The conflict among House Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the president has shut down the federal government:
The U.S. government began to shut down for the first time in 17 years early Tuesday, after a Congress bitterly divided over President Obama’s signature health-care initiative failed to reach agreement to fund federal agencies.
Thousands of government workers arrived at federal office buildings to clean off their desk, set out-of-office e-mail messages and make whatever arrangements were necessary so they could stay off the job indefinitely.
Others, including border patrol officers, prison guards and air traffic controllers, were required to work but were told they may not be paid.
Washington’s iconic monuments and memorials were still open in the early morning hours, but the National Park Service soon dispatched workers to shut them down and move barricades into place. Signs posted on the barriers erected at the entrance to the Lincoln Memorial read: “Because of the federal government shutdown all national parks are closed.â€
Most of the people most of the time may hardly notice the shutdown. I think we should all be worried and here’s why.
Comparisons between today’s shutdown and the one that occurred in 1995/1996 are invidious. During the last shutdown we were in the middle of a boom. Now the economy is recovering phlegmatically from a serious recession. Seventeen years ago employment was high and unemployment was low. Today unemployment is relatively high and employment is lower than it has been in 30 years. More people have been unemployed longer today than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Government at all levels plays a larger role in the economy than it did seventeen years ago. Then, government spending accounted for about 30% of the economy. Now, it accounts for nearly 40% of the economy.
There are probably as many explanations for our low employment and high unemployment as there are people trying to explain them but I don’t think that it is arguable that more economic activity wouldn’t improve the situation.
There are only five sources of economic activity: personal consumption, business investment, government spending, exports, and imports (which reduce economic activity). Reduced government spending means reduced economic activity. None of the other factors can step in and fill the gap, at last in the near term. That means that economic activity will decline as a result of the shutdown and whatever role economic activity plays in unemployment the shutdown will make things worse.
Regardless of your views on the merits of the House Republicans’ beef with the Senate Democrats and the president, this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. Worst of all I see no obvious basis for a compromise. Both sides have been poisoning the well for the last five years (if not the last fifteen years). It’s a game of Chicken all the way to the bottom of the cliff.
It is a serious game of chicken. It also seems like a new era of politics. If you are unable to win elections, a minority can use the whole govt and the economy as a hostage to advance their position. I am not sure this was what was intended with our system of checks and balances. It seems like an awfully chaotic, high risk way to manage things. It renders elections less meaningful, unless you can win in a landslide.
I doubt that it hurts the GOP very much in the long run. We are so polarized that the 40% who are going to vote for the GOP will do it no matter what happens. Same for the Dems. I dont expect it to have a big impact on the economy in the short run. I think that what it really hurts is our long term process.
Steve
I am so sick of this both sides do it bullshit. Both sides do not do it. We do not shut down the government or threaten default because we lost an election or dislike a law. They do. Only they do. Your justifiable contempt for Illinois Democrats blinds you to political reality at the national level.
You may be sick of it but it is a fact. Appointing Rahm Emanuel chief of staff poisoned the well. Mitch McConnell’s remarks that his first priority was making Barack Obama a one-term president was poisoning the well. Refusing to meet with Congressional Republican leaders for the first six months of his presidency was poisoning the well. The list goes on and on.
You’re obsessed with Rahm Emmanuel and it destroys your capacity for clear judgment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html
That’s January, 2009.
Here’s one from a week before:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html
So that would be two meetings with GOP Congresspeople discovered in thirty seconds of Googling.
Right.
Dave, this seems to be a departure from your stance from some time that we are well into a recovery. I know you don’t think these cuts are wise or prudent, but it seems like you have been advocating government cuts nonetheless.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/
So the President did visit Congress, and the GOP had already decided it would under no circumstance support any part of his agenda. Those are the facts. You’ve had this wrong for five years now.
“Meeting with Republican” or “meeting with Congress” do not equal “meeting with the Republican Congressional leadership”.
Dave:
You’re just plain wrong on this.
Not exactly. I don’t believe in cutting the federal government in isolation from other reforms. There are scads of other things that need doing. So, for example, I’ve been arguing for incentives to spur business investment for some time. I’ve also argued for various ways of reducing imports including a consumption tax or a gasoline tax. One of the reasons I argue for reducing costs in healthcare spending is because I believe that the larger the sector is the worse our unemployment problem is likely to become.
However, cutting government spending does not ipso facto produce growth which seems to be what the Congressional Republicans believe.
The cuts in the personal income tax that Republicans seem to prefer didn’t do the job in 2002-2003 and they aren’t doing the job now. Increasing personal consumption as the primary strategy for economic growth will be problematic for some time to come.
Michael, your hatred of Republicans keeps you from understanding how lousy a job the Obama Administration has done at working with Congress.
Also, accusing me of obsession with Rahm Emanuel is completely unfair. Go back and count the number of posts in which I’ve mentioned him. He was my congressman for six years and is presently the mayor of the city in which I live. Being less aware of him than I am or mentioning him less frequently would be a sign that I’m detached from reality.
Dave, fair enough. I fully expected that your position was more nuanced, but at the brute-force level, government spending cuts detract from economic activity.
Around here I think the shutdown will hurt more than many areas; it takes out the Lincoln Home and the national guard. The secondary economic activity from tourism is probably small (lot of daytrippers w/ sack lunches) and the national guard is probably going to end up getting back pay for not working.
I think the continuing furloughs in manufacturing and mining have been worse for downstate. Companies like CAT appear to have been able to take advantage of the bad economy to reduce everybody’s hours with required unpaid vacations.
Dave- For those of us not from Chicago, who follow national politics, Rahm had the reputation for being very partisan, but also very willing and able to make deals with the opposition. For most of us it was never seen as poisoning the well. As you may or may not recall, he was criticized by the far left as being the person responsible for moving Obama towards the center.
Steve
That’s January, 2009.
Impressive, Michael! 4 years ago the prez took time to visit Capital Hill! Wow! Of course last Saturday, that same prez does what he frequently takes time to do — plays golf, while the Congress wrangled away on how to negotiate the CR. In fact Obama is often listed MIA during these tense times, taking himself out of the equation, and simply disappears. He only reappears for the podium speeches, the lights/cameras and to fillet his opponents regarding their dereliction of duty. Then he probably goes back and hits that ball around some more!
I’m sorry to inform you, Michael, such stunts are devoid of responsive, responsible presidential behavior, no matter how you rationalize it. Obama is losing credibility too, in saying there is now no room for give-and-take in a law that has already passed constitutional mustard, when he himself has customized the law for big business, Congress, political allies. He has also waived subsidy verification, medicare cuts — all told some 17 changes have been unilaterally made to the original PPACA in order to make it more politically palatable, not necessarily having anything to do with the interests of real people being forced into compliance. Where is the fairness in all this, something Obama incessantly called for during taxation confrontations, but is ‘chill’ about when pushing forward his own HC monstrosity? Here he cherry-picks and then rails against those attempting to rectify such blatant inequities.
