Medium Demonstration, Big Press
Yesterday there was a small-to-medium demonstration on the Mall, not nearly as big as the anti-war demonstrations of the Bush era but 60-70,000 people, that's pretty big, especially for a conservative issue. The Washington Post chose to feature the demonstration at the top of page A1. A quote in a box at the top of the page: "Nobody's standing up for us, so we have to stand up for ourselves," is attributed to one Phil Chauncey of Clinton, Tennessee. Here is the photograph that dominates the top half of the page:
Can you imagine the outrage if a liberal flew the flag upside-down? The antipatriots were out in force, and The Post loved it. They say things like...
It might have been responsible reporting to mention at that point that the people at this demonstation do not in fact own the Capitol dome. These people represent the party that was voted out of the Capitol, and the White House, in the last election. They can bitch and moan but the fact is they lost, they do not represent the views of the majority of Americans.
Instead of correcting the erroneous statement, The Post goes on to aggrandize the demonstration:
Can you see that sign in the lower righthand corner? It says "Socialism: trickle up poverty."
Extremist? You don't say!
There are elements, apparently including editors at The Post, who would like to believe that it is mainstream to believe the President of the United States is a socialist, a Nazi, a communist. We have had lots of experience with this phenomenon in our own county. Because the news media feed on sensationalism, an outrageous and noisy group with no real support gets as much or more coverage than those who are actually getting work done amid the noisy distractions. The Post has covered the birthers and teabaggers so much that they seem to have convinced themselves that a significant proportion of Americans are actually that nutty.
This is interesting, from the AP:
Salon had a little more level-headed story on the demonstration. They featured this photograph:
Notice the empty street in the background, as people cluster in tightly for the photo.
I'm sure it was exhilarating for the conservatives to congregate and wave signs just like old-time hippies protesting the war in Vietnam, man. They've owned the government for so long it must be at least a little odd to have to stand on the mall and lie about your numbers, waving signs and chanting, hoping somebody inside the Capitol or inside the White House notices, besides the Secret Service snipers on the roof.
This is actually a pretty clear summary of the situation.
Because journalism was so good before that.
It will be interesting to see how well the corporate media can continue to drum up support for antipatriotism over the next few years of Obama's first term, if they are able to somehow make the teabaggers seem legitimate or if Americans will just stop watching the news altogether.
Can you imagine the outrage if a liberal flew the flag upside-down? The antipatriots were out in force, and The Post loved it. They say things like...
The crowd -- loud, animated and sprawling -- gathered at the West Front of the Capitol after a march along Pennsylvania Avenue NW from Freedom Plaza. Invocations of God and former president Ronald Reagan by an array of speakers drew loud cheers that echoed across the Mall. On a windy, overcast afternoon, hundreds of yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags flapped in the breeze.
"Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored," declared Andrew Moylan, head of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, urging protesters to call their representatives. The demonstrators roared their approval.
"We own the dome!" they chanted, pointing at the Capitol. Lashing Out at the Capitol
It might have been responsible reporting to mention at that point that the people at this demonstation do not in fact own the Capitol dome. These people represent the party that was voted out of the Capitol, and the White House, in the last election. They can bitch and moan but the fact is they lost, they do not represent the views of the majority of Americans.
Instead of correcting the erroneous statement, The Post goes on to aggrandize the demonstration:
The demonstrators are part of a loose-knit movement that is galvanizing anti-Obama sentiment across the country, stoking a populist dimension to the Republican Party, which has struggled to find its voice since the 2008 elections.
Can you see that sign in the lower righthand corner? It says "Socialism: trickle up poverty."
With Democrats in control of Congress, battling the president legislatively has been difficult. But after a spring of anti-tax rallies and summer health-care protests proved to be effective, a growing number of GOP leaders are dropping their wariness and seeing the political possibilities of latching onto this freewheeling coalition. Others are cautious about embracing views that can be seen as extremist.
Extremist? You don't say!
There are elements, apparently including editors at The Post, who would like to believe that it is mainstream to believe the President of the United States is a socialist, a Nazi, a communist. We have had lots of experience with this phenomenon in our own county. Because the news media feed on sensationalism, an outrageous and noisy group with no real support gets as much or more coverage than those who are actually getting work done amid the noisy distractions. The Post has covered the birthers and teabaggers so much that they seem to have convinced themselves that a significant proportion of Americans are actually that nutty.
