The above billboard appeared in Mason City, Iowa and compares Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Now flash back to when Bush was in office and the following sign was held at a protest rally of Iraq war.
Both signs draw comparisons between sitting presidents and Hitler; yet one is blasted as racism while the other is lauded as free speech. Are both displays of free speech? What makes the comparison of Obama to Hitler racist? Plus, what is the fascination of comparing our President with Hitler? Is the current comparison to invoke Hitler's spirit for economic development? Hitler too did inherit a severe, actually more severe than Obama's claim, and brought Germany sustained economic growth until the Nazi Party crafted the "Final Solution" and sought out more land from neighboring countries. While the White House has held off comment to the recent billboard its owner, Kent Beatty, sees the billboard as "freedom of speech" but back peddled a bit by saying, "It doesn't reflect our views, necessarily" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_us/us_iowa_obama_billboard_3).
Which brings back up the question: Does the comparison of Obama to Hitler represent free speech or racism in action? How does it differ between comparing Bush and Hitler?
According to your last question...it doesn't. There is no comparison at all and I think BOTH sides are guilty of using comparisons with the Nazi party. To me, this is disgusting. It should be that way to everyone.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Anonymous that comparing people to Nazi's in the United States is "disgusting" but the larger question is if it is free speech?
ReplyDeleteOr how about both of those things.
ReplyDeleteI just was reading the Star Tribune's Twin Cities regional section about the Biber case and the supression of a Hitler style picture. As I asked before, and Anonymous touched on, why do people feel to compare themselves or others to Hitler?
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's free speech to make the comparison, I just struggle with Progressives painting those making the comparison as racist or bigots when they depicted Bush as Hitler is was all in vogue.
Which Progressives made such a comparasion thinking it was ok and what was the reaction? I can tell you, this one never did and found it just as offensive then as I do now.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there were, please say some progressives, we don't all belong to the same thought camp and, to use your terminology, paint with the same brush.
Progressive Anon...
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge that not all Progressives painted Bush as Hitler just as I recognize not all Tea Party members are racist, bigots or angry white middle class men.
While Bush was in office not once did I hear the Left leaning Media nor leading Progressives denounce those that compared Bush to Hitler. One can search Youtube for a number of examples of Progressives demonizing Bush on the floor of Congress.
If you recognize it, then don't make the broad comment in the first place. Without specfic examples, it comes off as an unsupported rant. There is a difference between demonizing for specific actions, policies, or failure to act and a direct comparasion to Hitler. And, if that demonizing was broad generalizations it should have been called out.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the flood of Republicans scolding those conservatives that call Obama Hitler is astonishing.
Here's my problem, by you and any media member talking about these people on the fringe, you are giving them credability and a platform to continue to spew their hate. That's on both sides. The general population is smart enough to realize these are nutjobs.
Do you have the same outrage and indignation for the Conservative leaderships failure to denounce Rush's claim that not only did Obama cause the recession, which even you can agree that one person can't cause a recession, let alone someone who is only a senator when it started, but that he did so as payback for slavery?
ReplyDeletePersonally - I find both of them tasteless. Unfortunately, they DO, in my opinion anyway, fall in line with free speach.
ReplyDeleteAgain - all of this is just my opinion. But I feel that both sides used these depictions more to get a reaction than to express their distaste for their respective "enemy". Not that it doesn't do the latter - I just feel the reaction is more of the endgoal here. But why are we (and we are all in some way) led to express such hatred and disdain for those we don't agree with?
Someone mentioned Chris painting ALL progressives as this or that. I agree that is wrong. I will also agree with Chris that many do the same with "Tea party members", republicans, Christians, athiests, homosexuals, whites, blacks, you name it. We all tend to pigeon-hole those we disagree with, don't like, don't know, are afraid of, instead of trying to come to some sort of agreement - even if it is to "agree to disagree". We should not use that as an excuse to do the same. While our free speach allows us to do this, to post stupid signs like the ones listed above, etc - I think it's up to US to find a different way to express our beliefs.
