Even for you, tossing around words like "ethnic cleansing" and "bigotry" is a little bit melodramatic. And it is this kind of shrillness that, at least in the current election cycle, is driving the left into irrelevancy. Ethnic cleansing is variously defined in terms of murder, rape, and torture, and the forcible removal of populations. It has nothing to do with school textbooks/curriculums, which is what HB 2281 in Arizona seeks to address.
In one post, you've attempted to tar the right with words like "bigotry, fear, and stupidity".......I'd submit to you that this kind of silliness is one reason that things are looking so bad for the left as we approach the midterm elections. Gallup has the largest lead on the generic ballot (51-41%) for the Republicans in over 60 years.
Dynamic politicians like Marco Rubio are talking about hope, growth, and opportunity. I don't see "ignorance, anger, bigotry, etc......" in any of his speeches. Further, he doesn't get involved in targeting his message to specific demographic or ethnic groups. The strategy of "victimology" is a game played not by the right, but by the far left, and it's pretty condescending. Liberals see their target audience as a patchwork coalition of victims' groups, to whom they'll offer various entitlement programs and goodies---all in an effort to cement their loyalty. Center/right politicians simply see us all as Americans.
It's funny: liberals are falling all over themselves to protect Muslims in the current debate over the Ground Zero Mosque, arguing that it's wrong to paint all Muslims with a broad brush based on the actions of a few despicable terrorists. Fair enough. But these same liberals have no problem doing the same thing to the Tea Party movement in this country: finding a few ugly signs and/or nut jobs at a march, and then using words like "bigotry" to define the entire political movement.
The fact that Dems are suffering so badly in the polls (yesterday's Gallup generic poll, 51-41%) would suggest that voters are not buying into the Obama strategy of blaming everything on George W. Bush.
Given that, how do you honestly think they would react to Barack Obama trying to blame our current economic woes on President Ronald Reagan.....a beloved President who left office almost a quarter century ago? Most people remember him as the President who restored our economy (remember 18% interest rates, and 13% inflation???) and made people believe in America again.
With all due respect, Charles, there is not a political strategist alive who would advise the Dems to "pin this mess on the GOP going back to Reagan". That just doesn't make good sense, and it would make Obama look like more of a wuss than he already does.
Among other things, Obama has to at least TRY to look Presidential. The imagery of the past month has not been helpful: just a few days ago, he was riding a girl's mountain bike with a goofy looking helmet, and then days later he was down in the Gulf "buying him some shrimp". This man is essentially the country's CEO---he should try to at least act the part.
I haven't researched Florida's "Marriage Protection Ammendment", so I'm asking the question---is it essentially the same as DOMA, which President Clinton signed in 1996?
I mean, at some point, we have to realize that we may not like the conclusion that society as a whole has reached on same sex marriage....but we have to respect it. That's what living in a constitutional republic means sometimes. When voters in ME, CA, and FL (not to mention 24 other states) all turn thumbs down on same sex marriage, it's just hard to say that "damn it, they're ALL bigots!" These are three fairly diverse states, and it's not like they're Kansas or Idaho, etc. We can condemn them all we want, but we'll probably just waste a lot of time in the process, and die living in a fool's paradise. At this point, it's just time to move on.
Given the recent economic statistics.....e.g., yesterday's downgrade of second quarter GDP growth to 1.6%......maybe you should refer to the stimulus plan as a "sedative plan".
The administration's court jester, Joe Biden, had the "Recovery Summer" duty this week, since Obama was on vacation. He touted the weatherization of 200,000 homes (there are 100 million homes in the entire country) as the "stimulus" plan's greatest accomplishment.
This isn't leadership, and it's not success. It's just failure.
If you're talking about Marco's opposition to same-sex marriage, his position is the same as that of Charlie Crist, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
It seems like a new political tactic for many on the left is to brand anyone who doesn't adopt their position on given issues as either racists or bigots. Hence you had Jimmy Carter, last spring, labeling those opposed to Obamacare as racists. And those who oppose same sex marriage are routinely tarred as bigots....even though voters in California supported Prop 8, as they overwhelmingly (+60%) supported Obama for President.
I don't think this tactic is either clever, or especially creative. All it's going to do is make Democrats and progressives appear shrill, and drive independents further into the arms of the GOP. Racism and bigotry are loaded terms, which are being tossed around way too casually, and it's eventually going to cause a major backlash.
I (and most economists) like to look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics---which show that Obama has lost 3.1 million jobs since he took office. On the other hand, Obama likes to use made-up numbers, which he calls "saved or created", to substitute for the official ones which show him failing. Henceforth, we're going to call those fictitious numbers, "Barry jobs."
