Frank Rich over the weekend wrote an Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html, that asserted, "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls "Obamcare" is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964." Now I was not born till 1971 so I did not experience 1960's first hand. I have read a number of sources while studying history at UND and do not see the comparison that Frank Rich is drawing between "ObamaCare" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rich asserts that racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage which I do not buy.
As Rich points out accurately the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate with 73 votes (bipartisan) versus the partisan vote and reconciliation of "Obamcare". From what I have read and seen, Americans are fed up with government growth and mounting debt. It has nothing to do with a President that is mullato. Pat Sajak, yes Wheel of Fortune Sajak, wrote an Op-Ed to retort Rich, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241, Op-Ed. Sajak's message was, "Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing "Cats"." The reason I quote Sajak is because the nature of Rich's claim to fame as being a theater critic.
Sajak goes on to say, "This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let's discuss it. Let's debate it. Let's yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?" Who is more on the ball; Rich or Sajak?
Because one opposes "ObamaCare" does that automatically make them a racist, sexist and a homophobic? Let's look at the facts of the bill and debate it. Yes it is already passed but remember it was House Speaker Pelosi that made it clear that Americans will see what is in the bill after it is passed. Right now Morning Joe, on MSNBC, is discussing the fringe elements media spin and if things are being accurately displayed by the mass media. The only death threat on record, to this point, is against Republican Eric Cantor. But I digress. Will "ObamaCare" place burdens on United Sates companies as AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Catepillar are all asserting to which Democrat leadership response is to drag the CEO's in front of Congress to defend their revelations.
How do we debate the merits of health care reform that was passed without invoking "psychobabble" and labeling those in opposition as being a racist, sexist or homophobic? Or is a post-racial America a pipe dream?
I think you need to re-read the Frank Rich opinion piece again. Mr. Rich is not comparing the merits or content of the Civil Rights Act to the merits or content of the health care bill. He is comparing the "overheated reaction" to the healthcare bill to what he believes to be only other example of such a reaction to a piece of legislation: the reaction to the passage of the civil rights bill.
ReplyDeleteMr. Rich does not assert that "racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage" as you state. Mr. Rich states the reaction is the result of "fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country" and a "national existential reordering". These events are, in my mind, nothing more than a bunch of people that are sore losers. The right is out of power and they can't do anything about it. They can't do anything other than: say no to everything; use racial slurs; use homophobic slurs; vandalize properties of their opponents; shout them down in public meetings; make death threats; talk about reloading; use gun sights to identify vulnerable opponents; call people names like "traitor", "tyrant", "totalitarian", "communist", "fascist", "unpatriotic", "un-American", "Muslim", "terrorist", "baby-killer" and the list goes on. The right is fast becoming the party that believes in effecting change through any means possible, including promoting violence and instilling a constant sense fear and hatred of others that don't look or sound like you.
It is disingenuous of you or Pat Sajak to suggest that Mr. Rich's column is an indictment of all who opposed the health care bill. It is far from that. Mr. Rich makes it very clear that this is about a "rise in right-wing extremism". And when the right wing media, I'm looking at you Fox News, blames the lawmakers that walked through a crowd for inviting others to spit on them or use racial epithets, they are no better than the people using those horrible words. Or when Andrew Breitbart doubts whether racial slurs were used against black lawmakers because he doesn't have any video or audio of that. Or when Sean Hannity talks about how people are overreacting to these protests by tea partiers or suggesting that they have no other option but to go to the extremes.
No one, even Frank Rich, ever said that opposing the health care bill automatically makes them a racist, sexist, homophobic or anything like that. But why is it so difficult for the mouthpieces of the right to unequivocally denounce such hateful words and deeds?
Okay, I went back and re-read Rich's Op-Ed. Rich certaintly does make claim that the reaction to the passing of "ObamaCare" is steeped in racial overtones. Rich even elludes that the same supposed hatred and racial bias would have existed had "Obama first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate, we would have seen the same trajectory." How does one not apply his earlier charge of racism?