Also, Dave has correctly pointed out the economical climate differences 17 years ago. But how do the players, in both scenarios, alter the replaying of the previous shut down to today’s? For one thing, Clinton was viewed as less polarizing than Obama. Couple this with all the other differences, people are viewing the dems less favorably than they did during the Clinton-Gingrich shutdown. For instance, polls, during the last Congressional battle, show a larger 19% spread between the R’s and D’s. This time there is anywhere from a 3-10 pt. difference between the two parties. While the republicans do continue to shoulder a higher percentage of blame (so far), it is nonetheless a smaller percentage number than last time. There is even an AOL poll, of almost 34,000 participants, coming out this morning with a 51 to 49 spread, having the dems taking a slight lead in the blame game. Imagine that!
Consequently, I personally think Reid is dangerously pushing the envelop of being considered uncooperative and small-minded himself, by literally closing the Senate off from any further opportunities to resolve the issues at hand. The items being put forth by the House as conditions to pass the CR, such as the elimination of the medical device tax, putting Congress on the same HC footing with other people, or even extending the mandate exemption to individuals and small businesses, a ‘gift’ given earlier to big business, were not unreasonable requests. And, I think if citizens are made aware of these concessions they just might see it that way too!
Of course the MSM will either do a blab-off of these public-friendly House-created remedies, spin them negatively, or just continue to massively label the House as the evil-doers in this mess, and people like Steve and Michael will pass it along in their posts, as ‘truth.’ However, there will be some of us, especially independents, who may take the time, wading through the weeds of deceptive rhetoric and see it in an entirely different light than the dems are angling for — to whole-heartedly get away with blaming the GOP, thus giving the dems a needed leg-up in the 2014 mid terms. For both parties, it’s all about winning, not reasonably legislating for the people. However, the edge for blame is now more evenly split, and it remains to be seen how that will effect winning/losing in the near future.
Also, no president, not even Obama, holds the office of the presidency in such a vice-like grip, exuding such an impermeable membrane of untouchable power, that they can merely sit by, scorn others, scowl and arrogantly say “I won,” so “deal with it, and do as I say.”
Just got home and am enjoying my furlough. I plan to do some PT, some drinking (maybe a lot of drinking, still a lot of day left) and maybe housecleaning, not necessarily in that order.
In my organization about 50% of civilian personnel are furloughed. In my wife’s organization it’s about 95%. Both are DoD organizations with missions related directly to national defense.
As for the argument between Dave and Michael, I’ll just say that both can be true – it’s certainly possible that “both sides do it” while suggesting the GoP is “worse.” But that is, IMO, an irrelevant debate since it’s inherently limited to the narrow lane of partisan opinion and propaganda.
As I’ve frequently said, I’m not, and never have been, a supporter of either political party. I don’t much believe what the apparatchiks and their proxies and supporters say, though it’s interesting to see how the partisans adopt the opposition’s arguments when the shoe is on the other foot….
I think the current crisis is much deeper than the finger-pointing would suggestion. Just above the level of partisan squabbling, the crisis is a result of increased factionalism within both parties caused by the collapse of what we used to call “liberal” and “conservative” political ideologies into little more than narrow self-interest. Up from there is the larger problem of a dysfunctional society with respect to politics and political interest. More generally are the obvious generational changes – The high degree of self-interest among the Boomer and Gen-X cohorts compared to previous cohorts, just as one example. Added to that is the success of “progress” in diminishing the influence of traditional sources of authority in favor of the state or vague appeals to values.
Unfortunately I don’t see a lot changing. The Democrats will likely come out better in this particular instance but it will leave the nation little better off in the long run.
Andy,
It’s a good thing you wrote your thoughts down before you started drinking, as they were cogent, well said, and worth contemplating,
Having fun yet??
Michael, your convenient memory astounds. A certain B Obama argued for just what is happening right now when he was in the Senate.
Go stick your head in a toilet then rinse off and come talk some sense…………….if that is at all possible.
“A certain B Obama argued for just what is happening right now when he was in the Senate.”
You have a cite for that? I’d like to see what he argument was.
” public-friendly House-created remedies”
I havent seen any of those. What are they? If there are negotiations, what is the GOP offering in return?
Steve
Steve,
“Public-friendly remedies” were in the context of that post – elimination of the medical device tax, something that was previously agreed upon by approximately a 70/30 margin; putting congress on the exchanges like other individuals; and/or delaying the individual mandate like Obama unilaterally did for big business. Why are these rather small alterations so mind blowing for the dems? If they agreed to any one of these changes a CR could have been passed, congress would have been able to argue about the depth ceiling, and Andy and wife would be behind their desks at work today.
Tablet writing produces mistakes such as messing up the word “debt.”
I agree that the Republicans are worse. What I don’t agree with is that the Senate Democrats and the president are completely blameless.
@steve: The WaPo Factchecker:
“For making an argument that the president now decries as politics, he earns the upside-down Pinocchio, signifying a major-league flip-flop. (We have rarely given this ruling, but are eager for other examples from readers.)”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html
Sorry, I meant @sam.
jan- I missed just exactly what the GOP is willing to give up in return, since we are talking about a compromise. Or are you talking about a surrender. Your three examples are weak. Congress already has employer based insurance. This is a made up controversy and total BS. The medical device tax is a way to help pay for the ACA. The device companies will rake in a lot more business with the ACA in place. 96% of employers (large ones) already supply insurance, so it is not much of a delay. However, if you want to delay it, what would you offer in return?
Steve
Thanks, PD. Look, this shouldn’t be partisan. Its just politics, but sam is lipping Obama’s unit in ignorance of his prior stance.
Obama has no moral compass, no leadership view other than “ME,” “ME” and “ME.”
I’ve seen dozens of these characters.
@PD
“For making an argument that the president now decries as politics, he earns the upside-down Pinocchio, signifying a major-league flip-flop.”
I’d have given him two.
Speaking of major league Pinocchios, there was a fascinating article published in the Guardian interviewing Seymour Hersh. He earned his investigative reporting stripes earlier with the My Lai massacre story, and later with the damning release of the Abu Ghraib photos. Once he was described as the “closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist,” by the republican party. However, now his blunt truth meter is measuring today’s pathetic state of journalism, as well as the dishonesty of our current president, who remains unchallenged by an incurious press:
Another statement he made, most likely frying the wires of most ultra liberals, was in his estimation Obama is worse than Bush!
There are people who believe that being the boss and being a leader are necessarily the same. They are really, really not the same. A boss must authority, but a leader often has limited or no authority. A boss can force people, but a leader must compel people forward. A boss has underlings, but a leader has followers.
The US President has limited authority, and he is not easily able to coerce people. For the US President to move people in his direction, he must lead them, but in order for people to follow, they must trust that he is not going to “f*ck them over”. A leader is able to convince people that following him should not result in anything negative, and it may result in something positive.
In the military, an officer can issue orders that must be followed, but he is not necessarily a leader. There are officers who are leaders, and as such, the troops will willingly follow them into the sh*t. In the civilian world, a successful CEO must be a leader.
President Obama and many of his supporters think he is a boss. He does not have the characteristics or traits of leadership. Hence, his ability to accomplish anything is limited. History does not remember “leaders” who whine about how terrible things are.
