The Washington Post covered the 9/12 March on the front page but covered the much larger Iraq War protest in the Metro section. Every single news org ran with the 9/12 protests as their top story. Did they cover the racism, yes, but that's because there was a lot of racism.

As to their arguments, what's the substance behind the protesters? Sure people here, including you, have offered good arguments against, and there are a number of conservatives that have also offered fair critiques, but the people in DC and at town halls haven't had much constructive to say. It's all death panels, euthanasia for veterans and Maoism/Stalinism/Fascism. If you want the substantive arguments to be heard you need to stop putting the crazy arguments out front. As long as Senators and Representatives are parroting the crazy arguments, that's what's going to get air time. Was there a single substantive speech on healthcare policy at the 9/12 rally?

There are a number of principled conservatives just as appalled by these tactics as I am, David Frum, Bruce Bartlett, Rod Dreher, etc., bu those voices are not only not featured, they're cast aside as being heretical to the movement. Who in the GOP as the guts and authority to have a Buckley style John Birch Society moment?

This isn't a conspiracy to silence legitimate criticism either on this board or nationally. As much as I'm politically opposed to a lot of conservative ideas, I'd love a sane opposition to keep the Dems in check. I think a strong opposition is vital to a functioning government. This current incarnation of the GOP, however, is anything but sane. They've embraced a culture of anything goes and have very little substance that they want to add to the debate. As long as the racism and crazy is tolerated by the people that run the GOP, the story is going to be at least partially about the racists and the crazies.

Charles Johnson is one of the conservatives that has practically been disowned because he spoke out against racism directed at Muslims. He's still very much opposed to Obama, but he's also determined to call out the racism that he sees as delegitimizing conservative arguments.

Dr. David McKalip, surgeon who forwarded Obama e-mail, resigns from leadership post - St. Petersburg Times

Wasn't really that hard to find. I'm not sure what your point is.

Did I say they'd have the same signs? Did I say they'd have the same flags? I said that there would still be some conservatives protesting in the streets about McCain's policies if McCain had won and had enacted the same policies Obama has followed.

And yes, I do believe what I wrote. It's not like McCain was really popular with the Tea Party crowd, and we know that there were plenty of eligible voters who stayed home in 2008 because they didn't like either candidate.

It would actually be a really interesting experiment to ask Tea Party attendees how they feel about John McCain, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and whoever else you want to throw out there. I'm guessing that of the bunch I named, McCain would easily have the lowest approval rating among Tea Party attendees.

The big difference, though, is that the establishment wouldn't be supporting them. You wouldn't see congressional leaders talking about death panels ad groups like FreedomWorks wouldn't be bankrolling and promoting any protests. That's my problem, not that there are crazies, but that the establishment is tolerating and/or promoting them.

Of course you don't. You linked me to an article about a guy forwarding racist emails who happens to be against Obama's health care plan.

I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for coverage of the Obama image in a legitimate news source.

edit: Ah, just reread it, and you were.

I think I'm in the same boat as he is. It's always more embarrassing to me when the people I agree with (well, more) act like complete assholes. I expect the Democrats to act that way.

So, I guess I have to take my "obama=monkey" sign off my front lawn to get into a real debate - damn!

This is such a scarecrow argument that's it is becoming silly. You can find millions of well-written, non-racist criticisms on the health care policy and engage in a debate if you wish (including this thread here). Or, you can continue to paint the anti-health care/Obama policy dissent as largely a bunch of crazy racists and avoid any legitimate discussion. It's a shame so many are choosing the latter.

My point is that we shouldn't be relying on people at rally's with signs to begin critical discussions on Obama's policies. It took the town hall debacle just for the country to begin discussing the pros and cons of Obama's health care idea. Prior to that, you couldn't find one critical view of this policy unless you watched Fox News or read the WSJ.

OK, how can normal independent/conservatives "not tolerate" it. Everyone in this thread on the conservative side has said racism has no part. You just cited 4-5 conservatives in various media circles that have come out against it. Is that unless Rush Limbaugh comes out and slams every person with a sign, conservatives are tolerating that? What about those of us who don't listen to Limbaugh?

It seems like there's a much higher burden on conservatives to "control their crazy's" than there ever was on democrats/liberals. It seems like many in this thread feel that until every conservative on the planet (including the ghost of Reagan) disavows every potentially racist sign, their side is supporting it. It's an unattainable goal and one of many scarecrows setup to avoid any meaningful debate on issues like health care and tax policy.

