Then, and now. The hypocrisy and double standards of the media never fail to amaze.
96 thoughts on “Presidential Respect”
Hanson is wrong about a number of particulars (e.g. Durbin’s remarks, the NYT Betray-us ad), and it’s telling that his timeline starts in 2005. By 2005 we knew there were no WMDs, and Bush had rewarded the officials who made the false case for war with medals and promotions. By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate, the government was wiretapping people without warrants, people were being tortured and killed in our custody, and our international reputation was at an all-time low.
To compare that situation with what’s happening today — where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race, and efforts to pass the sort of health care reform that he spent the last 2 years campaigning on are treated as a secret socialist/facist/eugenic plot — is a big stretch.
To compare that situation with what’s happening today — where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race, and efforts to pass the sort of health care reform that he spent the last 2 years campaigning on are treated as a secret socialist/facist/eugenic plot — is a big stretch.
No WMD’s in Iraq? Well then, I guess suggesting someone go out and assassinate GWB is well within the bounds of decorum.
Jim is missing the bigger point. Specifically that democrat discourse never accepted GW Bush as a legitimate president. Instead within days of the November 2000 election the constant theme was that Bush had stolen the election, a theme that was renewed in 2004 with claims that the election was stolen again, this time in Ohio. Are we to presume that Jim never met anyone espousing the view that it was a tragedy that the US was being led by an unelected president? Has he never heard this endlessly repeated position in any media.
Assertions that Democrats saw Bush as illegitimate due to the Iraq War and the lack of WMD etc etc completely rewrite history. Those criticisms were icing on a cake that was baked in 2000/2001.
Hanson is wrong about a number of particulars (e.g. Durbin’s remarks, the NYT Betray-us ad)
From the post: unhinged Republican senators have not blasted Obama and suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists (in the manner of Senator Durbin or the late Senator Kennedy).
Completely accurate.
From the post: So far, the New York Times has not offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us” attacking Obama.
Completely accurate. As Carl noted a few weeks ago, you have a serious case of ADD.
By 2005 we knew there were no WMDs
When a country’s rulers tell the world they have WMD’s and are going to use them, as Hussain did (repeatedly), the prudent response is to take them at their word.
By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate, the government was wiretapping people without warrants, people were being tortured and killed in our custody, and our international reputation was at an all-time low.
And cats and dogs were living together too.
where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race
SYW.
pass the sort of health care reform that he spent the last 2 years campaigning on
You mean like attacking Hillary! for proposing mandates?
I would like Jim to cite — with links, from a website that isn’t something like Stormfront, or his beloved KKK — anything to support his assertion that “the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race.”
Those criticisms were icing on a cake that was baked in 2000/2001.
Apt metaphor given all the rotten eggs thrown at the inaugural motorcade. I bet the guys in the motor pool really appreciated that tantrum.
Specifically that democrat discourse never accepted GW Bush as a legitimate president.
I think you mean “Democrat” with a capital D.
Yes, there were doubts about Bush’s legitimacy, because he lost the popular vote, and depending on how you counted the votes in Florida either lost the electoral college or won it by a hair’s breadth thanks to a poorly-designed ballot. No president, of either party, could be elected in that fashion and not face doubts (you can bet that if the courts had ruled differently, and given Gore a 500-vote win in Florida, his illegitimacy would have been topic #1 on conservative talk radio).
But you did not see Democratic Congressmen calling Bush a liar from the floor of the House in 2001 — the Dem establishment followed Gore’s lead and treated Bush with more than enough deference — many of them even voting for Bush’s tax rate cuts. The booing at the State of the Union only came later, with Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Katrina, etc.
Curt: Durbin did not compare U.S. troops to Nazis. What he said was:
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
He is comparing the actions described in FBI testimony to our mental images of what Nazis, Soviets and the Khmer Rouge do to prisoners. He is criticizing the actions, not the actors. It is not “unhinged” to criticize brutal treatment of prisoners.
Regarding the NYT ad: the discount was offered in error, and MoveOn paid the full ad rate when the mistake was discovered.
I would like Jim to cite — with links, from a website that isn’t something like Stormfront, or his beloved KKK — anything to support his assertion that “the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race.”
The birther phenomenon is an effort to question Obama’s legitimacy, and has lead 10 Congressmen to co-sponsor legislation to require additional documentation from Presidential candidates. No such legislation has ever been sought in the aftermath of the election of a white President, even one with a foreign-born parent (e.g. Wilson and Hoover). The birther phenomenon is concentrated in the South, which strongly suggests a connection to that region’s history of race relations.