So my point in all of my ranting - I think we all agree this type of behavior, while it is and should be allowed, is disgusting and should not be considered. That means it becomes a personal choice NOT to do this. But we can't control the idiots who will do this. What we CAN do is use these things to avoid this type of behavior, and more important, this type of HATRED in our hearts. Let's not revert to pointing fingers, or justifying the actions of some who did this in the past. Let's instead just consider how we might, even in a small way, think similar thoughts in our hearts, and work to rectify that. And work HARD to teach our kids - by words AND example - the opposite. Doesn't mean we teach them to "live and let live" - just means we teach them not to engage in or endorse this type of behavior at all.
Ted
Well put Ted
ReplyDeleteLet's face it Rush is going to say what he wants. As pundits go he does have a strong accuracy when reading between the lines. And as a great pundit he does embelish and rachet up the rhetoric from time to time. That is when one just needs to filter through the noise and attempt to hear what is being said. Same can be said for any pundit no matter the side of the topic the fall.
ReplyDelete"As pundits go he does have a strong accuracy when reading between the lines" So you are defending what he said? You see a truth to it? You think there is a basis in fact for claiming the President wants to destroy the economy, create a recession that is hitting blacks just as, if not, harder than other groups?
ReplyDeleteI agree that pundits push the boundaries on what they say at times but the statements usually have some foundation in truth. I don't see that here. It seems like you are happy to accept lies because that's what they do.
Rush is accurate that the actions taken by the Obama administration is not improving the economy. Businesses are still not hiring permanent employees, new construction is down, and unemployment is still hovering around 10%. Obama's attempt to gain recovery has failed and to that Rush has been accurate on.
ReplyDeleteNow as for Obama's plan to include disparate attack on black population is a bit far fetched. If one is a conspiracy theorist, not sure if Rush is one or not, one may back the theory pushed forth by Rush because who better to make it tougher on blacks society than a black president. I am not a conspiracy theorist by the way.
There's a huge difference in claims. Rush is claiming a purposful assault on the economy as payback. What you speak of is the result of actions that were taken by someone who believed how he was acting was for the betterment of the country. You can disagree with the actions taken, but not with the intent they were taken with. Rush takes it to a whole new level, an unacceptable level in my opinion, by claiming 1) that Obama started the recession, which is untrue and that 2) it was started with a vindicative goal that has no factual support at all.
ReplyDeleteAs far as who better, how about white old rich Republicans? Why would a black president purposefully make it harder? How can you justify that statement? Why, when one thinks rationally, would any president want to do harm?
I am not saying that a black president is purposely or would purposely make it harder on black society. I said that conspiracy theorists may conclude that especially if one sees Obama has an empty suit.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I hear from those I know to be conspiracy theorist is that Obama is just an extension of the Chicago Political machine and the reason why he reads from a teleprompter is to stay on message. Something has changed in Obama's speeches since taking office and even more since his press conference where he called out the white officer. The passion is gone in his speeches and I think part of that is because he no longer writes or assists in writing nor gets to see the message ahead of time.
Then again there is a contigent of progressive conspiracy theorist that believe Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. If one can believe that than one can make the leap that Rush is pushing forth. Personally I do not see it in either case.
You would agree most would think both propositions are without merit, correct? Your initial problem was with the lack of progressives calling out those that made Bush Hitler comparisions. It seems you lack the same problem with Conservatives leaders calling out Rush for an equally unfounded claim and are simply willing to brush it off as Rush being Rush.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe the lack of passion comes with the obstacles he's had to face,some of his own creation, some he walked into the office with. It's a hard job, you know.
And based on what you said, you fall in line with those conspiracy theorists because you don't believe he writes or sees the message.
"And based on what you said, you fall in line with those conspiracy theorists because you don't believe he writes or sees the message"
ReplyDeleteThis does not draw me into the conspiracy theorist realm as we all know there is a staff of writers that compose the speeches. If one looks back at Obama's speeches during the campaign and shortly after being elected they will see passion and energy. I agree the job of president is a tough and thankless job.
And yes, I do not think Bush was behind 9/11 and I don't think Obama is trying to keep the black community down.
Viper, I may have missed this, but who "blasted [this billboard] as racism? I've seen people say it's offensive, a waste of money or that it's shock value overwhelms a message, but who brought up race?
ReplyDeleteWhich reminds me. How did you "the NAACP is the same as the KKK" discussion go with the Truth 2 Power group?
Clark - I have not seen an overt use of the word racism but many are dancing around it as proof of Tea Party being a bunch of middle class white men. That is in where the racist charge lies.
