Sunday, September 13, 2009

Maureen Dowd on "You Lie"

The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd, entitled "Boy, Oh, Boy." In it, Ms. Dowd pulls no punches in assigning racist motivations not only to the unprecidented outburst of Congressman Wilson, but to the the general animosity being shown President Obama.

The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.

The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

This is exactly where conservatives have veered from the path of acceptable debate and disagreement. And attempts to justify Rep. Wilson's actions by saying Bush had received much of the same, are the height of rationalization. Here's an example, read the comments.

In debating the gun enthusiasts and being continually surprised at the depth of their ill will towards President Obama, I suggested it was due to his gun politics. This was roundly denied, most pro-gun commenters claiming that his gun control sympathies are only a small part of what's wrong with Obama as president. I had another idea which I dared not mention. Maureen Dowd has dared though.

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

What's your opinion? Is the fact that Barack Obama is a black man, the unspoken problem? Do you think that plays a role in what we've been seeing in the news? Is there anyone commenting here with the guts to admit this, either about themselves or the others? As politically incorrect as overt racism is, perhaps integrity and honesty might overcome the inhibitions, and some would be willing to admit it.

For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.

What do you think?

23 comments:

  1. It is not the color of the man's skin that is the issue but rather the color of his politics.

    For most that oppose his politics, the man is not black at all, he is commie red.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @FatWhiteMan - How are Obama's politics any different than Bush's? Both bailed out Wall Street. Both are fighting in two wars. Both bailed out the auto industry. Both use torture. Both illegally wiretap Americans. And both approve preventative detention.

    So please, remind me again how Obama is a commie red and Bush is a true blooded American.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the fact that Barack Obama is a black man, the unspoken problem?

    "Unspoken"? Is that supposed to be a joke? When have the Obama worshippers gone 5 minutes without shouting about his race (or, more accurately, shouting about 50% of his racial makeup, while conveniently ignoring the other 50%), and screaming "racist" at anyone who dares criticize the president of the Democrats?

    Is part of the opposition to Obama motivated by racism? Of course, and that's contemptible, but racism has been around since the time (aeons ago) that humanity had expanded to the point of diverging into separate races, and will no doubt be around well into the future.

    Are the black voters who never bothered registering until Obama came along "racist" for never having supported white candidates?

    ReplyDelete
  4. this says it all http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs234.snc1/8116_160566800925_636805925_4023432_655877_n.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. Something to consider MikeB...

    Obama Had one black parent and one white parent.

    Obama is half black and half white.

    If someone can validly claim that someone who is half black and half white is black, then someone else claiming that he is white would be equally valid.

    Checkmate.

    Are you willing to throw up a post about all the minorities who voted against McCain did so because they are racists?

    I thought not. It's a silly argument and I was hoping you could rise above playing the race card, but I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. phuckpolitics- I don't believe I ever defended Bush either and I'm damn sure I never referred to him as a "true blooded American".

    I was against the first bailout too and only me and Saddam Hussein thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea back in 2003.

    George Bush is an entry in a history book. Obama, his "Czars", their five year plans and Marxist ideas are the issue now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The disrespect offered Obama is racist. There is no other way to look at it. It has nothing to do with his office or his politics because other Presidents with different politics were at least treated respectfully. For some reason, the right wing thinks they can treat Obama like garbage and no one is going to notice.

    The congressman from SC was so out of line, my first thought was that he was someone's child. How can a grownup act so foolishly? He deserves the same respect he offers others, which would be none at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both."

    At least Maureen Dowd is honest enough to admit what Barack won't: He represents a federal takeover.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FWM, that's the other assumption that many Obama worshippers can't help making about Obama's detractors--not only are we racists, but we're Bush supporters, as well. They don't have any evidence for that generalization, either, but who needs evidence when you have volume?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @FatWhiteMan - Every president since Nixon has had czars. Did you complain about their "Marxist" ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd, entitled "Boy, Oh, Boy." In it, Ms. Dowd pulls no punches in assigning racist motivations not only to the unprecidented outburst of Congressman Wilson,

    Uh, "unprecidented"? How about the jeering and heckling Bush put up with from most of the Dems in Congress at the 2006 SOTU?

    Really Mickey, you've done this to yourself a myriad of times. Just regurgitated someone else's writings, only to have them shoved back down your throat. You'd think by now you'd at least try to check your sources.

    One hint, Mo Dowd is NOT a good source.

    ReplyDelete
  12. False dichotomy, phuckpolitics.