This Congress is not special. It is fairly tame compared to previous Congresses. When VP Biden kills Hank Paulson over political differences, talk about the terrible state of politics will be warranted.
Dave:
You made a statement, I refuted it. You were factually wrong.
Look, you are the smartest person I know when it comes to policy, but you don’t get politics. You’re as dumb on politics as I am on economics or string theory. Above I cite the fact that Boehner and Cantor prior to meeting the president at the meeting you claim never happened, had already decided on a deceptive policy and had already decided to oppose the President unanimously. And yet you seem to buy the frankly ludicrous notion that all we needed was a few more meetings.
You just don’t get it. A significant percentage of Republicans questioned and continues to question the very citizenship of this president. They deny that he is American. They deny that he has a right to occupy the White House. They circulate racist talking points. They deliberately use racist code on Limbaugh and Fox and have done from day one. But you are utterly oblivious to this. Because it’s not about numbers, it’s about fear and hatred and lust for power.
You cannot understand what’s happening by looking for logic, this is emotion and until you open your mind a little and look beyond numbers to human beings, to human frailty, to the deep panic suffusing especially southern whites, you will understand nothing.
Did you look at that map I linked to the other day? The one that shows the districts of the GOP’s dead-enders? Where are those districts? They are rural and white and southern. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Do you think it just so happens la di da that the old south is the heart and soul of this fanatic movement to delegitimize this president, to deny his citizenship, to deny his religion, to deny his right to articulate policies and propose laws?
GOP Rep. Peter King and others have gone on record as saying that this is about nothing but Ted Cruz and the far right. Read southerners. Reasonable Republicans are appalled. Reasonable Republicans are sickened by this. King just said he’d gladly trade the medical device tax against not just against a CR but against passing debt ceiling, right now, today. That’s a Republican. So if I’m blinded by my “hatred” of Republicans, I guess a number of Republicans are as well.
If you don’t look at character, at emotion, at language, at history, at demographics and the panic demographics are causing, you are not going to understand what’s going on here. This entire thing has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare, health care or policy generally. Nothing at all.
<I missed just exactly what the GOP is willing to give up in return.
Steve, our conversation is beginning to loop. However, I’ll brief it up for you.
The R’s hold the purse and don’t feel it’s in the public’s best interest to fund Obamacare. They capitulated, though, after their first round of proposals, withdrawing the defunding angle, inserting those other options in exchange for the GOP to pass the CR, avoiding a government shut down. The fact the prez and his Senate wouldn’t even consider these options seems to be placing the onus more on the dems for this morning’s partial shut down. Plus, the Senate continues to refuse engaging in further negotiations, punctuated by closing up shop early, with nonchalant plans to meet mid morning the next day. Does this sound like a governing body anxious and eager for resolution? Or, does this sound like a governing body snidely stringing along House members, rendering no cooperation, just maximum humiliation on not only the republican membership but the entire Congressional legislative process, making it into a joke?
What is your problem anyway, Steve, with delaying the individual mandate when Obama, all on his own, delayed it for big business, as well as excluded Congress from Obamacare mandates? If it’s that great why not have everyone go on the exchanges? If it has glitches, or something else causing people to beg for waivers, why penalize and force the rest of us to to go on this plan? As for the medical devices, it will just add more job outsourcing resulting in more job losses. Is that your answer to growing the economy — sacrificing jobs for higher taxes?
You just don’t get it. A significant percentage of Republicans questioned and continues to question the very citizenship of this president.
Michael,
….and, you continue to ruminate and cluck about the smallest tidbits of slime you can pick up from fringe innuendos, rumor, which are then enlarged and set aflame by your incredible disdain for politics on the other side of the fence from you. You kind of remind me of a leftist Rush Limbaugh, which is not a compliment.
It is well known and documented by people like Woodward that Obama does not mix well with Congress, and that includes both sides of the aisle. His words of working together are symbolic, not actionable. Even most of Obamacare was fashioned and guided through by Pelosi, with Obama coming in at the end to flap his wings and create more of a stir, as well as bribe his own people to vote for it. It was a disgusting way to put such a crucial entitlement program together, and it continues to taint the political atmosphere with it’s rank aftertaste.
jan- The R’s hold half the purse. The D’s hold the Senate. If they dont like Obamacare they can win an election and repeal it. If they wan tot negotiate, then they need to offer something in return. We are not talking in a loop, you are carefully avoiding finding anything that can be offered for a change in the law. You are making a unilateral demand. Try again. Tell me exactly what you are willing to concede in return. Higher taxes on the wealthy? Cuts in defense spending? What do you think the Congressional Republicans are willing to concede? I have not sen them willing to concede anything. (The law already exists. If you passed a clean CR, it would continue to exist. Also, as I pointed out, Congress getting insurance from the exchanges is pure political BS. No one who reads health policy takes it seriously.)
Steve
Steve:
In point of fact the Tea Party caucus opposes any and all negotiation of any type, period. And they run the party now, which is why it is so laughable to talk about getting together with the House leadership. There is no House leadership. Senator Ted Cruz runs the House, as absolutely everyone who knows anything about politics understands and as a growing number of Republicans admits.
Jan:
Put up or shut up. I asked Drew this a few days ago to complete silence on his part: What’s your alternative to Obamacare? What’s your negotiating posture? What’s the path forward if your fantasy comes true and Obamacare disappears? Like Steve said, what would you give up and in exchange for what? And by the way, vague blather about market forces or state’s rights doesn’t qualify as a plan.
The truth is the GOP had forever to do something and they did nothing but lose a war and sit around with their thumbs up their asses while the economy crashed.
Then the black dude gets in and passes Mitt Romney’s health care plan and you all threaten to destroy the economy unless it is repealed in its totality. And your rationale is duh. . . it was okay for Massachusetts, but if it was in other states that would be communism.
I was on a plane and happened to watch the movie 42. Some of you would do well to take a look at it. Branch Rickey at one point lays it out for Jackie Robinson, explaining that the haters will do anything to get to him, and if he fights back, no matter how insane the provocation, the story will be that Robinson couldn’t take it, that he lost his cool, that blacks don’t belong in baseball.
There’s a horrible and true scene of the Phillies manager yelling “Nigger, nigger,” over and over and over again while signaling his pitcher to hit Robinson in the head with a pitch. And you, Jan, sitting there blathering about Obama not getting along with the Klansmen in your party is exactly what Rickey was talking about. It’ll always be Obama’s fault, and never the fault of Congressmen who pandered to birtherism, who, like Newt Gingrich just this week, ask why Obama doesn’t behave, “like an American president.” But of course it’s not the fault of your race-baiting party.
Yes, Michael, people who disagree with you are all racists; it must make you feel quite good about yourself, living in your lily white enclave, bragging about how your books are not read in states with high percentage of african-americans. And it will all be better if we all watched a Jackie Robinson bio-pic. Pat yourself on the back.
Whew! So you mean we have to cut from other areas to have a genuine compromise agreement, Steve. OK, how about food stamps? Let’s look into disability payments. Or, medicare fraud?
