The Tea Party Movement and the "Race Card"

Damn leftists and their concern for human lives!

 

Obama's first speech on the Iraq War was delivered at an anti-war rally. He still campaigned on that fact when he ran for office in 2008. True, he didn't ever claim to be a pacifist or anti-military. But he undoubtedly knew he had the support of large parts of the activists anti-war left, and had to have been glad to have their enthusiasm on his side.

I'm not getting the linkages here.

I mean first of all when does any politician turn down support if the cause is general enough? A pro-Communist voting for Obama has about as much relevance as a rabid racist voting for George H. W. Bush (the Snr.). They both have exactly one vote more than they would have otherwise, so neither one of them is going to rock the boat until they think that accomodating that one vote will cost them several othes.

The difference is, as someone mentioned, between a causal link and an incidental link. Many of the GOP are inherently linked to the Tea Party or are very deliberately taking up thier banner. Thier own central persona was the nominee for Vice President in the last election. You don't get more party mainstream than that.

That Obama was against the war -- well gee, the war itself was only opposed by millions and millions of people. You didn't exactly have to be an extreme left-winger to oppose the war. This wasn't exactly a clear-cut situation: it wasn't a reaction to any invasion of Poland, or a Battle of Fort Sumter. Or even torpedoes fired in the Gulf of Tonkin. Whatever you think of the country in question and its ruler, it was at best a war undertaken whose prime cause lay 12 years in the past. Excuse me for thinking that this particular conflict would be controvertial.

Obama never claimed at the time or currently to represent those that burned his predecessor in effigy. Can the same be said for those in congress who have garnered Tea Party support?

 

He didn't claim to represent the effigy burners, but he did implicitly take up the mantle of the anti-war left in general. The effigists, anti-Americans, and anti-Semites are a small, vocal faction of the anti-war movement as a whole. The anti-war movement advocated a reasonable position that's within American political norms, but its image is hurt by all the weirdos using extreme rhetoric and advocating extreme positions.

Likewise, the tea party advocates conservative small government positions that are generally within American historical norms, but there are a few racists and idiots who get highlighted by opponents as representing the whole movement. A tea party candidate would obviously disavow the more extreme elements of the movement, and various racists who try to show up to rallies are shunned.

It's akin to the protest movements of the 60s that saw huge numbers of new young freshmen elected to Congress.

 

He didn't claim to represent the effigy burners, but he did implicitly take up the mantle of the anti-war left in general. The effigists, anti-Americans, and anti-Semites are a small, vocal faction of the anti-war movement as a whole. The anti-war movement advocated a reasonable position that's within American political norms, but its image is hurt by all the weirdos using extreme rhetoric and advocating extreme positions.

Likewise, the tea party advocates conservative small government positions that are generally within American historical norms, but there are a few racists and idiots who get highlighted by opponents as representing the whole movement. A tea party candidate would obviously disavow the more extreme elements of the movement, and various racists who try to show up to rallies are shunned.

It's akin to the protest movements of the 60s that saw huge numbers of new young freshmen elected to Congress.

I grant some of that. But the people of whom we are speaking do not have that sort of arms-length relationship.

Take Sarah Palin: she herself has been associated with extreme positions. Things such as death panels in health care legislation, etc. Or Michelle Bachmann claiming that now the government had a 51% share of the American marketplace. There is no indication that these people are necessarily speaking to "the middle", or the moderate.

This would be akin to Barack Obama claiming that the war should end becuase George Bush is killing Iraqi civilians. Or that Americna soldiers were doing that. And whether you believe that to be the case or not, that's not the sort of thing Obama was saying. In fact even as he talked of ending engagement with Iraq, he spoke openly of increasing American involvement in Afghanistan, extremely far from a far-left position.

I'm sorry, but I don't see these Republican Congressmen saying "we want to end Health Care, but we also want to legalize Marijuana" or "we also want to increase taxes", or some other vaguely left-wing associated idea. There is no give and take with the positions of most of these candidates.

 

I doubt most of the voting public actually properly understand either term, they just throw it at anyone or anything they don't like.

Only the other day Sarah Palin said the US must support "our North Korean allies". For someone who is supposedly anti-communist, she obviously seems keen to support a communist regime. Maybe she herself is a communist, given the reaction that word has in the US her opponents should throw it at her as much as possible.

 

Like an autistic child, all Palin needs is a good interpreter to help us understand what she's really trying to say.

 

And during the campaign, Obama claimed that he had visited 57 states (with one more to go, not counting Alaska or Hawaii). Obviously, he must be stupid, because any school child knows that there are only 50 states total, right?

