“...'mass hysteria.' That’s a phenomenon I wrote about for a quarter-century, from the heterosexual AIDS 'epidemic”'to the swine flu 'pandemic' that killed vastly fewer people than seasonal flu, to 'runaway Toyotas.'
Mass hysteria is when a large segment of society loses touch with reality, or goes bonkers, if you will, on a given issue – like believing that an incredibly mild strain of flu could kill eight times as many Americans as normal seasonal flu. (It killed about a third as many.)
I was always way ahead of the curve. And my exposés primarily appeared in right-wing publications. Back when they were interested in serious research. I also founded a conservative college newspaper, held positions in the Reagan administration and at several conservative think tanks, and published five books that conservatives applauded. I’ve written for umpteen major conservative publications – National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, among them.
But no longer. That was the old right. The last thing hysteria promoters want is calm, reasoned argument backed by facts. And I’m horrified that these people have co-opted the name 'conservative' to scream their messages of hate and anger."
[Messages from conservative heroes like Michael Savage who defines liberalism as a "mental disorder." That sort of rhetoric, and the acceptance by otherwise reasonable conservatives, will continue to divide us and inflame our national dialog. --SK]
Fumento continues:
Extremism in the defense of nothing
"Last month [April 2012] U.S. Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican recently considered by some as vice-president material, insisted that there are '78 to 81' Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, again with little condemnation from the new right.
Mitt Romney took a question at a town hall meeting this month from a woman who insisted President Obama be 'tried for treason,' without challenging, demurring from or even commenting on her assertion.
And then there’s the late Andrew Breitbart (assassinated on the orders of Obama, natch). A video from February shows him shrieking at peaceful protesters: 'You’re freaks and animals! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! You freaks! You filthy freaks! You filthy, filthy, filthy raping, murdering freaks!'
He went on for a minute-and-a-half like that. Speak not ill of the dead? Sen. Ted Kennedy’s body was barely cold when Breitbart labeled him 'a big ass motherf@#$er,' a 'duplicitous bastard' a 'prick' and 'a special pile of human excrement.'
The new right loved it! Upon his own death shortly after, Breitbart was immediately sanctified and sent to lead the Seraphim. He was repeatedly eulogized as 'the most important conservative of our time never to hold office,' skipping right past William F. What’s-his-name Jr."
Seriously? Do the hysterically-honked-up people on the extreme right ever, ever listen to themselves? Reflect on their bombast? When you read their rhetoric in cold print, like Fumento has shown here, one wonders if these extremists are nothing more than street performers hoping to win a prize on America's Funniest Videos, and not representing an actual political faction. Savage, remember, calls liberals mentally ill. --SK
Fumento:
There was nothing 'conservative' about Breitbart. Ever-consummate gentlemen like Buckley and Ronald Reagan would have been mortified by such behavior as Breitbart’s...Civility and respect for order – nay, demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.
All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming 'J’accuse! J’accuse!' Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.
...how much fact was there in Heartland’s billboards, whose shock purpose has been likened to tactics of the hard-left animal activist group PETA, with whom I’ve repeatedly locked horns. Or in West’s assertion? Or Breitbart’s tirades? Rush Limbaugh compared Breitbart, who never wrote a single investigative report, to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the dynamic duo who brought down the thoroughly corrupt presidency of Richard Nixon. He actually said Breitbart’s work was superior. Oh, dear!
I know these words coming from somebody identified with the right are heresy – as defined by this new right. An invite to a marshmallow roast with you as guest of honor. Or worse. It’s to be labeled with the ultimate epithet: RINO.
[skip]
The hate, anger and fear machine
A single author, Ann Coulter, has published best-selling books accusing liberals, in the titles, of being demonic, godless and treasonous. Michelle Malkin, ranked by the Internet search company PeekYou as having the most traffic of any political blogger, routinely dismisses them as 'moonbats, morons and idiots.' Limbaugh infamously dispatched a young woman who expressed her opinion that the government should provide free birth control as a 'slut' and a 'prostitute.”'