Military? Sure if you can find abuses there. But hasn’t that already had severe cuts because of sequestration.? What about that pen Obama said he was going to use to cross out over -spending in government. Empty government buildings – sell them! Coburn has highlighted billions in needless expenditures – why not give him some sway in dealing with the problems he has discovered?
But, in the meantime why not put everyone on the same playing field by not forcing some into the exchanges while giving others a break. Isn’t this the rationale Reid is using on passing the CR – “Don’t just fund pieces of the government. Fund them all, or we are going to continue the government shut down and not even talk to you!”.. says Harry Reid. What a bunch of hypocrites the dems are – sort of do as I say, but not as I do flock!
BTW, Dave, why do you think republicans are “worse” in this CR confrontation?
I’ve already answered that. As both a matter of politics and policy, insistence on repealing or delaying the PPACA is wrong. However, as I note in the body of the post I see lots of blame to spread around and I think that typical voters will see it much the same way.
Wow Michael, you’ve done something new. PD is probably the most reasonable person on the internet next to Dave Schuler, yet you managed to find the right buttons to push.
PD:
I’m so sick of that “race card” nonsense. It’s the moral equivalent of holocaust denial. You want to pretend race isn’t an issue? Tell me something: when did all the racists disappear? Is there a specific date I can check? Because I must have missed it.
Oh, wait, do you want to admit racists still exist? If so, then is it wrong to call them out? If they exist, do you think they vote? Do you think maybe some of their reps share their views? Do you think they maybe tend to gravitate to the GOP? Do you think it’s coincidence that the Tea Party dead-enders are in white, southern, rural districts? Did that just so happen by accident?
And what does my “lily white” lifestyle say about the existence and influence of racists? What’s the point there exactly? Does that somehow prove race isn’t an issue?
Now, I understand you don’t like talking about race because you prefer to talk law. And I understand Dave doesn’t like to talk race because he likes to talk policy. But your personal preferences don’t change reality.
How many hits do you think I get on Google when I type in “I hate niggers” and “white power” both in quotes? Half a million. Now that’s just posts and pages from the folks who are unabashed, open, blatant racists. So I guess those guys didn’t totally disappear. And I suspect that the number who aren’t that overt is substantially larger. Do you think I’m wrong? Do you think none of them vote? Do you think none of them are reps in Congress? Zero? Not even one?
Right. So here’s what we know: race remains an issue. Racism is real. Racists exist. They vote. So race is a factor in American politics. Yes? Can you bring yourself to admit that much at least? And yet it’s never brought up by Dave or you. It’s brought up by me and you all get terribly uncomfortable when I do that. Why?
Stop hiding behind that “race card” dodge and look at the reality that is all around you. Yes, it’s outside your comfort zone, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Andy:
It’s not hard to upset white people when you bring up race. People don’t like admitting they are part of a privileged class. People who enjoy law and policy and numbers are not comfortable being forced to confront raw, unreasoning hatred.
PD and Dave both construct worlds of reason – sadly that’s not the actual world. I really wish it was, but the real world is passion, fear, rage, greed, jealousy, lust. Reason is a veneer. And reason does not somehow triumph just because we ignore ugly reality.
“As both a matter of politics and policy, insistence on repealing or delaying the PPACA is wrong.”
Dave,
According to a government web site “The U.S. House of Representatives makes and passes federal laws.” Among Representative’s duties are:
After futile attempts to initially appeal the PPACA, weren’t the House republicans doing the job they were tasked to do — independently offer amendments to legislation that their constituencies wanted either gone or changed? As a matter of fact, as I pointed out several times before, President Obama changed his own legislation, many times over, after Congress originally passed it on Christmas of ’09, and even following it’s foray in the Supreme Court? So, even though the PPACA had already been unilaterally constructed/passed and then unilaterally modified by the democrats, it’s now become wrong, in your opinion, to subject this controversial bill to further modification by the republicans, when dealing with budgetary matters including raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks?
Wow, so much for an opposing chamber of Congress having any checks and balances kind of authority, with what I guess has become a sacred cow bill by some — susceptible to ‘good’ alterations only when they’re from the party that created the bill! Otherwise, they’re bad, ‘wrong’ and rejected. That’s the kind of one-sided power I thought the framers hoped to circumvent by how they worded the Constitution. Oh well…..
jan:
That’s a different subject. All that you’ve pointed out is that the House has the power to act as they have not that it’s prudent or even right for them to do so. It touches on a problem with the argument that the president and Senate Democrats have been making and why I’ve complained about how the PPACA was enacted into law.
Congresses have little power to compel future congresses. When they do so it is via multi-year spending programs, trust funds, and the like. That makes majoritarianism of the sort practiced by the Pelosi-Reid Congress and now being practiced by both houses of the Congress risky.
Thanks for saying it Michael. Race is everywhere in our society, even though Caucasians like to pretend it isn’t.
Michael,
It’s hard to take you seriously when you write crap like this. None of us have ever said, that I can recall, that race was not a factor or that racists disappeared or that there is no racism in the US.
I can’t speak for PD and Dave, but my disagreement with you is that you too frequently waive away opposition to the President as racism or portraying him as the “other,” however you want to term it. Certainly that sentiment exists and I, for one, will vigorously oppose it whenever I see it. But I don’t assume, as you apparently do, that this view of the President is the primary basis for GoP opposition because there are plenty of other proximal reasons to explain GoP opposition. And don’t make bogus assertions that those who disagree with you “pretend” that race isn’t an issue. It’s insulting, arrogant and presumptuous.
If racist sentiment was a primary motivator for the GoP in general or the Tea Party in particular, then how do you explain their love for Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservative African Americans?
@michael reynolds
F*ck you and your racial high f*cking horse. I know your type, and it ain’t pretty. You may not hate black folks, but you damn sure do not want to be around them. Black people to you are a caricature of real black folks.
Your idea of a black man as president is little more than “little black Sambo”. He is not capable of being a man and standing on his own two feet. No, he must have the righteous white liberal to protect him.
To you, black people are nothing more than a club to use against your political opponents. I am a “nice white boy from the suburbs”, but I will discuss race. I will put my racial experiences against anybody’s.
I know your “type”.
@anybody else
I apologise, but this will be long. I will try to mark the various areas. I would urge those who would like a better understanding to read it all. You may also ask a black person to comment.
Racialist
This type of person is a post-racist racialist. He/she may never have had an actual hatred for black people, but there was a dislike of black people. This person has evolved beyond racism, and as an evolved person, this type must preach anti-racism. Their anti-racism does not mean that they are pro-integration for themselves.
Years ago, this type would say, “there are n*ggers, and there are black people.” If pressed, they would agree that there are white people and white trash. When pressed, they would explain that n*ggers were not black trashed, but that there could be black trash. This type had moved beyond hating all black people, but those deemed to be a n*gger could be hated.
If you have now or ever agreed with this idea, it is racist. The n*gger to be hated must have a certain level of tanness to be included. The melanin challenged can never be n*ggers. But, I digress.
This type has little actual interaction with the black people they are protecting. As I have noted before, they will never live on a street with more than three black families. They will never live in a community with more than 15% black population. Their children will never attend a school with more than 15% black students, and amazingly, many of those black students will be athletes.