When an individual obviously misspeaks, it does no one any credit to harp on it. Chuckle at the fact that they are human and make mistakes, and move on. From the context it's clear that Palin meant to say "South Korean allies", just like Obama meant to say "47 states".

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well when you see one of the founders of this mob holding a sign which calls the president the n word I really can't take them seriously on any grounds. The teabagging movement represents a great achievement of the corporate propaganda system. Using people's anger towards the system and their deep-rooted racism to get them to actively root against their own self-interest is simply a milestone.

 

Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians.' Hannity may be quoting Obama out of context. But John Kerry was entirely in context when he accused American soldiers of heinous, wanton crimes. John Murtha also accused marines of wanton killings, when they would end up being acquitted.

Another clear falsehood was when Obama and Clinton said McCain wanted a hundred years of war, when that was totally not what he was saying. And of course, those are all normal, mainstream Democrats, whereas Palin and Bachmann are right of center in their party.

Palin fires back on Facebook with list of Obama gaffes. A good response by her. You're right that gaffes are a pointless thing to harp on.

 

A good response? That's something a six year old would do. Or some snotty teenager.

As was said on another website:

Also:

She really is that dumb that she would think we were allies with North Korea.

As for the 'Bu-bu-but Kerry!' point: 1) Americans did some pretty savage **** during the Vietnam war. 2) Just because a jury or military court finds you not guilty does not mean it's the same as 'innocent'. It just means that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove guilt and/or the military legal system is filled with tools. Probably both. 3) Even if Obama was insisting that troops were intentionally killing civilians your point is? Now, while I don't fully believe our military is that sick, for the most part, I have no problem believing that some troops have killed some civilians either by accident or on purpose. Where's the problem?

Besides, it's Hannity giving out the info and I trust him about as much as...well...JediSmuggler to make a sane and rational post.

 

And you became the arbiter of what constitutes sanity and rationality, when, FIDo?

You are easily one of the most hateful people I have had the misfortune to come across. Oddly enough, the vast majority of hateful people I have come across have been self-proclaimed "progressives."

 

Oh, there's consensus.

 

Smuggler, you strike a lot of people as hateful, including and particularly me. Careful that you aren't projecting more than an IMAX screen.

I an openly hateful of the Republican party and most of what it stands for. If someone stands up and trumpets those ideas, they get added to what I hate. I don't pretend otherwise, though.

 

Among who, self-proclaimed "progressives" in their usual Bizarro world?

 

Easy fellas, I sense a moderator coming.

Regarding gaffes, I think the difference is that people will accept it if balanced out by a track record of saying smart stuff and/or a track record of accomplishments.

People may forget but former President HW Bush was known somewhat for his gaffes including:

"For seven and a half years I've worked alongside President Reagan. We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex...uh...setbacks.?

This was kinda laughed about, but hardly anyone seriously questioned that he had a lack of a track record (VP, Congressman, CIA, etc.). Similarly, Biden has had more than his share of gaffes, but he also has several decades of legislation/Senatorial experience under his belt. President Obama may have a few gaffes, but he certainly has proven that he can debate and is knowledgable about the issues.

Palin, well, her so-clever comments such as ?lamestream media? and reminding us 10,000 times a day she?s a real American in some way, is balanced out by her quitting as governor and turning into a Republican Kardashian, a reality-tv star. And her thin skin and pettiness doesn?t help.

 

The idea that Palin doesn't know which side is which is pretty implausible; she apparently got it back half a dozen times prior that day.

That does not mean she's well-qualified for any elective office.

As for Obama, his statement in the clip was referring to US warfighting strategy as a whole, as in "air raids that kill civilians is our strategy." It was a boneheaded statement, but it supports my idea that Obama was playing to his activist base. Not that there's anything especially wrong with that.

I'm not saying Kerry and Obama are bad guys; I was just pointing out to Gonk that "extreme positions" can be gleaned from statements on both sides, using his criteria.

 

Especially since I know a lot of Evangelical preachers who are in favor of helping out Darfur because in Sudan, Christianity is illegal. Pretty much the only person who doesn't think something has to be done (though no one knows what, exactly, we can do) is Farrakhan. Of course, try convincing Farrakhan that there is any nuance at all to the history of Islam in Africa.

 

Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians.' Hannity may be quoting Obama out of context. But John Kerry was entirely in context when he accused American soldiers of heinous, wanton crimes. John Murtha also accused marines of wanton killings, when they would end up being acquitted.

Ok first of all, Obama is factually correct in what he's talking about, by the military's own constant admission: he was talking about civilians killed in collatoral damage, which we all know happens.

That quote is absolutely taken out of context, because Obama is trying to say what the overall situation is leading to. He's not trying to say that the soldiers or Bush is evil or persuing these things in order to meet that end of killing civilians.