As a conservative, I disagree with the political opinions of liberals. But to me, a verbal assault indicates insecurity and weakness on the part of the assaulter, as in 'Is that the best they can do?' This playground bullying – the name-calling, the screaming, the horrible accusations – all are intended to stifle debate, the very lifeblood of a democracy.
Meanwhile, these people who practice shutting down the opposition through shouts and smears accuse President Obama of having dictatorial dreams? A recent email I received, based on accusations from umpteen right-wing groups, blared in caps-lock fury: 'BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS SIGNED A MARTIAL LAW EXECUTIVE ORDER!' This specific message, from a group calling itself RightMarch.org, goes on: 'THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! BARACK OBAMA IS TRYING TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, BECOME A DICTATOR, AND TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!'
Outrageous, indeed. Obama’s order updated a National Defense Resource Preparedness act, which was essentially identical to one signed 19 years earlier and actually originated in 1950. It granted no authority to Obama that he did not already have under existing laws.
President Obama is regularly referred to as a Marxist/Socialist, Nazi, tyrant, Muslim terrorist supporter and – let me look this up, but I’ll bet probably the antichrist, too. Yup, there it is! Over
5 million Google references. There should be a contest to see if there’s anything for which Obama hasn’t been accused. Athlete’s foot? The 'killer bees'? Maybe. In any case, the very people who coined and promoted such terms as “Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Derangement Syndrome and Palin Derangement Syndrome” have been promoting hysterical attitudes toward Obama since before he was even sworn in."
Go HERE to read the rest of Fumeto's scathing article about what conservatism has become. And then stop and think about the sort of extremists who smugly call liberalism a "mental disorder."
Here are some of Michael Savage's thoughts about liberals:
According to Savage, Obama is 'surrounded by terrorists' for friends and is "raping America."
He's a "neo-Marxist fascist dictator in the making" with a plan to 'force children into a paramilitary domestic army." Savage has also attacked gays as people who are "raping our children's minds.'
He has condemned illegal immigrants for having "destroyed" California and accused them of having 'raped and disheveled' the Statue of Liberty.
"I fear that Obama will stir up a race war ... in order to seize absolute power"
Obama Is "Emotionally And Intellectually" Close To Mass Murderer Pol Pot
In my opinion, they are both the same: extremists who seek to divide us; and in Savage's case, enrich himself while doing so.
************
More reading by conservatives who've left the GOP and by those who remain in the party, hoping it wakes up to what it has become:
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Schwarzenegger: ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Of Republican Party Has Litmus Test That ‘Doesn’t Allow Compromise’
We Republicans Have Completely Lost Touch With Reality
| Can the Republican Party be rescued from right wing extremism? |
52 comments:
Speaking of mass hysteria, how about that 2008 election?
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
The vast majority of us are not.
SF, you completely dodged the premise of my blog post.
It must have hit a truth you and other conservatives don't want to face.
As to your question that has nothing to do with my post: Four years ago we were headed into an economical abyss. You seem to have forgotten how awful the last GOP presidency was and how it plunged the US into The Great Recession, from which we still are recovering.
But we ARE recovering ever so slowly--no thanks to GOP obstructionism and everthing else the GOP has thrown at this president since he was elected in November of 2008.
Yes we are better off now; since at this time in 2008, we faced an economic decline not seen since the Great Depression, and we are presently coming out of it.
Silver, when I go to conservative blogs, I try and comment on the current posts... When libs do what you just did on a conservative blog, they are met with derision by many, including the host, called names, and maligned to no end.
Why did you choose to not deal with thrust of the post? If you did not want to do so you could have just refrained from posting, yet you did not.
Interesting.
And as Shaw said, yes! We are better than we were 4 years ago.
Great post Shaw...
"Yet some have insisted on traveling beyond those valid points. They have called the president “post American.” A “Third world dictator.” An individual whose behavior could only be interpreted as “Kenyan post-colonial.” A “thug in chief.” They have tried to present US politics not as a choice between liberal and conservative, but as a choice between American and non-American, between real Americans and between a dangerous dark-skinned intruder. They have sought to portray the President as a man who could not be trusted to lead the country because he owed no loyalty to the country – because he did not belong in the country." --David Frum
This sounds a lot like what you read on many conservative blogs.