ReplyDeleteAs for the response from Truth2Power, I only rec'd one from a white member of the group. Here is what he wrote:
can see where you would make the case, but I find it s real strech.
I think the difference is not just tactics, the KKK preches HATE.
I do not think of the NAACP as being hateful as a whole.
EVERY group has some agenda, that why they group :)
So let's be honest Viper, you made it up that this billboard was "blasted as racism". Unless you can point to a source that said so, then that's what you did.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that there have been other instances in which people have characterized the Tea Party movement as racist or exclusively made up of whites. There's no doubt that there have been many instances of that happening. But this is not one of them.
So with the issue of racism removed from this post, since it never really belonged here in the first place, let's move to the second issue: free speech.
This billboard and the protest sign from a few years back are both examples of free speech. They are both examples of free speech accompanied by poor taste, but really nothing more.
So what's the issue? What is rubbing you the wrong way?
Finally, how would I find this Truth2Power forum? I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not being forthcoming with your post or the responses received.
Clark
ReplyDeleteThe racist angle is implied and that is echoed by this exert from the blackvoice.com in regards to the Tea Party and the billboard in Iowa: "the racial dimension of the Tea Party movement is loud and clear across America, even if they themselves are not aware of it. What makes this game somewhat odd and recursive is that, yes, the Tea Party movement has racism in it, but not every Tea Partier wants to be a racist"
It does not rub me the wrong way is so far as calling Bush Hitler was vogue while Obama to Hitler is not. I do not agree with comparing any President to a dictator like Hitler, or any dictator for that matter, but as the group that originally put forth the billboard expalained the billboard was to compare the socialist angle.
As for Truth2Power, go to Facebook and search the groups. I am completely forthcoming. The same white commentator did add to his comments: the KKK is not just pro white, they also hate Caholics and Jews.
Let me know if you are unable to locate the group. Not sure if we are Facebook friends but if we are not request and I can suggest the page.
As a favor to other readers, here is the entire article from the blackvoices.com website:
ReplyDeleteAn Iowa Tea Party group recently caused an uproar by creating a billboard that compares President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. What is even more interesting is that other members of the Tea Party are condemning the ad as well.
The ad shows pictures of Obama, Hitler and Lenin with the label, "Democrat Socialism," "National Socialism," and "Marxist Socialism." Below the pictures are the words, "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive."
The group's co-founder says that the billboard is simply meant to be a message against socialism, but some of the members of the Tea Party openly disagreed with the tone and nature of the message:
"That's just a waste of money, time, resources and it's not going to further our cause," said Shelby Blakely, head of the Tea Party Patriots. "It's not going to help our cause. It's going to make people think that the Tea Party is full of a bunch of right-wing fringe people, and that's not true."
It is completely clear that the billboard comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler is wrong. Hitler murdered six million Jews, while Obama simply changed the health care system. There is no question in my mind, or in the mind of any other free-thinking American, that the comparison is both flawed and inaccurate.
President Obama likely doesn't take much offense to what's happening within the Tea Party. Mind you, he fully understands the political ramifications of Tea Party momentum, but I presume he realizes that this kind of behavior is simply part of the political game. We must also remember that Tea Party members do, in fact, have freedom of speech, and I recall President Bush also being connected to Hitler during his presidency as well. Comparing your least favorite leader to Hitler appears to be all the rage these days. There are millions of little boys comparing their moms to Hitler when they are forced to take a bath or clean their rooms.
All jokes aside, the racial dimension of the Tea Party movement is loud and clear across America, even if they themselves are not aware of it. What makes this game somewhat odd and recursive is that, yes, the Tea Party movement has racism in it, but not every Tea Partier wants to be a racist.
The problem is that racism is such a subtle social disease that we are not usually aware when it impacts our choices. The outrage that America has shown toward its first black president is no different from the anger that an angry white mob showed toward the "uppity negro" who said, "Hello," to a white woman 70 years ago.
Even in those situations, people went out of their way to distinguish the "good blacks" from the bad ones. Being "good" effectively meant that you knew your place, which the President of the United States does not (since black men are not supposed to become president and tell people what to do).