The Palin examples and Bachmann examples are with the representatives explicitly endorsing the extreme views themselves.

As for John Kerry, what are you referring to? Are you referring to his Vietnam comments back in the 70s and 60s? Is anything you're talking about now meant to side with the same people burning Bush in effigy?


Another clear falsehood was when Obama and Clinton said McCain wanted a hundred years of war, when that was totally not what he was saying. And of course, those are all normal, mainstream Democrats, whereas Palin and Bachmann are right of center in their party.

Now you're trying to talk about something else entirely. What does Obama and Clinton saying what McCain did or didn't want have to do with the far-left or far-right position? What you are referring to is trying to upset a candidate in an election: it's not particularly skewed to any ideology, or trying to promote or speak for one. Who exactly on the right is even going to want a hundred years of war? This is only superficially related to what we're talking about.

 

Opposing genocide in Darfur is fine and sensible. Supporting legislation and other action to that effect is laudable. But a Congressman getting himself arrested in front of an embassy in a protest is an empty gesture and a stunt. And it's not just my guy, but at least ten Democratic members of Congress that have done this.

 

The best equivalent to Bachmann would probably be Maxine "The CIA invented crack to destroy the black community." Waters. I do use the "CIA invented crack" story to convince kids that doing drugs is in no way rebellious, though. But even then, there really is no Democrat in Congress who accused Bush of treason on nothing more than his positions. (Which is sad, since technically, Dick Cheney committed treason when he dealt with Saddam Hussein in the 90s.) It was mostly Islamic extremists in Pakistan (and we keep going back to Pakistan!) who started the "6000 Jews were late to work" story.

I just wish all these conservatives who talked about being a "loyal American" would just stop supporting neoconfederates.

 

I should have pointed out that it isn't accurate to compare Obama with Palin and Bachmann. Obama is the de facto leader of the Democratic party; the GOP has no comparable leader. The closest equivalent is John Boehner. Palin is not in charge of anything and is disliked by broad swaths of the GOP. Bachmann has the ear of a faction of the GOP, but is still held in suspicion by the still-powerful establishment, as evidenced in her failed bid to get any sort of leadership position in the incoming Congress.

I'm aware that Palin is not accepted by many within the GOP, and I am not comparing Boehner to Bachmann in terms of where they are within the party strata.

However, while Palin might not be the most popular face within the GOP, she's far from unpopular. And in fact it would do to compare her to Dennis Kucinich because Kucinich is almost totally unsupported within the Democratic party. The difference of support he and Palin recieves is telling: Kucinich has run multiple times for President and almost every time he finishes in last place, never once having had a real shot at the nomination. Whatever voice he has, it's consigned to the same place of Rev. Al Sharpton: unlistened and forgotten. Certainly never competitive.

Palin, however, was once the VP nominee, and how competitive she might be in the primaries is very apparent, even if she is probably to not emerge victorious. Bachmann might not be partiuclarly powerful herself, but she's part of a growing block of the GOP that represents the Tea Party. Whatever block Kucinich might be thought to belong to, it certainly isn't growing now, and wasn't growing back in 2006, either.

 

Palin isn't the equivalent of Kucinich (everyone knows Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are Santa's elves )

I'd say Sarah Palin is more the equivalent of John Edwards. Both former VP nominees, both never got along well with the party establishment or their presidential running mate, both relatively inexperienced, both got their support from the base, both plagued by scandals, both shown to be egocentric, etc.

The only difference is that scandals destroyed John Edwards (after already losing the nomination in 2008), but scandals have had no effect on Palin (who still plans to run for the nomination). And another key difference is that Sarah Palin may actually win, unlike John Edwards she does not have two titans overshadowing her.

 

It depends if the question at hand is one of rhetoric versus influence.

If we're talking rhetoric, I think Palin and Kucinich are absolutely comparable. The only difference being that Palin makes more consistent mis-statements.

If we're talking about influence, Palin is several times as influential as Kucinich with the voters of the party, and becuase of that has more influence within the party. That she is shut out of certain avenues within the GOP establishement is worth mentioning, but the distinction has to be made that GOP establishment is being made to make an effort of shutting her out: no such effort has to be mounted against Kucinich. Kerry, Obama and Clinton can just afford to ignore him.

So in terms of impact, yes... in that way Palin's comparable to Edwards.

 

Is that why I have repeatedly been called "boy" throughout my life?

Last I checked, I'm a white man.

Of course, you can use any word that you want as a racial slur.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: You can also see a variety of examples of the term being used in a non-racial manner. For example, in the show "Supernatural", Bobby Singer (who is white) often calls both Sam and Dean Winchester (who are both white) "boy". The term is non-racial, although it is still an epithet.