Obama and Baracknophobia

On break in a remote getaway, where I was disconnected from the 24 x 7 grid, it was easy to imagine that the passions triggered by health care would have eased, making way for serious debate about a serious public policy question. Silly me.

After catching up on a week's worth of emails, YouTube videos and recorded cable programming, this much is clear: If anything, the name-calling has increased in ferocity. Maybe you remember things differently but I can't recall this kind of lip-quivering rage during the 1993-1994 attempts to reform health care. (Check out this synposis by Derek Bok of Harvard University explaining how Bill Clinton blew it. Also, credit the Clinton administration's opponents for doing a better job of making their case to a confused public though Bok notes that a University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications study found that "59 percent of all the television ads were misleading.")

Had President Clinton demonstrated better leadership, might his push for health care reform proved successful? Impossible to answer conclusively but the history lesson is there. All the more surprising, then, that President Obama, who obviously studied the record of his predecessor, didn't come out swinging very hard until now. The real fire came from conservative journals, such as the National Review and the Weekly Standard which offered up pungent and compelling arguments - subsquently picked up by conservative cable television hosts and the blogosphere - opposing `Obamacare' as a bad idea.

So it is that with polls suggesting slipping support, the president is finally using his bully pulpit to counter critics. (Here's the text of President Obama's Town Hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. on Saturday.) And Sunday, writing in Sunday's New York Times, the president gives it another shot, urging Americans to "make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another." In addition to the standard stump speech, which you would expect, the president also tries to defuse the rage which has attended some of the town hall meetings during Congress's August recess. He writes:

"We are bound to disagree, but let's disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate. Despite what we've seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I've received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care."

Fair enough. There are always going to be honest disagreements between honest men and women about how to best run the country. But the rage is rising and I wonder whether anyone still believes this remains a routine disagreement between left and right. The opposition to the president is more than an amalgam of discontent over budget deficits and bailouts, government spending and the choice of Supreme Court appointees. Almost from the day the Obama administration took office, the refrain has gotten louder and louder, egged on by a fringe pushing rumors that Obama was a Muslim or that Obama was a Kenyan national and thus in violation of the U.S. Constitution. when you step back from the day-to-day, it's clear that health care reform is only the latest reason for Obama's most unyielding critics to vent. With angry demands about wanting back "their America," what is it that they really want to say?

[jummy1]

REPLY TO brianbwb-2009 CONT.


the seiu recdently showed up at the town hall protests against the

president's health care plan and, as a result, came the first instances

of violence at these demonstrations. the most notable of these was when

three seiu thugs punched a protester named kenneth gladney and stomped

him as he laid on the ground. video of the incident is avaiolable on

youtube. the seiu were part of a coordinated effort by the whitehouse.

the timeline demonstrating this is as follows:

"healthcare for americans now" is established the ad hoc organizing

umbrella for the whitehouse "pushback" against the organic protest

movement against it's healthcare plan. it is headquartered on the 1800

block of k street and operates with a $44mil budget.

hcan is comprised of a number of organizations (seiu, afl-cio, acorn, nea

moveon, etc.) but the communications are handled by "organizing for

america". ofa is obama's campaign organ, "obama for america" still in

operation as an ongoing democrat party asset.

on august 5th, ofa announced it's response to the town hall protests. the

first organized response by supporters of the democrat plan:

"...Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this

month... "

on the 6th, the whitehouse held a briefing with congressional democrats

to outline their plan for dealing with the protesters. white house deputy

cheif of staff, jim messina declared: "If you get hit, we will punch back

twice as hard."

also on the 6th, ofa sent out this instruction to it's members: "Our

representatives are under attack ...We need to show that were sick and

tired of it...come to the Town Hall, and make sure that the most

powerful voices in this debate are those calling for real reform"

also that day, the president of the afl/cio, john sweeny, announced the

afl/cio's intention to participate in the hcan coalition's plan to

disrupt dissent at the town hall protests:

"The principal battleground in the campaign will be town hall meetings

and other gatherings with members of Congress in their home districts,"

reads the memo. "We want your help to organize major union participation

..."

august 7th rolls around and every town hall and constituent meeting

scheduled by a democrat is marked by a heavy presence of seiu thugs.

the result is that after two weeks of peaceful protest against the

president's healthcare plan, the first instances of violence occur.

organized and directed by the president's activist organization and

carried out by his union partners.

progressives are prone to violence. even deadly violence. one example

from the bush years was that of andrew mickel, who in 2001 executed a cop

after posting his intentions to do just that in an anti-bush manifesto on

the progressive website, indymedia. more recently, a deranged progressive

named matthew marren chose the fouth of july to make his "statement"

against "bush's war" by shooting a random u.s. airman in the chest on the

front steps of his apartment. he left two notes behind detailing the

political intent of the killing.

so you see, everything you cite for your argument is nonsense, fantasy,

lies and crap. i said that progressives' rage against obama opponents is

abject hipocrist. your counter-argument, as a parting joke, is to try to

substantiate an exception; to say, "but bush really was hitler!" thanks

for making this easy work. you are a foolish person.

[jummy1]

TO brianbwb-2009 August 17, 2009 9:21 PM EDT

"[roughly paraphrased}...but...but...bush really WAS hitler...!"


i realize that this was supposed to be some kind of point-by-point

refutation, but every "fact" you cite is wrong and every subjective claim

you make is so deformed with hate that your rebuttle stands only to

reenforce my argument. you are a case. you demonstrate how deeply sick

with the antipluralistic rage progressives nurtured during the bush years

progressives remain even in victory. even now, seven months after the

"end of the error" one sees memorialized still on the bumpers of

progressives cars. often next to kerry/edwards stickers (snort!).

the "lies" bush took us to war with were clinton's "lies". they were the

"lies" al gore told when, during the 1992 election, he admonished bush41

for not following through on wmd intelligence. they were rep. nancy

pelosi's "lies" in 1998 when she said...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass

destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and

he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

they were the "lies" spoken by sen. john kerry when he said...

"[I] urge you, after consulting with Congress,and consistent with the

U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if

appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond

effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of

mass destruction programs."

in fact, the only real lie about wmd in evidence is the one congressional

progressive democratics told when they claimed that they were "lied" to

by bush, anomolously, more than two years before he even took office.

this problem understanding that time moves in one direction is reflected

in your claim that the protesters who riotted outside of bush's

innauguration ceremony in 2001 did so out of anguish over casualties from

a war which was launched two years later.

there is something to the notion that the same deranged radicals who

fronted that protest were the same who had organized the violent riots in

seattle two years before and who would organize the astroturf "antiwar"

rallies two years later. the fact that effigies of u.s. soldiers are

burned at these events would stand as refutation to the claim that their

rage proceeds from concern for the troops. as a rule, progressives

"support" only dead soldiers, whos corpses they attempt to ventriloquise,

convincing no one in the process. progressives regard living soldiers as
"war criminals".

the portion of the british intel document you speak of as being plagarized from a graduate paper had nothing to do with weapons. rather the paper was limited to the subject of the composition of saddam's internal intelligence apparatus, and not one letter of that paper has been disputed. britain's intelligence claims regarding weapons are a seperate matter and simiarly have never been meaningfully disputed. the forged document relating to semi-processed uranium was not the basis for the claim in the british intelligence document, which british intelligence still stands by. the matter is moot anyway, since the iaea removed tons of undeclared yellowcake uranium from iraq in the wake f the war anyway.

incidentally, the "forged documents" i was referring to are still worth mentioning, since they illustrate another example of progressives' abject derangement during the bush administration. i was referring to the sad and humiliating conclusion to the "bush went awol" crankery. progressives had for years been trying to "prove" that there was something fishy about bush's service in the air national guard in order to fit him into their "chickenhawk" frame (a frame which never mattered for clinton, who committed troops to hostilities on several occasions, yet fled to europe for the duration of the vietnam conflic while bush served in the ang). the final, desperate hail mary pass play on this was delivered by disgraced cbs employee, dan rather. the "proof" he offered were some comically transparent forgeries of official documents. when i say comical, i mean that he tried to pass of something writen in microsoft word 2003 in times new roman font as something that was punched out on a typewriter in the 70's. he and his producer were fired for this effort on behalf of the democrat nominee. the "point" of all of this too was moot, since bush recieved his discharge after the vietnam war had already ended.

