's really the other way around.
Where you stand on Obama's presidency is the simple matter, ironically.
(Remember, his presidency DOES include Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank, the President's progressive appointments, outsourced legislation writers, etc - it's not JUST Obama)
It boils down to big, intrusive government vs. small government.
If you want the government to do something for you beyond its duty, you're probably a liberal, a Democrat or someone not on the right.
If you want the government to get out of your way so you can live, you're probably on the right.
Everything else is just everything else. And while it's always fun to talk about, evidenced by my longwinded posts, the middle mess is just distracting from the crux of the matter, and that's a simple question about what YOU want America to be:
Land of social wealth redistribution, scale offsetting for victimhood, freebies and pity, or a land where a person's drive and determination is the leveler and personal responsibility means what it says...
Josh: "They might win some points with people for showing programming they want to see. But when it comes to news, they push to effect change instead of informing."
Wow, that's sounds almost like something I'd say about Fox.
Malcolm,
It seems to me that you may be focusing a little too much on the fact that Obama is black and not just the fact that he is the President and that people would be against his policies regardless of skin color.
I took these terms -(Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, and Oreo)- straight from wikipedia where it stated that these terms are primarily used to target or demean black conservatives. Could those terms be used in other instances, toward other people? Yes. But, that doesn't mean that those terms aren't used primarily to describe black conservatives. Black conservatives don't think that they are victims but are just pointing out to the maltreatment that they receive by many blacks and others across this nation. Respect is the objective.
I have heard some hateful rhetoric targeting political policies, but not the person. Or if the type of political policies reflect the type of person they might be, like promoting eugenics, abortion, human cloning etc., a person may have called that evil and label the person similarly since that does reflect the nature of the person. But, even so, I have never heard from the right the type of hateful rhetoric and vulgarity to the degree that I have heard come from the left. I have noticed that most what the left perceives as hateful rhetoric that comes from certain conservative commentators is taken out of context. Plus, conservatives do use sarcasm- the type of stuff that Jon Stewart gets away with-but certain commentators from the Left take it as truth or serious and take those comments out of context.
Malcolm,
First, most conservatives were for the President calling for the U.S. to go to wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Myself, and many others, didn't like the fact that George Bush didn't veto hardly any bill, if at all. We didn't like his spending (not related to wars), bailouts, or immigration policy either. His approval rating was really, really low by the end of his presidency and that shows the discontent that conservatives had with him along with independents and Democrats. I know the start of the mega-spending was the bailouts and that's when people started to be really fed up with Washington. And, then the spending didn't decrease but in fact when Obama got into Office went full throttle and spending increased by an insurmountable and unsustainable amount. That is what set the stage for the Tea parties-we had enough and we weren't going to take it anymore. Obama's other policies just added to the discontent and worry about where the country is headed.
If the spending was out of control under McCain, and citizens disagreed with his many policies I do believe the Tea Parties would exist today.
I will continue later...
Teresa: I'll hold off on addressing the majority of your latest comments because you said you had more. However, I did want to point something out. The Wikipedia page where you took "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom" did not state that these terms are primarily used to target or demean black conservatives. When you cut and pasted the terms into one of your comments, nowhere did it say anything about black conservatives. I went to the Wikipedia page that you linked to in your post and it made no reference to black conservatives either. You're injecting the conservative angle yourself.
There's a simple explanation as to why the Wikipedia page didn't state that "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom" are used to target/demean black conservatives... that's because the terms are not political.
Teresa, Malcolm knows all this intellectually, I suspect. But facts don't matter to the left. It's all about perception and "feeling." They "feel" like we don't like BO because he's black, and they "feel" like we loved President Bush because he is white (or conservative or from Texas or whatever other superficial crap registers on the liberal "feel" meter). The facts, obviously, tell a very different story, but it's useless trying to reason with people who don't think deeply, who "feel" and react to that "feeling" as if it were truth, fact, or based remotely in reality.
Example: It's fact that the American people booted the republicans out of Congress, passing the majorities to the Dems in 2006 and supermajorities in 2008. It's fact that there is no way in hell liberals did that without a LOT of conservatives (indies, dems, and reps) helping out. For some reason, this inconvenient truth doesn't register with the left. It doesn't fit their narrative that no one ever disapproved of Bush, so they simply ignore it. In their weird worldview, President Bush was ragingly popular and it was a total fluke that the dems were handed Congress on a silver platter. Some sort of miracle that had nothing to do with the voting public being fed up with and PO'd at the reps in general and at President Bush in particular.