ReplyDeleteAnon, you lay claim that:
racial and homophic slurs were hurled - no proof
Vandalized property - please advise as I missed it
Shout them down in public meetings - It was Ann Coulter and Karl Rove who were shout down
Death Threats - only one reported to FBI thus far is Rep. Cantor
Talk of reloading - it is not about violence
Remember the major pieces of legislation that were pointed to in Rich's article had bipartisan support. Why is that? Why did Democrats have to make backroom deals to get health care passed?
Do you recall the words used to describe Bush during his Presidency? I did not see the same restraint or demonizing of the Left by the media in reporting the news as they are ready to with the Right.
The backlash we are seeing and the impact that major companies are reporting is examples that people did not want this type of reform.
Different Anon here...
ReplyDeleteRacial and homophobic slurs...were reported by the reps themselves and required additional security by the security agents themselves.
Vandalized property...Rep Giffords and Rep Mitchell of Arizona.
Shouted down in public meetings...constantly.
Death Threats...Rep Stupak has received dozens of them.
When the right bashes the left its common sense and the will of the people...
When the left bashes the right its hypocrisy...
Its not really a right vs. left on who gets to use these tactics. Just that we all agree both sides of the aisle use these tactics to advance their agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe Progressive media outlets hype and make political hay from the words said against the Left while ignoring the same words being said to the Right. That is where they hypocrisy lies.
We can all agree that slurs, death threats, and shouting down - which I do not recall a constant usage by the Right against the left - are tactics that distract the conversation and get us as a society nowhere, right?
Ardent Viper, I don't lay claim.
ReplyDeleteI state facts unlike you.
Read the news.
You claim to be so well read. You claim to read any number of sources from both sides of the aisle. You claim to read sources from outside the U.S. If you do so much reading, how could you possibly miss so many things that were covered in so many outlets around the world?
No proof of racial or homophobic slurs? Oh, I see. It's your reality. If I don't have "proof", it didn't happen. That's convenient Viper. You're taking a page out of Andrew Breitbart's playbook. He said that since he didn't have video, there's no proof that those things were said. You then take a page from Sean Hannity's playbook by claiming that the left is hyping these stories or making political hay. Shame on you Ardent Viper. You of all people, the "stand up and let your voice be heard" person, is now suggesting that a champion of the civil rights movement like John Lewis should just be quiet when people use that offensive term.
In your book, John Lewis and Andre Carson are liars.
In your world, Barney Frank is a liar.
What about Emanuel Cleaver? Is he a liar too? Did someone really spit on him?
You missed the reports of vandalism? Were you too busy watching the Tea Party Express rallies?
Windows were broken and doors were shattered at Democratic Party offices and district offices of House Democrats in Arizona, Kansas and New York.
Eric Cantor being the only one to receive a death threat? Really? Get an f-ing clue!!!
Even your beloved Fox News reported on the numerous death threats that Democratic lawmakers had received since the vote. The story about the Eric Cantor death threat on Politico states that "at least 10 Democrats along with a handful of Republicans...reported threats of violence." People are even making death threats to employees of the IRS!!! Wake the f up!
How is talk of "reloading" not about violence? To what was Sarah Palin referring if not a gun? Is it just a complete coincidence that there are gun sights focused on certain legislative districts?
I hope to God that you are taking the contrarian position here to get a rise out of people. If you are not, then you have sunk to a new low Ardent Viper.
Chris, I don't give a flying f*ck what "major companies" are reporting to be honest. Companies are not citizens. Therefore their "opinion" is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteAnd again whether or not the "people" wanted this type of reform here's the thing, the opinion of the people is only requested every 2 years in the form of an election. If the countries opinion changes, the "majority" can still vote how they please because they were elected to do just that.
It's called a representative democracy. Or, would you prefer legislation by referendum? Should we just vote based upon the polls that day? Sounds like a great form of government - I think California has something similar.
Admittedly you and I don't like the fact I'm pointing out, but here's the thing. If you support the constitution you support this process. So do you support it or do you not?
Sorry, I misspoke. I support this fact (representative democracy) although I dislike the bills it sometimes produces.
ReplyDeleteAnon...Where am I not stating facts? Many dictators, Castro and Chavez, are applauding the Obama Administration for passing health care reform as they recognize it for what the reform is; laying the foundations for a single payer system.
