A still fairly recent release of a Harris poll that put into sharp focus how ignorant some Republicans are when it comes to their views on President Barack Obama. Some of the revelations in the poll show the depth of the hatred that some close-minded Republicans have for this president. And, that hatred started long before he was president and long before he became the official nominee for the presidency in 2008. The hatred started before this nation knew much of anything about Barack Obama.
The findings of the Harris poll continue to reflect the hatred that exists in the dark hearts of some of these Republicans. Below are summaries of the Harris poll results as compiled by Media Matters for America.
According to the Harris poll, conducted of 2,320 adults between March 1 and March 8, a majority of Republicans believe President Obama:
is a socialist (67 percent);
wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61 percent);
is Muslim (57 percent);
wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government (51 percent); and
has done many things that are unconstitutional (51 percent).
It goes on:
large minorities also believe Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible for the presidency (45 percent);
many believe he is a racist (42 percent);
and many believe he is doing many things Hitler did (38 percent)
There is your Republican party (still believing in thoroughly vetted and debunked garbage. It basically shows that everyday Republicans and tea baggers are like storm troopers from the Star Wars movies. They operate like robots taking their marching orders from right-wing extremists like Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some conservative black people will go to protect racism at Tea Party rallies while attacking black leaders for being called “nigger” or being spit on by protesters.
That thought brings me to comments I read from conservative blogger Andre Harper, who proudly talks about himself as a black man who was at Tea Party rallies. Hey, that is fine by me. If he wants to hang with those individuals then that is no doubt his choice. If he chooses to ignore the racist language at many of these rallies, if he chooses to ignore that these Tea Party people were silent (nonexistent) prior to the election of Barack Obama as the first black president of the United States of America, then that is his choice. Again, where were these Tea Party people worried about big government, government spending, the loss of freedoms and all of this other stuff when George W. Bush was president? They were silent. But, we elect the first black president and all of a sudden these good and patriotic Americans are soooooooooo worried about freedom, government spending, deficits, the size of government, etc. It’s all a bunch of bullsh!t. To each their own.
But, it still saddens me when racism apologists/excuse makers you see people make comments like the following (from Harper’s blog):
Democrat puppets like representatives [Emanuel] Cleaver and John Lewis are nothing but frauds. They instinctively play the race card because that is how they have achieved their lot in life. No one should be surprised that they can’t prove these accusations. They never can. With all these videos surfacing, the large police presence and all the witnesses, I find it hard to believe that no one can identify or find any evidence of their claims. It’s disgraceful and completely unfounded for John Lewis to compare this peaceful protest to his experience on the Pettis Bridge. The situations and conditions are completely different. The truth is these cowards are always going to play the race card because they are weak-minded, cowardly individuals that exploit race by instinct.
The words are nothing short of disgraceful and ridiculous. Oh, and it’s the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
Rep. John Lewis is a man who fought and bled for civil rights to allow men like Harper and myself to be able to blog with the kinds of freedoms black people of prior generations could not have imagined when they were young. Sadly, Harper uses his platform as a blogger to refer to John Lewis (and Emanuel Cleaver, who had a Tea Party person spit on him) as “Democrat puppets.”
Once again, we see the lengths that people will go to apologize for or make excuses for racism at Tea Party (that includes Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele).
Republicans continue to fail to adapt to the changing demographics our nation is headed for in the next 30 to 50 years. The United States of America is not going to be majority white forever. The Hispanic population is growing and people of color are decades away from becoming a majority. That is quite frightening to a lot of people (some of which are expressing their anger through the most inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric).
Those changing demographics could leave Republicans in trouble if they’re party doesn’t diversify and become more attractive to people of color.
You know you’re in trouble when Dick Armey comes across as the voice of reason. But, compared to an obnoxious extremist like Tom Tancredo, even Armey is a voice of reason.
Former Republican House leader Dick Armey said staunch anti-immigration opponents such as Rep. Tom Tancredo are destructive to Republicans — and are alienating a “natural” constituency that could help the party win elections. “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?” Armey said, referencing Hispanics, during a luncheon in Washington at the National Press Club.
“When I was the majority leader, I saw to it that Tom Tancredo did not get on the stage because I saw how destructive he was,” Armey said of the Colorado congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate known for his opposition to illegal immigration. [...]
