Civility Movement May Be Lost on Right Wing

In the days that followed the Tuscon shootings, I  listened to the media talk about the ugly, violent rhetoric that has permeated the airwaves these last couple of years.  The thing that irked me about these discussions is that one of the republican panelists almost always said something to the effect of "Let's face it, both sides are guilty of this," a statement that with one exception, was accepted by the host at face value.  My response is "No, let's not face it, both sides are not guilty."   We can think of many dozens of examples of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and others not only spreading lies to incite the right wing, but also inviting  sedition, revolution and violence. The right wing has only cited one example to support their claim that democrats do it, too-Alan Grayson's speech on health care reform in which he explained the republican plan for health care.  There was nothing incendiary about that speech.  Democratic party politicians are always civil.  With the notable exception of Randi Rhodes, most liberal talk show hosts have, for the most part, been civilized in their discussions.  

Someone pointed me to a website, http://www.nolabels.org/, which is a group of moderate republicans and moderate democrats who want to support a more bi-partisan, civilized way of governing.  This sounds like a great idea if they can influence the right wing to stop their crazy talk and lies.  I joined this group, but with a mindful eye on the right wing and what they do to tone down their talk.  I have always believed that the democrats are too nice and not sufficiently assertive; and that the party has suffered for this.  I am not confident that the the right wing is going to be tamed by No Labels and other such groups.  I hope that I am wrong.

They're At It Again

"Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts." 

That was New York magazine's headline to a short article on its website November 5, 2010.  I can't say this any better myself and there's no point in re-inventing the wheel, so here is the article, verbatim. 

Here is what an anonymous Indian official told the Press Trust of India on Tuesday: President Obama would be traveling to India with about 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents, government officials, and journalists at the cost of approximately $200 million a day. Here's what the White House said about those "wildly inflated" figures: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality." Other experts also chimed in. A former Los Angeles Times reporter who covered numerous foreign trips by U.S. presidents said the dollar amount sounded "inflated by a factor of 10," the size of the entourage was "grossly inflated," and pointed out that reporters would actually pay their own way. The Wall Street Journal called it "demonstrably incorrect." FactCheck.org said the accuracy of the anonymous estimates were "highly doubtful," pointing out that the cost of keeping 100,000 troops in Afghanistan costs $190 million per day.  Here's where the GOP — and the Fox News pundits — went with it. Glenn Beck wondered if maybe we should have been worried about Obama's Hindu connection, expressing distaste over "$2 billion for ten days so [Obama] can go see the festival of lights." Sean Hannity pointed out that that sure was a lot of money to visit "one of the biggest mosques in Indonesia." Michele Bachmann told Anderson Cooper, "I think it's not a good signal to send to the American people, when the American people are, quite frankly, struggling right now with high job losses." When Cooper pressed her on the inaccuracy of the figures she was quoting, Bachmann responded, "Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press." Ah, yes, that historically trusting bond between the GOP and "the press."

Glenn Beck Is a Fake!

Finally! Proof that Glenn Beck fakes his tears!  Watch the video below, taken during a photo shoot.  At Beck's request (first line of the video) they put Vaseline under his eyes to make tears form.

The Impact of Race on Today's Political Climate

Carter and Obama are both right

This past week, former President Carter told NBC news, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man . . . racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."   

I applaud former President Carter's  "calling out" of these racists.  I made the same observation myself in my September 7th entry about the hysteria over President Obama's address to the nation's school children  when I wrote, "This is a pure and very sad case of racism. These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president. They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children."

In an interview with CNN's John King, to be broadcast on Sunday, President Obama said that he assumes some people don’t like him because of his race but said it is not the “overriding issue.” He said the intense public reaction reflects a long-standing debate about the role of government, which gets more fierce “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”

The resulting headlines stating that Obama rejects Carter's statement, were wrong.  The Republicans  oppose health care reform and most of the other changes that Obama has proposed.  They are angry that they lost the election.  They will do anything to regain their power.  So, as they did with the Christian right and the issues of abortion and homosexuality in prior elections, they are now stoking the pent up racism of Americans who resent having a black man as our president.  Then, they feed one lie after another to these people, via the internet and people like Glenn "Joe McCarthy" Beck and Rush Limbaugh, to create angry mobs at town hall meetings and giant temper-tantrums in Washington D.C. This keeps negative Obama stories in the media and drags down his approval ratings.

Thus, Obama and Carter were both correct in their statements.

"birthers?" Or "LUNATIC FRINGE?"

Perhaps "googly-eyed."

Enough said.