I don't consider myself part of the republican establishment, I don't listen to Hannity/Limbaugh/Colter/Beck, I don't blindly vote republican (voted mostly democrats locally) and I don't like a lot of Obama's policies on health care and tax policy. Am I not allowed to have a voice because some who agree with me use crazy tactics? There are a lot of much more independent people than me who have similar concerns and the frustration over not being able to enter into a real discussion with being labeled crazy is something that will impact future elections.

The Obama image was the only image not sourced from a liberal blog (it was an image sharing site). I was speaking to the tea party protesters and why more legitimate media aren't covering/exposing this if there are truly that many overtly racist images to be found in these gatherings.

See, I don't doubt there are questionable, inappropriate, and perhaps even racist attendees (i.e. the "Whatchyou talkin bout Willius" sign which I cant recall the source of ATM)...but those images with overtly racist shirts, signs, and propaganda is way beyond what I have seen on any (reasonably) legitimate reporting news channel or website. And with no better information that I can find...I am suspect of the "pouring fake gas on the invisible fire" potential.

I understand. It's probably how a lot of conservatives felt when there was no liberal outcry over Moveon.org's "General Betray-us" ad, Kos's "screw 'em" comment about the deaths of civilian contractors in Iraq, Rep. Pete Stark's comments a few years ago about sending kids to Iraq to get blown up "for the President's amusement", etc. etc.

Look, it's not difficult to play "count the crazies" these days, nor is it particularly productive. You can't get rid of the crazies in the Democratic Party, we can't get rid of the crazies in the Republican Party, in large part because the politicians on both sides see their crazies as part of the base or a potential voter.

Arles: How about not repeating the Death panels lie? How about not defending a guy that yelled during a joint speech? How about correcting people at their own town halls that compared Obama to Hitler/Stalin/Mao? How about asking the RNC to stop giving money to an organization that promotes th birther conspiracy? How about not whispering to constituents that you agree with the birther conspriracy? How about not claiming that healthcare reform will lead to euthanizing veterans?

All of these are things elected officials could do on their own. When Republicans have taken it on themselves to distance themselves from the crazies and racists I've been pretty consistently praising them. It's not that I expect them to disavow every thing said on every blog, but I don't think it's too much to ask them to not repeat the crazy and not hang out with racists.

I can't find anything but negative comments from elected Dem elected officials about Kos's comment or the Betray-us ad. I didn't find any comments on Stark's quote. Again, this isn' count the crazies as I'm willing to stipulate there are at least equal number of crazy Dem supporters. The problem is that the establishment is encouraging and supporting the crazies.

Then I'd suggest we all start complaining about it in a more bi-partisan manner, because neither side is going to disarm itself of its crazies unilaterally.

At this point it seems you are taking the "when conservatives can prove to me they no longer beat their wives, I'll talk to them" approach. There's plenty of seedy money going into the DNC and organizations that compared Bush to Hitler that have never been disavowed by the left. Heck, Democratic senators called US military soldiers terrorists and compared their tactics to the SS. These guys are still in office (a la Dick Durbin).

If you want to discuss actual policies, I'll be on board. But if this thread is now going to be a "my side likes our crazy's less than your side so your argument is moot" discussion, there's no point in continuing. It's obvious you want some kind of morale high ground for the left in regards to fringe support and I just don't see a difference between the two sides on this front.

I figure they can completely blow off the whole resistance to the health care plan as a bunch of racist crazies but two things pop to my mind...

1) Why don't the Democrats with an unbreakable super majority just pass this great plan? If all that opposes it are racists and crazies what's stopping them?

2) What will be the excuse when they get their asses handed to them in 2010? Racism? I will still be voting Libertarian but I can't say it would bother me to have a President and Congress of differing parties rendering much of DC useless. (And hence good for the American people)


Continue on with the marginalizing... (I think Bush and his cronies were successful for a while with this until people realized how shitty their policies were. It just seems like a lot of us figured out how shitty Obama's are much quicker)

And Glenn Beck certainly doesn't speak for me. I saw him on tv saying that he won't take credit for the tea party movement gaining strength but believes it must be divine intervention. Yeah, that's it. I think I will always side with Democrats when it comes to the whole God/politics thing. Too bad people don't seem to understand the magnitude of a trillion because their social policies have always outshined the crap the Republicans throw out there.

Hmm ... I'd figure it'd go Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Boehner,with Steele & McCain battling for last.