This is interesting, from the AP:
Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.
At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."
...
As a result of Kibbe's erroneous attribution, several bloggers and commenters repeated the misinformation. ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size
Salon had a little more level-headed story on the demonstration. They featured this photograph:
Notice the empty street in the background, as people cluster in tightly for the photo.
WASHINGTON -- "You have redefined gridlock in Washington, D.C.," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told the crowd gathered in front of the Capitol on Saturday for a rally that was part Tea Party and part Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project. The reference was to the highways around the nation's capital, which Blackburn said she'd heard had been closed due to the 1.5 million people who'd come out for the demonstration.
Crowd size estimates like the one Blackburn gave were flying around all day on Saturday. Some said they heard 1.2 million, others 1.6 million; conservative blogger Michelle Malkin said in one post that ABC News had estimated the attendance at 2 million.
Malkin was wrong -- ABC had never reported anything like that. In her own way, Blackburn was wrong, too. So were all the others. They weren't even in the ballpark, which most news outlets estimated in the tens of thousands and D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services said, unofficially, was somewhere between 60,000 and 75,000 people. Conservatives march on Washington
I'm sure it was exhilarating for the conservatives to congregate and wave signs just like old-time hippies protesting the war in Vietnam, man. They've owned the government for so long it must be at least a little odd to have to stand on the mall and lie about your numbers, waving signs and chanting, hoping somebody inside the Capitol or inside the White House notices, besides the Secret Service snipers on the roof.
This is actually a pretty clear summary of the situation.
But the crowd numbers, and the confusion over them, were symptomatic of a larger phenomenon that was taking place on the Mall Saturday. Stepping in to the crowd there felt, at some times, like stepping into an alternate reality. It was a reality in which provisions establishing "death panels" really can be found in healthcare reform legislation, where President Obama is a Marxist and a Fascist, where the majority was represented by these protesters rather than the voters who elected a Democrat president and gave him an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress less than a year ago -- it was a reality where the D.C. Beltway had been shut down due to an influx of 1.5 million people, almost three times more than the entire population of Washington.
It was, also, a reality that would brook no interference from the one outside it. In one incident that's quickly become famous on the Internet, a CNN correspondent doing a live appearance on television was drowned out by the shouts of protesters behind her. The network was a frequent target, especially the bus it had parked on 3rd Street, which formed the border of the primary protest area. The vehicle became a gathering place for those angry about the mainstream media and what they perceive as its liberal bias. (By contrast, when most of the protesters went to a Fox News truck parked nearby, it was to express their appreciation.) One man stood out on the street in front of it, holding a large sign headlined "Today's state-controlled media." Below, he'd added the logos of various networks, and his own takes on their acronyms. There was NBC, or "Nothing But Crap," ABC -- "All Barrack (sic) Channel" -- and CBS, which he'd dubbed "Controlled by State."
At one point in the afternoon, a CNN employee stood on the sidewalk in front of the bus, a bemused look on his face despite the crowd of about 20 people that had gathered to hurl various insults at him and his company. One woman was there dressed as the Grim Reaper; she carried a sign that declared "Journalism died: 2008."
Because journalism was so good before that.
It will be interesting to see how well the corporate media can continue to drum up support for antipatriotism over the next few years of Obama's first term, if they are able to somehow make the teabaggers seem legitimate or if Americans will just stop watching the news altogether.
48 Comments:
"They can bitch and moan but the fact is they lost, they do not represent the views of the majority of Americans."
Actually, if you mean the things that they were protesting yesterday, the governmental encroachment into the private sector, the ill-advised Obamacare package, the exploding deficit, they represent the current views of a plurality of American citizens quite precisely.
"Can you see that sign in the lower righthand corner? It says "Socialism: trickle up poverty.""
I did see that. Nice slogan. I'm going to start using that.
"With Democrats in control of Congress, battling the president legislatively has been difficult."
Actually, considering the numbers, what's astonshing is how easy it's been.
"There are elements, apparently including editors at The Post, who would like to believe that it is mainstream to believe the President of the United States is a socialist, a Nazi, a communist."