Their neighborhood may be non-gated, but undesirables will never roam the streets. They will pay “thugs with badges” (police) to do racist work. Somehow, the liberals in NYC do nothing to end the racist “stop and frisk” policy. Amazingly or not, racism that improves a liberal’s life is overlooked.
Much like an ex-smoker, the post-racist racialist will be the loudest voice condemning racism, and they will find it everywhere except their lives.
White Privilege
It is real, but it is also imagined by many. It is not being subject to racism, but it is racialist. Many black people feel threatened or uncomfortable in white majority settings, and they will often defer to the “white way/opinion”.
Few white people have any significant interaction with black folks in a non-white dominated setting. Few white people have worked for a black boss with a black boss. Few white people have worked in a black majority setting. Few white people have lived in a black majority neighborhood.
Most black folks working in a white majority setting do not want to be the “black guy/gal”. They will mostly endorse or not challenge the black caricature of their white colleagues. Since race may be a factor, they do not want to become the target of a racist.
The result is that the black people most white encounter treat them different than if they were black. When a black person stops seeing a white guy/gal, they will be far more open. Most white people never get to this stage of a relationship, and therefore, they assume black people are like their caricature of black folks.
The “black friend” is a pathetic joke. If you and your “black friend” are always in white dominated settings, they are really not your friend. For most white people, the “black guy/gal” is going to tell you the truth. Let them take you to black dominated setting – settings where black folks are not threatened or uncomfortable with white people.
This is not possible with many older black folks. You will be treated as a guest the first time you go to their house, and you will still be treated the same after many, many visits. Getting them to stop is delicate. Nobody wants to acknowledge they are being obsequious.
Most of the white people droning on about “white privilege” are the beneficiaries of it, but they have no idea of what the actual benefits are. They are not racists, but they are not inclined to have their worldview changed. Thus, there is little or no actual interaction with black folks in non-white dominated settings.
Racism and Racists
The overt racist is a far more intellectually honest than the racialist. You know where he stands. If possible, he/she will have as little interaction with black folks as the post-racist racialist, but they are open about it.
Black folks can be racist, but many are ignorant bigots. Having little experience with white folks in non-white settings distorts their view of white folks. In a white dominated setting, a black racist has little or no power, but it is different in a black dominated setting.
In both black and white dominated working class settings, there is a lot of hazing, and it is usually class based. This hazing may or may not be racist when directed against a black person, but it will definitely be considered racist by anybody without working class experience.
(This is similar to male-female interaction, and when a female is president, sexism will become the rallying cry.)
Ignorant Bigots
There are a lot of racists, but many people who seem to be a racist are really bigots through ignorance. It can be hard to tell because they say the same things. Upon being informed, the ignorant will change, but the racist will not. Unfortunately, changing habits can be difficult, and progress can be slow. Calling out the racism can be helpful, but calling them a racist is not.
One ignorant bigot calling another ignorant bigot may seem like a comedy skit, but this is mostly what is occurring today. It is nothing more than moral masturbation. It is unproductive, but it makes the person feel good.
Productive Suggestions
Voter ID laws are to either stop voter fraud or to suppress voter participation. One solution is to mail voters a chit to vote. This can be used in place of an ID. If the person has neither, they can get a provisional ballot. Absentee ballots are mailed, and this would be no less secure.
If powder cocaine gets less time than crack cocaine, eliminate the distinction. Many of these issues can be solved with reasonable solutions, but reasonable solutions do not increase political contributions.
Finally
To all the @michael reynolds types, f*ck you. I notice that Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are never afforded any protection from white racism. Why, because they will tell you to go f*ck yourself. Actually, they would not be that crude, but I doubt any of you would know it.
Michael’s tendency to throw in racism probably has something to do with the milieu of people he associates with and the stuff he reads. For instance there was Joan Walsh’s piece in Salon.com: The Real Story of the Shutdown: 50 Years of GOP Race Baiting, posted yesterday. It’s the red meat for social progressive liberals justifying their bitterness towards any criticism generated by “white” people towards this bi-racial president’s policy stances.
Unfortunately, it’s these kind of misplaced sentiments, constantly drudged up and exploited, that will only contribute to elongating whatever racial divide remains. In the meantime, those non-whites, not caught up in and dragged down by such erroneous racial tirades, will develop and prosper on their own accord and by their own merit. Dr. Ben Carson comes to mind, and what an inspiration he is by reminding people that once you lift the scalp flap we’re all equal and the same inside.
Tasty:
Don’t try to be me and read into things. You’re not good at it. You think I’m a rich kid with a token “black friend?”
I am white trash. My mother was married in Mexico at age 14 and had me at age 16. I’ve never met my biological father.
I was raised on Army bases and in trailer parks and most often in the south. My mother volunteered in segregated schools and when she brought black students home to be tutored we were threatened by the Klan who left us a lovely little makeshift cross with the helpful advice about n*ggers.
I attended public schools. And after dropping out at age 16 I went to work at Toys R Us as a stock clerk. About half the staff was black, and we were all sure as hell poor. From there it was many years in restaurants. Ask Dave whether restaurant life is lily white, or just peek into the back of any restaurant you care to look into.
I also managed run-down flop-house hotels and beach properties. I worked in a bowling alley. I also worked in a liberal law firm as a glorified go-fer in DC and lived in DC. For a while I was a janitor at the late, lamented Garfinckel’s department store in the DC area where my main duty was scraping gum off the floor. And for two years I scraped shit off rich people’s toilets on Cape Cod. You know how old I was then? 34.
And you have me pegged as some limousine liberal? You think I just magically appeared one day with a fat bank account in Tiburon? I came from nowhere and nothing. I took a GED and a criminal record and abandonment and molestation and poverty and turned it into a thousand dollars a page. You know where I was living a month before I met my wife in a roach-infested apartment in Austin? Under a freeway overpass on I35.
I’ve slept under bridges and behind bushes and washed in the sinks at bus stations. I’ve walked miles barefoot looking for jobs because the second hand shoes I had were too painful to wear. I’ve lived in places that reeked of piss and vomit. I had to beg one restaurant to buy me a shirt so I could take a job bussing tables. I drove rusted-out Dodges and hitchhiked and I don’t mean when I was 19, I mean when I was in my late 20’s and early 30’s.
I was 35 when I sold my first book for five grand and a couple months later I was right back waiting tables. My back is still messed up from humping trays on twelve hour double shifts.
Now at age 59 do I live a great life, sitting here on my deck looking out over the San Francisco Bay? Yes, I do. I paid my dues. I have worked full time since I was 16, but it was 23 years of out-working, out-hustling everyone before my wife and I got our first new car. I was 39 in case the math is too tough for you. And IIRC correctly I was 42 before we bought a house.
And by the way, I still out-work everyone. I wrote 4 books totaling just under 1500 pages in the last 18 months, while raising two kids and despite being out on the road for a good two months of that. You know how many vacations I’ve taken? Three. That’s in my entire life. Three, totaling less than 30 days in 43 years of work.