But like Shaw said, perhaps the truth is too painful to face?
Only losing elections will change their behavior.
Shaw,
Very good post but biased of course. There are radicals on both sides and using one women to say Obama should be tried for treason represents the republican mindset is false.
Most conservatives as well as most democrats are reasonable individuals and both sides have their fringe individuals. West, Savage, Limbaugh on the right and Dean, Maher, Shultz, Olberman, Matthews, Maddow on the left.
The far right conservatives get a lot more negative press than Dean's "I hate republicans comment". As a fiscal conservative I am concerned about the economic future of the country under the current president. I would like him to lead instead of create groups to direct his scorn at. Pharma, Insurance companies, wall street, banks, rich, while taking money from all of them. He has no solutions to anything except increase government spending and billing the 51% who pay taxes.
He appoints a team for recommendations on reducing the budget and then does not take a single idea from them, another instance of pandering.
His pandering to special interest groups with no action is not leading it is the worst form of politics but his narcissistic ways will not let him be a leader and take recommendations for others.
Now instead of campaigning on his accomplishments, he is on the attack.
His creating 4.5 million jobs is a huge farce but the MSM will not tell the truth. Change a garbage collectors designation to being a green job and you created a job, what BS that is and that is just the start of the big lie.
Skud has an accurate summary of it. It would be quite easy to make an identical 'tit for tat' post selectively using the worse lowbrow badmouth commentators on the Left.
To skudrunner and dmarks:
You both seem to have overlooked the fact that a Conservative wrote the piece, not I, not a liberal, not Matthews, not Maddow.
Fumento makes his case very well.
When you drag Maddow or Matthews or Dean into the discussion, I would hope you could link to anything they have said about the right or a GOP senator that matches Breitbart's raging rants, or Michael Savage's? Or Michelle Malkin's? Or Ann Coulter's? Or Glenn Becks? and on and on and on?
Breitbart: "You’re freaks and animals! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! You freaks! You filthy freaks! You filthy, filthy, filthy raping, murdering freaks!'
"Sen. Ted Kennedy’s body was barely cold when Breitbart labeled him 'a big ass motherf@#$er,' a 'duplicitous bastard' a 'prick' and 'a special pile of human excrement.'
Breitbart is a conservative idol and hero, and those are HIS words that the GOP is proud of and adores.
Dean saying he hated Republicans is a poor comparison. If that's all you've got, you got nuthin.
But the GOP does have a problem as all the conservatives I've listed attest to.
I believe it is you, and SF, who refuse to face what the right has become.
And it's NOT the fringe, skudrunner, these are the people who represent conservatives, Congressmen. Did you forget how Joe Wilson screamed YOU LIE! at President Obama at a joint session of Congress? Or the latest boorish jerk who interrupted the POTUS while he was giving a speech [unprecedented] and then was defended for his stupid narcissistic behavior by rightwingers--not all, but who are the ones who could defend that?
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
Maher called Palin a “c---” and a “dumb twat” during a stand-up show last year
Shaw,
Of course your correct.
Read Frank Schaeffer
Skud, again, what we are seeing from long time conservatives like Fumento, David Frum, George Will, Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, and others is that they are disgusted by this type of behavior.
These are not liberal voices slamming the conservatives. They are conservatives.
As to your equivalency argument, can you, or any other conservative like Silver, point to an example where the libs demonized a President by claiming he personally, not his ideas, is unAmerican?
How come we have yet to see any Republican leader standing up and saying that conservatives that believe this are wrong and need to keep such dangerous rhetoric to themselves?
Have libs used horrible monikers in the past to label members of the GOP? Yes they have and it is wrong and has no place in American politics.
Have they done so on a scale anywhere near the level that conservatives have done so?
Hardly.
skudrunner, Bill Maher does not run a political blog nor is he a spokesperson for the DNC. He's a comedian whose topic is often politics, but he's a show biz person. Breitbart was a political dirty trickster and influenced the GOP.