The first is indeed a mainstream perception. The latter two are not and no one is trying to say they are.
"The Post has covered the birthers and teabaggers so much that they seem to have convinced themselves that a significant proportion of Americans are actually that nutty."
Neither birthers nor teabaggers are nutty.
I didn't go to the demonstration yesterday but was downtown later in the afternoon and talked to a couple of teabaggers. Seemed like great guys. They think the uncontrollably expanding government spending will lead to higher taxes. Anyone is doesn't see that is, quite frankly, a nut.
Birthers may be wrong but it's not a closed case and their views aren't really dangerous.
By contrast, the truthers and communists and people who think AIDS is a government plot, who Obama has associated himself with, hold truly crazy views that would cause serious damage to our country if widely accepted.
Obama even appointed a truther to a govermental post, in charge of distributing stimulus funds to leftist organizations.
Americans are further mortified by the Obama adminnistration every day.
"This is interesting, from the AP:
Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance."
Yeah, that is interesting. YAWN...
"It was a reality in which provisions establishing "death panels" really can be found in healthcare reform legislation,"
It's been explained quite clearly how the legislation will lead to that.
"where the majority was represented by these protesters rather than the voters who elected a Democrat president and gave him an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress less than a year ago --"
Honeymoon's over. Americans are filing for divorce. Legal seperation is due in November 2010. Divorce will be finalized November 2012.
"Below, he'd added the logos of various networks, and his own takes on their acronyms. There was NBC, or "Nothing But Crap," ABC -- "All Barrack (sic) Channel" -- and CBS, which he'd dubbed "Controlled by State.""
That's clever. I'm going to use that.
I don't know if you've been told but Americans prefer the unbiased coverage at FOXNews.
"It will be interesting to see how well the corporate media can make the teabaggers seem legitimate or if Americans will just stop watching the news altogether."
The American people have already answered that.
But keep pretending.
As John Lennon said "whatever gets you through the night"
Anonymous, are you trying out for court jester because you have the job. You managed to cram every ridiculous talking point in your whine. Here is something you forgot:
ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055
The sad thing is that I think that you knew you were being deceptive. And that says it all about your "take back our country" nonsense. Oh yeah, the part about Fox News being unbiased - hilarious.
Alvin,
Talking about the size of the crowd is a distraction to keep anyone from discussing the issues.
Barry, however, gets it:
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 13) — The White House and its Democratic allies on Sunday tried to play down the role of a government insurance option in health care legislation as the party in power worked to reclaim momentum on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
His spokesman described the public option as just one way to achieve Obama's goal of providing coverage to the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans without insurance.
His senior adviser contended the White House was ready to accept that Congress would reject the idea, though he, too, said it was an option, not a make-or-break choice.
Congressional Democrats took care to say the idea, backed by liberals and targeted by conservatives, is not a deal breaker in a debate that has consumed Washington for the summer and shows no sign of abating.
Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs stressed Obama's commitment to choice and competition and declared the public option "a means to an end, but it is not all of health care."
Echoing that sentiment, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the focus on this specific issue has become a distraction in a debate over how most people receive health care coverage.
Thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, carrying signs as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said there's "more than one way to skin that cat" when it comes to lowering health care costs, stopping short of insisting that the overhaul include a public option.
The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said his committee was nearing an agreement on legislation that would extend coverage to most uninsured Americans.
Republicans, though, did not seem swayed.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said an alternative to the broad overhaul could be as simple as providing subsidies to the roughly 15 million Americans who he said truly cannot afford coverage.
"C'mon, we're living in the real world here," said Hatch, who serves on the Senate Finance Committee. "People all over the country don't want this."
While there's strong support for a public plan among House Democrats, the votes appear to be lacking in the Senate.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican who has proved a reliable collaborator with the White House, said Obama should just give up on the public option in favor of building consensus and that he should have done so during his Wednesday speech to Congress to bring Republicans on board.
"I think it's unfortunate, because it leaves open a legislative possibility that creates uncertainty in this process," Snowe said. "And I think it could give real momentum to building a consensus on other issues. I appreciate the fact that the president did demonstrate flexibility on the question in his speech Wednesday night, but it does leave it open, and therefore unpredictable.""