But again, it doesn't matter. Even if you point out (another fact, provable via a quick Google search) that the president, any and all presidents, usually suffers if the Congress screws up and is of the same party (and even, in many instances if not in the same party).
It's also fact that by the time he left office, President Bush had about a 28% approval rating. Again, completely impossible without conservatives in the mix. And a LOT of them.
The facts simply don't matter here, it's all leftie perception. They think that we have the same illogical and blind devotion to President Bush that they have to BO--that's the narrative they've spun and facts simply don't matter. They just "feel" it. That there is demonstrable evidence that we voted the bums out when they were conservatives serving under a white republican president just does not register. It's not like they even ignore it, they just don't even seem able to grasp these facts because they are so far removed from their warped narrative.
Ooooh, but now it's a big Tea Party thing, THAT didn't happen under Bush. Nope. No need for it then . . . think about the difference between 550 billion (ouch) and some 2 or 3 trillion. Think about the fact that most people tend to take as much as they can before they just can't take it anymore and take a stand. It's built up over decades of progressive infiltration into our schools, courts, and government--unlucky that BO's black, really, because it would certainly have happened under any other president who did the same thing in the same historical context (but don't even THINK about talking to libs about historical context, everything happens in a vacuum for them). Think about the difference between a radical rushed grab for as much power and private industry as possible and in record time. Nope, doesn't matter. It's because BO's black. President Bush probably (secretly) had through the roof approval ratings, and all those dems that we voted into office and 2006 and 2008 were actually posing as republicans/conservatives and tricked us. Whatever. I'm so over banging my head against this same wall.
I'm letting the lefties live in their weird world, and I'll live in mine. (no offense, Malcolm, I still think you're a hottie. heh)
I do not think that the Tea Party movement is necessarily racist either. However, I do think there is a strong element of racism and I think there is far too much of a willingness to ignore the racist element that is using the Tea Party movement to work its way into the mainstream.
I would like to see Tea Party people be more vigilant in saying no to racism in its midst and not make excuses for it.
I am getting ready to turn up the controversy knob here a little...
I believe the phrase "race card" is often used by conservatives to marginalize claims of racism (even when the claims are clearly legitimate). It's sort of a retaliation or a counter punch. There are times when I think "race card" is used as a weapon against people of color who feel they are being discriminated against. There are times when it may not always be racism and may in fact have an alternative explanation. But, it has been my experience that the phrase "race card" often is used as a weapon or a shield.
@Malcolm
"Wow, that's sounds almost like something I'd say about Fox"
Say it all you'd like.
In the context of this discussion, some press outfits are literally attempting to defraud the public with incorrect information of Tea Party protests.
If you have a beef with Fox over doing the same, that's perfectly legitimate. But Fox isn't doing it here.
They've been the only cable news outfit to give them a fair shake. Hannity and Beck take it to an entirely new level, but that's certainly no surprise to anyone. Even I think both of those guys are loony.
When Fox edits a black guy with a gun and tries to say it's a white guy with a gun to "prove" that racism is running rampant and to hypothesise that disgruntled white people want to assassinate President Obama, then I'll jump on your wagon and put Fox on blast in unrelated discussions.
Until then, I personally don't compare petty shoplifters to arsonists.
@ Sandy
I wholeheartedly agree that any Tea Party member should denounce racism loudly every single time they see it.
There's NO excuse for allowing loons to settle into a movement.
I also wish more liberals would do more to denounce the likes of Ayers and other radicals.
There seems to be an unwritten rule about not admitting there's a problem instead of addressing and elitimating it. That's bogus.
@ Every minority Dem-voter reading this:
I'm wondering if any Democrat-voting minority has ever questioned the intent behind today's widely unsubstantiated reports of racism? And have you ever pondered where Democrats would be without a majority minority bloc?
I'm no grassy knoll conspiracy guy, but something doesn't smell right here, people.
According to the left, the enemy of progress not only exists, but it's only getting stronger.
Any impartial court in the world would throw that charge completely out due to a gross lack of evidence.
Yet when it comes to popular opinion on the left, it's as accurate as global warming: settled science.
Does anyone else find this odd?