I think the stunning arrogance of the Republicans, who have been reading their own talking points far too much, came back to bite them in the ass in Baltimore last week. The Republicans welcomed President Obama to their annual retreat last week in Baltimore (maybe with the thought they could make him look bad on national television). It was a big mistake. One has to imagine the Republicans never knew what hit them by the time everything was said, done and written (unless you watch Fox News which still tried to spin it negatively for the president). President Obama went onto Republican turf, handled all the partisan attacks, misleading information, fear mongering and falsehoods with dignity, class and intelligence.
With relative ease, the president smacked down most, if not all, of the Republican falsehoods and misleading attacks with charm, poise and intelligence. In all honesty, President Obama made the Republicans looked like a bunch of angry obstructionists using fear, misleading information, false information and hatred as weapons of attack. The president came off looking like a good guy trying to do the right thing while the Republicans came off looking angry and politically hateful.
This is from Think Progress:
House Republicans were fired up and ready to go for their conversation with President Obama at their annual retreat today. According to the New York Times, members of the conservative Republican House Conference said they were “itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas rather than listen to another lofty presidential address.” Although such sessions generally occur behind closed doors, Republicans agreed to open it up after the White House said it was willing to do so. However, after Obama’s strong performance, some Republicans are now regretting that decision. As Luke Russert reported on MSNBC:
RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”
Here is the bottom line: The Republicans believed all of that garbage about teleprompters and questioned the president’s intelligence. They underestimated him (mainly his intelligence) and ended up looking REALLY bad as he handled all of their questions and attacks as if he knew what they were going to say (because he did know what they were going to say).
President Obama was right about how vulnerable these Republicans become with their own base because of how hateful the rhetoric from the far right has become. He turned on the charm and used reason to expose the anger of the far right in attacking his administration. As the president asked how can the far right work with the president when they’re buying into (initiating or advancing) the garbage that he is a fascist, a socialist, he’s trying to harm old people, he is trying to take over government and so on and so forth? They can’t unless they are willing to risk the wrath of people who hated Barack Obama from the moment they first saw him.
But, back to my main point: Republicans made a mistake.
They underestimated Barack Obama and he made them look really bad on a national stage (unless you watch Fox News in which case you would not have seen the entire exchange as they turned away to begin bashing him with right-wing talking points … disguised as fair and balanced).
It’s really not that big a surprise that the far right Fox News network was clearly disappointed that President Barack Obama destroyed the Republicans as he went to their retreat, took all of their questions and swatted them all down with relative ease. Crooks and Liars makes a great point that, instead of talking about the event, the Republicans had to punt (rethink strategy and ultimately go back to attacking the State of the Union address).
As we know, Fox News is where Republicans go to run the silent phase of their presidential campaigns (Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc.).
If President Obama had looked bad, Hannity and Bill O’Reilly would have hammered him with it all night long.
Instead, they pretty much ignored the beating President Obama gave the Republicans.
Paige Perkins, a conservative Republican, writes on Facebook: “Obama’s SoTU Checklist: Blame Republicans, Blame Republicans, Blame Bush, Encourage bi-partisanship, Declare it’s not my fault, Pat myself on the back, Deliver bad news, Repeat as necessary.”
This is an anger point for many conservatives.
Paige missed the part where President Obama talked about what his administration has added to the deficit. Pointing out the facts (about the state of the economy when President Obama took office) is not blaming.
In baseball, just because a relief pitcher comes in does not mean he assumes responsibility for the runners on base. The starting pitcher bears some responsibility.
There are two names that one will never be called in Black America (OK – 3 now that I think about it)
“You are a left-wing extremist”
“You are carrying the water for the Democrats”
“You have sold out to Barack Obama where you care more about his political fortunes than you do your own permanent interests”.
Here are a few thoughts I had off the top of my head:
First and foremost, this is pretty much assumed of many black people (in and out of the media). Secondly, does the name Van Jones ring a bell?
Pretty much any black person who goes on television, as a liberal, is presumed to be carrying the water for the Democrats (so it doesn’t necessarily need to be spelled out explicitly).
Oprah Winfrey was nailed with this charge during the campaign by conservatives who became angry that she did not give Sarah Palin, then the vice presidential candidate, a forum on Oprah’s popular syndicated talk show.