    I have altogether little use for either of the major (or any of the minor) parties any longer. Both are inimical to my liberty (and the minor parties are either feckless, worse, or both). The Democrats and Republicans have degenerated into a squabble over which side is going to be the Harlem Globetrotters and which the Washington Generals this election cycle. (For anyone outside the US not familiar with the 'Trotters, the Globetrotters and their perennial opponents, the Generals, work for the same company, putting on staged -- highly entertaining, to be sure, if you like that sort of thing -- exhibitions masquerading, to an extent, as competitive basketball. The Globetrotters always win.)

    The best President of my life (JFK to now) was Reagan, and even he wasn't up to his press clippings. He was so all-fired hot on balancing the budget, he might have submitted one somewhere along the line.

    Put not your trust in princes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. kilowat, That picture is certainly one that says it all. But I wonder if it says the same thing to you as it says to me. What do you think?

    TomB, That video has been going around a lot lately in an attempt to justify the "You lie," outrage.

    What Bush received was more like grumbling disapproval of what he was saying. That's a far cry for a personal attack like "You lie."

    What is so hard for you to admit that the Gentleman from SC was absolutely in the wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  14. phuckpolitics-

    Only the ones that had Marxist Czars.

    Do you not see the news? Van Jones is a self avowed communist. Sunstein is a communist.

    Obama not only surrounds himself with communists, he promotes communist ideals such as Government owned business, the redistribution of wealth and government run health care.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Ken - The best President of my life (JFK to now) was Reagan, and even he wasn't up to his press clippings. He was so all-fired hot on balancing the budget, he might have submitted one somewhere along the line.

    Yeah, Reagan was so all-fired hot on balancing the budget that he raised the national debt from 700 billion to 3 trillion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @FatWhiteMan - If by news you mean Glenn Beck then no I don't watch the news.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, Reagan was so all-fired hot on balancing the budget that he raised the national debt from 700 billion to 3 trillion.

    Which is interesting, since it took him a full 8 years to do that. I wonder if anyone could increase the debt by $2.3 trillion faster. Let's see, Bush I did $1.5 trillion in 4 years, Clinton did $1.5 trillion in 8 years, Bush II did $3.5 trillion in 8 years, Obama did $1.5 trillion in 1 year (with something like $7 trillion over 8 years projected).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reputo, Thanks for those numbers. Put that way it doesn't seem all that bad what Obama is trying to do. So why all the resistance?

    Isn't there anyone out there who will admit they're racist and just can't accept the fact of a black president?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Isn't there anyone out there who will admit they're racist and just can't accept the fact of a black president?

    Maybe this isn't the prevalent thought process. Perhaps people don't like his politics. Maybe if Hillary were elected we would be having the same discussion. Maybe if McCain were elected the debate still wouldn't change. Perhaps the problem is people don't want an expanding federal government, and it doesn't matter if it is a black man, white man, black woman, white woman, Republican or Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Isn't there anyone out there who will admit they're racist and just can't accept the fact of a black president?

    Or perhaps the quality of your readership is better than you realize, and there are no racists here.

    But that wouldn't be any fun, would it? You would have to accept that there is nothing racist about love of liberty, and deep seated distrust of government.

    No way to fit that into your world view, is there, Mikeb?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Put that way it doesn't seem all that bad what Obama is trying to do. So why all the resistance?

    It "doesn't seem all that bad" that the Obama administration, by its own estimate, expects another 9 trillion dollars of national debt over the next 10 years? Is this part of that Mikeb fantasy world, where not only can gun laws disarm criminals in a country in which the gun population is nearly equal to (or perhaps greater than) the human population, but where a national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars is "not that bad"?

    Man--you would make one hell of a loan officer. I guess I know now what kind of attitude led to the subprime mortgage bubble.

    ReplyDelete
  22. this says it all http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs234.snc1/8116_160566800925_636805925_40234

    That photo "says it all," does it, Kilowat? If so, I can only conclude that there is very little to be said, because all it says to me is that there was a poorly spelled sign, presumably at one of the Tea Parties. What it does not say is that poor spelling is universal--or even commonplace--among Tea Party attendees. What it also does not say is that a poorly spelled message is necessarily untrue. I will be so bold as to point out that the photo does not even say enough to rule out the possibility that the sign was made and carried by an agent provocateur, hoping to portray the Tea Party movement as being composed of uneducated hicks.

    Would you agree with my assessment of what the photo says (and what it does not say), Kilowat, or am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  23. kilowat, Please come back. beowulf has all those questions for you based on the presumption that you are not in agreement with the sentiment expressed on that sign and were mocking it for misspelling. I'm not so sure. It occurred to me that you were in agreement with the idea and perhaps hadn't even noticed the misspelling.

    Which is it?

    ReplyDelete