Which would make you, um, let’s see, completely wrong.
Tasty:
Oh, and Tasty? Here’s a song, just for you, from my favorite band:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9wNIOPa84
Oh, and this is for you, Jan. Not a song, sadly, just a web site.
http://republicansareracists.com/
You’ll especially enjoy the photo posted by a Republican chairwoman showing the plot to kidnap Obama. It’s a watermelon under a box. Hah hah hah! Not racist at all. Just good clean Republican fun.
Or there’s this one: http://republicansareracists.com/2012/11/13/gop-meltdown-2012-mapping-racist-tweets-from-the-2012-election/
Maybe you could explain to the woman who tweeted “Everybody get out and vote so we can get this nigger out of office” that race is no longer an issue. And there are many, many, many more just like it.
Okay, now that is funny. I linked to a page full of Republican, er, sentiment, on race and it was caught by Dave’s filter. Apparently his filter thinks Republicans are problematic. But hey, even without the link you can enjoy such post-racial sentiments as this tweet:
“Can’t wait for @MittRomney to win elections and kick that filthy n*gger Obama and his family out of the white house.”
Except they didn’t use the asterisk. Much, much more at the link when it’s cleared.
@michael reynolds
This is about your racial attitude and your caricature of black people, and since you live in CA, I suspect the brown folks are the same. This is not about your financial situation now or in the past, but your financial situation allows you to segregate yourself from the minorities you care so much about.
As to the burning cross, I am going to need something more before I buy it. Depending upon where you live and the income level, racists can have varying degrees of affect, and I do believe that they made your life hell.
As to restaurants, I am well aware of how they operate. Being a dishpig is not only a job for the black guy, but apparently, it demeans the “white race” for a white guy to wash dishes. Most of the people I know have worked for one or more restaurants, and most of them saw black folks as a caricature. They did not hate black folks, but they did not want to be around large numbers of them.
Everytime I call you out on racial issues, you try to insulate yourself with the poverty angle. It will not work with me. Most of your political opponents have as little knowledge of black folks as you do, and they cannot call you out for it.
I do not give a sh*t how loud and long you rant about racists. You do nothing to improve the racial situation, and more importantly, an improved racial situation is bad for your political positions. With friends like you, the racists are not the biggest enemy of black folks.
The worst part about doing a take-down on you is that it gives ammunition to those who are racially insensitive or worse. Instead of considering what I have written, they will use it as sh*t to fling back at you. This does nothing to help the racial situation in the country, and it makes me as bad as you.
At least with the KKK, they wear their sheets, and they are easily identified. They want as few black folks around them as possible, and they do not have a problem saying it. Others live a segregated life while calling everybody else a racist.
Maybe one day you will put your politics aside and do something to make this a better country racially, but until that day, you can go f*ck yourself.
@jan
These people use racism for political gain. They never do anything to make the situation any better, and they benefit from it getting no better. They are worthless pieces of sh*t. I have been counseled about going off on people. Think the worst you can, and then, multiply it by ten.
There is a lot of actual racist, but there is a lot more racially insensitivity bigotry. A while back, there was a black boy going door-to-door selling candy. There are not many black families in my neighborhood, and he was probably from somewhere else.
I heard comments about him “casing the houses”. I suggested that he was probably from a poorer neighborhood, and he was likely to get more sales here. A lot of times the people will buy a raffle ticket or a candy bar.
I once lived in a neighborhood like his, and once the kids figured out I have a sweet tooth, they would come around all the time. The ones with raffle tickets never bothered me.
It is because of this experience that I know what the boy was doing, and by passing it along, I may have caused the person to think a little differently. I am fairly certain that calling them a racist was not going to make them think differently.
On the other hand, I have older relatives who are racist, and they are not going to change. I have had friends that were racists, but they did not think they were racists. If you have little experience with actual black folks, David Duke can make sense. If you can get them to see weaknesses in the argument, you have a chance to make a difference.
Some of them you can change, but you must move on from others. I have taken radical steps with some. It shook them up, but it only got them to shut up somewhat. I have not seen them for several decades. You can un-choose your friends, but you cannot un-choose your family.
I think that the way homosexuals have become accepted provides hope, but while homosexuals had it bad, they had nothing like Jim Crow.
Dave Schuler: Refusing to meet with Congressional Republican leaders for the first six months of his presidency was poisoning the well.
michael reynolds: You made a statement, I refuted it. You were factually wrong.
Yes, you did. Yes, he was.
No end in sight to government shutdown after ‘unproductive’ White House meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/politics/government-shutdown/
michael reynolds: It’ll always be Obama’s fault, and never the fault of Congressmen who pandered to birtherism, who, like Newt Gingrich just this week, ask why Obama doesn’t behave, “like an American president.â€
The transposition has been a long-time coming.
Lee Atwater (Reagan strategist): “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. “
Andy: then how do you explain their love for Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservative African Americans?
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/stevenandalangc3.jpg
When was the president’s first one-on-one meeting with Mitch McConnell? His first one-on-one meeting with John Boehner? How often has he had such meetings since his first meeting?
Lyndon Johnson met daily with Ev Dirksen. Ronald Reagan met regularly and frequently with Tip O’Neill.
I mis-stated the point I was making. I didn’t mean photo ops and meetings of the whole Congress. I meant one-on-one meetings. I meant cultivating relationships, an essential part of politics, something that even the NYT has noticed has been a failing in the Obama Administration.
If you want to refute me, demonstrate the extraordinary efforts that the president has made to cultivate relationships with Congressional Republican leaders, only to be rebuffed. I don’t think you can because there haven’t been any. Until you do you’re not refuting me. You’re just being obtuse.
Dave Schuler: I mis-stated the point I was making.
The correction is appreciated.
It’s reasonable to say that Obama hasn’t cultivated relationships as well as he should have on Capitol Hill, but ultimately, you can’t run a country based on whether Obama and Boehner enjoy having tea. IN any case, the rise of the Tea Party rebellion doesn’t have anything to do with Obama’s lack of glad-handing. It’s a Frankenstein of the Republicans’ doings, and the Republican leadership is caught in the trap.
Under the Hastert Rule, 27% of the Congress can stall all legislation, including routine budget extensions, and even the perfunctory rise in the debt limit. That’s why Senate filibusters don’t apply to budgetary matters. It’s very destructive to give a small minority the ability to hold the government hostage; and of all things, over a health insurance law. It’s not as if Canada, which has single-payer, is North Korea.
Of course, the Hastert Rule is not actually a rule.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/10/03/2724581/hastert-rule-non-entity/
It’s not just “having tea”. It’s cultivating a relationship.
Republicans don’t hate Obama simply because he’s black. They don’t hate him simply because he’s a Democrat. They don’t hate him simply for ideological reasons. And they don’t hate him simply because he detests them and has given them no reason to like him.
He can’t do much about being black or a Democrat or having ideological differences with Republicans. Why not do something about the things he can do something about?
That is what politicians who want to accomplish something do. The kind of power politics that the president and the Senate Democrats are trying to engage in only works when you have overwhelming power, not a narrow majority. Michael touts his understanding of politics but, Michael, if you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything about politics. Politics is personal.