Darned if I'm willing to sift through the ongoing rubble in the thread to see if this has already been posted or not but I noticed an interesting tidbit in a story on the Joe Wilson witch hunt today. I note it here (as well Barney Frank almost having a stopped-clock-twice-a-day moment in the voting) since I believe it was this thread in which there was excitement concerning all the donations that were pouring him to help whatever Dem will get his ass handed to him by Wilson in the next election.

[i]The Wilson dispute, by capturing the attention of Republican and Democratic loyalists, has been a financial bonanza for both Wilson and his expected challenger in next year's election, Rob Miller. Each has raised some $1.5 million in contributions since the speech last week.[/quote]

I figure they can completely blow off the whole resistance to the health care plan as a bunch of racist crazies but two things pop to my mind...

1) Why don't the Democrats with an unbreakable super majority just pass this great plan? If all that opposes it are racists and crazies what's stopping them?

2) What will be the excuse when they get their asses handed to them in 2010? Racism? I will still be voting Libertarian but I can't say it would bother me to have a President and Congress of differing parties rendering much of DC useless. (And hence good for the American people)


Continue on with the marginalizing... (I think Bush and his cronies were successful for a while with this until people realized how shitty their policies were. It just seems like a lot of us figured out how shitty Obama's are much quicker)

I was going to say there'd be no chance of him being kicked out, but his margins of victory have declined in each of the past three elections (65-33, 63-37, 54-46) so I'll change there's almost no chance of him losing next time. Unfortunately.

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if he goes on to win by more without a presidential election taking place.

SteveBollea translated:

yeah... let's try that from a different source. :)

That doesn't scan, Cam.. they disable hotlinking.

That's a strange translation. What makes Steve a creepy gif?

Yep, no racism whatsoever. ere's Limbaugh today:

You must have him on ignore or just don't read his posts ;)

That will be definitely convincing to the zero posters who have claimed there's no such thing as racism.

Well darn. Let's see if it works this time.

I'm guessing you're going for this?

The problem with this is that George Bush was pretty liberal in his policies. Sure he was moronic with his foreign policy and he had some wacky conservative views that set back science a decade, but for the most part he was moderate and even liberal when it came to economic policy.

With that said, the people who are against Obama and his policies voted massively in favor of Bush in 2000 and 2004, as well as for McCain in 2008. There were no tea parties over the past 8 years for Bush. And the people who have been polled to be most against Obama supported McCain in massive numbers.

So you can claim that these people would be protesting anyone, but actions don't back it up. No tea parties when Medicare was massively expanded or spending skyrocketed. Votes weren't lost in 2004 during all this. The areas most against his economic policies voted for people with essentially the same policies. At some point your hypotheticals need to be backed up by some statistics.

I don't watch cable news 24/7 but CNN did cover it Yesterday in a rather long segment. They showed a lot of images of racist signs, confederate flags, etc. They spoke to people who were talking about birth certificates and how he's a Muslim. They had one of the leaders of the tea party on who refers to Obama as an Indonesian Muslim and welfare thug.

I'm sure Fox News would not cover the story due to their vested interest, and I don't really watch MSNBC because it's not in HD.

You can run a search through Google news for with tea party and racism in it and come across thousands of articles. I don't think it's been headline news as I still think issues with race are difficult to bring up in this country.

And as I said from the beginning, this isn't a knock on opposition or trying to generalize them. I'm against most of his spending policies with the exception of the health care plan (which I'm against the revised version now). But I honestly don't see how you can't find the veiled racism at these events when looking through the images and videos that are out there. I guess you'd rather close your eyes and claim they are all photoshopped.

Wonder if Limbaugh will apologize now that it's turned out that it was just bullies telling kids where they could sit, and that there was no racism involved.

Wait.. who am I kidding, of course not.

(honestly, do we expect anything from Limbaugh/Hannity et all? I had to admit my surprise that at least Malkin publicly corrected her mistake when she found out that the estimates for the 9/12 protests was 70K, not 2 million as she was told via Twitter that ABC News had announced when nothing of the sort had happened)

Honestly, both sides need to drop the racism mud throwing contest. Are there some who will attack every move that Obama makes because of the color of his skin? Yes. They're getting tons of press right now. But are there also some who will defend Obama on every move he makes due to the color of his skin? Yes.

It made it's way around on just about every major conservative site today. But it has nothing to do with stirring up racial tensions. I mean a fight on a school bus is just big news these days in our country.

I don't just buy it to the level you apparently have been convinced to because every google search I try leads me to left-wing blogs. I spent about 5 minutes yesterday trying to find more reputable sources and could not...it shouldnt take any longer than that.