Obama, like Clinton before him, now knows he needs to consult with Republicans before acting because they understand the people.
It's hard to say anything when you're teabaggin'!
That picture was taken BEFORE the rally started (the one where you try to point out that the street is empty).
Here's one :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html
and another :
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/yes-the-picture-is-real-nutroots/
and another :
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/celebrating-the-912-rallies/
all penn avenue was full, if you use the standard per person measurements and the size of PA avenue you do get a million.
If you take the fact that 4500 buses showed up in DC you get 225000.
60K is way low.
I was there. If you even just look at the measurements used for the obama inauguration if the capitol area is completely full (which it was) that's 250k.
oh and the national park service said 1.2 million.
Boston.com: Inaugural crowd size reportedly D.C. record
David Barna, a Park Service spokesman, said the agency did not conduct its own count. Instead, it will use a Washington Post account that said 1.8 million people gathered on the US Capitol grounds, National Mall, and parade route.
Washington Post: Lashing Out at the Capitol
Tens of thousands of conservative protesters, many complaining that the nation is racing toward socialism, massed outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday...
The National Park Service didn't count people.
JimK
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/09/photos_of_dc_te.html
Here's more pics
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/hundreds-of-thousands-of-patriots-march-on-dc
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/12/HP/A/23055/FreedomWorks+Rally+in+DC.aspx
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338733/posts
http://www.stealthfusion.com/forum/fusion-research/4910-amazing-photos-9-12-march-washington-vs-usa-today-national-mall-schematic.html
The schematic at the bottom of this last link shows that if the Capitol area is full (and IT WAS) that's 250K. If the crowd extends all the way back to the Monument... it 2 million.
You be the judge. It was a LOT more than 60K
"Charlie Martin — a computer scientist with extensive intelligence experience — emails from his secret bunker near Boulder, CO:
I did a back-of-envelope based on the photos and reports. A pretty dense crowd is about 1.8 people per square meter, and the National Mall alone is about 125 hectares, 1.25 million square meters. So that would be 2.3 million people.
Given the report from Steve of an actual literal count of 450K early on, I think the 2 million number is *very* plausible.
Knowing Charlie like I do, I’m inclined to trust his guestimates more than most people’s “facts.”
Which in this case… whoa."
James Pouillon, aka "the sign guy," was the abortion rights opponent gunned down in suburban Owosso, Michigan, early Friday morning.
Shortly after his murder, a Facebook Friend of mine with a conservative political outlook posted the question: "Where is the outrage?"
Her point being that when famous abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered a few months ago, expressions of condolence from all sides of the abortion debate rocketed through the Internet within a short time.
My response to her was to wait.
At that point, we didn't know if Pouillon had been targeted because of his abortion stance or whether the killer had some more personal motive.
If this were a domestic killing of some sort, his abortion protests might have been totally unrelated.
Well, we now know what the authorities are telling us. According to the Detroit News:
"We believe Mr. Drake was not happy with the way Mr. Pouillon was protesting," said Chief Shiawassee County Assistant Prosecutor Sara Edwards.
The day that Dr. Tiller was killed, I was easily able to cull a series of condemnations from my e-box from individuals and organizations opposed to abortion and I posted excerpts from several of the statements here.
Those who made statements included Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; the president and board of directors of Catholics for Choice; Interfaith Alliance Board Chair the Rev. Dr. Galen Guengerich; and Operation Rescue.
The suspect in Dr. Tiller's murder has been linked to some more extreme anti-abortion organizations, but not to any of the groups I just cited.
Nonetheless, they felt some moral imperative to condemn the killing.
And even if you think the statements were pro forma, the statements were quickly made.
Condemnation from the other side of the debate was less surprising, and there was plenty of it.
Barack Obama issued his condolences before nightfall that Sunday.
Pouillon is famous now. And two days after his murder, I can find few statements about it, pro forma or otherwise, on any of the websites of any of the prominent organizations that support abortion rights.
Not NARAL. Not NOW. Not Planned Parenthood. Not Catholics for Choice.
To his credit, President Obama did issue a statement Sunday. It wasn't long, but it was unequivocal: "The shooting last week in Michigan was deplorable," Obama said in a statement issued by the White House Sunday. "Whichever side of a public debate you're on, violence is never the right answer."