Maher does not have any influence with Democratic politics.
No comparison.
I enjoyed the piece. Thanks for sharing it. I thought this part particularly funny:
"One wonders if these extremists are nothing more than street performers hoping to win a prize on America's Funniest Videos, and not representing an actual political faction."
While that sentence is humorously written it is also where the truth lies. The reason this sentence was so easy for me to read and agree with was that Fumento uses the term "extremists". He goes on to name a bunch of bloggers, and talking heads that are extreme. As well, West’s ridiculous comment about communist in Congress.
But Fumento knows it is too broad a brush to paint the majority of conservatives and or Republicans as extremists. His article is a good one because he points out extremists. I see no reason to protect or support extremist, from either the left or right.
Having said that, I would like to ask a question and make a point to Dave and Shaw.
What is the very worst name you could call a white person in America? What one thing?
It is a racist. To be accused of racism. No word or charge is as dirty. Yet you have commentators on left leaning blogs do it all the time. It was done in a thread here yesterday. San Donaldson just did. The list of Progressive politicians that do this is so long I won’t name them all. You know the race baiters. To me, that is every bit if not more unsavory than the examples you and Fumento give.
Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis (D) was one of Barack Obama’s earliest endorsers for president, but he no longer wants to be associated with the President or the Democratic Party.
He is black and is among the millions of Democrats who have seen their party go down a path that he is choosing not to follow. He gave a searing speech accusing Democrats of dishonestly comparing voter ID laws to Jim Crow and poll taxes. He accused the Democrats of using race and class to divide the country.
The article above makes good points, but it’s not fair to soil all Republicans or Conservatives because extremists are in their midst. Nor is fair for me to cast aspersions on the majority of Democrats or Progressives because so many on the left liberally use the race card and so few stand up and demounce it.
When I see somebody post here the day before on this very blog whose name was “Republican Racism”, and hear Sam Donaldson, and Jesse Jackson, Ed Schultz, or Rep Federica Wilson, (and many more), keep calling people racist for disagreeing with the Presidents policy I have to think what I am reading here today is one sided.
Shaw,
Even though Maher has a small audience he has far more exposure than some blog. He shoots off his mouth and it makes every news show. I can't think of a blog that gets that kind of exposure. How many people don't know he gave one million dollars to the Obama campaign contract that to how many people have ever logged on to britbart.
To say he does not represent or influence the democratic party is about the same as saying britbart influences the GOP.
As to his being a comedian, that is debatable.
KP, as usual you bring a reasoned voice to the discussion. I know I would not agree with you on all matters, but I can respect, indeed I do, your points.
I certainly agree that there have been man charges of racism coming, almost reflexively, from a number of Democratic leaders.
And it saddens me because people are making judgements on people without knowing them personally, their stories, or from where they come.
It used to be Congressmen beat each other up all day and then went down to the watering hole to be friends.
Much like Sam the Dog and Wiley Coyote in the old Warner Bros. cartoons. That no longer happens. Our leaders do not seem to have a need to get to know each other personally.
Is that because it is easier to demonize those whom you do not know? Perhaps.
As for the charge of racism, it is indeed a terrible charge, invoked way too often. Perhaps people are too sensitive, I do not know, but I do know this...
I have a lot of friends who I would never call racist. But I would call them racially insensitive, and they do not care.
They do not care that their words hurt, and hurt to the core.
And many times they are not even aware of what they are saying, or the potential implications of what they are saying. What's worse, they tell you that you have no right to be offended by those words.
This is something I have had to learn in my life. being married to an African American woman has made me open my eyes.
When you are denied a place to rent in suburban Los Angeles because your wife is black and sit in a restaurant and hear people say they f*@k a black woman but never marry one, you get a little sensitive.
There are many good people in the GOP. But there are also many who have absolutely no desire to walk even in my shoes, let alone the shoes of a black or mexican man.
It's just a fact.
Skud... he is a comedian... whether he is funny, that's up for debate...