Since Obama was nominated there’s been a rash of Southern GOP officials having to apologize for racist jokes, photos, etc. In Tennessee it was the assistant to a state rep emailing a “spook” photo. At the Texas GOP convention they sold buttons reading “If Obama Is President…Will We Still Call It The White House?” A GOP operative in South Carolina tweeted “JUST HEARD OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.” A Florida GOP official asked “So how did black people travel in airplanes to Obama’s inauguration when they couldn’t get out of New Orleans during Katrina?” A South Carolina GOP activist suggested that an escaped zoo gorilla was probably Michelle Obama’s ancestor. And on and on. I’d say the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to contend that Obama’s legitimacy is not questioned because of his race.
The birther phenomenon is an effort to question Obama’s legitimacy, and has lead 10 Congressmen to co-sponsor legislation to require additional documentation from Presidential candidates.
Such an effort to ensure Birther lunacy never again takes hold of the debate seems perfectly rational to me. Clarifying what is to be done about qualifications questions is the only way reasonably, given the current absence of such, to respond to an issue about qualifications.
Your attempt to make this be about race, on the other hand, is par for the course and threatens Daveon’s long held position as TTM’s chief value-subtracting commenter.
Hanson says Durbin “suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists”. That’s exactly what Durbin did.
Hanson says “the New York Times offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us”. That’s exactly what they did.
I’d say the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to contend that Obama’s legitimacy is not questioned because of his race.
Your position as TTM’s chief value-subtracting commenter has been cemented.
“Yes, there were doubts about Bush’s legitimacy, because he lost the popular vote, and depending on how you counted the votes in Florida either lost the electoral college or won it by a hair’s breadth thanks to a poorly-designed ballot. ”
Sorry, Jim, the fact that Bush didn’t win the popular vote doesn’t mean anything. In fact, he isn’t even the first person to have done so.
Second, Bush _did_ win Floridas’s electoral votes. Multiple separate investigations, including one by the New York Times, showed that.
No citations, no links, just stuff like “[a] GOP operative in South Carolina tweeted.” No names, just claims. As far as I am concerned you’re still a liar.
BDS proper started when Gore’s lawyers asked for selective recounts. The “Bush Stole the Election” meme was born, and the Left forever had a pretense to hang their hats on.
No citations, no links
Andrea, meet Google. Google, Andrea.
and it’s telling that his timeline starts in 2005.
Actually, Hanson said:
2005, Democrats were booing him openly during his State of the Union address. Rep. Pete Stark called him a liar on the House floor. In fact, the response so far to Obama is mild in comparison to what Bush endured. That does not excuse the boorishness of Joe Wilson, but his tirade is symbolic of our loss of decorum since 2002/2003.
So the timeline started earlier, than Jim stated, but by all means Jim; please try the foolishly argue the nuance of Durbin not calling American troops Nazis, but rather saying their actions are like what Americans think Nazis and the Khmer Rouge did.
In the meantime, I’ll just remember all the lefties complaining that Bush was trying to start a war with the Chinese in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jock crashed into a Navy EP-3C performing recon missions ordered by President Clinton, and simply not rescinded by President Bush. Of course, none of that would have happened if Bush hadn’t been selected instead of elected like Al Gore.
Hanson says Durbin “suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists”. That’s exactly what Durbin did.
No, he compared specific actions. If this distinction is not allowed, it becomes impossible to criticize the treatment of U.S. prisoners without being an “unhinged” critic of U.S. troops.
Hanson says “the New York Times offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us”. That’s exactly what they did.
Hanson’s implication is that the NYT did this as a political favor. It was done, by mistake, by someone in the NYT advertising (not editorial) department, and when the mistake was uncovered (by, among others, the NYT public editor) it was corrected. The incident offers no support to Hanson’s argument.
If Hanson wants to talk about the NYT doing political favors he should focus on its utterly credulous coverage of the Iraq WMD question.
please try the foolishly argue the nuance of Durbin not calling American troops Nazis, but rather saying their actions are like what Americans think Nazis and the Khmer Rouge did.
The Khmer Rouge waterboarded people. The U.S. waterboarded people.
By pointing out these indisputable facts have I just written that U.S. troops are akin to Khmer Rouge killers? Or is nuance important?
Here’s the real difference: Republicans, when they differ with the President, disrespect the President.
Democrats, when they differ with the President, disrespect AMERICA.
Or, to quote from a prominent Clintonista, “When did patriotism, become a right-wing virtue?”
Such an effort to ensure Birther lunacy never again takes hold of the debate seems perfectly rational to me. Clarifying what is to be done about qualifications questions is the only way reasonably, given the current absence of such, to respond to an issue about qualifications.