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.
Now, for the most part, these are indeed labels a lot of blacks do not have to fear, but that is mostly because many people simply assume all blacks are in the corner of Democrats.
A FEW SIDE NOTES: I am not sure that everyone would agree with Sen. Evan Bayh about the Democrats moving too far to the left. Some would say (considering the Dems gave in on aspects of health care, sending more troops to war, etc., that President Obama has moved too far to the middle and has upset his base). That is just something to think about with this kind of discussion. Also, keep in mind, Sen. Bayh is trying to position himself as a centrist for political purposes.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Fox News clearly is home to Republican candidates (arguably in exile) gearing up for potential runs at the White House in 2012.
Fox News is offering its network as a platform for potential Republican candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and others to stay in the public eye during the next two-plus years.
In reality, the network conservatives trust is allowing these high-profile (rumored) candidates to basically run a silent phase and fund-raising part of their 2012 campaigns while staying in the public eye.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn called out Fox News for what it is: a conservative media outlet with a far-right agenda.
But, is this really anything new? This is kind of old news, but it is refreshing to see the White House call out Fox News for its right-wing bias (which extends beyond its prime-time lineup of opinionated hate).
Here are some of the comments highlighted by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post with the video to follow:
“If we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.”
“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”
“Obviously [the President] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again… when he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”
“[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”
Good for Dunn and the White House to fight back against Fox News which is playing the role of media relations firm for the Republicans.
The right-wing bias on Fox News is not just in its evening programming with conservatives like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. It includes others masquerading as liberals (Greta Van Susteren and to a lesser extent Juan Williams) or disguising themselves as objective “reporters” or analysts (The dreadful Fox and Friends crew, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, etc.).
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the more mild Republicans, is coming under heat for being considered a moderate by those on the far right. Sen. Graham is fast becoming a victim of the runaway freight train of conservatism that is flat-out steamrolling everything in its path.
GREENVILLE – An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.
Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn’t succeed without the political coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress.
“If you don’t like it, you can leave,” he said.
The 75-minute forum filled several sections of Furman University’s Timmons Arena and attracted demonstrators, critics with handheld cameras, shouts of “traitor” and “Sotomayor” – and a smattering of supporters.
//
Some did.
Here is a comment Sen. Graham later made to the angry crowd:
GRAHAM: We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys.
That did not go over well. Republicans, with these tea baggers and townhall nuts have created a monster that is spiraling out of control with anger.
Here is a “Republican strategist” named Rich Galen making fun of the United States of American failing to win the right to host the 2016 Olympics.
“Other than people who like to cheer, ‘We’re No. 4! We’re No. 4!’ I don’t know how this is anything but really embarrassing,” Republican strategist Rich Galen said, adding that Obama’s failed pitch will probably be the joke on Capitol Hill for weeks to come.
“Given the last two months starting with the August recess and all of the issues that surrounded that, I think that the White House staff, the senior staff needs to get together somewhere and figure out how they are going to fix this, because they are in a deep slump,” he said.
Here is House Minority Leader John Boehner (to Politico) taking a cheap shot at President Obama who was trying to bring the Olympics to the United States of America.
“Listen, I think it’s a great idea to promote Chicago, but he’s the president of the United States, not the mayor of Chicago. And the problems we have here at home affect all Americans, and that’s where his attention ought to be.”
Where is the pride in America from these Republicans and why the hate for Chicago all of a sudden?
Minority Leader Boehner should know that Chicago is not a foreign country. It is in the United States of America. President Obama is president of the United States of America.
We know there are plenty of problems here … maybe Republicans should have worked harder during the last eight years to take care of them when they had the White House and maybe the GOP should cooperate a little to finally get health care taken care of.
This president has enough energy to take on a lot of tasks.
President Obama was a great ambassador for this country (fighting to rebuild bridges destroyed during the cowboy-diplomacy era) and all of us should have been behind him.
Some of us were not and you have to wonder what the real reason for that truly is.
There were a number of things I liked about President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night.
I particularly liked this part:
OBAMA: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
It’s about time the president has decided he is going to call out these individuals who are distorting, obstructing and lying.