The other half of the political game is one that uses the racist accusation to paint the entire Tea Party as a pack of racists, when in fact, many of them have a genuine right to dislike President Obama. So, while the Tea Party movement understates the racial dimensions of its activities, there are those who are in the business of painting them with a broad brush to weaken their appeal.
I personally do not think that the Tea Party movement is entirely built on racism. I also argue that they have a right to compare Obama to Hitler, Satan or whomever they please. To undermine the Tea Party's right to express itself would be to undermine America and what it stands for. I assume any other patriot might agree.
So, at the end of the day, the Tea Party folks will keep finding outrageous ways to express their discontent. On the other side, the Democrats will call the Tea Party members racist. It's all just the American way, and politics at its finest.
Thanks for posting the article, but I was capable of going to the website myself and it does not appear that Viper took the quote out of context. Is your belief that Viper did?
ReplyDeleteViper, I'm sorry but the racist angle is implied here by you. Or are you so anxious to discuss race, race relations and racism that you are grabbing on to the fact that Hitler and Lenin were white and Obama is black? Whatever your motivation, I don't get it nor do I agree that there is a racial component to this sign.
ReplyDeleteAs for the blackvoices.com article, they seem to move from discussion of the billboard (one topic) to the undercurrent of racism within the Tea Party (another topic). There's no clear argument that the billboard is racist.
Finally, it's odd for you to say that comparing Bush to Hitler was vogue while comparing Obama to Hitler is not. Really? Are you sure about that? Seems like that was the main reason for the article? Or are you suggesting that this is a one off incident? That no one else has compared Obama to Hitler. Or perhaps it's just that whether or not something is in "vogue" depends upon where you are standing.
Thanks Anonymous I was wonder the same thing by Clark posting the entire article. My assertion of race is that Progressives and the Left leaning media view everything the Tea Party has done and does through the spectrum of racism. I was simply echoing that and blackvoice.com backs that up too.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by vogue is the mass media seems to be comfortable with the Bush/Hitler reporting but does not see Obama/Hitler as the same. My point was why was it seemingly okay for the Bush/Hitler comparison but not the Obama/Hitler comparison? What would take place in the media if Senators and House of Representatives lambasted Obama with the same demonization on the floor of Congress as was done with Bush?
Ok, first, stop saying Progressives without some sort of modifier. We went through this already. It's not all, it's some. Wait, actually, if you are going to make such claims please provide the specific statements. Provide the statements where people said it was ok to compare Bush to Hitler. Please also provide the examples of the demonizing you claim. I'm not saying it didn't happen, like I said before, I want to know who said what and when and what context. Was this demonizing fact based or just saying Hey, Bush is the devil?
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to be difficult. You make these broad sweeping generalizations and expect people to take your claims as truth.
You want to advance the conversation? Then provide the specific examples. You aren't going to sway peoples minds with broad generalizations. I'm more then happy to change my views on people, but if you are going to call them out, have specifics.
And I'm still waiting as to who in the liberal media called those in favor of smaller government racist. Who said it and when? Again, not to be difficult, but to have facts to go on.
Where did blackvoice back up your broad sweeping generalization? Maybe I'm missing it. The woman said ""It's not going to help our cause. It's going to make people think that the Tea Party is full of a bunch of right-wing fringe people, and that's not true."" Is that what you are referring to? Is "people" the media?
Where was the media comfortable with the Bush/Hitler comparison? Please provide who said what there, too. What do you mean by comfortable?
These are serious claims to make. Please get back to us with specifics so we can all revisit how we view certain people and can have an actual factual discussion.
Viper, you said the following: "The racist angle is implied and that is echoed by this exert from the blackvoice.com in regards to the Tea Party and the billboard in Iowa".
ReplyDeleteHere are my issues with your statement:
1) My reading of the article is that the billboard comments and the racism discussion are separate even though they appear in the
same article. I fail to see where the article says the billboard is racist.
2) The "racism angle" is not just implied it is clearly commented upom in the article. However, it has no relation to the billboard.
3) I copied the article to reinforce the two points above but also to show that the author of the article clearly has respect for the right of free speech. That was worth mentioning in my view.
4) Finally, the article takes a measured view of the Tea Party and the racism that exists within it. It's very well written.