No, the “reasonable”, “rational” solution is to accept that people born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens, no matter their skin color or the nationality of their parent(s). The authors of this legislation are “responding” to a made-up controversy, and thereby fanning its flames. Asked point blank if he believed that Obama was born in Hawaii, the sponsor of the bill would not give a straight answer.
As it happens I went to high school in Hawaii, like Obama. I also spent a fair amount of my childhood abroad. Unlike Obama, I was actually born outside the U.S. But if I ran for President there wouldn’t be any question of my eligibility, because I’m the white son of white American parents. I probably wouldn’t even be asked for my (French) birth certificate — I don’t recall anyone asking for McCain’s (like McCain, I was born on a U.S. military base).
Alas, I’ve finally reached the point where I can’t read more than four words into the first sentence of a Jim idea-salad post without falling asleep at the keyboard. Booosh, WMD, racism, waterboarding yawn blah foo bar baz. Ugh.
I hope you gents enjoyed your metaphorical disemboweling without me.
The Khmer Rouge waterboarded people. The U.S. waterboarded people.
By pointing out these indisputable facts have I just written that U.S. troops are akin to Khmer Rouge killers? Or is nuance important?
Apparently that’s the point of comparison you want to make. Because I guess you consider yourself an expert in Khmer Rouge waterboarding techniques, assuming that indeed they did just that, and because of your expertise, you know it is exactly how US troops do it. Therefore, they are exactly alike. That seems to be your argument. By all means, continue to make it.
I’m like Carl. It is getting old continuing to read this nonsense from you. But you seem to enjoy looking at Americans, or when you can you will pinpoint to just southern white GOP voters, as no better than the worst the world has to offer.
Booosh, WMD, racism, waterboarding yawn
No kidding, what could be more boring than apocalyptic weapons, racism and torture?
But did you hear that the president is going to talk to — gasp! — schoolchildren? Now that’s an exciting story….
That seems to be your argument.
It isn’t even an argument, just a statement of facts. The response — that it must be an attempt to besmirch the sacred honor of U.S. servicemen, and therefore could only come from some unhinged anti-American critic — is an attempt to end discussion of those facts.
Durbin was pressured to apologize (and continues to be slandered by the likes of Hanson) for stating something that was relevant, important, and true. Does that not bother the freedom-loving folks here?
Apparently talking to schoolchildren was so important that Obama needed to take there time. What’s your point Jim?
Are you upset most people thought Obama could spend his time better explaining why he’s running up the deficit rather than telling our children to wash their hands? I guess you see that as racists, unless people complained about George HW Bush doing the same thing.
Again, keep digging your hole Jim.
It’s a fact that Obama lied in his speech. The attempt to act like Joe Wilson besmirched the Office of the Presidency is just an effort to end discussion of the facts Obama was lying.
Wilson is being pressured to apologize (actually he has, Obama and Biden accepted it, but Pelosi wants another apology) for stating something that is relevant, important, and true. That bothers the freedom loving folks here!
take there time
take their time.
The USMC shoots people. The Nazis shot people. This is just a statement of facts. The response — that it must be an attempt to besmirch the sacred honor of U.S. servicemen, and therefore could only come from some unhinged anti-American critic — is an attempt to end discussion of those facts.
Sorry, forgot the /sarc tag up there for the ironically impared. Also, it’s amaing that anyone can think that Godwin-ing US forces is *not* “fanning the flames” but seeking to clarify the “natural born citizen” clause *is*.
No, the “reasonable”, “rational” solution is to accept that people born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens, no matter their skin color or the nationality of their parent(s).
There are unreasonable, irrational people in this country, as you must realize every time you look in a mirror.
Sometimes the only rational response to that fact is to address their irrationalities so that they don’t spread to the mainstream.
Kind of like what I’m doing responding to you.
But did you hear that the president is going to talk to — gasp! — schoolchildren? Now that’s an exciting story….
I don’t have to google shit, Jim. You’re the one making all the claims. YOU google it. YOU prove it. YOU provide the evidence to back up your outrageous and insane statements. Until you do, as far as I am concerned you are a LIAR.
Again, PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. You’re the one attacking people. You’re the one accusing opponents of Obama of racism. PROVIDE. THE. EVIDENCE. Not just “I heard some guy…” I read a twitter site…” and so on with no links. Racism is a serious charge, which can these days ruin lives. When you charge people with things like that, you need evidence to back up your charges.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
(Note: I’m repeating myself and using all caps because I do believe that the entity known as “Jim” is a tad dense. Do you think this will get through? Considering how many subsequent posts he’s left here with no links and no cites, I doubt it, but it’s worth a try.)