Thanks Dave for sharing your story. It's no coincidence that we are spiritual people.
My sister, who I dearly love, married a black man, who immdeiately became part of my family. My nieces and nephews look like Obama and his daughters. One of them married a Mexican women and they have kids who are further integrated; 50% Mexican, 25% white and 25% black. Although their ten year old son who went to the Laker Clipper game with me assures me he is black :-)
My daughter in engaged to a black man and he just spent father's day with me.
My sister married a black man because my father raised in a way that made sure we were not racist. My daughter is marrying a black man because I raised her to look for character first.
As you can imagine, for someone to call me a racist on a blog, or from Congress for that matter, really heats me up.
Here late but I'm glad I eventually arrived. The points this article makes go beyond cogent, they are spot on. This is precisely why I left the republican party, it is why I now identify my views as classical liberalism, and it is why conservatism will die a slow but sure death.
I'm sure Barry Goldwater would be rolling over in his grave were that possible.
Victor Davis Hanson: Are We in Revolutionary Times? "Can you name one tyranny which was voted out of office?"
"Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare."
You know, my good friend Bob Wright has long asked this question in speeches and talks he's given around the country:
"Can you name one tyranny which was voted out of office?"
His point? Tyrants don't allow, or respond to, fair elections.
Tyrants and their minions respond only to guns pointed at their heads, and usually somebody has to pull the trigger to get them to stop preying upon the people.
The above was copied from a conservative blog.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/06/victor-davis-hanson-are-we-in.html
As Col. Klink might say to Hogan:
"Veeeery in-ter-es-ting!"
:-)
And like most tyrants our government, of which Obama is now the executive, has had a gun held to our head since Wilson.
Shaw: The premise of you post is idiotic. Smearing an entire group of people as being gripped by mass hysteria. It's insane.
If we had no debt and the progressive machine that runs our lives was humming and doling out services in an efficient manner, I could understand leveling this charge.
People are upset, and with good reason. And what many of you on the left conveniently ignore is that the tea party types do not just blame Obama, but lay a lot of baggage on Bush.
So, this stuff is fun, cotton candy to jazz up the left and get them jumping excitedly on the furniture in a sugar-high rapture, but it's just fluff.
Fumento has also called liberal environmentalists "hysterical" as well, so I assume you agree with that as well?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Fumento
SF: "Shaw: The premise of you post is idiotic. Smearing an entire group of people as being gripped by mass hysteria. It's insane."
What you, and some others, blithely ignore is that it is NOT I who is talking about the unhinged right. The people who have written about this takeover of the GOP are conservatives who are appalled at what has happened to their Republican party.
I have given several links to other thoughtful conservatives who agree with what Fumento has said. Also Thomas Mann and Norm Orenstein, have made the same observation, which you casually dismiss:
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
Instead you come here and, in the first comment, you ignore the subject, and your second comment is to attack the messenger. You seem not to have any interest in talking about what many thoughtful conservatives have written.
Calling my blog post "idiotic" and accusing me of a "smear" job is not engaging in a thoughtful discussion.
I think you're being extremely defensive, and probably for good reason.
If the shoe fits; wear it.
There are nut cases on both sides and fortunately none of them post on this blog.
skudrunner, you too have either NOT READ the post or simply don't get what Fumento and other conservatives have written.
Fumento is talking about the GOP, not "they do it too." He and other conservatives have observed that the extremists have taken over the GOP. You and Silverfiddle seem not to understand this fact.
So conservatives are saying factions of the republican party suffer from mass hysteria.
There are factions on both sides that are radical regardless of who accuses them of it. I saw an interview with a black man who said Obama did not do what he said he was going to do so he wouldn't vote for him again. Guess he is a liberal radical who is into mass hysteria.
Shaw: When you attack, expect return fire.
So some people have opinions, big deal. This isn't even news. The right, like the left, is not a monolith, surprise!
So, do you agree with Fumento that the enviro left is hysterical as well?
And my first comment did not ignore the subject.
You mentioned Mass Hysteria, and I gave you an example of it on the left.