Is that so difficult?
Pro forma matters. Even the obligatory boilerplate recognition that something bad has happened reinforces the broader cultural standards that there are lines that should not be crossed.
I can't understand why any organization that lobbies in favor of abortion rights hasn't already put out a statement – on their websites and filling the media's e-boxes – saying that there is no room for the kind of violence that ended Pouillon's life.
And while the president of the United States cannot be expected to release a statement about every murder in America, I'm surprised that this one escaped his attention for as long as it did.
Whatever our position about abortion, surely there is no controversy that murderous violence against this particular protestor -- apparently targeted because of his protests --deserves to be condemned?
don't engage Jim about the attendance numbers
he just a propagandist
Barry and the Dembocrats are getting the message just fine
they're worried sick
And speaking of abortion, Hillary Clinton now recognizes that aborted fetuses are ---GASP!-- actually real, live BABIES -- she even calls them CHILDREN!
Here's Hillary Clinton's quote:
"Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, Mrs. Clinton told the New York Times. "Unfortunately, with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a bay and to abort GIRL CHILDREN simply because they'd rather have a boy. And these are deeply set attitudes."
Sorry -- I have a typo in the Hillary post. "Bay" should say "baby." Here's the corrected post:
"Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, Mrs. Clinton told the New York Times. "Unfortunately, with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a BABY and to abort GIRL CHILDREN simply because they'd rather have a boy. And these are deeply set attitudes."
Rep. Joe Wilson, the Republican from South Carolina who shouted "You lie" during President Obama's health-care address to Congress, has already apologized at least twice. But some Democrats are not satisfied. They want Wilson to apologize on the House floor.
Why?
Apparently, it is against House rules for a representative to call the president a liar during an official session of the House, even if you sincerely think he is one. Or, for that matter, even if he really is one. The purpose of this rule is to attempt to enforce a level of civility in the political debate. The result, though, is just the opposite: It is simply another opportunity for a fusillade in the Umbrage Wars. No matter how important or otherwise the underlying issue may be, it seems that about three-quarters of American politics can now be distilled down to "How dare you say that!" Taking offense at someone else's possibly over-vigorous exercise of free speech, demanding an apology and so on has replaced much serious discussion about, oh, health care, the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, stuff like that. Umbrage is so much easier: You can do it in your sleep, or on talk radio.
Umbrage is itself, generally, a lie. The ostensible victim of the offensive remark is actually delighted at the opportunity, while the ostensible offense giver is sorry to have wandered into this thicket, or is made to feel sorry as the umbrage game plays itself out. The rules of the game are perverse but simple: I scream with pain until you cry "uncle."
All the attention is making Wilson more popular within his own constituency, not less so. Why can't the Democrats be the class act here and just drop it? Sticks and stones, and all that.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, we have a group running Congress who can't resist badly overplaying their hand.
Anon, when you copy and paste text from somewhere, please give us the link, or at least the attribution: Michael Kinsley: Free Joe Wilson
JimK
I embellished and altered his column to a degree where I didn't think it fair to associate him with it. I think of it as a mild form of satire, using someone else's words to make a point of my own.
In any case, Jim's right. Most of the words in my post originated from the word processor of a liberal columnist, Michael Kinsley.
Millions jam the streets before our capitol, journey to far-away town halls, call radio shows, clamor to the pollsters, hide their grandmothers from government regulators....
all with one simple message for Democrats:
Do what Republicans tell you to do.
Will the Dumbocrats listen?
The November 2010 election will decided shortly.
"Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high"
In China where parents are allowed only one child by law, they tend to prefer males.
In India, the dowry system used there means families of females must pay large sums of money to the families of the men they wed. In other words, male children mean rich rewards ahead when they wed, but female children mean big costs ahead to marry them off. Women who produce too many daughters in poor Indian families often meet with fatal "cooking accidents." It is for this reason poor Indian women seek to save their own lives by sacrificing their preborn or infant daughters.