I was stunned at Jim’s robotic recitation of Democratic Party talking points in the first post. Does he really think that crap convinces anyone? Or is he just mouthing the mythology to reassure himself and his faith in his Democratic overlords?
Jim is the type who can seamlessly switch from shouting “East Asia is our ally” to “We are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia.”
One item in particular leaped off the screen from Jim’s polemical purge:
“By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate…”
Oh, really? Jim equates Baathists and ‘Al Queda in Iraq’ with “people we had set out to liberate”. How irredeemably vile to suggest such a thing. How unserious. And how revealing of the speaker!
Jim apparently subscribes to the Michael Moore axiom that head chopping terrorists are the equivalent of the Minutemen from the American Revolution.
No kidding, what could be more boring than Jim belching tired old nonsense about apocalyptic weapons, racism and torture?
Fixed that for ya, Jim.
Or else he has trouble telling one group of foreigners from another. Liberals don’t always take the trouble to actually learn anything about the people they are claiming to care about, so they are often confused.
Brad Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I was stunned at Jim’s robotic recitation of Democratic Party talking points in the first post.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
What say you, Rand? Is there any way to determine that?
It’s a fact that Obama lied in his speech.
Not about illegal immigration.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
I’m not an “operative”, just a member/supporter/volunteer.
Jim equates Baathists and ‘Al Queda in Iraq’ with “people we had set out to liberate”.
At various times during the conflict more than half of Iraqis polled approved of attacks on American soldiers. Those are the people we set out to liberate, but once there we discovered that they were (in Rand’s phrase) “on the other side.”
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
Oh come on, now. What evidence is there for original thought of any kind? I think the appropriate title is “mouthpiece.”
Or maybe “program.” I’ve often thought with a weekend’s work I could write a little Perl script that could easily pass a Turing Test for Jimness. That is, it could produce commentary that all of you would find indistinguishable from the “real” Jim.
Now Rahm’s a smart guy. And he has good programmers working for him. So, sometimes I wonder…
YOU google it.
I did. If you google the phrases I wrote, you’ll find the same articles I did. Here, to help you out, are search terms that will turn up the incidents I mentioned:
Tennessee assistant state rep emailing spook photo
Texas GOP convention button asks “If Obama Is President”
South Carolina GOP Operative “JUST HEARD OBAMA”
Florida GOP committeewoman email “So how did black people travel in airplanes”
South Carolina GOP activist escaped zoo gorilla
I don’t post links to save Rand the trouble of moderating the post.
“I don’t post links to save Rand the trouble of moderating the post.”
You mean, to save Rand the trouble of deleting the same old links to Kos and alternet.org and– what’s the other favorite moonbat site? Commondreams.org? Yeah, that’s it.
In any case, still not gonna do your work for you. The burden of proof is still on you, as the accuser (that we are opposing Obama’s policies out of racism, remember? can you even keep track off all your wild charges?). I know that in your sort of ideal world everyone is guilty until proven innocent, but fortunately we don’t live in that kind of world. Yet.
Too too funny!
Jim you are an amazing doublethinker, hats off to you.
I am in awe of the mental gymnastics needed to claim an opinion poll taken in the midst of awful nationwide terrorism is a reliable indicator of allegiance to Al Queda in Iraq.
Did you also believe in the 1990 opinion polls in Nicaragua, which predicted an easy election victory for the Sandanistas? It’s a good thing the Sandanistas believed in those polls too since they badly lost, or no doubt they would not have permitted a genuine election!
I am in awe of the mental gymnastics needed to claim an opinion poll taken in the midst of awful nationwide terrorism is a reliable indicator of allegiance to Al Queda in Iraq.
I said no such thing. The polls showed that most Iraqis approved of attacks on American soldiers. That doesn’t mean that most Iraqis had allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq (or the Baath party, or the Mahdi Army, or one of the other organizations opposed to the U.S. presence). It just means that they weren’t on our side.
You mean, to save Rand the trouble of deleting the same old links to Kos and alternet.org and– what’s the other favorite moonbat site?
The incidents I mentioned were reported in the mainstream press.
Jim vs Jim
Gosh I wonder who will win?
“Those are the people we set out to liberate, but once there we discovered that they were (in Rand’s phrase) “on the other side.””
versus
“It just means that they weren’t on our side.”
The indefensible Jim quote, just as a reminder, “By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate…”
Dance Jim Dance!