What else can explain electing an inexperienced, unprepared, incompetent nobody with no record of running anything?
Are we better off now, than 4 years ago?
Of course we are!
The economy and jobs were crashing 4 years ago.
Steve:
If you're better off, then you must be part of the 1%. My neighbors, my family and I are all worse off.
skudrunner and Silverfiddle,
"The right didn’t create this reservoir of fear, anger and hate. But it has both tapped into it and roiled it. Indeed, the right-wing mass hysteria is what sociologists call a “moral panic.” It occurs when a society is undergoing a wrenching transformation. Somebody then comes along and creates a “folk devil” both to provide an explanation for bad conditions, real or imagined, and a target. Kill the devil; eliminate the bad conditions. But the right has no serious incentive to help solve or ameliorate these problems. Indeed, as with the reelection of Obama, it will benefit from their continuation or worsening.
So animosity has now reached levels both hysterical and historical. The last time anything like this occurred was during World War II, when at least it was aimed outward. Before that? Just before the Civil War.
Back then a tall bearded Republican declared, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' Just another one of those idiot, moron, “duplicitous bastard” RINOs."
SF, you keep changing the subject or worse, dismissing the article as mere "opinion." I've learned that's what people do who don't have a counter-argument.
Attacking our president isn't "returning fire," it's changing the subject.
Mass hysteria on the part of the electorate in 2008? Really. What about in 2004? Was the electorate sane then? And how does one explain, please, the lurching back and forth between electoral hysteria and electoral sanity in 4 short years? And I suppose if a Republican is elected in November, you will declare far and wide that America has come to its senses? How psychologically insightful that will be.
"...an inexperienced, unprepared, incompetent nobody with no record of running anything?"
As a student of history, you know, I'm sure, that when Lincoln was elected, those same accusations were thrown at him by conservative southerners AND liberal northerners who hated him as much as you hate our president. the more things change, and all that...
As to your statement about Obama's "inexperience:"
[Mitt]"Romney has only four years under his belt. He served one term as the governor of Massachusetts --and that's it. This makes Romney the least experienced major-party presidential nominee since Republican Wendell Wilkie lost to FDR in 1940. If Romney wins, he'll be the least experienced president since Woodrow Wilson, who won exactly 100 years ago, despite only having been governor of New Jersey for two years before his national campaign."
Romney has business experience you say? So did Hoover and Bush II.
Lincoln served two years in Congress. Period.
Consider Fumento [[and all the other thoughtful conservatives who have expressed the same concerns about what the GOP has become] the canary in the GOP coal mine.
"If you're better off, then you must be part of the 1%. My neighbors, my family and I are all worse off."
I'm sorry to hear that. But my 5 adult children all have jobs--one of them, my daughter, found two in California's terrible job situation. My son, who lives in New York, changed jobs and is employed.
My neighbors' children are all employed.
Maybe you should move to a blue state?
I was going to sit this one out but just couldn't because of the absurdity of the statement below.
[Mitt]"Romney has only four years under his belt. This makes Romney the least experienced major-party presidential nominee since" should be Obama.
I don't think you can compare running multimillion dollar companies to organizing a community, running a state vs voting present, having a documented past vs no published records.
The supporters talks about how smart Obama is was a terrific student, no records, how he studied abroad, no records. After some releases of late his autobiography written by a ghost writer is being moved to fiction.
How can anyone compare Romney to Obama. Romney has accomplishments, Obama no records.
Blue states are doing even worse, Shaw. Go look up some economic statistics.
Michigan and Wisconsin, having voted in republicans are doing better now. Mass seems to be an exception, and God bless you, I would never begrudge anyone success.
I am employed, and Colorado's unemployment rate is below the national average, and we have a balanced budget because we are required to by our state constitution.
This is a silly statement:
SF, you keep changing the subject or worse, dismissing the article as mere "opinion."
The subject is hysteria, so I mentioned some of the liberal variety. And I also cite how the same author has leveled the hysteria charge against enviro-libs as well, just to provide some helpful context.
The article you cite is indeed opinion. So I don't understand you problem.
