This should make you feel better:

Romney Calls Out Bryan Fischer's Bigotry

 

Earlier this week, when we found out that Mitt Romney would be speaking directly before anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon extremist Bryan Fischer at the Values Voter Summit, we called on Romney to "prove us wrong" and call out Bryan Fischer. And today he did, even if not by name. The implication was clear when Mitt Romney said that the speaker following him, Fischer, crosses the line and uses "poisonous language."

 

Our values ennoble the citizen, and they strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too. One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line I think. Poisonous language does not advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind. The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate. The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us – let no agenda, narrow our vision or drive us apart.

 

Professor Cornell West calls Obama "disrespectful, arrogant and condescending."

Also tells Cain to "get off the symbolic crack pipe."

Wow. Sounds kinda racist to me.

WEST: Well, I mean it's fascinating to juxtapose on the one hand Herman Cain who has – who's got mediocrity, mendacity, mean-spiritedness toward the poor, and now mean-spiritedness toward black people fighting for their lives in this very ugly economy. And then on the other hand we have President Obama, who is much better than any of the Republican candidates no doubt, but at the same time disrespectful, arrogant, condescending, acting as if black people have been walking around in their bedroom slippers as opposed to working very hard – not just leaders, but also the everyday people.

So it's a reflection of the two-party system. Mean-spirited on the one hand and still-too-arrogant on the other. Who's going to really speak for poor people? Who's going to really speak for working people? That's very much what I think the "Wall Street Occupy" movement is all about – "Occupying Wall Street" movement is all about.

Economy and jobs are pretty easy to cover, jazzy.

"The mess we were left with was worse than we thought" and "Republicans have spent every moment of the last few years working to make sure I failed". Doubt it will work but I can't imagine anything more compelling else they would have trotted it out long ago.

Republicans hate gays, blacks, hispanics, grannies... hell, they hate everybody they don't see in the mirror each morning and that's what the tea party is all about, don't you know.

That actually does a good job of summing up what it looks like from here because those are the ones who have the stage right now and are shouting the loudest. Just like the outcry that the good Muslims should stand up to the terrorists, the Rebublicans with any compassion or concern about anything except what is in their wallet should speak up.

It's going to be all about social issues this time. Not the debt he's run up, not the unemployment rate, not even that he's continued with all the Bush war on terror policies he so despised not all that long ago.

Face it, there isn't  much O can run on, other than the fact republicans hate gays, blacks, hispanics, grannies... hell, they hate everybody they don't see in the mirror each morning and that's what the tea party is all about, don't you know.

Snort.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 5th of October 2011 06:00:18 PM

It was Santorum's turn. I don't think the soldier knew who would get the question.  Santorum was obviously given this question because of his history of being an outspoken bigot. Here is what one of Perry's supporters said about it.

 

Meanwhile, Perry supporter Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire state representative and retired Marine who accompanied Perry at New Hampshire events this weekend, was taped by the gay and lesbian advocacy group ThinkProgress stating that “I thought it was great” when they booed the soldier. I was so disgusted over that gay Marine coming out,” Baldasaro said on the tape. “When the [expletive] hits the fan, you want your brothers covering your back, not looking at your back.” Baldasaro has a reputation as an outspoken state representative, who has been a strong opponent of New Hampshire’s gay marriage law.

Spineless Mitt has a lame defense about thinking about what he's going to say next and that he doesn't think it's his place to comment on what people think. Really?

-- Edited by Cartera on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 10:56:39 PM

-- Edited by Cartera on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 10:57:05 PM

I actually did not see that segment of that debate. I did hear clips. It did seem very weird and pretty indefensible. I should dig up the clip on youtube.

Edit: Just watched both those clips. I can't defend them. But then, I'm not a Perry or Ron Paul supporter.

I'm a Romney supporter: "elect the most conservative candidate who can win the election."

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 09:15:15 PM

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 09:27:46 PM

Please watch/listen to the debate. Not one single person booed the soldier when he introduced himself as a gay soldier. It was not until he addressed his question to Santorum (which was clearly designed to pile on Santorum for his past remarks about homosexuality) that 2 - 3 people (no doubt Santorum supporters) shouted boos.

What is revolting is that this has now turned into the Democrat meme of the day. I've heard it countless times on MSNBC already. Youtube videos are labeled "audience boos gay soldier at GOP debate." Even the president is exploiting this, attempting to tarnish the entire Republican field. After showing a clip of Romney trying to get to the bottom of exactly what occurred at the debate, Chris Matthews remarked: "Who boos American soldiers, Mr. Romney--are they friends of yours?"

Democrats have this kind of smear (along with all the rest of them-racist, anti-immigrant, etc.) down cold. Republicans are pikers when it comes to this kind of stuff.

 

Whether it's apocryphal or not, I've always liked the line "socialism is communism by the glass" so I have to admit I don't really see a distinction. Just as I can't see an epitath for "socialist", no matter how hardcore marxist they might be, that rises to the level of "racist".