Actually, I quite clearly remember there being questions about McCain’s ability to serve based on his birth. McCain was born in Panama, and there was a big stink at, IIRC, DU about the whole thing, until it came out that Hawaii was a territory at the time of Obama’s birth. This whole debate struck me particularly, because like both McCain and Obama, I am a natural born citizen who was born abroad (Okinawa, in my case). The birthers are nutcases, no doubt about it. But that nuttiness is not confined to the Right, and had McCain won, we doubtless would still be seeing the exact same tune, just with a different lead vocalist.
Hanson is wrong about a number of particulars (e.g. Durbin’s remarks, the NYT Betray-us ad), and it’s telling that his timeline starts in 2005. By 2005 we knew there were no WMDs, and Bush had rewarded the officials who made the false case for war with medals and promotions. By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate, the government was wiretapping people without warrants, people were being tortured and killed in our custody, and our international reputation was at an all-time low.
To compare that situation with what’s happening today — where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race, and efforts to pass the sort of health care reform that he spent the last 2 years campaigning on are treated as a secret socialist/facist/eugenic plot — is a big stretch.
To compare that situation with what’s happening today — where the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race, and efforts to pass the sort of health care reform that he spent the last 2 years campaigning on are treated as a secret socialist/facist/eugenic plot — is a big stretch.
No WMD’s in Iraq? Well then, I guess suggesting someone go out and assassinate GWB is well within the bounds of decorum.
Jim is missing the bigger point. Specifically that democrat discourse never accepted GW Bush as a legitimate president. Instead within days of the November 2000 election the constant theme was that Bush had stolen the election, a theme that was renewed in 2004 with claims that the election was stolen again, this time in Ohio. Are we to presume that Jim never met anyone espousing the view that it was a tragedy that the US was being led by an unelected president? Has he never heard this endlessly repeated position in any media.
Assertions that Democrats saw Bush as illegitimate due to the Iraq War and the lack of WMD etc etc completely rewrite history. Those criticisms were icing on a cake that was baked in 2000/2001.
From the post: unhinged Republican senators have not blasted Obama and suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists (in the manner of Senator Durbin or the late Senator Kennedy).
Completely accurate.
From the post: So far, the New York Times has not offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us” attacking Obama.
Completely accurate. As Carl noted a few weeks ago, you have a serious case of ADD.
When a country’s rulers tell the world they have WMD’s and are going to use them, as Hussain did (repeatedly), the prudent response is to take them at their word.
And cats and dogs were living together too.
SYW.
You mean like attacking Hillary! for proposing mandates?
I would like Jim to cite — with links, from a website that isn’t something like Stormfront, or his beloved KKK — anything to support his assertion that “the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race.”
Those criticisms were icing on a cake that was baked in 2000/2001.
Apt metaphor given all the rotten eggs thrown at the inaugural motorcade. I bet the guys in the motor pool really appreciated that tantrum.
Specifically that democrat discourse never accepted GW Bush as a legitimate president.
I think you mean “Democrat” with a capital D.
Yes, there were doubts about Bush’s legitimacy, because he lost the popular vote, and depending on how you counted the votes in Florida either lost the electoral college or won it by a hair’s breadth thanks to a poorly-designed ballot. No president, of either party, could be elected in that fashion and not face doubts (you can bet that if the courts had ruled differently, and given Gore a 500-vote win in Florida, his illegitimacy would have been topic #1 on conservative talk radio).
But you did not see Democratic Congressmen calling Bush a liar from the floor of the House in 2001 — the Dem establishment followed Gore’s lead and treated Bush with more than enough deference — many of them even voting for Bush’s tax rate cuts. The booing at the State of the Union only came later, with Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Katrina, etc.
Curt: Durbin did not compare U.S. troops to Nazis. What he said was:
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
He is comparing the actions described in FBI testimony to our mental images of what Nazis, Soviets and the Khmer Rouge do to prisoners. He is criticizing the actions, not the actors. It is not “unhinged” to criticize brutal treatment of prisoners.
Regarding the NYT ad: the discount was offered in error, and MoveOn paid the full ad rate when the mistake was discovered.
I would like Jim to cite — with links, from a website that isn’t something like Stormfront, or his beloved KKK — anything to support his assertion that “the legitimacy of the president is questioned based on little more than his race.”
The birther phenomenon is an effort to question Obama’s legitimacy, and has lead 10 Congressmen to co-sponsor legislation to require additional documentation from Presidential candidates. No such legislation has ever been sought in the aftermath of the election of a white President, even one with a foreign-born parent (e.g. Wilson and Hoover). The birther phenomenon is concentrated in the South, which strongly suggests a connection to that region’s history of race relations.