Sandy,
There are too many false claims of racism that are coming from the Left that when there is actually legitimate racism it will be like their crying wolf.
There is only a very small segment that is racist within the Tea Party movement. I have been to many events and only heard/seen a few signs of racism.
Just a question: Do you call out comments of racism or virulent comments against whites? And, yes I have personally experienced racism in a couple different scenarios. But, I don't go on harping about it. Frankly, there's kooks everywhere and unjust things happen, but moving on and getting over it (depending on the type of situation) is a part of life.
Teresa,
Thanks for your response. I always find it interesting when someone says there are false claims of racism. I am not sure how that is proven as racism, like beauty, sometimes is in the eye of the beholder. What I may see as racism may not be seen the same way as Malcolm (as an example) or the other way around.
You may be correct that there is a small percentage of tea partiers that are racist. But, my other big concern is the large percentage that condones and excuses the racism.
Sure, I call out racism as it presents itself both ways (as anyone of conscience should). My last girlfriend, who was white, worked in almost a predominantly black environment and was subjected to racism. So, yes, it does cut both ways.
I do believe in harping on racism. I think it's just too important to hold those who engage in racism accountable.
Josh,
Thanks for your comments. I don't think liberals really embrace William Ayers. In fact, I think most liberals don't necessarily have any use for him. In all honesty, William Ayers was a pawn of conservatives to attack Barack Obama during the presidential election of 2008. I doubt any conservatives cared for or even knew of William Ayers before he was linked to Obama. You are right about not letting "loons" get too much of a position in the tea party movement.
Josh,
I think the argument with relation to Bill Ayers wasn't that Obama was associating with a former domestic terrorist, but to the degree to which Obama embraced his radicalism or Leftist ideology. Obama portrayed himself as a Centrist, and he's governed as a Leftist so the concerns may have been valid.
Malcolm,
I have always held pretty much the same beliefs but it wasn't until a couple years ago that I really got involved or interested in politics. And, I guess at least 9 months or so when I started my blog.
I think if John McCain had been a big spender, forced a national health care bill down our throats, ignored citizens, mocked citizens, and didn't do what was in the best interest of citizens but went into a partisan mode there would have definitely been Tea Parties.
The terms may have not been used originally politically but now liberals have perverted for their political gain or condemnation or disdain of black conservatives.
Fuzzy: Thanks for explaining via email that you didn't intend to generalize when you talked about "they", "the left", etc. I am well aware of Bush's low approval rating of 28% when he left office and all the stats you included in your last comment. If you don't know it already, I don't blindly support the left. You would have been better served to cite those stats/facts to a liberal who is a blind ideologue.
It's too bad we all can't hop into a customized DeLorean and find out if the Tea Party movement would have happened if Obama wasn't president.
Sandy: Thanks for joining in on this discussion. I feel the same was as you do about the Tea Party movement. I am tired of people looking the other way when there is misconduct within the movement and saying that all the protesters are nothing more than concerned citizens.
Also, thanks for bringing up your theories on the race card. I had been meaning to address that part of Teresa's post, but I got sidetracked.
Josh: Although it isn't as bad as what MSNBC did (I'll get to that later), using old footage of a Tea Party protest to pump up the attendance of a more recent rally is still attempting to defraud the public with incorrect information. When Fox was busted, I recall that they said it was a mistake. It's funny how those "mistakes" always wind up working in their favor. There are other well-documented instances of Fox cropping footage in order to mislead viewers. Since the ones I'm referring to don't apply to the Tea Party movement, I won't go into them here.
If one feels that MSNBC is playing up the negative aspects of the Tea Party movement, that's a legit argument. I won't speak to what CNN and the broadcast networks are doing because I rarely watch them. On the other side of the coin is the question of whether or not Fox is downplaying the Tea Party's foul elements. I think that's why it's important for people not to rely on any one source for their news.
When MSNBC used that footage of the black man with a gun to mislead viewers into thinking something else, it was bush league. I don't know if MSNBC ever apologized for this inexcusable tactic, but they should have!
Yes, I do question the reports of racism to which you alluded. However, I also question how some are denying that they occurred because just of the lack of video/audio. I think slurs were directed at the Dems, but to what degree we'll never know.