"I don't think you can compare running multimillion dollar companies to organizing a community..."
They're both different, it's true, but in one, the business model, decisions on running a company come from the execs and BoD, no input from the workers, it's a top-down model. In community organizing, the needs of the community are taken into consideration and then changes can be effected to empower and improve their lives--a bottom-up model. I admire someone who could have had his pick of top law firms with a handsome starting income, but chose to work with the 99 percenters. IOW, Obama mixed with those who were not millionaires and billionaires--the majority of Americans.
skudrunner: "...running a state vs voting present, having a documented past vs no published records."
Those are lies. And I won't let them go unchallenged here.
Mr. Obama voted on much legislation in both the Illinois senate and the US Senate, your repeating that there are no published records and no "documented" past is dishonest and intellectually lazy. Columbia and Harvard all claim him. I don't accept blasted email lies here.
skudrunner "The supporters talks about how smart Obama is was a terrific student, no records,"
One of your worst lies. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and there's plenty of documentation to prove it. Your willful lie and disregard for the truth is appalling. And it makes you look like an hysteric.
You can start HERE, and stop repeating nonsense.
skudrunner: "After some releases of late his autobiography written by a ghost writer is being moved to fiction."
Another lie. You're proving the point of my post. You've jumped on the paranoia express and believe whatever anti-Obama claptrap is out there. Pathetic.
skudrunner: "How can anyone compare Romney to Obama. Romney has accomplishments, Obama no records."
You are being silly again. Mr. Obama was an Illinois senator and a US Senator, and as of today, has been president of the United States for 3 years and 5 months.
Waaaaaaaaaay more experience than Romeny has going into this election.
Those are facts. What you typed and posted here are fantasies and lies.
You don't like Obama's policies, fine. But you should be able to argue and defend your arguments without resorting to lies about the president. That's unworthy and a tactic people use who have no intellectual ability to defend their political positions.
"The article you cite is indeed opinion. So I don't understand you problem."
I also cited several other respected GOPer who have written about the same thing.
Do you think they are all wrong and there's no problem with the GOP and the people in charge?
That's what this post is about. Not just one guy's opinion.
Shaw
I admit I don't care for Obama's lack of non leadership. As to your references on his voting present in Illinois, "After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward". Even a leftist is uncertain the meaning of his "present" vote.
He served less than two years as a senator before campaigning full time and a year and a half as president.
As to Columbia and Harvard all claim him, that is kind of like voting present. I had to supply my transcript when I was in the evil corporate world but you don't to be president. He went there is enough I guess.
The economy is still a mess and yes he inherited a mess but he has no plan to improve the situation except blame everyone. His NPD is not allowing him to seek solutions.
Sooner or later the extremists on both sides will come to the conclusion that this is no longer a left vs right issue. Like an alcoholic, they will hit rock bottom and it will be at the same time; and like family members of drunks we will be dragged down with them. Listening to super bright people go back on forth on blogs, radio and cable TV discussing who is the most or least NAS-T to the other side’s politicians and the American people is not problem solving.
Washington DC is gridlocked. If we want to solve problems it is going to have to be on a local level, in our own homes and in our communities or through micro finance and good works. Top down centralized power is not working for us right now. We need to stop looking up and start looking inward. It’s up to us to make local changes from the bottom up. That will change Congress.
Well said KP...
"Top down centralized power is not working for us right now...It’s up to us to make local changes from the bottom up." --KP
Agreed, KP.
I wrote this in reply to skudrunner's comment about a Romney the businessman vs.
Obama the community organizer:
"...the business model, decisions on running a company come from the execs and BoD, no input from the workers, it's a top-down model. In community organizing, the needs of the community are taken into consideration and then changes can be effected to empower and improve their lives--a bottom-up model."
"One Party Is Unhinged
Or, rather, it is living in an alternative reality. 63 percent of Republicans in a new poll believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs when we invaded in 2003, despite even George W. Bush's acknowledgment that he didn't. 64 percent also believe that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country, even though we have the long-form birth certificate from Hawaii. This alternate reality is sustained by a 24 hour propaganda network, and hermetically sealed off from any external intervention.