ReplyDeleteWhy are these dictators applauding this? Because they recognize that to control the masses one must keep them dependent on the Government for all aspects of their lives. The new requirement for insurance companies to pay 85 percent of their premiums out, used to be 65 percent, will eventually put private insurance companies out of business thus opening the door for the single payer system.
Yes, without proof I had difficulty believing politicians when they say slurs are hurled their way. I am not calling them liars just a bit skeptical because the best thing for politicians is being able to get a piece of the spot light. The easiest way to get the piece is through claiming a slur.
Eric Cantor's death threat is the only one that is being actively investigated by the FBI. The other death threats, at least from what is being reported, are being dismissed as people venting.
America is has become very thin skinned and a knee-jerk society. When Palin talks about "reloading" she refers to getting re-energized to have Conservative voices heard in the mid-term elections. Is the Republican Party "sighting" in on certain districts, of course they are.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to hear the financial impact that health care will have on those that create jobs. I agree that companies are not citizens too. I acknowledge that we live in a representative democracy and elections have consequences.
The reliance on polls has become a crutch of politicians and the media to justify a position taken. I do not believe that I said I did not like the process; rather I do not like the games that the Senate and House made during this process. The Constitution calls for a conference committee when the House and Senate pass legislation that are similar but different. In regards to health care that did not take place.
"The new requirement for insurance companies to pay 85 percent of their premiums out, used to be 65 percent, will eventually put private insurance companies out of business thus opening the door for the single payer system."
ReplyDeleteROFLOL. This was such a devestating blow to them that their stocks went up afterward. Yes, I can see their dismay at being asked to insure another 35million americans and make profits off that. After all, they were such a low margin business before this, what with UHC sitting on 19 billion in CASH equivalents last I saw. Must be rough to be so poor.
"Yes, without proof I had difficulty believing politicians when they say slurs are hurled their way. I am not calling them liars..."
Chris, I don't believe your repeated claims that you are consistently called a racist. After all, I've never seen proof that you had these accusations hurled at you so therefore they are not true until you provide said proof. Now I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying you're not telling the truth until I see proof.
Get my point yet or should I continue?
"Eric Cantor's death threat is the only one that is being actively investigated by the FBI."
You must have an inside line to the FBI that the press doesn't because I found at least 50 articles in 10 seconds via google that state the contrary. At least 10 democratic congressmen/women are having threats investigated by the FBI. So where's your source?
"I do not believe that I said I did not like the process; rather I do not like the games that the Senate and House made during this process. The Constitution calls for a conference committee when the House and Senate pass legislation that are similar but different. In regards to health care that did not take place."
Chris, the process was legal. If it wasn't it would be overturned by the US Supreme court. In fact, this same process was used 22 times by the republicans during Bush's 8 years to pass questionable legislation. 22 TIMES. If it's not legal, how'd they get away with it and where was your indignation then? Welcome to the party, I'm glad you arrived, but you seem to be one of the "vikings fans" of politics - fair weather. If your team is in power, you're ok with these tricks. If they're not you call them unconstitutional. I take issue with that.
And, I gotta say Chris, your angst sounds more due to loss of power than disgust at the legislation. You seem to be hung up on "facts" that ring of the same hypocrisy that the republicans are wreaking of. Perhaps you should get your information from other sources because lately you've sounded mis-informed and that's too bad.
PS - why are you still hung up on this legislation? It passed. Move on to other fights, like finance reform or jobs creation. This will be settled by the Supreme court and likely the states will lose due to the supremacy clause of the constitution. But I'm interested in seeing the outcome none the less.
"The Constitution calls for a conference committee when the House and Senate pass legislation that are similar but different. In regards to health care that did not take place.
ReplyDelete"
Wait, the House passed the Senate bill, right? So, no, a conference committee wasn't required. Then, reconciliation, a legal method, was used. One used extensively in the pass. You need to take each action individually, but that doesn't seem to support what you want.
The reason stocks went up is because people saw an influx of insured's and had not realized the raminifications of some of the changes.
ReplyDeleteAs for the racist claims, just look at the conversations I have on Facebook with Truth2Power group for proof.