Viper, how exactly does the "mass media seem comfortable with the Bush/Hitler" comparison? Is the "mass media" as comfortable with that as Fox News is with the Obama/Hitler comparison? See Glenn Beck. Is Fox News part of the "mass media"?
Clark
ReplyDeleteVery few people view Fox News as part of the mass media because of their conservative slant. Also, in talking about News outlets many people get confused with people like Beck, Hannity, Rush, Matthews, Obermann, and Maddow as news shows when they are not.
Anon...I have been trying to find specific examples of media outlets being comfortable with Bush/Hitler analysis but am running against a roadblock called time. When I expand the search to when Bush was in office many websites are not coming up with anything even when I put in Bush alone. I will not give up though.
Back to Tea Party racist angle. A small group of people in Tea Party hold these racist angles that the media amped. I was having a interesting conversation on facebook with a black male on this and all was going well until I made a correlation to the New Black Panther Party. My comparison was does the New Black Panther Party message of killing white babies, they used a different term for white but I don't recall it exactly, to being representative to the entire black community? As this is the same application that is being given to the Tea Party. Unforutnately the thread was on another person profile page and they defriended me before me and the other gentlemen could finish.
"Very few people view Fox News as part of the mass media because of their conservative slant."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the numbers agree with you. Fox News is by far the most watch cable news channel. Even when you total what you would call the liberal news outlets, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC, it still often gets more viewers.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news
My suggestion would be to have specific examples prior to making broad generalized statements to give your readers factual support.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteRead blog postings, Facebook and other forum and you will see Fox News referenced as Faux News. I agree they are the most watched news channel out there. Last year, not exactly sure which day, the Obama administration tried to get the Press Corp to deny Fox News access to their credit the Press Corp refused.
The White House own blog site has a page dedictated to Glenn Beck which I find completely obsurd. Not because its Glenn Beck rather because they care what a pundits is saying.
That being said, Fox News is one of the few media outlets that is reporting the news from a conservative slant. I did blog about this before. I will try to look back in the archive, lol, to see what the exact date was though.
So by your logic, CNN, MSNBC, et al. are not part of the mass media because people, you included, label them as the liberal media that leans one way. Those stations also receiving criticism from the right. If people don't consider it real news, why is it the most watched? So people can laugh at it?
ReplyDeleteOut of curiousity, I looked at the White House blog. I didn't see one "dedicated to Glenn Beck."
Could you let me know where it is?
Further, I did a search of "Glenn Beck" and it returned 11 entries. Some of which went to correct statements by Beck that the WH believed were inaccurate and were parts of larger conversation. Several entries were where reporters asked about Beck. One even went so far as to encourage people to seek out things said and written by Beck, or anyone who has a different opinion, to get an idea of what others are saying: "The President encouraged the audience to actively seek information that challenges their beliefs in order to “begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.”
[I]f you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. It is essential for our democracy.
"
I do think it's wrong to single out one news organization. But there is nothing wrong in correcting what some deem to be misrepresentations.
One more thing: "Read blog postings, Facebook and other forum and you will see Fox News referenced as Faux News." Just because that's what some say, doesn't make it true. They obviously get press passes. They have journalist on staff. I'm guessing they consider themselves to be a real news outlet. A lot of people seem to watch them as real news.
ReplyDeleteSome people think Elvis is alive. Some think the Cubs will win the World Series every year. Some think the moonlanding was fake. Some think the Tea Party is filled with a bunch of old white racists. Their belief doesn't create truth, though.
Anon..If one is getting their information solely from the pundits then one is truly ill-informed.
ReplyDeleteHere is one blog entry that I talked about the White House attack on Fox News: http://thehamburgpost.blogspot.com/2009/10/white-house-vs-fox-news-insanity.html
Here is the blog entry I talk about Glenn Beck and the White House blog page "Truth-O-Meter":
http://thehamburgpost.blogspot.com/2009/10/fox-news-vs-white-house-sound-strategy.html
I do read the WSJ and the Huffington Post. I agree that correcting any news channel for misrepresentations is important too. It is true that Fox News Channel is highly rated, I should have qualified my statement when I said very few, very few liberal and progressive people that I know and are in the public eye see Fox News as a credible source of news. When I ask them more about the reasoning they point to Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity to which I retort, "Those guys are pundits not news people." The line has been blurred and I am not sure America is capable of determining the difference.