People don't like being labeled. They especially don't like being labeled unfairly.

That said, the reasoning behind equating being labeled "marxist" to "racist" seems pretty skinny. (Besides, the usual epitath for a staunch liberal - one who believes as our president does, that the pie isn't being carved right - isn't "marxist", it's "socialist".)

If ya'll are going to claim the Tea Party was founded in racism, you might at least try to lay some sort of logical framework for it and I'm afraid that uncovering some nit-wit with a sign behind his/her back doesn't really qualify, as anecdotal accounts of warnings from the higher-ups to leave them at home doesn't either.

Good luck selling the whole "I don't like him and I won't vote for O again = racist" meme, btw. No doubt it seems inspired to somebody who can't think in any other way, but you're more likely to just piss the usual disinterested independent off.

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 07:27:15 PM

Is Marxist an epithet?  

 Sure it is, in today's polarized political climate.  It is not just a world view to be studied or debated like any other.

  Marxist=Communist=Enemy of America.  For some, Marxist=Communist=Murderer.    No shades of gray in this depiction.   Marxist equals bomb thrower and cop killer.   So, yes,  it's meant to be very damaging label.    I'd say Glenn Beck proved that without any doubt.

SLS:  I think you're setting up a kind of false equivalency with the statement that "many" liberals call themselves Marxists or Socialists and admire Marxists and socialists just as "many" conservatives (if not all) admire Capitalists.   

Here in my non-Ivory tower world, if I asked my liberal friends which Marxist or Socialist they most admired, I think they would answer, "I can't think of any."    But we do admire Progressives quite a bit.   Teddy Roosevelt.   FDR.   Susan B. Anthony.  I could go on and on.  

is being labeled a Marxist an epithet

 

I think that it is how it was used in the post to which I referred. In fact, it was used in direct comparison.

 

One could probably dig up more evidence of Van Jones' interest in Marxism than one could some Tea Party leader's interest in fascism/racism.

 

 

Serious question here - is being labeled a Marxist an epithet? 

It's a societal/political system, built on certain ideals. There are those that subscribe to a political party as well as have beliefs that may be Marxist or a Socialist or a Capitalist. 

The fact that there are many who are liberals identify themselves as Marxists or Socialists, is that on the same level as calling someone a racist?   

I don't assume I can speak for what others believe in, but many liberals/progressives have over the years admired Marxists and Socialists - just as many conservatives have admired Capitalists.  

I don't think Capitalist = Racist, nor do I think Marxist = Racist in terms of the significance of the meaning of the terms.  

Do you?  

Sincerely doubt that.     Particularly considering those who have sided with the Tea Party and also have multi-media megaphones (Beck, Limbaugh, Breitbart to name a few.)    Jones is a ant compared to these behemoths. 

I saw this on Raw Story:

Former Obama adviser Van Jones came to the “Take Back The American Dream” summit in Washington, D.C. on Monday with one big message: stop being mad at the tea party, and started learning from them.

“I’m not mad at [the tea party] for being so loud,” he said. “I’m mad at us for being so quiet the last two years.” 

Jones elaborated: “We had the wrong theory of the presidency. We thought that if we elected this one person… we could pop popcorn and just watch him. We went from having a movement to a movie.”

Echoing Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), who immediately preceded him, Jones added, “We can blog and tweet, but what if we actually did something?”

That’s when Jones call on attendees to “build a movement to take back the American dream.”

In that, he encouraged them to get inspired by the tea party, which had learned from the Obama campaign to connect existing groups to one “meta brand” — the candidate himself. What the tea party did, according to Jones, was that “They branded not a person, but a movement.”

“There is no ‘tea party,’” he explained. “You can’t land at the airport here in D.C. and get in a taxi and say, ‘Take me to the tea party headquarters.’” Instead, Jones said, it’s an umbrella organization for a large collection of pre-existing groups that got to keep their own ideas.

By connecting the groups that had supported Obama to a larger network — and Jones suggested it be called the “Take Back The American Dream” network — he believes that progressives “can do this bigger and better than we did in 2008.”

“It’s our turn now,” Jones told the cheering audience. “We let the warmongers have their turn for eight years and they ruined this country.”

Fairly innocuous.  Was there something else to this story?  Hints at a violent takeover of the country or something?

 

It is interesting that nearly anytime anyone disagrees with our President on a discussion board, that it is assumed it's because of racism.  Or any organized protest must be done for racist reasons.  When people protested George Bush's presidency, was it because they were racists?  Or because they disagreed with his politics and decisions.

SLS, speaking for myself, I don't believe that every anti-Obama post or every protest stems from racism.  Got several conservative friends --- one is anti O because she's a staunch supporter of Israel and perceives liberals (in general) as Palistinian sympathizers and the other is mostly just anti-government (she was furious with Bush too because of Iraq and the run-up in deficit spending.)