Since Obama was nominated there’s been a rash of Southern GOP officials having to apologize for racist jokes, photos, etc. In Tennessee it was the assistant to a state rep emailing a “spook” photo. At the Texas GOP convention they sold buttons reading “If Obama Is President…Will We Still Call It The White House?” A GOP operative in South Carolina tweeted “JUST HEARD OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.” A Florida GOP official asked “So how did black people travel in airplanes to Obama’s inauguration when they couldn’t get out of New Orleans during Katrina?” A South Carolina GOP activist suggested that an escaped zoo gorilla was probably Michelle Obama’s ancestor. And on and on. I’d say the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to contend that Obama’s legitimacy is not questioned because of his race.
Such an effort to ensure Birther lunacy never again takes hold of the debate seems perfectly rational to me. Clarifying what is to be done about qualifications questions is the only way reasonably, given the current absence of such, to respond to an issue about qualifications.
Your attempt to make this be about race, on the other hand, is par for the course and threatens Daveon’s long held position as TTM’s chief value-subtracting commenter.
Hanson says Durbin “suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists”. That’s exactly what Durbin did.
Hanson says “the New York Times offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us”. That’s exactly what they did.
Your position as TTM’s chief value-subtracting commenter has been cemented.
“Yes, there were doubts about Bush’s legitimacy, because he lost the popular vote, and depending on how you counted the votes in Florida either lost the electoral college or won it by a hair’s breadth thanks to a poorly-designed ballot. ”
Sorry, Jim, the fact that Bush didn’t win the popular vote doesn’t mean anything. In fact, he isn’t even the first person to have done so.
Second, Bush _did_ win Floridas’s electoral votes. Multiple separate investigations, including one by the New York Times, showed that.
No citations, no links, just stuff like “[a] GOP operative in South Carolina tweeted.” No names, just claims. As far as I am concerned you’re still a liar.
BDS proper started when Gore’s lawyers asked for selective recounts. The “Bush Stole the Election” meme was born, and the Left forever had a pretense to hang their hats on.
No citations, no links
Andrea, meet Google. Google, Andrea.
and it’s telling that his timeline starts in 2005.
Actually, Hanson said:
2005, Democrats were booing him openly during his State of the Union address. Rep. Pete Stark called him a liar on the House floor. In fact, the response so far to Obama is mild in comparison to what Bush endured. That does not excuse the boorishness of Joe Wilson, but his tirade is symbolic of our loss of decorum since 2002/2003.
So the timeline started earlier, than Jim stated, but by all means Jim; please try the foolishly argue the nuance of Durbin not calling American troops Nazis, but rather saying their actions are like what Americans think Nazis and the Khmer Rouge did.
In the meantime, I’ll just remember all the lefties complaining that Bush was trying to start a war with the Chinese in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jock crashed into a Navy EP-3C performing recon missions ordered by President Clinton, and simply not rescinded by President Bush. Of course, none of that would have happened if Bush hadn’t been selected instead of elected like Al Gore.
Hanson says Durbin “suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists”. That’s exactly what Durbin did.
No, he compared specific actions. If this distinction is not allowed, it becomes impossible to criticize the treatment of U.S. prisoners without being an “unhinged” critic of U.S. troops.
Hanson says “the New York Times offered a discount to run a politicized ad like “General Betray Us”. That’s exactly what they did.
Hanson’s implication is that the NYT did this as a political favor. It was done, by mistake, by someone in the NYT advertising (not editorial) department, and when the mistake was uncovered (by, among others, the NYT public editor) it was corrected. The incident offers no support to Hanson’s argument.
If Hanson wants to talk about the NYT doing political favors he should focus on its utterly credulous coverage of the Iraq WMD question.
please try the foolishly argue the nuance of Durbin not calling American troops Nazis, but rather saying their actions are like what Americans think Nazis and the Khmer Rouge did.
The Khmer Rouge waterboarded people. The U.S. waterboarded people.
By pointing out these indisputable facts have I just written that U.S. troops are akin to Khmer Rouge killers? Or is nuance important?
Here’s the real difference: Republicans, when they differ with the President, disrespect the President.
Democrats, when they differ with the President, disrespect AMERICA.
Or, to quote from a prominent Clintonista, “When did patriotism, become a right-wing virtue?”
Such an effort to ensure Birther lunacy never again takes hold of the debate seems perfectly rational to me. Clarifying what is to be done about qualifications questions is the only way reasonably, given the current absence of such, to respond to an issue about qualifications.
No, the “reasonable”, “rational” solution is to accept that people born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens, no matter their skin color or the nationality of their parent(s). The authors of this legislation are “responding” to a made-up controversy, and thereby fanning its flames. Asked point blank if he believed that Obama was born in Hawaii, the sponsor of the bill would not give a straight answer.