Fox News has the following comments from Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who is one person to the right of the political spectrum who is beginning to see the silliness of the manufactured outrage over President Obama’s upcoming speech to school kids.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, education secretary under President George H.W. Bush, said he understood “some of the concern, because, you know, people say, ‘Oh, here’s another Washington takeover.’
“But of course the president of the United States should be able to address students. And of course, parents and teachers should decide in what context,” said Alexander, R-Tenn.
He added, “If I were a teacher, I’d take advantage of it, and I’d put up Lincoln and Eisenhower and Reagan and teach about the presidency, and then I’d put up the head of North Korea and say, In that country, you go to jail if you criticize the president. In our country, you have a constitutional right to do it.”
Interesting choices of other presidents to bring up (I suspect that was his way of trying to keep his people to the far right a little happy), but the core of Alexander’s message is on the money.
I spotted this from a blog posted by Crooks and Liars regarding idiotic comments made by nuts on the far right comparing President Obama to Hitler and likening the Democrats to the Nazis. This is from a segment of Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC evening show (as she interviewed author Franklin Schaeffer.
MADDOW: Do you think that calling the president a Nazi, calling the president Hitler, is an implicit call for politically-motivated violence?
SCHAEFFER: Yes I do. In fact, this rings a big bell with me, because my dad, who was a right-wing evangelical leader, wrote a book called A Christian Manifesto — it sold over a million copies. And in that book he compared anyone who was pro-abortion to the Nazi Germans, and he said that using violence or force to overthrow Nazi Germany would have been appropriate for Christians, including the assassination of Hitler. He compared the Supreme Court’s actions on abortion to that. And that has been a note that has been following the right wing movement that my father and I helped start in an evangelical context all the way.
So what’s really being said here is two messages. There is the message to the predominantly white, middle-aged crowds of people screaming at these meetings, trying to shut them down, but there’s also a coded message to what I would call the loony tunes — the fruit loops on the side. It’s really like playing Russian Roulette — you put a cartridge in the chamber, you spin, and once in awhile it goes off.
And we saw that happen with Dr. Tiller, we’ve seen it happen numerous times with the violence against political leaders, whether it’s Martin Luther King or whoever it might be. We have a history of being a well-armed, violent country. And so really, I think that these calls are incredibly irresponsible.
The good news is that it shows a desperation. The far right knows they have lost, they’ve lost the hearts and minds of most American people, for instance, who want health care. But they also know that they have a large group of people who are not well-informed, who listen to only their own sources, who buy the lies — for instance, all this nonsense about euthanasia being mandatory, and all the rest of it. And these people can be energized to go out and do really dreadful things.
And we’ve seen it in front of abortion clinics, I’m afraid we’re going to see it with some of our political leaders. And the Glenn Becks of this world literally are responsible for unleashing what I regard as an anti-democratic, anti-American movement in this country. It is trying to shut down legitimate debate, and replace it with straight-out intimidation.
The talk has become very dangerous, and the good people on the right need to step forward, listen to conscience and tone it down.
Persuasiveness comes not necessarily from who talks the loudest, but who talks smartest.
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele disappoints a lot of people. I don’t think Steele is a bad guy, but he seems to have a low opinion of blacks and a lack of understanding of why many blacks have abandoned the Republican Party during the last six to seven decades.
Listen to what Steele offered (jokingly) when asked about how he’s going to work to attract diversity to the GOP. (Hint: The answer includes fried chicken and potato salad.)
Someone out of the view of the camera says ”I’ll bring the collard greens” and Steele chimes in about what he will bring.
This (along with trying to “talk black” as he is apt to do from time to time depending on the audience) is not an effective recruiting strategy to diversify the Republican Party.
Real change begins in the hearts, minds and souls of those who have the tightest grip on the GOP. That is the upmountain battle Steele faces.
In the news, recently, we’ve seen two individuals Sen. John Ensign (downplayedby the talkers on right-wing media outlets like Fox News) and Gov. Mark Sanford go down to marital infidelity. So, what does right-wing talk show nut Michael Savage do … he finds some way to make their infidelity out to be something that is President Obama’s fault. If you listen to Savage, he seems to be indicating that this is some kind of plot from Obama to take down two of his potential rivals for the 2012 presidential election. Savage, the Republicans need very little help destroying themselves for 2012. Sanford and Ensign join others (like Gov. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich) who are perfectly capable of destroying their own candidacies.