Guilt by association is not fair, but conservatives have to live with the taint that comes from the whackjobs carrying racist signs and the whack-o websites that spread "Shanequa say..." propaganda and racist jokes (the watermelon patch on the White House lawn kinda stuff) just as liberals have to live with the ridiculous we're-all-communists smear.

  You lie down with dogs, you get fleas, as the saying says, and it applies to both sides of the political divide.

 

 

 

 

 

by association, all  Republicans of "booing a gay soldier."

That is not what he said but what he said was dead on. He condemned the gutless wonders standing on the stage that night who did not speak up, a la John McCain, and chastize the ones who booed for being stupid bigoted pigs. That was the travesty that night, not that there were stupid bigoted pigs in the audience - who didn't expect that? The shame was that not one of the so-called leaders up there said a damn thing. I hope none of us could have stood there like statues and listened to that without at least a wag of a finger. They were just as spineless when "let him die" was shouted during Ron Paul's answer and when people cheered about the executions. They are all so scared to show the least bit of compassion in front of the bad ass tea partiers that not one of them demonstrates even a morsel of humanity.

Razorsharp wrote:

---

nbachris2788 wrote:

---

THAT'S the racist Tea Party.

---

That Tea Party does not exist and you have not provided even the slightest evidence of racism from the real Tea Party, not the one in your head.  The fact that people question Obama's policies does not make them racists.  Surely you would agree with that?  

There were people who questioned whether Obama was born in American.  I am willing to be you think that was racist when in fact those people were simply nuts.  

 

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Monday 3rd of October 2011 08:23:25 PM

---

Are you saying that the people who came out immediately after Obama's election (and before Healthcare Reform and the unresolved unemployment problem) "protesting" his citizenship, supposed Islamic connections, and other such nonsense weren't the slightest bit motivated by racial resentment?

Let's leave the "r-word" out of it then. To some, racism only occurs when the N-word is shouted outloud. But most minorities have a lot of experience in subtle racism. So since we probably don't even agree with what the word "racism" means, let's leave it out.

So I'll ask the question again: do you or do you not agree that race-based dislike was a significant factor in the nonsensical anti-Obama feelings among Tea Partiers right after his election?

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-criticizes-gop-candidates-in-human-rights-campaign-speech/2011/10/02/gIQAL46RFL_video.html

 

-- Edited by hope on Monday 3rd of October 2011 09:16:09 PM

How sad. All these accusations of racism are so sad. I doubt there are many out there who wished when Obama was elected (D and R) that this was going to be the result. And if the racial divide isn't fodder enough, go out and cause more division by accusing, by association, all  Republicans of "booing a gay soldier." Obama outdid himself in that speech. I couldn't even watch his "angry" face. I have never witnessed anything more despicable in a President. Desperation is no excuse.

Razorsharp wrote:

---

nbachris2788 wrote:

---

But if you're referring to the original incarnation of the Tea Party, then yes, at its heart, it was/is a racist movement. It came up with adhoc justifications for opposing Obama, such as suddenly caring about things like the budget deficit (or even foregoing such semi-concrete complaints and in favour of broad general concerns like "the direction of the country").

---

The reality is that the democrats are scared of the tea party and are attacking it as racist when it clearly is not racists.  The democrats have decided that any criticism of obama must be racists, as if his failed policies are infallible.  The tea party is a grass roots movement started in February 2009 by Rick Santelli who objected to Obama's plan to subsidize mortgages.  Given that far more mortgages are in the hands of non-blacks, Santelli's comment was directed at Obama's behavior towards non-blacks.  

The tea party stands for smaller government, less government debt, and less taxation.  Race is not an issue they focus on.  The democrats stand for big government, big debt, and big taxation especially given that democrats are largely the receipites of the welfare state and not the ones paying for it.  When the democrats have no arguments left, they scream race.  Falsing accusing a group of racisism is racism itself.

 

 

---

I'm sure that there are many in the Tea Party that have principles about smaller government (which I'm sure extends to the bedroom and doctor's clinics) and such, but that's not the Tea Party I'm talking about.

That's why I prefaced my statement by saying that there are too many Tea Parties to truly know which one is the official one.

The Tea Party that's the racist one is the one that magically appeared right after Obama got elected and inaugurated. This was before he got any of his policies in place, so they had little to protest besides him being a secret Muslim, Kenyan, closet black power leader (or at least the husband of one), and some vague nonsensical ravings about government spending (yet somehow also being pro-Bush tax cuts and military spending).

THAT'S the racist Tea Party.

I have never read any of his Pitts' writings, but it rarely surprises me that people write things that are not based in fact or history.

I am clearly both unreasonable and delusional because I agree with nbachris.

nbachris, the idea that the Tea Party is a racist movement is simply delusional. It is disconnected from reality.

No reasonable person can actually take that idea seriously.

You must be trolling; baiting.

Nice try.