As it happens I went to high school in Hawaii, like Obama. I also spent a fair amount of my childhood abroad. Unlike Obama, I was actually born outside the U.S. But if I ran for President there wouldn’t be any question of my eligibility, because I’m the white son of white American parents. I probably wouldn’t even be asked for my (French) birth certificate — I don’t recall anyone asking for McCain’s (like McCain, I was born on a U.S. military base).
Alas, I’ve finally reached the point where I can’t read more than four words into the first sentence of a Jim idea-salad post without falling asleep at the keyboard. Booosh, WMD, racism, waterboarding yawn blah foo bar baz. Ugh.
I hope you gents enjoyed your metaphorical disemboweling without me.
The Khmer Rouge waterboarded people. The U.S. waterboarded people.
By pointing out these indisputable facts have I just written that U.S. troops are akin to Khmer Rouge killers? Or is nuance important?
Apparently that’s the point of comparison you want to make. Because I guess you consider yourself an expert in Khmer Rouge waterboarding techniques, assuming that indeed they did just that, and because of your expertise, you know it is exactly how US troops do it. Therefore, they are exactly alike. That seems to be your argument. By all means, continue to make it.
I’m like Carl. It is getting old continuing to read this nonsense from you. But you seem to enjoy looking at Americans, or when you can you will pinpoint to just southern white GOP voters, as no better than the worst the world has to offer.
Booosh, WMD, racism, waterboarding yawn
No kidding, what could be more boring than apocalyptic weapons, racism and torture?
But did you hear that the president is going to talk to — gasp! — schoolchildren? Now that’s an exciting story….
That seems to be your argument.
It isn’t even an argument, just a statement of facts. The response — that it must be an attempt to besmirch the sacred honor of U.S. servicemen, and therefore could only come from some unhinged anti-American critic — is an attempt to end discussion of those facts.
Durbin was pressured to apologize (and continues to be slandered by the likes of Hanson) for stating something that was relevant, important, and true. Does that not bother the freedom-loving folks here?
Apparently talking to schoolchildren was so important that Obama needed to take there time. What’s your point Jim?
Are you upset most people thought Obama could spend his time better explaining why he’s running up the deficit rather than telling our children to wash their hands? I guess you see that as racists, unless people complained about George HW Bush doing the same thing.
Again, keep digging your hole Jim.
It’s a fact that Obama lied in his speech. The attempt to act like Joe Wilson besmirched the Office of the Presidency is just an effort to end discussion of the facts Obama was lying.
Wilson is being pressured to apologize (actually he has, Obama and Biden accepted it, but Pelosi wants another apology) for stating something that is relevant, important, and true. That bothers the freedom loving folks here!
take there time
take their time.
The USMC shoots people. The Nazis shot people. This is just a statement of facts. The response — that it must be an attempt to besmirch the sacred honor of U.S. servicemen, and therefore could only come from some unhinged anti-American critic — is an attempt to end discussion of those facts.
Sorry, forgot the /sarc tag up there for the ironically impared. Also, it’s amaing that anyone can think that Godwin-ing US forces is *not* “fanning the flames” but seeking to clarify the “natural born citizen” clause *is*.
There are unreasonable, irrational people in this country, as you must realize every time you look in a mirror.
Sometimes the only rational response to that fact is to address their irrationalities so that they don’t spread to the mainstream.
Kind of like what I’m doing responding to you.
It sure was in 1991.
I don’t have to google shit, Jim. You’re the one making all the claims. YOU google it. YOU prove it. YOU provide the evidence to back up your outrageous and insane statements. Until you do, as far as I am concerned you are a LIAR.
Again, PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. You’re the one attacking people. You’re the one accusing opponents of Obama of racism. PROVIDE. THE. EVIDENCE. Not just “I heard some guy…” I read a twitter site…” and so on with no links. Racism is a serious charge, which can these days ruin lives. When you charge people with things like that, you need evidence to back up your charges.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.
(Note: I’m repeating myself and using all caps because I do believe that the entity known as “Jim” is a tad dense. Do you think this will get through? Considering how many subsequent posts he’s left here with no links and no cites, I doubt it, but it’s worth a try.)
I was stunned at Jim’s robotic recitation of Democratic Party talking points in the first post. Does he really think that crap convinces anyone? Or is he just mouthing the mythology to reassure himself and his faith in his Democratic overlords?
Jim is the type who can seamlessly switch from shouting “East Asia is our ally” to “We are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia.”