The process of reconciliation has been used for budget items. I still struggle with that regardless of who is in power. Yes, the House did pass the Senate bill only after an agreement was made that the Senate would approve the "fix it" bill.
The reason to continue to discuss it is as President Obama has stated we still have more to do in regards to reform. The Progressives will not rest until we are all enslaved to the Government via health care entitlement program. My hope, but I do not believe it will be, is that the Supreme Court will have the courage to strick down health care as unconstitutional rather than cave to the Progressive movement.
"The reason stocks went up is because people saw an influx of insured's and had not realized the raminifications of some of the changes."
ReplyDeleteYes, because major investors like the California Pension fund (one of the largest investors in the world) is run by morons who don't have any insights into what will happen with the actual stock over time let alone the P&L's of these companies.
Chris, your claptrap regurgitated of the Fox News BS here on this subject is more than worrisome to the rest of us.
"As for the racist claims, just look at the conversations I have on Facebook with Truth2Power group for proof."
But again, I haven't seen the proof therefore it must not exist. In other words, I'm mocking you for sticking your head in the sand and ignoring one persons claims of fact while you yourself asserting the same thing. John Lewis, for all his liberal leanings, is not someone who I question on this front. It's just not that hard for me to believe that tea partiers would throw those kind of prejoratives when they're using words like anti-christ, nazi, baby killer, etc. But I'm sure since you support this group, it's more pallatable to believe that it's all lies.
"The Progressives will not rest until we are all enslaved to the Government via health care entitlement program."
I don't see a government healthcare entitlement plan here. It's run by private industry after all. But feel free to run like chicken little screaming the sky is falling still. I just don't understand when you became so scared of your own shadow.
"My hope, but I do not believe it will be, is that the Supreme Court will have the courage to strick down health care as unconstitutional rather than cave to the Progressive movement."
Chris, the reason I don't see this happening is the supremacy clause of the constitution. This is the clause that the US Supreme court will cite IMO.
By the way, I've wondered for a while, do you believe in the constitutional "right" to privacy? What is your interpretation of this right?
Kevin
ReplyDeleteThe Progressives are on record for wanting a single payer system. Spiegel interviewed Jon Podesta, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686218,00.html#ref=nlint, and posed the this:The final bill, however, is very different from Obama's initial proposals. Cost-cutting in the health care sector is no longer a priority, and more competition for the insurance companies won't be introduced.
To which Podest responded: It is certainly better for the Democrats to get something done even if this involved compromises. They have been fighting for better health care coverage for decades, and this bill is a very significant step.
Signficant step toward what? Step toward the belief that health care is a right.
AS for the right of privacy. My take is simple. Is so far as ones actions do not interfere, harm, or threaten another then Government ought not infringe upon the privacy of the citizen.
To me, that's not much of an answer. You could easily stretch out just about any action to have some impact on another.
ReplyDelete"AS for the right of privacy. My take is simple. Is so far as ones actions do not interfere, harm, or threaten another then Government ought not infringe upon the privacy of the citizen."
ReplyDeleteThen you take a liberal interpretation of the constitution since no "right to privacy" exists in the constitution. Would this be a correct interpretation of your interpretation of the constitution? I ask because whether you believe in the "right to privacy" or not determines quite a bit of how you interpret the constitution as a whole.
In order to see that there is a "right" to privacy enshrined in the constitution, you must take a more liberal "reading between the lines" interpretation.
And I don't see the big bad boogey man in your "significant step" quote. But then, I don't listen to blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly call out privacy as a right afforded to the citizens by the Constitution; however parts of the Bill of Rights does appropriate the concept.
For example: 1St Amendment - religous beliefs, 3rd Amdendment - preventing the taking over of ones home to house soldiers, 4th Amendment - protection from unreasonable searches of person and/or possessions, and 5th Amendment - allowing one not to self-incriminate.
And yes, to Anon, my interpretation could be taken and liberalized to its meaning. We all need to work together and respected for our own privacy. Our own right to choose and not be forced into believing in, purchasing, or participating in anything by our Government.
Read Griswold v. Connecticut (381 US 479).
ReplyDelete