We are reaching a democratic crisis of some sorts. One major political party refuses to accept empirical truths. It has become a hall of ideological mirrors."
Do you think they are all wrong and there's no problem with the GOP and the people in charge?
Sure there are problems with the GOP, just as there are with the democrat party or any other human enterprise under the sun. But it's just opinion, and there are plenty of countervailing ones.
I think Ed Schultz is a delusional, raving lunatic, and that's my opinion. These people think conservatism is a form of mass hysteria. OK, now what?
Modern day conservatism is grounded in Locke, the founding fathers, Burke, William F Buckley, Thomas Sowell and to some extent Milton Friedman. It is not a monolith, but that is the foundation. To call it mass hysteria is sensationalism to gain attention. It worked on you.
What are the philosophical underpinnings of modern-day "liberalism," and can you see any inherent contradictions in it?
Anon: thanks for the Madcow propaganda blast. I love it when she puts on those black horn rimmed glasses and channels her inner Walter Krankheit...
... And for the other side, lefties believe we can spend our way out of a debt-riddled fiscal calamity...
Which delusion is more dangerous?
Anon, what poll are you citing?
At the time WMD's were presented and congress approved intervention there was evidence of WMD's and even democrats approved military action. Like many things congress does they change their mind after things don't go well "I was for it before I was against it".
Most republicans agree that Bush did a terrible job the last two years of his presidency but most democrats can't seem to admit that Obama is in over his head, was and is the wrong choice.
His blame game is not working. The country needs leadership and he has none. No one knows if Romney can turn the last six year disaster around but it is evident Obama can't.
@Shaw
"...the business model, decisions on running a company come from the execs and BoD, no input from the workers, it's a top-down model."
I think the best and most creative corporations not only listen to their co-workers but listen to customers as well. Companies like IMB who re-made themselves into a business solutions company. They take care of their workers and their customers.
Politicians might do well to listen more to visionaries who are willing to think outside the box and can get things done. People like Frank Moss at the MIT Lab and Sebastian Thrun at Stanford who has started Udacity.
Since the office of presidency sits in the driver’s seat of the largest top down driven vehicle in the world right now, the next President should be whoever can navigate that job most effectively in the next four years. Maybe we could substitute co-workers with congress and customers with constituents. Who can work most effectively with his co-workers.
If I remember the original intent of your article; none of us want to be lied to by extremists. I recently heard the comment that the extremes (both sides) seem to have lost honorable intent. We had a social covenant that has been broken by the extremes in politics and media.
Sorry for the typo:
It should read "Companies like IBM"
To include leaders like President and CEO Virginia "Ginni" M. Rometty
Silver you stated... "
Modern day conservatism is grounded in Locke, the founding fathers, Burke, William F Buckley, Thomas Sowell and to some extent Milton Friedman."
I disagree. That would be to say modern conservatism is grounded in classical liberalism, which for the most part is not so.
Yes, there is a small to moderate faction of the conservative movement that your statement can accurately be applied. It certainly is not the majority of "modern day" conservatives. Hell, most who call themselves conservative today probably haven't given a thought to what the term means.
When I read this post, I figured there would be a conservative who would attempt to change the subject. I didn't expect it to be the first comment!
For the last 3 years we have seen the mass hysteria on the right become the rule rather than the exception. When you confront them with it, they normally deny or deflect. Although the over-the-top rhetoric by conservative politicians/pundits may be good for them in the short term (campaign $, ratings, book sales, etc.), I don't think it will be a winning strategy over the long haul.
Side note to KP: It wasn't Col. Klink who said "Verrrry interesting". It was Arte Johnson (as the German soldier on "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In"). :-)
Malcolm!!
Ha ha ... great call, mate :-)
Watch the youtube clips if you get 10min.
Peace
Everything is very open with a very clear explanation of the
issues. It was definitely informative. Your website is extremely helpful.
Many thanks for sharing!
Feel free to visit my website :: worldwidemedinsurance.com
Post a Comment