Mitt Romney didn’t lose the election simply for ideological reasons or party loyalty. He lost because voters didn’t like him as well as they liked Obama. In the United States the more likeable candidate nearly always wins.
Tasty:
So you got nothing right, but you can’t bring yourself to admit it. Of course.
@Dave Schuler
Mitt Romney didn’t lose the election simply for ideological reasons or party loyalty. …
Logically, the Republican argument is that enough of the Obama voters would have vote for a more conservative candidate, or there were enough non-voters who would have expended the time and energy to vote for a more conservative candidate. A third possibility would be a combination of the two.
I doubt that there are very many anti-Obama supporters who refused to vote because they would prefer the ultra-liberal Obama over the non-ultra-conservative Romney.
… They don’t hate him simply because he’s a Democrat. …
Compared to the anti-Clinton Republicans, the anti-Obama Republicans are reasonable. It was insinuated that President Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s suicide. His suicide was also deemed a murder, and there was a cover-up with Clinton involvement. Several lawsuits were brought against President Clinton for really old complaints, and he was investigated for really old incidents. He was eventually impeached over a blowjob.
To me, being called a murderer is worse than being called a non-US citizen or a Muslim.
@michael reynolds
I have demonstrated many, many times that your attitude and lifestyle make you more like the racists you claim to abhor, and I have also demonstrated many, many times that your view of black folks is a caricature.
The reason for this caricature is your lack of knowledge of black folks, and this lack of knowledge is based upon a refusal to interact with black folks in a non-white dominated setting.
You bring up “white privilege” as a basis for racism, but “white privilege”is what allows you to maintain your caricature of black folks. It would be amusing if it were not so pathetic. You do more to damage the cause that you claim is so important.
I have no doubt that you will continue to live in your fantasy world, but you really should confine your fiction to paper.
It should be noted that all this concern about race is always in connection with politics. Always.
There are a lot of incidents of racism that are never discussed because they do not advance a political agenda. The horror occurring in the poor black areas is never discussed because it does not advance a political agenda.
In New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina was used as an opportunity to rid the city of undesirables, and this was undertaken by black & white elites both Democrats & Republicans. The undesirables happened to be poor and black, but nobody was there for them. That is f*cking racist, but not one g*ddamn liberal had anything to say about it. This same crap occurs all over this country.
And before all my conservative friends start agreeing, your party needs to get its ass out of the lily white areas and campaign in the darker and/or poorer areas. You represent all the people in your district. The people in these areas do not like you because they do not know you. They may never vote for you, but they do not deserve to be disrespected.
Mitt Romney didn’t lose the election simply for ideological reasons or party loyalty. He lost because voters didn’t like him as well as they liked Obama. In the United States the more likeable candidate nearly always wins.
So true…charisma is that x-factor putting winds in a candidate’s sails, enabling them to override other obvious character or mismanagement deficits.
Other than that Dave, I want to acknowledge how you’ve been very apolitical in many of your comments. You and I obviously have different POVs politically. However, your thinking doesn’t seem overly burdened by an ultra partisan hang-over, creating the excess animosity that sometimes saturates other’s posts.
That’s a rarity these days.
Dave Schuler: It’s not just “having teaâ€. It’s cultivating a relationship.
It’s hard to form a relationship with people who think you’re an undercover Muslim usurper. The rise of the Tea Party rebellion is way beyond Obama’s supposed lack of glad-handing.
You think that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell believe that the president is a crypto-Muslim? That’s certainly not my reading of the evidence. I think they, as they’ve said, “take him at his word” but they’re not willing to stand up to their own constituents on behalf of somebody they disagree with, distrust, and don’t like. That’s certainly not a profile in courage but I think it supports the point I’ve been making.
“It’s hard to form a relationship with people who think you’re an undercover Muslim usurper. The rise of the Tea Party rebellion is way beyond Obama’s supposed lack of glad-handing.”
People like Zachriel keep bringing up the over-laundered connection between Obama and Muslims. It’s usage is then often attached to self-righteous indignation aimed at the tea party — people who seem to be the convenient catch basin for social progressive hatred. However, the teas focus is not on Obama’s heritage, but rather his ideological policies and practices. Consequently, their ‘rebellion’ is centered on the government overreach these policies have produced and implemented.. And, when you see the IRS’s abuse in stalling their exemption status, during the 2012 general election, there is far more substantial evidence of discriminatory actions towards them and their ideology than aimed at Obama..
Furthermore, I don’t hear or see mainstream people even discussing Obama’s Muslim background — teas, people on the right, in the middle — only those who continually regurgitate it to form an antidotal dam deflecting criticisms and serious objections people may have with the democratic party and/or Obama himself, in questioning his leadership capabilities. In other words, this Muslim meme has become an exploited phrase, a non-starter for most reasonable people, but, nevertheless, comes out of the blue in conversations such as this one — much like the “racial” hot button does — serving more as distracting red herrings than as constructive pieces ordered up to understand, much less solve problems.
Dave Schuler: You think that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell believe that the president is a crypto-Muslim?
No, they merely pander to those who do. Nor is Boehner the driving force of the tea party rebellion. He just helped enable it.
jan: People like Zachriel keep bringing up the over-laundered connection between Obama and Muslims.
It’s shorthand for xenophobia among the right. Socialist, Kenyan, non-flagpin-wearing, radical, black nationalist, community organizer, Hussein Soetoro.
Lee Atwater (Reagan strategist): “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. “
jan: Consequently, their ‘rebellion’ is centered on the government overreach these policies have produced and implemented..
The PPACA is a market-based solution, first proposed by conservatives, first implemented by Republicans. It’s a lukewarm reform that uses private insurers, along with subsidies. No, there’s something else about Obama.
“Bye, Bye, Blackbird”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/method-to-racist-madness-_b_3749451.html
Socialist, Kenyan, non-flagpin-wearing, radical, black nationalist, community organizer, Hussein Soetoro.
This was mainly rhetoric sporadically picked up and exploited by liberals during the 2008 presidential election. McCain, who was running as the R nominee, publicly rejected this spattering of aspersions. As for today, 2013, I have seen no ranking republican politician or high profile conservative columnist/pundit using these smears. And, no I don’t include the rag-tag individual holding up an inflammatory sign to catch media attention, which they always do. Nor, the talk radio hosts, as it is their job to be as incendiary as possible for ratings. The same goes for people on MSNBC, who are their liberal counterparts, as are some of the discontents in the OWS movement .
When you bring in Lee Atwater etc., again this is 2013, I’m not going retrograde to address an argument denoting historical behavior, that today may be found only in a few nescient individuals, but generally is ostracized and becoming negligible in the PC-sensitive society that is dominating today’s politics. It’s obvious that Obama never would have been the nominee over Hillary, nor elected POTUS in the general, if the practice and/or embrace of racism was a pervasive American quality.