[jummy1]

you apparently admit to being a believer in the uncal pipeline conspiracy

(a plan for a gas pipline which was terminally tabled years before 911

and has never been so much as reopened for discussion). i don't know how

much of the rest of the 911 "truther" nonsence you subscribe to, and i

don't care to speculate i lack the patience to go down the rabit hole

with you on matters about missles disguised as commercial jets and the

like. needless to say, your beliefs in this area are not unique amongst

progressives by a long shot. lefty radio network, democracy now, was a

high profile forum for this sort of nonsense and would distribute 911

conspiracy dvds as rewards to contributors, including "painful

deceptions" by noted antisemite, eric huffscmid.

the antiwar movement, the anti-bush left, the 911-conspiracy theorists

and other strains of the progressive movement speak in unison about

"aipac controll" of u.s. foreign policy through the direction of

"neocons". the hard-left organizers of antiwar pageants perrenially

require solidarity with the "palistinian cause" as a prerequisite to

genuine opposition to the iraq and afghanistan wars, but the antisemitic

strain is broader than this. philis chestler writes extensively of the

contemporary progressive movement's antisemitism in her book, "the new

antisemitism". in any case, graphical depictions of "zog" are profligate

at progressive antiwar rallies, such as renderings of the u.s. flag with

the pentagrams replaced with stars of david and such. i presume you're

only being chulish in playing dumb about this very visible phenomenon.

i'll allow your take on black americans to stand and speak for itself.

barney frank may have justifiably argued that the fema response was not

adequately swift and substantial. unfortunately he chose to leap over any

reasonable argument to incite his constituents with reference to a

conspiracy theory about a gop plan to ethnically cleanse the area. this

of course plugs into other leftwing conspiracy theories about cia weather

machines and navy seals planting explosives on the levees. but a

reasonable discussion would have obligated frank and his peers to

question why municipal evacuation plans went uninitiated by new orleans'

progressive mayor and why louisianna's progressive democrat governor hid

under her desk while the whitehouse was calling, waiting until after the

levees had broken to request troops.

you, of course, lied about what barbara bush said. mrs. bush said of the

refugees who had been relocated to texas that she was proud of the

hospitality that texas was showing and that the refugees were possibly

facing better circumstances there than in the ghetto which was destroyed

by the flood. make whatever hash you want to make of that. you can say it

was insensitive, but it couldn't have been as goulish as dnc chairman don

fowler bragging that the hurrican which was predicted to hit nola again

on the day of the republican national convention was proof that "god is

on our side".

the claims made by progressives about death threats slung at the

president during gop campaign events are false. once it was reported that

, at the mention of president obama's associate and domestic terrorist,

william ayers, an audience member shouted "kill 'im!" though progressive

bloggers portrayed this remark as being addressed to president obama, the

reporter himself reported that he percieved the remark to be directed at

ayers, who arguably deserves killing, having killed himself and incited

supporters to kill. others recall hearing the remark as "tell 'em!"

encouraging palin, who was speaking at the event, to continue speaking

the truth of president obama's dispicable associations. secret service

conducted an investigation into the claim of death threats shouted at gop

rallies and turned up nothing. it's another lie progressives tell.

[signseeker1717]

robo, Exactly which freedom do you want "back"? The one "liberals" are "allergic to"? Freedom to do WHAT?

[noloyalisti]

Welocme to Barackistan, whiny, frightened, racist little whities (or I mean righties, same thing).