Andrea not anon
The lack of intelligence/dishonesty of these people was supported by the media. I heard a newscast in Philly -the teabagger leader said "we have 7 buses, that's thousands of people". Why didn't the so-called reporter say- these buses hold about 60 people- times 7 - that is 420"
because it's a petty discussion
who gives a flip?
only liberals trying to play down the sentiment that is clearly evident across America regardless of how many people showed up on Saturday, which were plenty
conservative Americans, who in every state in the Union, outnumber liberals, have seen enough
Obama is LBJ reincarnated and we live in Reagan country
we don't have any use for a President who pals around with truthers, Communists and terrorists
conservative Americans, who in every state in the Union, outnumber liberals, have seen enough
So where were these outnumbering conservatives last November? Ten months ago there were not enough conservatives "in every state in the Union" to prevent GOP losses of 21 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and the White House.
while you may doubt it, anon-B, the Democrats in Congress no longer do
if they felt secure, they would have passed the national health care bill in July when Obama told them to
we're a center right country
Obama needs to decide if he'd like to lead it and succeed or resist it and fail
Poor Anon. You've spent months, almost two years demonizing Barack Hussein Obama and now we can see what your efforts have gotten you. Resurgent Republic research, Ed Gillespie's post-RNC group, has found some interesting things working with focus groups of independent Obama voters.
...These voters remain very anxious about the state of the economy, with adjectives like “nervous,” “uncertain,” “stressful” and “hurting” permeating the discussions, tempered only occasionally with more optimistic expressions like “trying to bounce back” and “about to turn around.”
However, ten months after the presidential election and eight months since the Inauguration, these Independent Obama voters demonstrated great patience with the President, and give him credit for trying to improve the bad economy, which they still see as him inheriting.
These voters clearly separate their feelings about him personally from their much more negative feelings about policies his Administration and Congress are pursuing. And they see congressional leaders, specifically House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a harshly negative light.
Consequently, criticizing the policies of the Democratic Congress is likely to resonate much more strongly with persuadable individuals than criticizing “President Obama’s policies.”(their emphasis)
I guess you still haven't gotten the memo: criticizing President Obama is bad! It's the middle of the country, not the right or the left, that's in play. Independent Obama voters still like Obama, *give him credit for trying to improve the bad economy*, blame the economy on Bush (the man he *inherited* it from), and are showing *great patience* for his efforts to show results just like President Obama asked them to.
great, anon-B
I'll give you one thing: Obama's biggest mistake is allow himself to be too closely identified with the extreme leftist Democratic leadership in the House
nonetheless, he has done so and, as a result, independent voters now disapprove of his performance, if you believe virtually every poll
speaking as an independent voter myself, I'll give him plenty of chances
he needs to move to the center right like Clinton did to save his Presidency
I don't what know you mean by "demonizing" Obama; I believe I've said he's a socialist and has associated with some sketchy characters like Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, et al but that's hardly demonic; as I've said, he's a personable fellow with a nice family and I like him plenty
remember how Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday she wouldn't pursue the Joe Wilson matter further?
she lied
Democrats are now playing the race card saying for a white Southerner to criticize a black President is racism and they will vote to sanction Wilson
btw, how much attention has been paid to whether Wilson was right?
did Obama lie?
word is this morning that Democrats will now alter the bill so that illegal aliens won't receive benefits
so, apparently, Obama was lying
not that there's anything wrong with that
"he's a personable fellow with a nice family"
He really is a terribly nice guy, and very bright too.
I think the problem is that when he went away to college, his mother forgot to give him the little talk about making good choices.
We need to check on that in 2012 when we elect the next President.
To Jim, the Moderator of this Blog site:
"Anonymous" is up to his/her/its old tricks again...working feverishly to pirate this site. He/she/it needs to be leashed and muzzled so that we have some surcease from "Anonymous's" incessant babbling and taking up of valuable space.
Please require him/her/it to refrain from persistent r-e-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n. Of course, trying to say something new, interesting, and even important seems to be beyond his/her/its own ability to exercise self-restraint and courtesy.
Citizen
"The March of Fools" - a gathering of mindless, easily-manipulated sheep whose only talent is lip-synching traitors like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, et al.
Their hatred for Obama (and, concomitantly, this multi-cultured society of ours) was palpable, try as some of them did to cover up their bigotry and hatred with a plethora of mis-spelled signs and clownish outfits.