Either way, I'm not sure that the number of jobs that Carter created was worth 18% interest rates and 13.6% inflation. That's too high a cost. Give me a President Reagan, who created jobs while REDUCING inflation and interest rates. It's called balance---or as others might say, a "Goldilocks" economy. What Obama is giving us is the "Terminator" economy---everything in site gets destroyed.
Amen, brother. Like many other centrists, my first ever vote was for President Reagan, although I vote Democratic in most elections. There are still a lot of Reagan Democrats out there, who basically value pragmatism over ideology. Obama stands for the reverse, and it's wrecking this country.
I've read over two dozen biographies on President Reagan, and as always, I strive to read authors who come from the right as well as the left. Not one biographer that I've read---at either end of the spectrum--- accused Reagan of being racist. In fact, liberals Richard Reeves, as well as Lou Cannon (who was a writer for the Washington Post) went out of their way to emphatically dispel that accusation, which is often born out of ignorance, but more often, jealousy at his accomplishments and leadership.
Not only the Clintons, but many of their supporters have been smeared as racists by this crowd, I can attest to that. But to paraphrase Reverend Wright, "the chickens are now coming home to roost".......I really fear for our great country.
I agree with you that infrastructure spending would probably be stimulative, but only a meager portion of the sedative bill was devoted to that type of spending. Most of it was "goodies", i.e., walk-around money for the appropriators.
As to add'l spending for unemployment benefits, Obama's top economic advisor believes that it's counter-productive in bringing down unemployment. Dr. Summers wrote during the summer of 2008 that most recipients of unemployment benefits won't look for work until the final four weeks of their unemployment benefits arrive. This suggests that jobless benefits which run for 99 weeks are partly to blame for the high unemployment numbers we're facing.
Those of us who warned a year and a half ago that the Obama stimulus bill was really a sedative bill have been vindicated at this point. Japan tried six of these government spending frauds during the '90's, and it didn't work for them either. Even after Orsag and Mrs. Romer have hit the road, we have to listen to "plugs" Biden---when he isn't walking around bumping into doors--- telling us that this is the Recovery Summer.
Against this backdrop, why do you want to make an issue of letting the Bush tax cuts expire? There should be no tax increase in this kind of an economic meltdown, period; just let it go, for chrissakes. Nouriel Roubini pegs the chance of a double dip recession at 40%; David Rosenberg, former chief economist at Merrill, said earlier this week that we never got out of the first recession, and that we're now in a depression.
You people really need to wake up. Barak Obama has wrecked this economy, and raising taxes will only make it worse.
"Racist" is a loaded word, and when you use it, you ought to be able to back it up with specifics.
That's what I challenged you to do, and as usual, you failed miserably. So I'll try again: give us specific examples of what you call "President Reagan's racist agenda".
Your inability to engage in any real debate or discussion is why you end up with silly little posts, where you have to comment on your own articles. It amounts to talking to yourself. Maybe we'll give your activity it's own term: "masturblogging". Hope you enjoy it.
Check your statistics: Reagan grew the economy by a third ($4.9 to 6.7 trillion), and created 21M new jobs. And he accomplished this AFTER inheriting an economy with 18% interest rates, 13.5% inflation, and 7.6% unemployment. Just to get you in the habit of doing some real research, why don't you check what those three metrics were when Reagan left office in 1989?
Eisenhower had three recessions during the 50's, which was not a stellar period. JFK (like Reagan) initiated agressive tax cuts, which got the economy moving again in the early 60's.
Finally, tell me what you mean specifically by "Reagan's anti-black racist agenda". I suspect you're as ignorant about domestic policy as you are about foreign affairs. My guess is that since you got smacked down pretty hard in your debate with Lakrosse, you've wandered over here to try to debate economics. You're not off to a good start.
Each time liberals can't win an argument based on the merits, they do one of three things:
a) play the race card, b) blame George W. Bush, and now, c) play the prejudice card
Lakrosse and numerous others have presented arguments here as to why this mosque should not be built---and not one of them is based on prejudice. Common decency would dictate that Imam Rauf accept Gov. Patterson's very generous offer to compromise, and find an alternative site.
Your charge of "prejudice" is about as ludicrous as Jimmy Carter's charge---back during the health care debate last spring---that opponents of Obamacare were racists. I wondered when he said it if all those who opposed Hillarycare back in 1993 based their oppostion on racism as well.
This is showcasing the schism in the Democratic Party: Pelosi and Obama lead a politically correct band of intellectual elites who are out of touch with regular Americans. When Pelosi calls for the investigation of those who oppose the building of the mosque, she only serves to further maginalize the party that she purports to lead. These "leaders" are obsessed with counting the number of settlements being built by Israeli citizens, but seem disinterested by the number of missiles being built by a terrorist state like Iran.
How much more damage can these morons do? They're wrecking our economy, wrecking our standing in the world by projecting weakness, and wrecking our national security. Like many other centrists here, I can't wait for 2012; let's just hope we survive until then.