[Willynailr]

by democracy1 August 16, 2009 10:03 AM EDT
PS-Where is the refund of the 70% of my local property taxes that go toward paying for the education of other people's children? I figure I'm due for at least $48,000 at this point.


Why? You apparently did not attend class and learn anything.

[mejordelahistoria]

These ignorants who hate the government so much, surely drive in the roads our government provides for them as well send their kids to our public schools, state universities..... Surely they also want the government to protect them from terrorists using government troops, as well probably want their government to provide them with services like water, garbage disposal, a police force to protect them, and without a doubt in my mind they probably even expect to be payed a social security check when they retire. If you don't take advantage of these services than you hace the right to rant, because if you don't, than you should go screw yourself you hyppocrite.

[timing20002000]

WE ARE DOOMED AS A COUNTRY. We need health care reform. You think the expense of health care is bad now, wait 10 more years. People will be dying in their streets and homes. How hard is it for both the democrats and republicans to get off the butts and create a bipartisan bill. Stop with all the yelling and screaming. Work together. It is not a point of Pres. Obama winning or losing. It is a case of the American people losing if we don't do something NOW. President Bush should have dealt with this during his last four years. He could of at least paved the way for the next president.

[USSAmerikan]

As an American fighting man who has put his life in the hands of African American, Oriental, Hispanic, Jew and WASP soldiers, I resent the implication that anyone who disagrees with healthcare does it because of racism. I think there is more fear out there because of Barack's (and the first lady's) Socialist tendencies than because of any other reason. You have folks from all walks of life, as evidenced by the rifle-toting African Americans outside townhall meetings, who feel the need to voice their concern that we may be allowing our president to turn us into a Marxist nation, a USSA, if you would.

[mary-miami]

This is not just about keeping the insurance companies in check...This is also about providing thousands of people with the opportunity to have good health...Half the nation is without healthcare at this moment. Thousands have gone for years without a doctor's check up. The republicans are hypocrites when they say they value life, because they don't think about the life of their fellow American who gets sick and has no way of going to the doctor,dentist or optometrist. What is the fuss over the word "socialism"? You already have public schools, public libraries, police and fire departments, social security....Your rights and freedoms were not been taken away from you when these were created, on the contrary, it made this country a better place.

www.marymiami.wordpress.com

[Libertyordeath1]

Charles Cooper--the American people demonstrated a willingness to embrace a black president. They did not vote to elect a dictator or King. There are rules and processes for enacting changes. Why is it racist or personal to disagree with Obama? Because he's black? (Thanks for the Duh moment!) If Gore or Kerry had been elected do you think any of the protesters wouldn't have felt the same way about their liberties being usurped--your wrong! For Conservatives--it is about the ideas--not the identities. Stop projecting on us the way you feel about people from Texas.

Nobody voted on Socialized medicine taking over all healthcare--77% of Americans are happy with what they have. As opposed to needing to change that, why don't you start by focusing on the 23% that aren't happy?

Yes--Obama is/was a Muslim. That doesn't make him a bad guy--his lack of sense of American Exceptionalism does!

[Libertyordeath1]

Did I mention for the first time in my adult life, I am no longer proud to be a citizen of this government?

[MPHgrad]

so whatever religion was imposed upon a child is pinned to that person for life? Are you kidding me? I attended the church my parent attended as a child because as a child I did not have the understanding nor the choice or means to do otherwise. I would surely hope that someone would not say that means for the rest of my life I was a X when clearly the choices I make as an adult mean more. The mere mention of Obama being a Muslim indicates some deep rooted fear, intolerance, or ignorance. There are millions of people who have a problem with his hue. The discord against any other president (LBJ e.g.) was not nearly as vehement for the same proposals. Neither was it as hideous against Truman or Roosevelt. Essentially, people have a problem with an educated man of color who is flexing his muscle. He is deemed haughty or arrogant. Why wasn't the same said of President Bush when he refused to even address the questioning of his executive decisions?