“The PPACA is a market-based solution, first proposed by conservatives, first implemented by Republicans. It’s a lukewarm reform that uses private insurers, along with subsidies. No, there’s something else about Obama. “
Historically you are right that in 1989 the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, originated the ideas surrounding affordable health care for all and the insurance mandate. However, they heavily revised it, 4 years later. People like Grassley and Orin Hatch then tried to reinvigorate the concept, but failed, as did Hillary Clinton, by her proposal of Hillarycare, which also failed. Mitt Romney, as we all know (infinitum), took relevant pages out of these HC ideas, and with overwhelming initial bipartisan consultant input and later legislative approval, something not applicable to the current PPACA, passed the HC plan in place today. It was, however, also a well-focused HC bill, less than 200 pages versus the all-over-the-map, unreadable 2700 page bill generated and unilaterally approved in the Obama Administration. Even this one-sided, ill-written legislative happenstance occurred by bribery —giving earmarks and kickbacks as incentives to secure enough votes. Consequently, all of these back room side-bars and chaotic details birthing the PPACA are very much in the mix, when analyzing it’s continuing unpopularity with the people — also giving cause as to why it’s so intrinsic to the current heat-of-the-moment budget discussions. In other words, it’s not because of Obama’s color, as you keep trying to pin the ribbon of reason onto, but because of seeing how the legislative sausage was created — not appealing at all.
jan: This was mainly rhetoric sporadically picked up and exploited by liberals during the 2008 presidential election.
No, it’s prevalent in the right. For instance,
“more than half of GOP primary voters believe President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, according to a new poll.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49554.html
Of course, leaders of the GOP don’t propagate birtherism. They just fed on it, and let it fester, so that now, frankly, it embarrasses them. This xenophobia takes many forms, such as the lack of flagpin flap nonsense.
jan: It’s obvious that Obama never would have been the nominee over Hillary, nor elected POTUS in the general, if the practice and/or embrace of racism was a pervasive American quality.
Um, no, it’s not obvious. We’re talking about it being prevalent in a prominent political movement on the right. Most don’t think they’re racists. We’ll give you that. They just don’t like how Commissar Hussein is subverting the American way of life.
jan: In other words, it’s not because of Obama’s color, as you keep trying to pin the ribbon of reason onto, but because of seeing how the legislative sausage was created — not appealing at all.
Gee whiz. All legislation is sausage made of pork. The rage is clearly because of something else. They’ve shut down the government, and they’re threatening to send the U.S. into default. They jeopardize the global economy in order to undermine the Obama Administration. It’s not about a milquetoast health insurance reform originally proposed by Republicans and implemented by their standard bearer. They were also enraged by the flagpin nonsense.
For those who put the accent on racism, what they primarily see is that a) Obama is black; b) there is hostility and blow-back towards him; c) hence, such negativity is due to his color. It’s a circular kind of rationale, and is difficult, if not impossible, to break. Because if, you dropped the racial component, what would be left are the real reasons people are disturbed by and with Obama — his policies, incompetence, shallow leadership etc.
Furthermore, Obama, himself has led people on — those who were predisposed to believing the ‘birther’ meme — by being vague, resisting calls, time and time again, to produce asked-for documents that would satisfy most who had citizenship qualms. It wasn’t until 2011 did the long form of his birth certificate finally materialize, acquiescing most demands for any further proof. So, what was his point to have such a distracting myth continue to circulate out there, when he could have easily, and with little fanfare, put it to rest at the onset of this birthplace issue? Others have faced similar inquiries into their past, and they chose to be candid and straight forward immediately, about any/all doubts posed, regarding their birthplaces/birth rights. Rubio has had to respond to ‘natural citizen’ questions, as did McCain. Recently, even Cruz was called out on having a dual citizenship, something he promptly responded to by saying he would give up his Canadian citizenship, augmenting his sincerity by showing a copy of his actual birth certificate. Why should Obama be treated differently, then these other high-profile political figures?
Then there is that puzzling piece, incorporated in an early biography written after Obama’s stint of being the first AA president of the Harvard Law Review, and directly feeding into the birther claims. The book marketed Obama as being “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” These biographical details stood the test of time, going uncorrected by Obama himself for 16 years! Not until 2007, just before running for president, was this “publisher’s error” revised. Again, why did this occur in the first place? Why did it not catch Obama’s eye immediately and be rectified, unless it served an underlying purpose of adding more mystique to Obama’s background, and thus a better marketing tool for the book? It’s similar to the literary inventiveness of another Obama book, in which he deliberately took the liberty of creating ‘composite girlfriends,’ because, perhaps, adding fictional surrounds to his life made it more compelling than keeping details factual.
Consequently, it’s not a stretch to come to conclusions that much of the controversy flourishing around Obama has been of his own making — literally! Initially, I think the revolving intrigue of a conflicting and undefined past, cultivated in his public persona, served him well by drawing people into the uniqueness of his artificially-flavored life story. Throw in attractive ethnicity, along with charisma, and you have a great human package the public will warm to and love. But, absent the qualities of engaged domestic/international leadership skills or a policy agenda revitalizing economic growth, this package will eventually fray, exposing deeper, genuine faults and weaknesses. And, it’s simply unfair to then automatically default to the race card, as criticism mounts and/or people begin to fall away from a president who happens to be of another race.
“….They were also enraged by the flagpin nonsense.”
Zachriel,
Wake up and smell the coffee, rather than conspiratorial racism!
Here are some of the people having a huge influence in Obama’s life: his mother — very anti-west, divorcing her 2nd husband because of having too many western ties in his business associations; Frank Marshall Davis — a father figure and mentor to Obama, also a well-know Communist Party propagandist writer in Chicago and Hawaii; Bill Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn of Weatherman infamy, who befriended Obama, recommending him to head an Annenberg educational program, which, BTW, showed no improvement under his leadership and direction.
Wouldn’t the aspect of a candidate being marinated in far left doctrines, continuing associations with former terrorist types, raise some red flags about the absence of a flag pin, symbolizing perhaps a lack of love/respect for one’s country? I don’t think that could be categorized as pure “nonsense” — more like trepidation. And, wouldn’t the same type of criticism be leveled at another political candidate, having multiple KKK people influencing their childhood and beyond, along with a skin-head mentor and so on?
Essentially, if you have radical roots, be it on the left or right, you will undergo intense scrutiny — and, again it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with radicalism.
jan: Furthermore, Obama, himself has led people on — those who were predisposed to believing the ‘birther’ meme — by being vague, resisting calls, time and time again, to produce asked-for documents that would satisfy most who had citizenship qualms.
Oh gee whiz.
jan: Here are some of the people having a huge influence in Obama’s life: his mother
As we said, xenophobia. Obama led a life that many people don’t share (but many do!). His life is more akin to recent immigrants.
jan: again it has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with radicalism.
As we said, it’s a transposition from race to stand-ins.
Politics deals in symbols. But sometimes the symbols overcome their intended meanings, and become idols in themselves. When this is mixed with race or xenophobia, the result can be ugly.
You said the rhetoric was old, as in so-2008. We showed that Republican primary voters still cling to birtherism, against all reason, even going so far as to defend it. You said Obamacare was sausage made of pork, and we pointed out that all legislation is sausage made of pork. That doesn’t explain the vehemence.