Here is what Savage said: ”Obama’s team is taking out potential rivals one after another.”
Again, the Republicans are doing a good job of taking themselves out. In these cases, their problems are self-inflicted wounds.
Fox News right-wing commentator Glenn Beck is referred to by Media Matters for America in a video that is entitled: “Beck says ‘the Germans’ during Hitler’s rise ‘were an awful lot like we are now.’”
Beck could be talking about Republicans when he mentions ”the Germans” and when he says “we” in his comments.
Would that mean the Republicans are waiting for their Hitler?
Like many people, I find it reasonable to have a little chuckle now and again when politicians stumble over their words or lose their space in a speech. Sometimes it is funny. Other times (most of the time) I find it little more than just simple human error in a pressure-packed situation.
Now, as many of you are well aware, a lot of people have taken shots at President Obama over and over again for his use of the much-talked-about Teleprompter (as if no other politician has ever used one).
Consider this exchange between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and reporter Lois Romano:
MS. ROMANO: The teleprompter changed last night.
MR. GIBBS: Mm-hmm.
MS. ROMANO: What was that about that? It’s a big jumbotron now.
MR. GIBBS: You know can, I tell you this?
MS. ROMANO: Yes.
MR. GIBBS: I am absolutely amazed that anybody in America cares about who the President picks at a news conference or the mechanism by which he reads his prepared remarks. You know, I guess America is a wonderful country.
MS. ROMANO: You’re saying this is all Washington Beltway stuff?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t even know if it’s that. I don’t think I should implicate the many people that live in Washington.
MR. GIBBS: No, I you know, I don’t think the President … let me just say this: My historical research has demonstrated that the President is not the first to use prepared remarks nor the first to use a teleprompter.
I know that last statement from Gibbs will be shocking to so many people who have swallowed (whole) the far-right and anti-Obama talking points about the use of the Teleprompter. They must be thinking, “he can’t be smart … he has to be cheating somehow.” OK, I realize Barack Obama is considered the first black president of the United States of America. But, I can tell you this, he certainly is not the first president to make use of a Teleprompter or the first to make use of prepared speeches or statements. You know, there’s this profession some of you may have heard of, it’s called: presidential speechwriter.
Here are some famous speechwriters for famous people from Wikipedia:
Judson T. Welliver wrote for President Calvin Coolidge and is considered the first official presidential speechwriter. However Alexander Hamilton may have written speeches for George Washington.[citation needed]
Theodore “Ted” Sorenson wrote for President John F. Kennedy.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote for President John F. Kennedy.
Richard N. Goodwin wrote for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Pat Buchanan wrote for President Richard Nixon.
Ben Stein wrote for President Richard Nixon.
William Safire wrote for President Richard Nixon.
Robert Hartmann wrote for President Gerald R. Ford.
Chris Matthews wrote for President Jimmy Carter.
James Fallows wrote for President Jimmy Carter.[2]
Peggy Noonan wrote for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Christopher Buckley for Presidents George H.W. Bush.
Michael Waldman wrote for President Bill Clinton.
David Frum wrote for President George W. Bush.
Michael Gerson wrote for President George W. Bush.
William McGurn (former Wall Street Journal editorial writer) replaced Michael Gerson recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
Jon Favreau has been named Director of Speechwriting for the administration of President Barack Obama.
Now, keep in mind, this is merely a partial list from a quick Internet search. Yet, people act as if President Obama is the first president in history to have prepared remarks, to read from a Teleprompter, or to read off a piece of paper. This, to me, is an orchestrated effort on the part of some people in the media to try and portray the president as less intelligent than he really is. It’s an effort to portray the president as some kind of puppet who is not really smart, but has to be guided by others around him because he is not capable of being as smart as we’ve all seen him to be with our own eyes and heard him to be with our own ears. Many people have fallen for the right-wing propaganda that could be based on a crusty foundation of racism. Why are we just now talking about President Obama reading prepared statements or reading from a Teleprompter? He’s not the first. Lets add another first to President Obama’s record. In addition to being this nation’s first black president, he also may be the first president so roundly criticized and ridiculed for something so weak – something numerous previous presidents and other politicians have done for centuries without so much as a peep from critics.
Sandy Gholston