I guess the issue I see with this even being brought up is...what is the purpose of liberals making this a topic? Is it to attribute his sliding approval numbers on racists "converting" the middle to their beliefs? I just dont' understand this argument at all.

Racists (likely) didn't vote for Obama...Obama won the election by a landslide...part of that landslide is breaking off due to objections to his policy and direction...now because some racists (may or may not) have a presence in Tea Party assemblies, the entire health car debate and fiscal policy is about race?

If the point is to bring up that there are racists in this country...well, great, there are also child molesters, murderers, financial cheats, and tax cheats. They all suck in my mind and I bet they all had some presence at the Tea Party assemblies as well.

And were part of the Obama electorate as well.

First of all, I went to Belleville West High School and it is/was one of the more racist areas you will find (going both ways). Belleville is right next to East St. Louis, one of the poorer black communities in the nation.

Outside of the local police officer backtrack after his race comment (which he was pressured to do by the city to not incite anything), what makes you think racism wasn't involved? I've talk with family and friends from back there and everyone close to the situation feels there was a high race component to the crime. Now, I was witnessed a ton of white to black racism in that city growing up (and a similar amount of reverse black to white racism) and it doesn't seem like a lot has changed.

It seems to me that dismissing race as a factor in this crime without knowing all the facts is just as silly as Limbaugh attributing the entire action only to race. Race was a factor, now whether it was 25% or 75% of the reason is only known to the kids who took the action.

Yeah, I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. That's a really rough area that has a strong racial divide. Race wasn't the only component, but it is a factor. You don't know that area if you think race had nothing to do with the situation.

and voted for McCain as well.

really, that's a pretty stupid statement.

???

Someone speculates that there are various scoundrels among the Tea Party crowd & I point out that the scoundrels also exist in the ranks of the ranks of the Obamites as well and you see a problem with that (beyond my stating the obvious)?

It's sad that instead of having a productive debate on bullying some people want to make this all about race.

was just trying to say that there are scumbags all over, and they have all sorts of political affiliations.

perhaps a slight reading-comprehension fail as i hadn't finished my first coffee yet (generally useless before that). i was focused more on the first part of what you were responding to and missed the part where it was talking about that being the components of tea parties.

how about we have a productive discussion about actual alternatives to the proposed healthcare bills?

Republican Health Care Reform | The Next Right

And I'll add one that's been out there for a while, but no one wants to touch: End the tax break for employer-provided health care plans. Use the savings to give people tax-credits/vouchers/whatever to purchase their own plans. Mandate that plans cannot discriminate on price or availability.

It is stupid that we insist on linking health-care and employment. Get rid of the employer as middle-man.

dola: I apologize to the board that I made that post and did not call Republicans racist or Democrats communists. Bad form for this thread, I know.

I posted the three main alternatives several pages back. It didn't elicit a single response. I don't think people are interested in productive discussion on policies. See the past few pages where people where arguing whether racism is wrong while no one disagreed with them.

Ok, I want to avoid the actual birther argument but look at a related issue. This has been asked around the office but no one seems to know what the answer is.

Let's say it was conclusively discovered that Obama was not born in the US (again, I don't believe that nor do I want to argue that here). What would happen? People seem to have three thoughts:

1. Biden becomes president.
2. McCain becomes president b/c he was the top vote getter for a valid candidate (under this scenario).
3. Entire presidential election is tossed out, and we vote again.

Sorry if this has been covered before, but this thread has gotten too long to read through.

4. Obama's mother is still a US citizen, so Obama is still a citizen.

People are born outside the US every day and still have citizenship due to their parent's citizenship. That's the insanity of the whole birther movement.

But, if it was somehow proven that Obama couldn't be the President the only remedy would be to bump Biden up.

Nobody cared about the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo photos, and Obama's flip-flop there.

The racism thing is an easier fight to "win" (even though nobody's opposing them), that's why the liberals gravitate towards issues like that. It gives them the feeling of moral superiority that the Democrat party sells. It's like crack cocaine for them. Only with membership of the Democratic party can you feel "compassionate" without actually having to do a damn thing.

Yeah, but don't you have to be a born-on-US-soil citizen to be president? Again, I'm not arguing that point, more curious what would happen if at this point we found out he wasn't eligible.

You've been on quite a roll lately making sure nothing in this thread is trivial, keeping people from making mountains out of molehills, and policing the copying and pasting thoughts from other sources.

Kudos.