One item in particular leaped off the screen from Jim’s polemical purge:
“By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate…”
Oh, really? Jim equates Baathists and ‘Al Queda in Iraq’ with “people we had set out to liberate”. How irredeemably vile to suggest such a thing. How unserious. And how revealing of the speaker!
Jim apparently subscribes to the Michael Moore axiom that head chopping terrorists are the equivalent of the Minutemen from the American Revolution.
No kidding, what could be more boring than Jim belching tired old nonsense about apocalyptic weapons, racism and torture?
Fixed that for ya, Jim.
Or else he has trouble telling one group of foreigners from another. Liberals don’t always take the trouble to actually learn anything about the people they are claiming to care about, so they are often confused.
Brad Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I was stunned at Jim’s robotic recitation of Democratic Party talking points in the first post.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
What say you, Rand? Is there any way to determine that?
It’s a fact that Obama lied in his speech.
Not about illegal immigration.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
I’m not an “operative”, just a member/supporter/volunteer.
Jim equates Baathists and ‘Al Queda in Iraq’ with “people we had set out to liberate”.
At various times during the conflict more than half of Iraqis polled approved of attacks on American soldiers. Those are the people we set out to liberate, but once there we discovered that they were (in Rand’s phrase) “on the other side.”
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that Jim is in fact a Democratic party operative.
Oh come on, now. What evidence is there for original thought of any kind? I think the appropriate title is “mouthpiece.”
Or maybe “program.” I’ve often thought with a weekend’s work I could write a little Perl script that could easily pass a Turing Test for Jimness. That is, it could produce commentary that all of you would find indistinguishable from the “real” Jim.
Now Rahm’s a smart guy. And he has good programmers working for him. So, sometimes I wonder…
YOU google it.
I did. If you google the phrases I wrote, you’ll find the same articles I did. Here, to help you out, are search terms that will turn up the incidents I mentioned:
Tennessee assistant state rep emailing spook photo
Texas GOP convention button asks “If Obama Is President”
South Carolina GOP Operative “JUST HEARD OBAMA”
Florida GOP committeewoman email “So how did black people travel in airplanes”
South Carolina GOP activist escaped zoo gorilla
I don’t post links to save Rand the trouble of moderating the post.
“I don’t post links to save Rand the trouble of moderating the post.”
You mean, to save Rand the trouble of deleting the same old links to Kos and alternet.org and– what’s the other favorite moonbat site? Commondreams.org? Yeah, that’s it.
In any case, still not gonna do your work for you. The burden of proof is still on you, as the accuser (that we are opposing Obama’s policies out of racism, remember? can you even keep track off all your wild charges?). I know that in your sort of ideal world everyone is guilty until proven innocent, but fortunately we don’t live in that kind of world. Yet.
Too too funny!
Jim you are an amazing doublethinker, hats off to you.
I am in awe of the mental gymnastics needed to claim an opinion poll taken in the midst of awful nationwide terrorism is a reliable indicator of allegiance to Al Queda in Iraq.
Did you also believe in the 1990 opinion polls in Nicaragua, which predicted an easy election victory for the Sandanistas? It’s a good thing the Sandanistas believed in those polls too since they badly lost, or no doubt they would not have permitted a genuine election!
I am in awe of the mental gymnastics needed to claim an opinion poll taken in the midst of awful nationwide terrorism is a reliable indicator of allegiance to Al Queda in Iraq.
I said no such thing. The polls showed that most Iraqis approved of attacks on American soldiers. That doesn’t mean that most Iraqis had allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq (or the Baath party, or the Mahdi Army, or one of the other organizations opposed to the U.S. presence). It just means that they weren’t on our side.
You mean, to save Rand the trouble of deleting the same old links to Kos and alternet.org and– what’s the other favorite moonbat site?
The incidents I mentioned were reported in the mainstream press.
Jim vs Jim
Gosh I wonder who will win?
“Those are the people we set out to liberate, but once there we discovered that they were (in Rand’s phrase) “on the other side.””
versus
“It just means that they weren’t on our side.”
The indefensible Jim quote, just as a reminder, “By 2005 we were fighting the people we had set out to liberate…”
Dance Jim Dance!
Actually, I quite clearly remember there being questions about McCain’s ability to serve based on his birth. McCain was born in Panama, and there was a big stink at, IIRC, DU about the whole thing, until it came out that Hawaii was a territory at the time of Obama’s birth. This whole debate struck me particularly, because like both McCain and Obama, I am a natural born citizen who was born abroad (Okinawa, in my case). The birthers are nutcases, no doubt about it. But that nuttiness is not confined to the Right, and had McCain won, we doubtless would still be seeing the exact same tune, just with a different lead vocalist.