I know exactly where the Dems would be w/o minority voters... in the leaky boat now occupied by Republicans. Although the Dems are far from perfect, in my eyes they have done a better job at reaching out to minorities. The GOP doesn't help itself in the eyes of many when they endorse Conservative History Month or when a Republican governor signs a bill that comes off as legalized racial profiling.
As a side note, one of the participants in this dialogue (Sandy) has a blog called Best Seat In the House and he has written some outstanding posts about the Fox News Channel. You can check his blog out here:
http://sandygholston.blogspot.com/
Teresa: As I stated previously, those terms can be used to deride black conservatives. That's not a new phenom. However, I know for a fact that blacks continue to use those terms outside of the political realm. Here are a couple of examples. A black liberal who:
mainly associates with whites will be called an Oreo by some people.
who kisses up to his white boss/co-workers will be deemed an Uncle Tom/Aunt Jemima by some.
who only seeks to better himself/herself by dressing business-like and speaking proper English will be labeled a sellout by some.
You wouldn't think that a black liberal is any of these terms because you probably haven't witnessed them being labeled as such. On the other hand, I have seen and experienced it. From personal experience, when most blacks use those terms, they don't have political connotations. Usually, whether or not the target of the slur is a conservative or a liberal is of no consequence to the person using the slur.
Also, thanks for providing me with examples of how you feel the left uses "hateful" rhetoric. Just to be clear, I have no plans to debate you on this topic here. If you or I ever write a post about hateful rhetoric, we can duke it out then. I just wanted to see what you considered hateful rhetoric. By the way, I didn't see you cite any examples of Maddow using hateful rhetoric. :-)
To all: One of the best bloggers around (Field Negro) wrote a post in which he poses a question about the Tea Party movement. Feel free to check it out and answer his question:
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-are-tea-party-protests-about-wall.html
The reasons some are denying/questioning whether or not the racial slurs happened is because of the entire climate of accusation.
Not only is the whole of the Tea Party considered racist by the far left and media elite, but all of this administration's dissidents are fitted with a hood and perp walked through the bubble.
"Socialism/ist" has become a racist term.
Hitler's likeness is supposedly given because Obama's "black."
People are disagreeing due to having a black president.
If they weren't racists, they would give him a chance, support progressive policy, etc.
All of the abovementioned are used to paint half the country as backwards and racist.
Until the slur/spitting incident occurred, their only evidence was, as Fuzzy mentioned, pure feeling. It "felt" like people were being racists.
Apart from a few loony signs and extremely sporadic cases where, if you stretched far enough, you could turn postulation to theory by inventing the y, there was no real racism to speak of at any of the Tea Party rallies.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, an old scene played out in front of the Capitol. Here were primarily white protesters yelling and screaming as this group of black politicians mysteriously showed up to walk through them.
With dozens of cameras rolling and hundreds of people to play witness, someone decided to shout racial slurs -- not once, but over a dozen times.
Wow. They really ARE racists.
Hmm...
How convenient.
Yet, in this digital and celebrity-driven age, nobody caught the incident and nobody has come forth to claim their 15 minutes for blowing the whistle.
So a lot of people simply want further evidence to make up their minds here. It's awfully fishy as it stands.
I can't say it didn't happen. But, again, this kind of evidence is only good in the court of public opinion.
Either way, I'm not voting for either party. So I don't care what either of them are trying to sell me about the other.
All white Republicans are racist. Okay. Whatever. You're boring me, media.
All liberals are socialists in waiting. Sure. Okay. We're on the verge of one-world government. Let me throw away my passport.
I'm personally skeptical of damn near everything. And that definitely includes convenient racism claims with nothing to back it up.
Had I lived a different life, my attitude may be different.
@ Sandy
I'm just speaking of Bill Ayers as a person, not necessarily his reported associations with President Obama.
He's a hero to the progressive radical leftovers. He's a professor, ffs! lol
Ayers is a terrorist. He's not a fall guy. He's a proud founding member of the Weather Underground and has said he regrets not blowing more sh%t up.
I wonder if the far left (I realize average Dems are probably indifferent about the guy) would embrace him so had Ayers' targets been black churches instead of government buildings.
My believing that the Weathermen were actually soldiers for the cause vs. imperialism and black liberation is about as strong as my belief that there is an Allah and I must die for not bowing to him.
To me, the Weathermen are just more loony schmucks who chose to blow sh%t up when they didn't agree with it - no different than the radical mujahideen.
Post a Comment