This is what has resulted from 8 years of Bush administration instilling fear and hatred and ignorance in the American people. A whole new generation of whimpering, hair-tearing, hate-filled people who want to return to the halcyon days when we didn't have "those uppity darkies" trying to achieve equality as American citizens. (By the way...was anyone able to count more than 10 African-Americans in that crowd?)
Obama is a "socialist", a "communist", a "Nazi", a "traitor", " an anti-Constitution internationalist"?
Over 90% of those foolish march participants don't even know the meaning of these terms and know nothing about the Constitution, but they sure know how to follow the dictates of Dick Armey and his cohorts.
If anyone wants to find examples of the failure of our educational system, just take a look at what is happening to our country.
well, you're right about public schools
they produce morons like you so how good a job could they be doing?
we should take the money we waste on those and outsource them to private, charter and homeschool support
we gave public schools more than a fair chance
it's time to try something else
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/busting-another-state-run-media-lie.html
something "new and interesting" for Citizen
visual proof that Saturday's march had at least a million participants
photo comparison with Obama's inauguration
Photoshopped
prove it, liar
Anonymous"...another one of your typical ad-hominem attacks. Funny thing... not once did I memtion you, but you, typical of your usual ill-mannered and "Christian" posts, saw fit to highlight your own sour disposition by saying: "well, you're right about public schools
they produce morons like you so how good a job could they be doing?"
Now that's a really clever remark to make...did that come from your copy of "Odious and Stupid Remarks to Make as a Teabagger"? You almost outshine Glenn Beck with that "mentally challenged" observation.
Well at least the losers have stopped using this picture and claiming it shows their protest. This picture, which some right wing sites have said depicted Sept. 12, 2009's protest, is missing the National Museum of the American Indian that was built in 2004.
Here's an interesting first hand account of the size of the crowd.
virtually any website would be to the right from your perspective, anon-B
nothing you posted contradicts the number
the Slate article doesn't have aerial photos, doesn't identify at what point in the day their ground level picture was taken and the author admits he knows nothing about estimating crowd size
"not once did I memtion you"
well, I wish you had memtioned something else rather than your offensive comment that protests against Obama and his elves in Congress are racist
people who try to stir up racism to disparage their opponents are a gangrene on society
LOL. it's funny to see the right cut their own throats. Look at yourselves. You have tried to manufacture this protest but the majority of the talk has been how you all have fudged the numbers and passed on fake pictures.
Meanwhile, President Obama continues to work slowly but steadily to his goals. For all of your talk, you are only making the him look good. You have no leaders, only a loose conglomeration of crazy folks - http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/you-really-need-to-watch-this-video-of.html
TTF, the Joe Wilson of cyberspace has only one line:
you lied
Fortunately, Congress is getting the message loud and clear.
Compare what Obama wanted to what actually passes and we'll see how effective the protest has been.
The American people have voted thumbs down.
If Congress defies the people, the Democrat reign ends in 14 months.
What an ironic statement to make, "Who Knows Who Anonymous": "people who try to stir up racism to disparage their opponents are a gangrene on society" Perhaps you left your reading glasses in the bathroom when the media were featuring t.v. shots ofposters of the really intelligent Tea Baggers that showed President Obama as a monkey or references to part of his family's African heritage or other repulsive and offensive remarks about his ethnicity or his loyalty to the United States of America. Of course, the Baggers would NEVER think of disparaging the President because of his color and heritage!
What a laugh...you are such an idiot! Clean up your own gangrene before it rots you to nothingness!
"What a laugh...you are such an idiot!"
Me?
I'm not the one who voted for someone with zero experience for President and then expected him to roll the opposition.
HAHAHA!
I think you acted stupidly!
And you are a sore loser who simply cannot stand the decision of the majority of Americans who don't subscribe to your bizarre views of what you think this country stands for. Being on the losing side often results in an obsessive desire for revenge.
Hooray for Democracy!
Yes, it is funny to see Anon calling everybody else "stupid." Anon, your side lost, that's all, it happens. For some years before, your side won and did whatever they felt "mandated" to do, now the shoe is on the other foot -- that's America for you. This is democracy at work, the people voted, they asked for this President and Congress, you are not expected to like it but I hope you will learn something from the experience.
"Anon, your side lost, that's all, it happens. For some years before, your side won and did whatever they felt "mandated" to do, now the shoe is on the other foot -- that's America for you."
Yet, it seems things won't be quite as easy for Democrats, doesn't it?
You guys keep clinging to this mantra: "you lost".
Doesn't seem to have much meaning at present. Politicians don't look to the past, they look to the next election.
We still win, without a controlling majority, because Democrats fear how all this will look then.
Politicians don't think they need to please liberals to win the next election.
Get over it.
Anon, you might not like the way it's going, you can comment on how the Democrats are handling their newfound power -- basically squandering it by trying to play "bipartisan" -- but it's just business as usual. Your side had eight years to do what they thought was right, cutting the Democrats out of every decision, declaring wars, severing diplomatic ties, giving giant corporations freedom to pollute and cheat, and now it's the other side's turn. The majority wants this party in charge, you are free to complain but things are a whole lot better now than they were under Bush.
Under Obama, as under George W. Bush, we will have banner headlines about historic Christmas bonuses for bankers and Wall Street that will enflame the nation, alongside headlines about 10 percent unemployment, declining home values, mounting foreclosures, skyrocketing credit card rates and a war that will require more troops without a plan for success.
Generations of Americans will pay for the bailouts, while those who took them have historic paydays and those who pay for them endure the pain under Obama, as they did under Bush.
Many Americans remember life under the most unpopular Republican president in a generation and compare it to life under a Democratic president with large majorities in Congress — and for them, life has not gotten better, and for some, it has gotten worse.
And, now, half of Americans disapprove of Obama's performance.
In mock generic contests, Dems and Repubs are tied in Congessional races.
In the only governor races being held this year, Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans lead.
In every state in the union, the majority of citizens call themselves conservative.
Most experts predict Democrats will lose scores of seats in 2010.
Then, we're back to 1994.
You guys didn't handle your brief advantage well.
get over it
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon, it's possible the Republicans will stage a resurgence, that's the way the world turns. In the meantime, we're not torturing people any more, the US just negotiated the release of hostages in two foreign and not-friendly countries without threatening them or attacking, the economy is stabilizing, there are lots of great things happening.
And here you are calling the President a liar because he won't give the Republicans the pony he promised them. Man, you are a piece of work.
"Anon, it's possible the Republicans will stage a resurgence,"
it's already here
the Reagan era lasted from 1981-2006
the Pelosi era lasted from 2006-2009
the Palin era has begun
"In the meantime, we're not torturing people any more,"
just for the record, how many people were tortured and when?
"the US just negotiated the release of hostages in two foreign and not-friendly countries without threatening them or attacking,"
actually, they took those hostages because they wanted us to do something
we gave them what they wanted
expect more hostages to be taken
"the economy is stabilizing,"
could you tell us how Obama can take any responsibility for that?
"there are lots of great things happening"
where?
"And here you are calling the President a liar because he won't give the Republicans the pony he promised them."
that's one of his many lies but it was a whopper
he was trying to create the impression that he's doing everything he can to work with Repubs
they called his bluff
That's not racism
Sherri Goforth, an aide to a Republican state senator in Tennessee sending out a mass e-mail of a cartoon showing dignified portraits of the first 43 presidents, and then representing the 44th — President Obama — as a spook, a cartoonish pair of white eyes against a black background.
When a gorilla escaped from a zoo in Columbia, S.C., a longtime Republican activist, Rusty DePass, described it on his Facebook page as one of Michelle Obama’s ancestors.
Among the posters at last weekend’s gathering of conservative protesters in Washington was one that said, “The zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.”
These are bits and pieces of an increasingly unrestrained manifestation of racism directed toward Mr. Obama that is being fed by hate-mongers on talk radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged, by Republican Party leaders. It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous. But it’s the same old filthy racism that has been there all along and that has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s.
I have no patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed.
Glenn Beck, one of the moronic maestros of right-wing radio and TV, assures us that President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Some years ago, as the watchdog group Media Matters for America points out on its Web site, Beck said he’d like to beat Representative Charles Rangel “to death with a shovel.”
Post a Comment
<< Home